|
OT
wrote in message
... On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:42:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:44:51 -0400, HK wrote: On 3/19/10 11:45 AM, Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be made by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs. I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening conditions. If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are available only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those who can't pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live? Eisboch There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra. I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera. I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects or injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I don't consider boob jobs in that category. Eisboch Unless for reconstruction after breast removal surgery. At heart, I'm really opposed to for-profit health insurance. For-profit health insurance companies add nothing of value to the process of staying well or getting well. Doctors, nurses, technicals, hospitals, therapists, drug companies...they help you get well. This is an alarmingly naive statement. It is inherently in the "for-profit" insurance company's best interest to persuade, encourage, and cajole insureds into "staying well." This is why most bona-fide insurance companies will offer some type of health-and-wellness program for their insureds. Many plans include memberships to Curves and typical stay-n-shape type of progams. Too, it is implicitly not in the health insurance company's mission statement to be a health care provider. They provide 'financial' protection against catastropic loss. To be opposed to "for-profit" health insurance in conflating the health care responsibilities (or value) of both is the product of confused thinking or the product of disinformation. Yeah right. As soon as you get sick, they'll look for a way to drop you. Submit a bill and it takes an act of Congress to get them to pay in a timely fashion. Lose your job and can't afford Cobra, too bad. You can't get private insurance if you have any kind of pre-existing condition. The insurance companies are only interested in one thing: profit. That's fine, except that has little to do with public health. They provide financial protection against catastrophic loss unless they can find a way to weasel out of it. Learn to read, and learn to think, ma'am. Apparently it's something you aspire to. Good for you. I'm sorry you're so out of touch that you think the current system isn't exactly as I described. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Larry" wrote in message ... HK wrote: On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs. You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either. Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you" for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions. I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated health care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have described. Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I support. It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem as I see it: Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will always be more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can afford to pay for them. When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who can afford non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can not? The debate will start all over again. Eisboch If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All Swiss must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized. All the basic plans provide the same coverage at the same price. Each basic plan also offers a number of options for those who want them and can afford them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if you need cancer surgery, you get it under the basic plan. If you want bigger teats, and the "want" is only for cosmetic reasons, you have to have one of the supplemental plans if you want insurance coverage for it. Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to work. Those days are gone. The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to really care what the meat of the plan is. Right. We've never had that happen before. Call CNN! -- Nom=de=Plume Yup, and look at the results here in the state of California when they rammed through a bill at the last moment that nobody read, or understood. Caused PG&E bankruptcy, high wholesale energy prices, and blackouts. So, you lied about not reading or responding to my posts. Ok. I knew that was going to happen. And, you are now equating the entire nation and the Congressional healthcare legislation with "a bill" that went through the Calif. legislature. You are just so brilliant. The wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Larry" wrote in message ... The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to really care what the meat of the plan is. I feel the same way. I've been watching interviews with some of the Congress members who are on the fence regarding their vote on Sunday. Most are still seeking specific definitions of certain details of "the plan". It has been debated for a year and they still aren't sure what they are voting for? In the end it will pass due to an enormous amount of arm twisting and backroom deals. Heh. One member of Congress was calling this bill "the most transparent" proposal (to the public) that he had ever witnessed in his 40 years of elected office. But when pressed for specific answers, he still wasn't sure exactly what some parts of the bill were, what the language meant or what the ramifications would be. But, he's leaning towards a "Yes". Eisboch |
OT
"Larry" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for. Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when vasectomy operations increase in frequency. Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated. I was going to make that point to her/him, but realized I was wasting my time. Eisboch |
OT
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. The health care system certainly needs a major overhaul. The existing mess of a system not only affects those individuals who can't afford high premiums for decent insurance, it affects the whole basis of our economic system. Small businesses can no longer afford to offer a decent health plan package for employees. Large businesses are outsourcing as much as they can to stay competitive in a global economy, contributing to the unemployment rate. Contrary to the opinion of some here, the primary purpose of a corporation (large or small) is not to provide a happy, secure shell of existence for employees. The purpose is to manufacture or provide services at a profit. The profit can be applied to growth and/or increased income and benefits for those employed. If there is no profit, benefits have to be cut and jobs eliminated. I recently got a snapshot of how my former company is doing. Second to pay, health insurance premiums (the company paid 75 percent when I owned it) is the largest financial cost to the company. It was when I owned it and it continues now, except the monthly cost per employee has almost doubled in less than 10 years. If I owned the company right now, I suspect I'd be facing a very difficult decision ... or the decision would be already have been made for me. Shut the place down. Fortunately, the current owners have deep pockets and are betting on a single, major technology to recover the financing they are pouring into it to keep the doors open. I was also thinking the other day of how ironic some things have become. Back in 1985 I visited the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government was experimenting with concepts of capitalism in some remote sections of the country and my company was invited to visit and explore possible technology exchanges and marketing opportunities. Prior to this time, the general Chinese population were mostly kept in the dark with respect to what the rest of the world was doing and relied upon a socialistic/communistic form of government to provide for them. During my visit I remember thinking it was like a time warp, and I had traveled back about 200 years in time. Fast forward now to 2010. The experiments in capitalism have led to China becoming a leading economic world power. The city I visited (Wuxi) is bustling with business activity. When I was there I witnessed thousands of people riding around on bicycles or scooters with maybe one or two automobiles mixed in driven by government officials. I recently found pictures of the current city of Wuxi. The roads are packed with new cars owned by the local citizens. Very few bicycles left. Meanwhile, the USA is accelerating quickly towards socialism. Maybe this is acceptable to the "enlightened" ones. As an old fart to whom this country afforded great opportunities and rewards, I am saddened. Eisboch |
OT
On 3/19/10 9:11 PM, Larry wrote:
HK wrote: On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs. You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either. Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you" for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions. I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated health care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have described. Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I support. It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem as I see it: Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will always be more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can afford to pay for them. When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who can afford non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can not? The debate will start all over again. Eisboch If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All Swiss must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized. All the basic plans provide the same coverage at the same price. Each basic plan also offers a number of options for those who want them and can afford them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if you need cancer surgery, you get it under the basic plan. If you want bigger teats, and the "want" is only for cosmetic reasons, you have to have one of the supplemental plans if you want insurance coverage for it. Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to work. Those days are gone. The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to really care what the meat of the plan is. It's what may be passable. It is obvious the Republicans do not want any serious legislation to pass during Obama's terms. -- If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher) then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer. |
OT
On 3/19/10 9:28 AM, W1TEF wrote:
The irony is that the solution has staring them in the face the whole time - open the anti-trust laws, let the companies compete in an open market across state lines, allow doctors to charge what they feel is appropriate for their services and complete tort reform. It seems to work for worker's compensation - why not for medical practices? Ahh, the GOP talking points regurgitated. Tom still believes free-market competition will control the insurance companies and that tort cases are a huge contributor to our current situation. Silliness. |
OT
|
OT
On 3/20/10 10:47 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. Who are you? Pffft, it's the panty sniffer, slammer... He must have taken the old rotted corpse out of the freezer again for the weekend. He will get drunk and go nuts because he has been shouting at me for months and I fianlly answered.. Next, will end up getting drunk and ranting off like the cowardly little prick he is, chase me around the net, then end up in rehab for another 30 days. Here is our yellow toothed pedophile in all his glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HEb1zfGgvw Watch it with the sound off, it's just as funny. It was bad last time he chased me to a group with loads of elderly and women (a cooking group) and spewed his usual "progressive" intolerance and vulgarities. They pretty much laughed at him, especially when I showed them his videos on the chat channel...snerk. Scotty SnottyScotty actually believes people pay attention to him. Have they seen your photos, snotty? You look like a fat, hair-covered little greaseball. -- If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher) then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com