|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:10:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: You've described anecdotal evidence. That's a bit limited. I just did a Google search on "Canadian health care treatment delay", 4,380,000 results. Perhaps you'll find this anecdotal evidence more compelling. It's about half way down the first page of results: http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7441/660.2.extract |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
In article ,
says... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? Depends on what you mean by "right away". I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged handsome' appearance. ;-) It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with liquid nitrogen. This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny. Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger marks remained. I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling back in case he has cancellations between now & then. I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in Florida, but the price is right. I'm glad you took care of that pustule problem. It really bothered me when you stuck your nose up my ass and all I could think of was those nasty sores on your face. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On 13/10/2010 9:42 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg. Happens all the time. Good part is they are liberal with the prescribed medications that you will have to pay for. The biggest problems are waiting lists, some as long as 2 1/2 years. In my wife's case she had an ovarian cyst and had to wait 6 months not knowing if it was cancerous or not. Fortunately it was not but no tests were done on it until it was extracted. At 4 months there was a cancellation so she got in early. I suspect if it was the US, she would have been in and out in 2 weeks or less. They have two schedules, one for workers and one for non-workers. Workers get service much faster. Especially if they can legitimately say they will be on sick leave or off because of it. If not enough workers need the time, they offer it to the non-workers. Rationing is practiced. The Canadian system isn't as perfect as Obama would have you believe, as the idea is really to get the cash flow going to government so they can skim the proceeds and then justify it to raise taxes. Perhaps a 8% national VAT. The only strong part of the Canadian system is that all resident people can get. While basic it is there. I believe a hybrid system would be best. A head tax on people, refundable if you have minimum insurance. That would cut down the many who don't have insurance because their priorities are not to pay for it. For the few remaining, medicade already exists. Just some fine tuning of the laws. In any case, Canadian or US, maximum liabilities need to be used. Not everyone can go out costing $30 million unless they average contribution is $30 million. But in your case, you just want others to pay for it. -- In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On 14/10/2010 5:54 AM, YukonBound wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? Depends on what you mean by "right away". I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged handsome' appearance. ;-) It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with liquid nitrogen. This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny. Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger marks remained. I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling back in case he has cancellations between now & then. I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in Florida, but the price is right. Funny, I had an ingrown hair on my eyelid once. He asked is this cosmetic for billing purposes. I said no, I don't want eyelid troubles later on -- covered. Took me 4 months from the time I got the referral to done. -- In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On 10/14/10 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? If we get government care like a lot of people seem to want we will have a two tier system. (like the brits) We already have that with Medicare. There are plenty of places that won't accept new medicare patients. Easy to fix...don't renew the licenses of practitioners who turn down medicare patients. Further, the comment about Canadian health care/waiting for treatment for serious injuries is nonsense. I've been to any number of discussions about health care in the U.S. and Canada, especially as they relate to injuries sustained on the job. Canadians aren't waiting for treatment. I'm sure,though, that you can find some anecdotal bit that you believes proves your posit. -- I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:07:07 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:16:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque wrote: On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote: On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same indicators that most of us do. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in the population and culture and the differences in geographic locations. In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world. http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/ I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did. For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for? They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most of the country. Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a choice. This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing out it was to make our life more convenient. Have you looked at their assumptions: http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/ I still do not understand how they got their numbers. Take Freedom. France is 100 with religious persecution, language laws. and no 2d amendment? A legal system based on the Nepoleanic code. Simple question. Would you rather be charged with a crime in Paris or San Francisco? Climate? In the US you have a broad choice of climate. Pick the one you like 44% of Australia is virtually uninhabitable how is that a 100? Environment? They are injecting a huge amount of bias for something that has nothing to do with quality of life (greenhouse gas) If that is a problem, it is a problem for France as much as it is for America. Why not talk about nuclear waste disposal, then France takes a beating. This is something generated by people with an agenda Why not look at how many Americans are moving to Germany, France or Australia and how many of them are moving here? Logic and reason are not highly rated in the liberal agenda. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. Lying and racism are very highly rated in your tiny brain. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:36:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items are concentrated in the top percentages. Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses, big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats. You were saying? Plume doesn't even think I am middle class ($70-80k) and we have all of that stuff ... paid for ... no debt. I'm sure you are. Some people do fine and pay off their debt. That's not typical, unfortunately. That is a cultural problem promoted in the 70s when we were told it was better to "use other people's money and pay them back with inflated dollars". I never bought into it but there are lots of people who fell for the debt trap. I was saved by a stock broker named John Flick from AG Edwards who sat me down in 1971 or so and ran the numbers of that "live on credit" lifestyle. Then he showed what happens when you save up money to buy things. It didn't take long for me to understand I was too poor to borrow money. I will say it again. If you are too poor to pay your bills, how can you afford to pay your bills plus paying a banker 20% (now 29.999%) You can be broke at zero or you can live large a little longer and be broke at your credit limit, hoping the bankruptcy court will make your neighbors pay your bills. I will say it again. When you have a relatively low monthly payment, even though the interest rate is very high, you can typically make the payments for some period of time. As a short-term solution, it works. Of course, for long-term, the principal balance needs to be paid off. Do you not understand this basic concept? |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:40:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:18:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message m... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Exactly. Pardon my skepticism but I'd like you to name a few of these countries and tell us why their quality of life is higher. I've traveled quite a bit and have seen very few places where the average citizen comes even close. Canada is certainly right up there by many measures but they can keep winter. That's why we have so many of them in SWFL. There are a host of countries who's citizens live longer, are happier, and have better medical outcomes. Feel free to google on your own. It's pretty obvious. "Happier" is a relative thing. Americans go out of their way to be unhappy, if not, why do we beat ourselves up with studies about how bad it sucks here? Yes. It's done by polling I suppose. Or, is there some magic incantation to reveal it? Polls usually get the answer the poll writer wants to get. So, then there's no way to tell? How would you plan on getting the answer? By divine inspiration? Please tell us. I'm pretty happy but I try to be. Good for you! I think other cultures work harder to be happy and most of the people I know do too but I also know a lot of people who just don't know how to be happy and reject it at all costs. It is easier for them to be unhappy and blame it on somebody else. Bob seems to be that way Work harder... umm... like having a whole month off every year vs. two weeks in the US? Who only gets 2 weeks off? new hires? Most workers get 2 weeks off in the US. You have to be there a while before that changes. Are you disputing this? If so, please provide the data. As for medical outcome, it is not the outcome that is the problem, it is the lifestyles we have that we take to the doctor. Start with out obesity rate. That alone is enough to make our lifespan lower. If you are really sick, you are a lot better off in the American system than you would be anywhere else. That is why you don't see people going to France or Canada for their heart transplant. The problem is our system is too good. Mere mortals can't afford it. Yes, it is the outcome. So obesity is a problem in the US (actually around the world, but ok). Does that mean we've got a better lifestyle than someone in Germany, say, who isn't obese? Ah, so our system is so good, it's bad. Solution... make it worse. I get it. What nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote? If you are strictly talking health, our system is so good it is bad. We can afford to eat red meat at every meal and a lot of people do. There is also the "corn" problem. Our farm policy ensures there is corn in everything you eat. It might be the corn in your meat (higher fat content, starch or the high fructose corn syrup that shows up in most of the things you eat or drink. Sugar substitutes come with their own health warnings Obiesity is a serious health problem and the US is at or near the top of the list every year. Well, so with all our fancy medical treatments, we don't do as well as other countries. As I said.. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:41:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What is the model you want to follow then? UK? Germany? Japan? Taiwan? I'd like us to find/create our own model that actually works. None of those cited would work well in our system. It will need to be some sort of hybrid. The first thing that all of those other countries have and we are not very comfortable with is rationing. Unfortunately as the entitlements start to overwhelm the GDP, we will all have to get used to that. As I've said before, SS and Medicare are fixable, and we have time to do that, even if Chick Little's don't think so! There is nobody willing to even talk about reform. That means it won't get fixed until it crashes. A few politicians suggest we might have to look at the retirement age and get suddenly tagged as wanting to kill SS. They quickly say they were misquoted. (I am watching one of those ads as we speak) That's completely untrue. Perhaps it's true in an election year, but after that's over, the serious people talk about it and try to do something. Please show us some serious people from the far right. I bet this announcement that we are not getting a COLA this year is really going to hurt incumbents. I saw that ad last night. "Your congressman voted himself a raise but he won't let you have one". Well, inflation is pretty low, so it should be much of an actual hardship, but you're right. Nobody in Congress should get a raise until the people get a raise. Sounds like Socialism to me! We are just proving the Alexander Tyler prophecy. People have discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Whatever. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:10:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You've described anecdotal evidence. That's a bit limited. I just did a Google search on "Canadian health care treatment delay", 4,380,000 results. Perhaps you'll find this anecdotal evidence more compelling. It's about half way down the first page of results: http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7441/660.2.extract Doing a search to get a number of results isn't much of an argument. If I google Obama is Hitler, I'm sure I'll get a substantial number also... fairly meaningless. Ok. Good link. Next time, use some stats vs. one-ofs. Of course, what you identified is a lawsuit, which means it hasn't been settled, but clearly that is, at least, a starting point for a rational discussion. So, now tell me if you think there's any serious discussion about having the US move to a Canadian-style scheme? Most people realize will need a uniquely American program, which will be a hybrid of several systems. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 13/10/2010 9:42 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg. Happens all the time. Good part is they are liberal with the prescribed medications that you will have to pay for. The biggest problems are waiting lists, some as long as 2 1/2 years. In my wife's case she had an ovarian cyst and had to wait 6 months not knowing if it was cancerous or not. Fortunately it was not but no tests were done on it until it was extracted. At 4 months there was a cancellation so she got in early. I suspect if it was the US, she would have been in and out in 2 weeks or less. They have two schedules, one for workers and one for non-workers. Workers get service much faster. Especially if they can legitimately say they will be on sick leave or off because of it. If not enough workers need the time, they offer it to the non-workers. Rationing is practiced. The Canadian system isn't as perfect as Obama would have you believe, as the idea is really to get the cash flow going to government so they can skim the proceeds and then justify it to raise taxes. Perhaps a 8% national VAT. The only strong part of the Canadian system is that all resident people can get. While basic it is there. I believe a hybrid system would be best. A head tax on people, refundable if you have minimum insurance. That would cut down the many who don't have insurance because their priorities are not to pay for it. For the few remaining, medicade already exists. Just some fine tuning of the laws. In any case, Canadian or US, maximum liabilities need to be used. Not everyone can go out costing $30 million unless they average contribution is $30 million. But in your case, you just want others to pay for it. -- In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around. I don't know about your assessment of who should and shouldn't get treatment, but basically, I agree with you. Owww... my head hurts from typing that. You must be back on your meds! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. and here it's rationed by price. if you're 90 years old, have a 2 week life expectancy, and can pay, you get the best medical care if you're a 1 year old with asthma whose parents work but cant afford medical insurance, you die. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? wrong. almost no canadians come to the US for healthcare. and about 165,000 americans yearly go overseas for healthcare because ours costs too much Of course it is... the right wingers don't realize that until they can't afford to pay. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 14/10/2010 5:54 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? Depends on what you mean by "right away". I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged handsome' appearance. ;-) It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with liquid nitrogen. This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny. Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger marks remained. I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling back in case he has cancellations between now & then. I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in Florida, but the price is right. Funny, I had an ingrown hair on my eyelid once. He asked is this cosmetic for billing purposes. I said no, I don't want eyelid troubles later on -- covered. Took me 4 months from the time I got the referral to done. -- In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around. I'm betting that if it was infected, you would have gotten it done faster. Sounds gross in any case. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? If we get government care like a lot of people seem to want we will have a two tier system. (like the brits) We already have that with Medicare. There are plenty of places that won't accept new medicare patients. You mean our system isn't perfect??? That's a shocker! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Secular Humouresque" wrote in message m... On 10/14/10 11:56 AM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? If we get government care like a lot of people seem to want we will have a two tier system. (like the brits) We already have that with Medicare. There are plenty of places that won't accept new medicare patients. Easy to fix...don't renew the licenses of practitioners who turn down medicare patients. Further, the comment about Canadian health care/waiting for treatment for serious injuries is nonsense. I've been to any number of discussions about health care in the U.S. and Canada, especially as they relate to injuries sustained on the job. Canadians aren't waiting for treatment. I'm sure,though, that you can find some anecdotal bit that you believes proves your posit. -- I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you! I liked Wayne's link. At least there's a point of discussion. I also don't believe it's a common problem, at least not as common as some here would claim. All the Canadians I know (quite a few actually - some snowbirds) seem to like their system just fine. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:37:42 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Well, there are several groups that look at that. They have a great way to evaluate it. They look at dollars spend vs. outcome. It's pretty straightforward. Read up. Dollars spent is a horrible way to judge that as long as we are including all of the cosmetic procedures in the total and all of the unnecessary tests done to cover the doctor's ass from the lawyers. medical malpractice insurance cost payments are about 1% of all medical costs....insignificant. Thus we should limit the payouts... it makes sense... if you're from the moon. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:47:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You can't cut any existing programs because it is politically unacceptable. I already stated that. Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability. If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen. If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible. I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that person is going to lose. Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done. Untrue... there are several ways to fix the deficit. The best approach would be to reduce military spending significantly, end some of the more outrageous subsidies, and address the fraud issues. At the moment, the "entitlements" are deficit neutral. They'll be a problem at some point, but not now. Bull**** Social Security is upside down this year and Medicare has been upside down for several years. (not close to revenue neutral) The boomers have not really even hit the system yet in any significant numbers. There are some in SS at the age 62 level but they don't get to medicare until next year. It's not upside in the sense of impacting the deficit now and is adequately funded until 2040 (?). It's right wing nuttiness to imagine otherwise. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:29:14 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:44:20 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You can't cut any existing programs because it is politically unacceptable. I already stated that. Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability. If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen. If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible. I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that person is going to lose. Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done. SS can be fixed relativiely quickly by taking the cap off salaries That is not true at all. There are not that many rich people and the real rich people don't get salaries. Read some actual, real-world, thoughtful proposals he http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:33:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: So, now tell me if you think there's any serious discussion about having the US move to a Canadian-style scheme? Most people realize will need a uniquely American program, which will be a hybrid of several systems. Sorry but I'm not going to discuss it further, after all this is supposed to be a boating group. My point is, and was, that governmental health care is not necessarily utopia, and that it is a mistake to rush in just because it is politically expedient. My other point is that we can barely afford the entitlement programs that are now in place. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:33:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So, now tell me if you think there's any serious discussion about having the US move to a Canadian-style scheme? Most people realize will need a uniquely American program, which will be a hybrid of several systems. Sorry but I'm not going to discuss it further, after all this is supposed to be a boating group. My point is, and was, that governmental health care is not necessarily utopia, and that it is a mistake to rush in just because it is politically expedient. My other point is that we can barely afford the entitlement programs that are now in place. Too bad. I don't think anyone here has missed that point, which is accurate. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:43:28 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:29:14 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:44:20 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You can't cut any existing programs because it is politically unacceptable. I already stated that. Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability. If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen. If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible. I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that person is going to lose. Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done. SS can be fixed relativiely quickly by taking the cap off salaries That is not true at all. There are not that many rich people and the real rich people don't get salaries. IOW you haven't looked at the numbers. SS is not in that bad a shape. the fixes are simple |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:43:28 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:29:14 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:44:20 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You can't cut any existing programs because it is politically unacceptable. I already stated that. Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability. If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen. If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible. I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that person is going to lose. Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done. SS can be fixed relativiely quickly by taking the cap off salaries That is not true at all. There are not that many rich people and the real rich people don't get salaries. and if there arent that many rich people, why does the GOP think giving them all these tax cuts is the cure for what ails us? |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:24:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That is a cultural problem promoted in the 70s when we were told it was better to "use other people's money and pay them back with inflated dollars". I never bought into it but there are lots of people who fell for the debt trap. I was saved by a stock broker named John Flick from AG Edwards who sat me down in 1971 or so and ran the numbers of that "live on credit" lifestyle. Then he showed what happens when you save up money to buy things. It didn't take long for me to understand I was too poor to borrow money. I will say it again. If you are too poor to pay your bills, how can you afford to pay your bills plus paying a banker 20% (now 29.999%) You can be broke at zero or you can live large a little longer and be broke at your credit limit, hoping the bankruptcy court will make your neighbors pay your bills. I will say it again. When you have a relatively low monthly payment, even though the interest rate is very high, you can typically make the payments for some period of time. As a short-term solution, it works. Of course, for long-term, the principal balance needs to be paid off. Do you not understand this basic concept? You do not understand that this is how they sell the debt trap. It always gets rationalized as a temporary solution and it becomes a lifestyle. The reality is you can eat bologna now and save your money or you can be up to your ass in debt and eat bologna for the rest of your life. Unfortunately our government is the worst offender, dooming our kids to a lifetime of debt. Sure.. we all get it, but the point is that some people have little choice. They either borrow or their kids don't eat. Feel free to blame them of course. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:26:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Who only gets 2 weeks off? new hires? Most workers get 2 weeks off in the US. You have to be there a while before that changes. Are you disputing this? If so, please provide the data. What part of "new hire" confuses you? So? How many weeks off does a new-hire European get? What part of European confuses you? it. What nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote? If you are strictly talking health, our system is so good it is bad. We can afford to eat red meat at every meal and a lot of people do. There is also the "corn" problem. Our farm policy ensures there is corn in everything you eat. It might be the corn in your meat (higher fat content, starch or the high fructose corn syrup that shows up in most of the things you eat or drink. Sugar substitutes come with their own health warnings Obiesity is a serious health problem and the US is at or near the top of the list every year. Well, so with all our fancy medical treatments, we don't do as well as other countries. As I said.. ... but that is not a health care problem, it is a lifestyle problem. Yes, it is a health problem. Obesity is a health and education problem. It's not just lifestyle. Most people don't really choose to eat crappy food. They just don't know any better and they don't have an opportunity to get decent food. We're not an agrarian country any longer. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There is nobody willing to even talk about reform. That means it won't get fixed until it crashes. A few politicians suggest we might have to look at the retirement age and get suddenly tagged as wanting to kill SS. They quickly say they were misquoted. (I am watching one of those ads as we speak) That's completely untrue. Perhaps it's true in an election year, but after that's over, the serious people talk about it and try to do something. Please show us some serious people from the far right. That is why we are in trouble. If you even have the conservatives saying we can keep this ponzi going on forever, we are doomed. Have you actually looked at the entitlements vs the GDP out into the 2020s? It demonstrates we can't tax our way out of this ?? All this doom and gloom. The sky isn't falling, despite your assertion that it is. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:46:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Bull**** Social Security is upside down this year and Medicare has been upside down for several years. (not close to revenue neutral) The boomers have not really even hit the system yet in any significant numbers. There are some in SS at the age 62 level but they don't get to medicare until next year. It's not upside in the sense of impacting the deficit now and is adequately funded until 2040 (?). It's right wing nuttiness to imagine otherwise. Funded? You mean there are IOUs in the box, not "Funded". This is and always has been "Pay as you go" and we now are not paying for all of it, so we are borrowing to pay. The trust fund is just a line item on the debt. We spent all of that money. So, you think we should hoard the cash? Give me a break! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 14/10/2010 5:54 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? Depends on what you mean by "right away". I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged handsome' appearance. ;-) It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with liquid nitrogen. This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny. Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger marks remained. I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling back in case he has cancellations between now & then. I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in Florida, but the price is right. Funny, I had an ingrown hair on my eyelid once. He asked is this cosmetic for billing purposes. I said no, I don't want eyelid troubles later on -- covered. Took me 4 months from the time I got the referral to done. No excuse for that in resource rich Alberta. You can blame Ralph Klien and his ilk for short funding the medical system |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com