In article ,
says...


Seems like every liberal wants the USA to adopt "the rest of the
world's" solutions. Grass is always greener, eh?

Nope. We have the ACA. That what we got. Are you happy?

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:08:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 12:59 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:22:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 12:19 PM, John H. wrote:


How was that Vietnam service, liar?


How was your last Ku Klux Klan RV Jamboree, ****-for-brains?

Have I bragged about a KKK anything? You make about as much sense as your little
buddy. Maybe you could decipher? I don't mind answering your questions, 'cause I
don't have to tangle the web trying to deceive you.

How were those trips around the horn?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


I'm so happy I'm not a ****ed off, old, decrepit, racist white man with
a failing body and a failing mind...which is a perfectly valid
description of you. You are so full of hate...and nothing else.

LOL!

Changing the subject again, krotch?

Have I bragged about a KKK anything? You make about as much sense as your little
buddy. Maybe you could decipher? I don't mind answering your questions, 'cause I
don't have to tangle the web trying to deceive you.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:16:17 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 12:08 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:58:01 -0400, wrote:


You have not been reading much if you have not seen my ideas.
To start with, what was so wrong with the old system where hospitals
amortized the indigent bills into their operating cost? It is cheaper
than letting the government and the insurance companies do it. My main
complaint was that they were using specialized ER people to deal with
minor problems and my solution was a triage, outside he ER to separate
the non-emergency cases from the true emergencies. Then they could
shuttle them off to a cheaper walk in clinic on site. After a while
people would know to just go there first. That could be staffed with
vets who have medical skills we already paid for and the AMA will not
let them use.
FWIW, the hospital my brother was in, until yesterday, does use a triage approach. A
nurse sits with each arrival, takes vitals, listens to complaint, and decides where
the patient goes. Worked well when we took him in.
--

There's nothing unusual about that "nurse greeting" approach for
walk-ins. Our local hospital has used that approach for years.

I would go for pre-screening minor ER visits by former military
personnel who are at least registered nurses or, better, physician's
assistants. I first see a physician's assistant at my local medical
practice, and she is thorough.

My problem with the current situation is the medical/educational
establishment does not recognize military training and experience.

On 10/1/15 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:16:17 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 12:08 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:58:01 -0400, wrote:


You have not been reading much if you have not seen my ideas.
To start with, what was so wrong with the old system where hospitals
amortized the indigent bills into their operating cost? It is cheaper
than letting the government and the insurance companies do it. My main
complaint was that they were using specialized ER people to deal with
minor problems and my solution was a triage, outside he ER to separate
the non-emergency cases from the true emergencies. Then they could
shuttle them off to a cheaper walk in clinic on site. After a while
people would know to just go there first. That could be staffed with
vets who have medical skills we already paid for and the AMA will not
let them use.
FWIW, the hospital my brother was in, until yesterday, does use a triage approach. A
nurse sits with each arrival, takes vitals, listens to complaint, and decides where
the patient goes. Worked well when we took him in.
--

There's nothing unusual about that "nurse greeting" approach for
walk-ins. Our local hospital has used that approach for years.

I would go for pre-screening minor ER visits by former military
personnel who are at least registered nurses or, better, physician's
assistants. I first see a physician's assistant at my local medical
practice, and she is thorough.

My problem with the current situation is the medical/educational
establishment does not recognize military training and experience.


Well, there certainly are ways to evaluate the education and training,
and "test" the applicants for ability and knowledge. It seems reasonable
to grant qualified military personnel paid apprenticeships at hospitals
while they pursue educationally whatever can reasonably be determined is
needed to help them get a BSN. There are lots of science courses
involved in that BSN.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:43:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


NO the major differences are to many to list. The wiki just hit a
couple dozen. The point I was making is it was an entirely DIFFERENT
bill that the senate substituted the same day the house bill was read
into the senate.
Pilosi did nothing but fall on her sword when the senate bill was sent
to the house.


Oh, I get it now. Commas. You're talking about commas, in
different places. The nicks and cuts on the skinned cat.
Whatever floats your boat.

Bull****. It was an entirely new bill that had dozens of major changes
(like no single payer, public option, the senate bill cost $28 billion
more, the senate bill did not cover gay partners and the list goes on)
Perhaps the biggest thing dropped from the house bill was the senate
did not remove the exemption of insurance companies from anti trust
laws.

Yeah just commas


You have not been reading much if you have not seen my ideas.
To start with, what was so wrong with the old system where hospitals
amortized the indigent bills into their operating cost? It is cheaper
than letting the government and the insurance companies do it. My main
complaint was that they were using specialized ER people to deal with
minor problems and my solution was a triage, outside he ER to separate
the non-emergency cases from the true emergencies. Then they could
shuttle them off to a cheaper walk in clinic on site. After a while
people would know to just go there first. That could be staffed with
vets who have medical skills we already paid for and the AMA will not
let them use.


Let me get this straight. Use "vets" to deliver health care.
Must be how they do they it everywhere else where less expensive
and better health care is delivered.
You are nuts.


You must have dodged the draft with Harry. The corpsmen we dealt with
on ship were as good as the techs you see at the doctors office today.
They may have been better than some of the doctors I have been to.


My idea is to attack the cost of medical care, not to just create
another layer of bureaucracy like ACA and make the insurance companies
richer.


Somehow the rest of the world has solved the problem without
"vets." I suggest you look elsewhere for inspiration.
There's plenty of places that have gotten the problem in hand.


I just threw the vets idea out there because we seem to ignore them.

Too bad Joe Lieberman didn't join the choir.
Then we could get at the root of the problem, which is the
insurance industry, and exorbitant medical costs.

Your whole caucus was depending on Lieberman and nobody could change
his mind? It sounds like he was the only LEADER there.

Riiight. Leader of the insurance industry.
BTW, your "ideas" are why the GOP is kaput as "leaders."

.

Lieberman was a democrat the last time I heard. He certainly was when
he was on the Sore/Looserman ticket.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:28:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:16:17 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 12:08 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:58:01 -0400, wrote:


You have not been reading much if you have not seen my ideas.
To start with, what was so wrong with the old system where hospitals
amortized the indigent bills into their operating cost? It is cheaper
than letting the government and the insurance companies do it. My main
complaint was that they were using specialized ER people to deal with
minor problems and my solution was a triage, outside he ER to separate
the non-emergency cases from the true emergencies. Then they could
shuttle them off to a cheaper walk in clinic on site. After a while
people would know to just go there first. That could be staffed with
vets who have medical skills we already paid for and the AMA will not
let them use.
FWIW, the hospital my brother was in, until yesterday, does use a triage approach. A
nurse sits with each arrival, takes vitals, listens to complaint, and decides where
the patient goes. Worked well when we took him in.
--

There's nothing unusual about that "nurse greeting" approach for
walk-ins. Our local hospital has used that approach for years.

I would go for pre-screening minor ER visits by former military
personnel who are at least registered nurses or, better, physician's
assistants. I first see a physician's assistant at my local medical
practice, and she is thorough.

My problem with the current situation is the medical/educational
establishment does not recognize military training and experience.


Well, there certainly are ways to evaluate the education and training,
and "test" the applicants for ability and knowledge. It seems reasonable
to grant qualified military personnel paid apprenticeships at hospitals
while they pursue educationally whatever can reasonably be determined is
needed to help them get a BSN. There are lots of science courses
involved in that BSN.


Here, krotch, learn something about the training of medics.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:53:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 12:48 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:


You do understand that Greg doesn't really give a flying f*ck about
beyond his personal needs.

...about anything beyond his personal needs..."

I am not the one throwing my grandchildren under the bus with all this
debt.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:26:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/1/2015 12:43 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


NO the major differences are to many to list. The wiki just hit a
couple dozen. The point I was making is it was an entirely DIFFERENT
bill that the senate substituted the same day the house bill was read
into the senate.
Pilosi did nothing but fall on her sword when the senate bill was sent
to the house.


Oh, I get it now. Commas. You're talking about commas, in
different places. The nicks and cuts on the skinned cat.
Whatever floats your boat.

You have not been reading much if you have not seen my ideas.
To start with, what was so wrong with the old system where hospitals
amortized the indigent bills into their operating cost? It is cheaper
than letting the government and the insurance companies do it. My main
complaint was that they were using specialized ER people to deal with
minor problems and my solution was a triage, outside he ER to separate
the non-emergency cases from the true emergencies. Then they could
shuttle them off to a cheaper walk in clinic on site. After a while
people would know to just go there first. That could be staffed with
vets who have medical skills we already paid for and the AMA will not
let them use.


Let me get this straight. Use "vets" to deliver health care.
Must be how they do they it everywhere else where less expensive
and better health care is delivered.
You are nuts.

My idea is to attack the cost of medical care, not to just create
another layer of bureaucracy like ACA and make the insurance companies
richer.


Somehow the rest of the world has solved the problem without
"vets." I suggest you look elsewhere for inspiration.
There's plenty of places that have gotten the problem in hand.


Too bad Joe Lieberman didn't join the choir.
Then we could get at the root of the problem, which is the
insurance industry, and exorbitant medical costs.

Your whole caucus was depending on Lieberman and nobody could change
his mind? It sounds like he was the only LEADER there.

Riiight. Leader of the insurance industry.
BTW, your "ideas" are why the GOP is kaput as "leaders."

.



Your ignorance is showing.

First of all, the USA is *not* the "rest of the world" and the "rest of
the world" does not handle health care issues in the same way.

Every country has it's unique economic and social structure and how it
deals with social and health services vary. US military medical
personal are well trained ... probably as well or better than any
2 year nursing school and they usually have about four years or more of
direct experience. I am not talking about doctors. I am talking about
enlisted personnel who attended military schools and then worked in the
field during their enlistment. The cost of training each US Navy
Hospital Corpsman is in the six figures. Why not use that investment
when they return to the civilian workplace? They can't directly make
that transition due to political/economic influences that includes the
AMA. Stupid.

Seems like every liberal wants the USA to adopt "the rest of the
world's" solutions. Grass is always greener, eh?


Lets see how the European welfare system holds up after they absorb
half of Syria/Iraq and everyone else from that region who sneaks
across their border.

On 10/1/15 4:35 PM, wrote:



You must have dodged the draft with Harry.


- - -

Why do you keep perpetuating this bull****? Once again, I registered for
the draft, and I kept my draft board informed of my whereabouts.
That was the legal requirement and I followed the requirement.

The overwhelming majority of males in my age group were not drafted. I
was part of that majority.

On 10/1/15 4:37 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:53:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/1/15 12:48 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:


You do understand that Greg doesn't really give a flying f*ck about
beyond his personal needs.

...about anything beyond his personal needs..."

I am not the one throwing my grandchildren under the bus with all this
debt.



My grandson will either be a physicist or a linguist at MIT or Harvard,
likely on early admission, with a fully paid ticket. Perhaps he'll
figure out a way to stop the bus before it runs over your grandchildren.