"HK" 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

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.



--


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.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
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.


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

On 3/19/10 7:58 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...
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.


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.

--


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.

"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

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400, "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

How about replacements due to breast cancer?
--

"You may give it away, but your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it."
John H

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400, "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

How about replacements due to breast cancer?


Absolutely.

Eisboch

In article ,
says...



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

Geeze, and I used to like you

Scotty

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.

- -

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.

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.