Surely Americans wouldn't find themselves in the same predicament if *we* had
socialized medicine!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/in...html?th&emc=th

[Extract]
" But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic
tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either sought
care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated
patients' "life and personal security, inviolability and freedom" under the
Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which covers about one-quarter of
Canada's population.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system
are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of
waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the
prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where
the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
Surely Americans wouldn't find themselves in the same predicament if *we* had
socialized medicine!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/in...html?th&emc=th

[Extract]
" But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic
tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either sought
care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated
patients' "life and personal security, inviolability and freedom" under the
Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which covers about one-quarter of
Canada's population.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system
are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of
waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the
prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where
the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."
--
John H

Yes, it would be a perfect system if they also allowed private
practice. That way, people would have a choice, either pay a private
practice doctor a thousand dollars for a bandage, or not.

John H wrote:
Surely Americans wouldn't find themselves in the same predicament if *we* had
socialized medicine!

snip...


No question...the Federal gov't balanced it's budget by not paying it's
fair share to the medical system.

I hear about these 50 million people and 11 million children all the time
from the liberals Harry. Is there a list of just who these people are or
did we just pull that number out our asses? That number come out of left
field one day from the likes of Ted Kennedy. Maybe he just counted the
empty vodka bottles in his yard? The last I checked hospitals HAVE to
service people (by law) no matter what their ability to pay. And there are
many, many free clinics. So, once again, where is this list of people who
are without help?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
Surely Americans wouldn't find themselves in the same predicament if *we*
had
socialized medicine!


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/in...html?th&emc=th

[Extract]
" But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for
diagnostic
tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either
sought
care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they
violated
patients' "life and personal security, inviolability and freedom" under
the
Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which covers about
one-quarter of
Canada's population.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care
system
are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result
of
waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum,
the
prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional
where
the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."


We have close to 50 million Americans, including 11 million children,
who have no medical insurance and whose ability to obtain decent medical
care on any sort of basis is sketchy at best.





--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.

"Mole" wrote in message
...
I hear about these 50 million people and 11 million children all the time
from the liberals Harry. Is there a list of just who these people are or
did we just pull that number out our asses? That number come out of left
field one day from the likes of Ted Kennedy. Maybe he just counted the
empty vodka bottles in his yard? The last I checked hospitals HAVE to
service people (by law) no matter what their ability to pay. And there
are
many, many free clinics. So, once again, where is this list of people who
are without help?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
Surely Americans wouldn't find themselves in the same predicament if *we*
had
socialized medicine!


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/in...html?th&emc=th

[Extract]
" But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for
diagnostic
tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either
sought
care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they
violated
patients' "life and personal security, inviolability and freedom" under
the
Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which covers about
one-quarter of
Canada's population.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care
system
are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result
of
waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum,
the
prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional
where
the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."


We have close to 50 million Americans, including 11 million children,
who have no medical insurance and whose ability to obtain decent medical
care on any sort of basis is sketchy at best.



I wonder how many of these folks without medical insurance are self insured
or make a choice not to purchase insurance even though it is offered to
them. They are uninsured and are included in those without healthcare
coverage.

Regardless, the numbers being reported range anywhere from 13 million to 50
million. Do a google search if you don't believe me.

Naturally the higher number is better when trying to make a claim that we
are in a crisis mode with healthcare.

Go figure. ;-)

The last I checked hospitals HAVE to
service people (by law) no matter what their ability to pay.

*********

Yes, and those highly inflated "emergency room" costs eventually become
bad debt. No problem for the hospital, they simply increase the cost of
services to everybody else who *can* pay to make up for it.

The strange aspect associated with all the yakking that "we shouldn't
have to pay for the health care for people who are too impoverished to
afford it or who work for employers who don't offer it......." is that
we *do*, already, pay for that health care through higher medical fees
and insurance premimums.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The last I checked hospitals HAVE to
service people (by law) no matter what their ability to pay.

*********

Yes, and those highly inflated "emergency room" costs eventually become
bad debt.

There's a healthcare practioner in town who shattered his arm, and needed
several surgeries to correct it. Medical bills stand at $30k. Fortunately
for the hospital, he can afford it and will pay his bill.

Why doesn't he carry insurance? Essentially, because he's a tightwad. He's
severely overweight, and didn't want to pay the astronomical premiums that
medically underwritten individual health plans were charging. But he's
counted among the "uninsured"!

There's a simple solution that would have helped this guy: Association
Health Plans (AHP's)...which are now before Congress with the name "Small
Business Health and Fairness Act". The SBHFA would have allowed him to join
a group plan negotiated by the American Dental Association on a national
level. His premiums would have been more reasonable, and he would have been
insured.

Bush favors the bill, and the House passed it on the first go-around in
March 2003. It then sat in a Senate review committee and never came out of
committee with a recommendation. It just died. It's alive again, and will
hopefully pass this time:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/app...506070327/1046

Senators from states that already have cheap insurance premiums, and
senators from states with a lot of insurance company headquarters (hint,
hint...ahem...Massachusetts) strongly oppose the bill. Unions oppose the
bill, because they already *have* legislation to give them these rights. So
do corporations and government employees.

All groups in opposition to the bill know that as small business premiums go
down, their premiums will likely go up. That's why they're so opposed to
it. However, I've read that 63% of people work for small businesses. They
should get the same advantages currently available to corporations,
government employees, and labor unions.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The last I checked hospitals HAVE to
service people (by law) no matter what their ability to pay.

*********

Yes, and those highly inflated "emergency room" costs eventually become
bad debt.

There's a healthcare practioner in town who shattered his arm, and needed
several surgeries to correct it. Medical bills stand at $30k.
Fortunately for the hospital, he can afford it and will pay his bill.

Why doesn't he carry insurance? Essentially, because he's a tightwad.
He's severely overweight, and didn't want to pay the astronomical premiums
that medically underwritten individual health plans were charging. But
he's counted among the "uninsured"!

There's a simple solution that would have helped this guy: Association
Health Plans (AHP's)...which are now before Congress with the name "Small
Business Health and Fairness Act". The SBHFA would have allowed him to
join a group plan negotiated by the American Dental Association on a
national level. His premiums would have been more reasonable, and he
would have been insured.

Bush favors the bill, and the House passed it on the first go-around in
March 2003. It then sat in a Senate review committee and never came out
of committee with a recommendation. It just died. It's alive again, and
will hopefully pass this time:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/app...506070327/1046

Senators from states that already have cheap insurance premiums, and
senators from states with a lot of insurance company headquarters (hint,
hint...ahem...Massachusetts) strongly oppose the bill. Unions oppose the
bill, because they already *have* legislation to give them these rights.
So do corporations and government employees.

All groups in opposition to the bill know that as small business premiums
go down, their premiums will likely go up. That's why they're so opposed
to it. However, I've read that 63% of people work for small businesses.
They should get the same advantages currently available to corporations,
government employees, and labor unions.

More on the plans:


Bush pushes plan to help small businesses with health insurance

by Janet Nester

In an effort to help small-business owners provide better health
insurance for their employees, President George W. Bush pushed for
"association health plans" Wednesday.




June 9, 2005 (AXcess News) Washington - In an effort to help
small-business owners provide better health insurance for their employees,
President George W. Bush pushed for "association health plans" Wednesday in
a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors conference.

The plans would allow similar small businesses to unify across
state lines and sell health insurance through their trade associations to
small businesses.

In a speech that focused on Social Security reform, the economy,
foreign relations and energy plans, Bush won applause from several hundred
contractors when he said AHPs could help small businesses.

"It means that, if you're a small business in Texas and you're a
small business in New Jersey, that you can be in the same risk pool if you
share the same type of industry," Bush said. "Obviously, the more people in
the pool, the more you spread risk, the lower the cost. ... Congress ought
to allow small businesses to join together so they can buy insurance at the
same discount that big businesses get to do, for the sake of health care for
small businesses and their employees."




http://www.axcessnews.com/business_060905.shtml

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You want to know which senators have been "bought" by the insurance
companies and labor unions? Then watch who votes against this legislation!

" The AFL-CIO strongly opposes the legislation, arguing that it would
not make insurance more affordable, said JoAnn Volk, a legislative
representative with the group. "

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The last I checked hospitals HAVE to
service people (by law) no matter what their ability to pay.

*********

Yes, and those highly inflated "emergency room" costs eventually become
bad debt.

There's a healthcare practioner in town who shattered his arm, and needed
several surgeries to correct it. Medical bills stand at $30k.
Fortunately for the hospital, he can afford it and will pay his bill.

Why doesn't he carry insurance? Essentially, because he's a tightwad.
He's severely overweight, and didn't want to pay the astronomical
premiums that medically underwritten individual health plans were
charging. But he's counted among the "uninsured"!

There's a simple solution that would have helped this guy: Association
Health Plans (AHP's)...which are now before Congress with the name "Small
Business Health and Fairness Act". The SBHFA would have allowed him to
join a group plan negotiated by the American Dental Association on a
national level. His premiums would have been more reasonable, and he
would have been insured.

Bush favors the bill, and the House passed it on the first go-around in
March 2003. It then sat in a Senate review committee and never came out
of committee with a recommendation. It just died. It's alive again, and
will hopefully pass this time:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/app...506070327/1046

Senators from states that already have cheap insurance premiums, and
senators from states with a lot of insurance company headquarters (hint,
hint...ahem...Massachusetts) strongly oppose the bill. Unions oppose the
bill, because they already *have* legislation to give them these rights.
So do corporations and government employees.

All groups in opposition to the bill know that as small business premiums
go down, their premiums will likely go up. That's why they're so opposed
to it. However, I've read that 63% of people work for small businesses.
They should get the same advantages currently available to corporations,
government employees, and labor unions.

More on the plans:


Bush pushes plan to help small businesses with health insurance

by Janet Nester

In an effort to help small-business owners provide better
health insurance for their employees, President George W. Bush pushed for
"association health plans" Wednesday.




June 9, 2005 (AXcess News) Washington - In an effort to help
small-business owners provide better health insurance for their employees,
President George W. Bush pushed for "association health plans" Wednesday
in a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors conference.

The plans would allow similar small businesses to unify across
state lines and sell health insurance through their trade associations to
small businesses.

In a speech that focused on Social Security reform, the
economy, foreign relations and energy plans, Bush won applause from
several hundred contractors when he said AHPs could help small businesses.

"It means that, if you're a small business in Texas and you're
a small business in New Jersey, that you can be in the same risk pool if
you share the same type of industry," Bush said. "Obviously, the more
people in the pool, the more you spread risk, the lower the cost. ...
Congress ought to allow small businesses to join together so they can buy
insurance at the same discount that big businesses get to do, for the sake
of health care for small businesses and their employees."




http://www.axcessnews.com/business_060905.shtml

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You want to know which senators have been "bought" by the insurance
companies and labor unions? Then watch who votes against this
legislation!

" The AFL-CIO strongly opposes the legislation, arguing that it would
not make insurance more affordable, said JoAnn Volk, a legislative
representative with the group. "



You know what the insurance companies' answer is to the sky-rocketing
premiums?

" Instead of Association Health Plans, the Blue Cross Association recommends
subsidies for small employers so they can help their workers buy coverage. "
http://2theadvocate.com/stories/060905/bus_biz001.shtml


Subsidies! Government helps the small businesses pay! In other words, your
tax dollars get added to the premiums that small businesses already pay, so
that insurance companies can still maintain their high premiums and profits.
Give me a friggin' break...

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:35:42 -0400, *JimH* wrote:


Naturally the higher number is better when trying to make a claim that we
are in a crisis mode with healthcare.

It seems to me that even if you have insurance, health care is in a crisis
mode. The 13-50 million uninsured are only a part of the problem. We
spend 15% of our GDP on health care, that's fully 5% more than the next
highest. That's a rather large competitive disadvantage to business in
the global market. In another thread, weren't you just complaining about
unions and their health care costs driving jobs offshore? Well, it isn't
just unions. It's any company that provides health care as part of their
package. Insured or not, union or not, American health care costs are
problematic.