| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:36:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Exactly. In onne of my mom's Continuing Ed classes to renew her RN license years ago, the teacher stated that the rich got better care in a hospital. My mom argued the point, they never asked what the persons income was when taking care of them. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Calif Bill wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 9:24 am, BAR wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 6:43?am, John H. wrote: Scary ****. http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php -- John H Almost begins to rival this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lth-care_N.htm Chuck, We need to find a way that everyone has access to healthcare insurance, but Canada is not a system we want to emulate. People need to figure out how they are going to pay for their own health care. I have to pay for mine. In fact I usually end up spending more that $12,000 per year out of pocket for mine and my family's health care. Socialized or single payer systems are just a fast track to rationing of health care.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Rationing? The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. The rich has access to the best available food, cars, houses, clothes, ... I actually have a plan. We stop trying to deliver public health care through private practice. We would set up a "pretty good" system of public health clinics and hospitals across the country. No, there wouldn't be private rooms, and nobody would take up a bed for cosmetic plastic surgery or vacuuming away body fat. Some of the most advanced heart transplant or other surgeries might not be available. A few people might die for lack of the most exotic or heroic treatments, but we would provide a basic level of care and repair to all comers. Think of it as a public school, not actually intended to be the very finest education available to anybody anywhere with any amount of money to spend, but better than adequate for most and much better than nothing for all. It will devolve to rationing. The problem you have is you can't control all of the costs. What are you going to do about salaries for the doctors, nurses, administration staff? You will have a hard time controlling the cost of living for one. What are fuel costs going to do to your ability to get supplies at an acceptable cost? If restricting access to the most ridiculously expensive medical procedures sounds heartless, it might be. But at what point do we draw the line? Let's assume that somebody develops a bang-on, foolproof, absolutely 100% effective sure cure for any type of cancer. Only problem, it relies on some ridiculously expensive rare metals and treatment can't be administered for less than $10-12mm per patient. Does society step up and spend $12mm in public funds to cure the cancer of a 90-year old diabetic also suffering from kidney failure and heart disease? Most medical ethicists would probably agree, "no". Restricting equals rationing. To preserve freedom of choice in the marketplace, "boutique" level health care would also be available for those who chose to pay for it. Insurance companies could sell policies to provide more personalized service and fund the $500,000 heart/lung transplants and other exceptional cases. Those willing to pay could have luxury suites, gourmet menus, etc etc etc. The sky would be the limit. You are proposing a two tier system. The haves and the have nots. I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the proposed public system. That's what the patient in John's video did, except then he decided to sue the Province to try to get the taxpayers to reimburse him for the expense associated with his prioritized treatment. That's not so different from deciding that Harvard offered a better education than Local State U, going there to get a degree, and then suing your home state for a refund representing the difference in tution. You want to bring the Canadian model to the USofA. There's something wrong with the perspective that poor kids should be denied access to decent health care (as in Texas, where a full 30% of workers have no health insurance and the state doesn't put up the 28- cents required to get 78-cents in Federal money for kids health). There's something wrong with a system that causes middle class men approaching and/or entering retirement to view the kids and the truly indigent as "competitors" for health care. You confuse access and insurance. Everyone has access to health care, however, some lack the ability to pay for that access. You propose to pay for that access with my money. Split the system. Basic, decent, public care adequate to sustain the general health of the poor or those who choose not to pay for anything more exotic, and traditional private practice for folks who want the best health care money (a lot of it) can buy. Won't work. The basic system will fall apart as soon as you allow the "boutiques" to exist. The free market is the best solution, you pay as you go. What needs to be fixed is the Worker's Comp system. Limited pool of money to treat those entitled with the result being that those needing care are denied. There needs to be rational rationing. 80% of a persons medical costs are incurred in the last couple of years of life. Our neighbors mom is 89 years old, some Alzheimer, bad heart, etc. She has probably cost the system a million dollars in the last year. In and out of the hospital, lots of heroic measures to keep her going. She is not going to improve. Many years ago the then Governor of Colorado made a statement about the old should leave the living to the young. Great stink raised about it, but my mother, who was and still is an RN, supported the Governor 100%. At the time she was a nurse in old folks home. Lots of those who were eating with their fingers and completely senile. A little like Harry. We mostly do not let our animals digress to that stage. There is a point to just give comfort and not use everything available to keep them alive. My mom is 93, and luckily very healthy and still functioning brain, but she would come back and haunt me if I went to huge expense and trouble to prolong her life 6 months or so if she fell ill. He friend Betty who died a couple of years ago. For an extra 3 weeks of life, the hospital bill is about $250k. Her insurance and Medicare paid bills, but was a rather senseless expenditure. I've got a daughter who cost about $600,000 for the first couple of months of her life. But, I agree with the Colorado governor. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 6:43?am, John H. wrote: Scary ****. http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php -- John H Almost begins to rival this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lth-care_N.htm Be worried Chuck. The no pays are slowly shutting down our healthcare system. They get priority service while you wait for your insurance and financial history gets scrutinized before you get to be seen. Usually there is a co-pay involved too. But that's OK. It's our duty to stand aside while the wetbacks and our own entitled folks go to the head of the line for free. The "wetbacks?" Jesus, you really are a creep. What would you call them? "Them"? Get a dictionary research boy. When is your next book coming out? You use pejoratives in referring to blacks, Jews, and Asians, too? You use pejoratives in referring to conservatives, Christians, and those not approved by the DNC and union leadership. Why questions this persons pejoratives? Please. It's Konservatrash. But note that I don't put down Konservatrash because of its race, religion, or country of origin. Pejoratives! Ya, its a new word Harry learned from Readers`Digest vocabulary booster. He'll be using it for weeks. It's kind of ambiguous. Fits almost any situation he encounters. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Feb 1, 12:36�pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:q207q357n20igfc8gsb1hnj8ghqjruivv7@4ax .com... On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. A significant portion of your insurance premiums are used to reimburse hospitals for emergency room treatment, sometimes of "sniffles" etc, for poor families. The emergency room (of some hospitals) is the only place these families know they will not be turned away for lack of resources. We are already delivering health care to the poor, in the most conceivably expensive manner possible. Don't want to pay for health care for poor folks? Maybe a $100 or so of your current health care insurance premium already goes to that purpose. Let's buy health services for the poor at a reasonable, rather than a premium cost. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Feb 1, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my comment about the poor is unreasonable. You are a person of substantial means, Tom. I hope you have access to the best available care. Neither portion of the statement is unreal, so how can the total statement be unreal? |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:36�pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:q207q357n20igfc8gsb1hnj8ghqjruivv7@4ax .com... On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. A significant portion of your insurance premiums are used to reimburse hospitals for emergency room treatment, sometimes of "sniffles" etc, for poor families. The emergency room (of some hospitals) is the only place these families know they will not be turned away for lack of resources. We are already delivering health care to the poor, in the most conceivably expensive manner possible. Don't want to pay for health care for poor folks? Maybe a $100 or so of your current health care insurance premium already goes to that purpose. Let's buy health services for the poor at a reasonable, rather than a premium cost. Let the "poor" buy their own health services? They don't need cable. They don't need to take the family out to dinner. They don't need the new car. Its all about decisions. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 12:36�pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:q207q357n20igfc8gsb1hnj8ghqjruivv7@4ax .com... On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. A significant portion of your insurance premiums are used to reimburse hospitals for emergency room treatment, sometimes of "sniffles" etc, for poor families. The emergency room (of some hospitals) is the only place these families know they will not be turned away for lack of resources. We are already delivering health care to the poor, in the most conceivably expensive manner possible. Don't want to pay for health care for poor folks? Maybe a $100 or so of your current health care insurance premium already goes to that purpose. Let's buy health services for the poor at a reasonable, rather than a premium cost. Let the "poor" buy their own health services? They don't need cable. They don't need to take the family out to dinner. They don't need the new car. Its all about decisions. You ignorant ass. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my comment about the poor is unreasonable. Poor example Chuck. The very best cars are rationed. The very best food is rationed. I could go on and on. You are a person of substantial means, Tom. I hope you have access to the best available care. Chuck, I can't afford to buy the $495,000 Mercedes I saw at the auto show last week. Can you spare a couple of hundred thousand? Neither portion of the statement is unreal, so how can the total statement be unreal? How much of your time and money do you donate to provided the underfunded "access" to health care? |
Health care...Single Payer Style
BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my comment about the poor is unreasonable. Poor example Chuck. The very best cars are rationed. The very best food is rationed. I could go on and on. You are a person of substantial means, Tom. I hope you have access to the best available care. Chuck, I can't afford to buy the $495,000 Mercedes I saw at the auto show last week. Can you spare a couple of hundred thousand? Perhaps if you had bothered to graduate from high school, you'd be doing a lot better. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 9:24 am, BAR wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 6:43?am, John H. wrote: Scary ****. http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php -- John H Almost begins to rival this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lth-care_N.htm Chuck, We need to find a way that everyone has access to healthcare insurance, but Canada is not a system we want to emulate. People need to figure out how they are going to pay for their own health care. I have to pay for mine. In fact I usually end up spending more that $12,000 per year out of pocket for mine and my family's health care. Socialized or single payer systems are just a fast track to rationing of health care.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Rationing? The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. The rich has access to the best available food, cars, houses, clothes, ... I actually have a plan. We stop trying to deliver public health care through private practice. We would set up a "pretty good" system of public health clinics and hospitals across the country. No, there wouldn't be private rooms, and nobody would take up a bed for cosmetic plastic surgery or vacuuming away body fat. Some of the most advanced heart transplant or other surgeries might not be available. A few people might die for lack of the most exotic or heroic treatments, but we would provide a basic level of care and repair to all comers. Think of it as a public school, not actually intended to be the very finest education available to anybody anywhere with any amount of money to spend, but better than adequate for most and much better than nothing for all. It will devolve to rationing. The problem you have is you can't control all of the costs. What are you going to do about salaries for the doctors, nurses, administration staff? You will have a hard time controlling the cost of living for one. What are fuel costs going to do to your ability to get supplies at an acceptable cost? If restricting access to the most ridiculously expensive medical procedures sounds heartless, it might be. But at what point do we draw the line? Let's assume that somebody develops a bang-on, foolproof, absolutely 100% effective sure cure for any type of cancer. Only problem, it relies on some ridiculously expensive rare metals and treatment can't be administered for less than $10-12mm per patient. Does society step up and spend $12mm in public funds to cure the cancer of a 90-year old diabetic also suffering from kidney failure and heart disease? Most medical ethicists would probably agree, "no". Restricting equals rationing. To preserve freedom of choice in the marketplace, "boutique" level health care would also be available for those who chose to pay for it. Insurance companies could sell policies to provide more personalized service and fund the $500,000 heart/lung transplants and other exceptional cases. Those willing to pay could have luxury suites, gourmet menus, etc etc etc. The sky would be the limit. You are proposing a two tier system. The haves and the have nots. I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the proposed public system. That's what the patient in John's video did, except then he decided to sue the Province to try to get the taxpayers to reimburse him for the expense associated with his prioritized treatment. That's not so different from deciding that Harvard offered a better education than Local State U, going there to get a degree, and then suing your home state for a refund representing the difference in tution. You want to bring the Canadian model to the USofA. There's something wrong with the perspective that poor kids should be denied access to decent health care (as in Texas, where a full 30% of workers have no health insurance and the state doesn't put up the 28- cents required to get 78-cents in Federal money for kids health). There's something wrong with a system that causes middle class men approaching and/or entering retirement to view the kids and the truly indigent as "competitors" for health care. You confuse access and insurance. Everyone has access to health care, however, some lack the ability to pay for that access. You propose to pay for that access with my money. Split the system. Basic, decent, public care adequate to sustain the general health of the poor or those who choose not to pay for anything more exotic, and traditional private practice for folks who want the best health care money (a lot of it) can buy. Won't work. The basic system will fall apart as soon as you allow the "boutiques" to exist. The free market is the best solution, you pay as you go. What needs to be fixed is the Worker's Comp system. Limited pool of money to treat those entitled with the result being that those needing care are denied. There needs to be rational rationing. 80% of a persons medical costs are incurred in the last couple of years of life. Our neighbors mom is 89 years old, some Alzheimer, bad heart, etc. She has probably cost the system a million dollars in the last year. In and out of the hospital, lots of heroic measures to keep her going. She is not going to improve. Many years ago the then Governor of Colorado made a statement about the old should leave the living to the young. Great stink raised about it, but my mother, who was and still is an RN, supported the Governor 100%. At the time she was a nurse in old folks home. Lots of those who were eating with their fingers and completely senile. A little like Harry. We mostly do not let our animals digress to that stage. There is a point to just give comfort and not use everything available to keep them alive. My mom is 93, and luckily very healthy and still functioning brain, but she would come back and haunt me if I went to huge expense and trouble to prolong her life 6 months or so if she fell ill. He friend Betty who died a couple of years ago. For an extra 3 weeks of life, the hospital bill is about $250k. Her insurance and Medicare paid bills, but was a rather senseless expenditure. I've got a daughter who cost about $600,000 for the first couple of months of her life. But, I agree with the Colorado governor. Hell of a difference between the first few months and the last few months. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... There needs to be rational rationing. 80% of a persons medical costs are incurred in the last couple of years of life. Our neighbors mom is 89 years old, some Alzheimer, bad heart, etc. She has probably cost the system a million dollars in the last year. In and out of the hospital, lots of heroic measures to keep her going. She is not going to improve. Many years ago the then Governor of Colorado made a statement about the old should leave the living to the young. Great stink raised about it, but my mother, who was and still is an RN, supported the Governor 100%. At the time she was a nurse in old folks home. Lots of those who were eating with their fingers and completely senile. A little like Harry. We mostly do not let our animals digress to that stage. There is a point to just give comfort and not use everything available to keep them alive. My mom is 93, and luckily very healthy and still functioning brain, but she would come back and haunt me if I went to huge expense and trouble to prolong her life 6 months or so if she fell ill. He friend Betty who died a couple of years ago. For an extra 3 weeks of life, the hospital bill is about $250k. Her insurance and Medicare paid bills, but was a rather senseless expenditure. My mom's nursing home palative care unit was after me to give direction on what they should do if the worst happened. They don't feel itwould be in an older patients best interests (mom is 93) to call the paramedics in to do rescesitation/shove tubes down her throat etc if it's clear that she is ready to pass on. Tough thing to do, so I contacted my four sisters to get a consensus and talked to mom about it. Wednesday i went for a two hour meeting to discuss and sign directions. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Let the "poor" buy their own health services? They don't need cable. They don't need to take the family out to dinner. They *don't need the new ca*r. Its all about decisions. The poor down your way must be a lot better off than the poor up here. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... There needs to be rational rationing. 80% of a persons medical costs are incurred in the last couple of years of life. Our neighbors mom is 89 years old, some Alzheimer, bad heart, etc. She has probably cost the system a million dollars in the last year. In and out of the hospital, lots of heroic measures to keep her going. She is not going to improve. Many years ago the then Governor of Colorado made a statement about the old should leave the living to the young. Great stink raised about it, but my mother, who was and still is an RN, supported the Governor 100%. At the time she was a nurse in old folks home. Lots of those who were eating with their fingers and completely senile. A little like Harry. We mostly do not let our animals digress to that stage. There is a point to just give comfort and not use everything available to keep them alive. My mom is 93, and luckily very healthy and still functioning brain, but she would come back and haunt me if I went to huge expense and trouble to prolong her life 6 months or so if she fell ill. He friend Betty who died a couple of years ago. For an extra 3 weeks of life, the hospital bill is about $250k. Her insurance and Medicare paid bills, but was a rather senseless expenditure. My mom's nursing home palative care unit was after me to give direction on what they should do if the worst happened. They don't feel itwould be in an older patients best interests (mom is 93) to call the paramedics in to do rescesitation/shove tubes down her throat etc if it's clear that she is ready to pass on. Tough thing to do, so I contacted my four sisters to get a consensus and talked to mom about it. Wednesday i went for a two hour meeting to discuss and sign directions. Don't they have living wills in Canada, or isn't you mother up to making decisions on her own? In this country I'm all in favor of everyone having a living will. Takes the pressure off family members. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure? |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:q207q357n20igfc8gsb1hnj8ghqjruivv7@4ax .com... On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. A significant portion of your insurance premiums are used to reimburse hospitals for emergency room treatment, sometimes of "sniffles" etc, for poor families. The emergency room (of some hospitals) is the only place these families know they will not be turned away for lack of resources. We are already delivering health care to the poor, in the most conceivably expensive manner possible. Don't want to pay for health care for poor folks? Maybe a $100 or so of your current health care insurance premium already goes to that purpose. Let's buy health services for the poor at a reasonable, rather than a premium cost. Actually only part of what you say is true. We need to reconsider the emergency room. When I required a hospital visit while in Italy a few years ago, they have the ideal solution. Translates as "First Response". Is like a clinic doctors office. Is free to everybody, even Americans. Is an office with a doctor, nurse, aids and clerk. Is for all the minor stuff. Old lady had sore ankle, I had a toothache. No major tests, they question you, look at you and in my case, gave me a pain killer, and prescription of Antibiotic and pain medicine. If I had to have more, I would have had to go next door to the hospital itself and then I would have to pay. No free hospital for legal or illegal aliens. We have them go the ER, where for liability reasons, they give a couple $k in tests even if the kid is in with the sniffles. Plus bogs dwn the system that is trying to deal with major trauma. Set up a separate office, and so what if they have to wait a couple of hours. If they are having a heart attack go to the ER, if you got a sore knee, sniffles "first response". and if you show up at the ER with the sniffles, expect to pay lots. Even if you do not have money, expect to have to come up with some money. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure? Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk program as well. Eisboch |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:09:48 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:q207q357n20igfc8gsb1hnj8ghqjruivv7@4ax .com... On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. A significant portion of your insurance premiums are used to reimburse hospitals for emergency room treatment, sometimes of "sniffles" etc, for poor families. The emergency room (of some hospitals) is the only place these families know they will not be turned away for lack of resources. We are already delivering health care to the poor, in the most conceivably expensive manner possible. Don't want to pay for health care for poor folks? Maybe a $100 or so of your current health care insurance premium already goes to that purpose. Let's buy health services for the poor at a reasonable, rather than a premium cost. Let's fix the illegal alien problem and work on 'our' poor. -- John H |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message . .. People need to figure out how they are going to pay for their own health care. I have to pay for mine. In fact I usually end up spending more that $12,000 per year out of pocket for mine and my family's health care. Socialized or single payer systems are just a fast track to rationing of health care. $12k a year?? You must be one sickly SOB! YOU are putting someone else's family down? Is that how you justify your own sad situation? Go walk the dog now, Donnie. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... There needs to be rational rationing. 80% of a persons medical costs are incurred in the last couple of years of life. Our neighbors mom is 89 years old, some Alzheimer, bad heart, etc. She has probably cost the system a million dollars in the last year. In and out of the hospital, lots of heroic measures to keep her going. She is not going to improve. Many years ago the then Governor of Colorado made a statement about the old should leave the living to the young. Great stink raised about it, but my mother, who was and still is an RN, supported the Governor 100%. At the time she was a nurse in old folks home. Lots of those who were eating with their fingers and completely senile. A little like Harry. We mostly do not let our animals digress to that stage. There is a point to just give comfort and not use everything available to keep them alive. My mom is 93, and luckily very healthy and still functioning brain, but she would come back and haunt me if I went to huge expense and trouble to prolong her life 6 months or so if she fell ill. He friend Betty who died a couple of years ago. For an extra 3 weeks of life, the hospital bill is about $250k. Her insurance and Medicare paid bills, but was a rather senseless expenditure. My mom's nursing home palative care unit was after me to give direction on what they should do if the worst happened. They don't feel itwould be in an older patients best interests (mom is 93) to call the paramedics in to do rescesitation/shove tubes down her throat etc if it's clear that she is ready to pass on. Tough thing to do, so I contacted my four sisters to get a consensus and talked to mom about it. Wednesday i went for a two hour meeting to discuss and sign directions. My mom has a living will, and a directive to not do heroic measures to resuscitate her. She is also 93, but still lives alone in her home. My brother and I do go a couple of times a week. Attorney told us if we go over and she is gone or almost gone, go have a cup of coffee and then call the EMT's as they will resusitate no matter what. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Don White" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. Let the "poor" buy their own health services? They don't need cable. They don't need to take the family out to dinner. They *don't need the new ca*r. Its all about decisions. The poor down your way must be a lot better off than the poor up here. Most have cars, TV, cell phones, etc. Go to Mexico or South America if you want to see poverty. Funny thing is the poor in the latter countries work hard to survive and improve. Most of the welfare ones here do not try to work hard and understand how to work the system. Years ago, I owned a construction equipment leasing company. We would hire some of the local White Trash to clean up the yard at times. They would offer to work for free for the day if we would give them a $350 check and they would sign it back to us. Gave them enough income to get unemployment for another quarter. When you see as on TV tonight a 500 pound person, that has not left their home in a couple of years, you have to understand the welfare system is broken. They are incapacitated by their own actions. Why do we need to support them? May be a hard line action, but those like that can just take a dirt nap. I am all for supporting those who are actually incapacitated. The mentally challened, the Autistic, those with illness's that keep them from making a living. The neighbors daughter is on welfare. Her husband is lazy and a fan of illicit drugs. The girl does not work as then she can not be a stay at home mom. Lots of people that would like to be stay at home moms, are working to help support the family and paying taxes to support the lazy stay at home mom. And it will not be fixed by any of the candidates running! |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:12:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Feb 1, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my comment about the poor is unreasonable. I only going to say this. I pay a staggering amount of money every year for a treatment for my particular cluster of ailments related to a screwed up immune system. Those same treatments for similar diseases for people who are in halfway houses or unable to pay for whatever reason are free and paid for by the state of CT and MA. I'm not exactly sure, but it seems to me that's not rationing. I will say this - the healthcare system is screwed up, but the solution isn't single payer system. The solution is to shoot all the ambulance chasers who create untenable situations for physicians of all types who would be willing to provide care on a reduced basis in open clinics on a part time basis if only they didn't have to worry about paying outrageous premiums for ommission/commission and malpractice insurance. With respect to access, if you are indigent and unable to pay, hospitals are required to provide care by law. That's what the problem is. The cost of running a hospital is considerable (for much the same reasons I might add) and placing a obligation to provide care under all circumstances is killing their ability to provide services. The solution is to indemnify physicians who can, and often will, run clinics for those whose ability to pay is nonexistant or limited. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:33:27 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message m... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure? Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk program as well. What happened was that if you didn't select a plan or provide proof of a plan, the state charged you a set amount of money - I think it was $249. After that, kids who didn't have health insurance because the base plan was $1,400 a year just paid the fine because it was cheaper than getting health insurance. Now, as I understand it, the fine is higher than the base insurance level. :) By the way, it cost the citizens of MA a lot more than Mitt anticipated - WAY more. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:33:27 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure? Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk program as well. What happened was that if you didn't select a plan or provide proof of a plan, the state charged you a set amount of money - I think it was $249. After that, kids who didn't have health insurance because the base plan was $1,400 a year just paid the fine because it was cheaper than getting health insurance. Now, as I understand it, the fine is higher than the base insurance level. :) By the way, it cost the citizens of MA a lot more than Mitt anticipated - WAY more. Mitt...hehehe. He's "loaned" his campaign #35 million so far. But he does have some really nice suits. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my comment about the poor is unreasonable. Poor example Chuck. The very best cars are rationed. The very best food is rationed. I could go on and on. You are a person of substantial means, Tom. I hope you have access to the best available care. Chuck, I can't afford to buy the $495,000 Mercedes I saw at the auto show last week. Can you spare a couple of hundred thousand? Neither portion of the statement is unreal, so how can the total statement be unreal? How much of your time and money do you donate to provided the underfunded "access" to health care? BAR, You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency room. I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance. It provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group plan at work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that they don't think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new car, they are subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is a much cheaper way for all of us. http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Eisboch wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure? Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk program as well. Eisboch They are fining them when they do their taxes, in 2009 if you don't have the mandatory health care insurance, you will be fined half the cost of the insurance. They will continue to increase the fines to "encourage" people to join the plan. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message . .. BAR, You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency room. I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance. It provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group plan at work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that they don't think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new car, they are subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is a much cheaper way for all of us. http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html We'll see in a year or two. I still pay for our coverage and the premiums continue to go up. Eisboch |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
BAR wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. I love comments like this. Unreal. Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my comment about the poor is unreasonable. Poor example Chuck. The very best cars are rationed. The very best food is rationed. I could go on and on. You are a person of substantial means, Tom. I hope you have access to the best available care. Chuck, I can't afford to buy the $495,000 Mercedes I saw at the auto show last week. Can you spare a couple of hundred thousand? Neither portion of the statement is unreal, so how can the total statement be unreal? How much of your time and money do you donate to provided the underfunded "access" to health care? BAR, You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency room. I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance. It provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group plan at work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that they don't think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new car, they are subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is a much cheaper way for all of us. The problem is that people will still show up at the emergency room with the sniffles and they will still be seen. http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html Ah, I work for a Mass. headquartered company. I know about the escalating health care costs and what the company is doing to reduce costs. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message . .. BAR, You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency room. I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance. It provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group plan at work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that they don't think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new car, they are subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is a much cheaper way for all of us. http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html We'll see in a year or two. I still pay for our coverage and the premiums continue to go up. Eisboch You really want to keep your current plan, it probably provides better coverage. |
Health care...Single Payer Style
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:33:27 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure? Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk program as well. What happened was that if you didn't select a plan or provide proof of a plan, the state charged you a set amount of money - I think it was $249. After that, kids who didn't have health insurance because the base plan was $1,400 a year just paid the fine because it was cheaper than getting health insurance. Now, as I understand it, the fine is higher than the base insurance level. :) By the way, it cost the citizens of MA a lot more than Mitt anticipated - WAY more. My son was living in MA, and was talking about the need for Universal Health Care, when I told him he NOW had UHC, he decided he would prefer to keep them money in his pocket. I reminded him if he socialized medicine it would be taken out of his paycheck automatically, he just pretended i didn't point out the obvious. He was saving up for 6 months of traveling in SE Asia, Asia and India. He like all the young, knew he would NEVER need healthcare so he didn't sign up. He is now in Bangkok, and I have no idea what kind of healthcare program they have. ;) |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 09:02:24 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:33:27 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote: In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only thing anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance card. I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally for "better" care. Eisboch If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card. ------------------------------------ As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law. It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this state. Eisboch What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure? Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk program as well. What happened was that if you didn't select a plan or provide proof of a plan, the state charged you a set amount of money - I think it was $249. After that, kids who didn't have health insurance because the base plan was $1,400 a year just paid the fine because it was cheaper than getting health insurance. Now, as I understand it, the fine is higher than the base insurance level. :) By the way, it cost the citizens of MA a lot more than Mitt anticipated - WAY more. My son was living in MA, and was talking about the need for Universal Health Care, when I told him he NOW had UHC, he decided he would prefer to keep them money in his pocket. I reminded him if he socialized medicine it would be taken out of his paycheck automatically, he just pretended i didn't point out the obvious. He was saving up for 6 months of traveling in SE Asia, Asia and India. He like all the young, knew he would NEVER need healthcare so he didn't sign up. He is now in Bangkok, and I have no idea what kind of healthcare program they have. ;) Here's an interesting article on the French system. Note that Tom's 'ambulance chasers' are not rewarded, and that choice is still available. I know that the Dutch treat France as the Canadians treat the US. They will got to France and pay for a procedure for which they would have a long wait in Holland. Holland now requires their citizens to pay the first 150 Euros of annual medical treatment. That started this year, and my friend there thinks it just marks the beginning of higher and higher up front 'co-pays' for their 'free' medical care. Note that there's been no reduction in their taxes. Anyway... the article on the French system. http://tinyurl.com/yo29rc -- John H |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Feb 1, 12:03Â*pm, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 9:24 am, BAR wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 1, 6:43�am, John H. wrote: Scary ****. http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php -- John H Almost begins to rival this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lth-care_N.htm Chuck, We need to find a way that everyone has access to healthcare insurance, but Canada is not a system we want to emulate. People need to figure out how they are going to pay for their own health care. I have to pay for mine. In fact I usually end up spending more that $12,000 per year out of pocket for mine and my family's health care. Socialized or single payer systems are just a fast track to rationing of health care.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Rationing? The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. The rich has access to the best available food, cars, houses, clothes, ... I actually have a plan. We stop trying to deliver public health care through private practice. We would set up a "pretty good" system of public health clinics and hospitals across the country. No, there wouldn't be private rooms, and nobody would take up a Â*bed for cosmetic plastic surgery or vacuuming away body fat. Some of the most advanced heart transplant or other surgeries might not be available. A few people might die for lack of the most exotic or heroic treatments, but we would provide a basic level of care and repair to all comers. Think of it as a public school, not actually intended to be the very finest education available to anybody anywhere with any amount of money to spend, but better than adequate for most and much better than nothing for all. It will devolve to rationing. The problem you have is you can't control all of the costs. What are you going to do about salaries for the doctors, nurses, administration staff? You will have a hard time controlling the cost of living for one. What are fuel costs going to do to your ability to get supplies at an acceptable cost? If restricting access to the most ridiculously expensive medical procedures sounds heartless, it might be. But at what point do we draw the line? Let's assume that somebody develops a bang-on, foolproof, absolutely 100% effective sure cure for any type of cancer. Only problem, it relies on some ridiculously expensive rare metals and treatment can't be administered for less than $10-12mm per patient. Does society step up and spend $12mm in public funds to cure the cancer of a 90-year old diabetic also suffering from kidney failure and heart disease? Most medical ethicists would probably agree, "no". Restricting equals rationing. To preserve freedom of choice in the marketplace, "boutique" level health care would also be available for those who chose to pay for it. Insurance companies could sell policies to provide more personalized service and fund the $500,000 heart/lung transplants and other exceptional cases. Those willing to pay could have luxury suites, gourmet menus, etc etc etc. The sky would be the limit. You are proposing a two tier system. The haves and the have nots. I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the proposed public system. That's what the patient in John's video did, except then he decided to sue the Province to try to get the taxpayers to reimburse him for the expense associated with his prioritized treatment. That's not so different from deciding that Harvard offered a better education than Local State U, going there to get a degree, and then suing your home state for a refund representing the difference in tution. You want to bring the Canadian model to the USofA. There's something wrong with the perspective that poor kids should be denied access to decent health care (as in Texas, where a full 30% of workers have no health insurance and the state doesn't put up the 28- cents required to get 78-cents in Federal money for kids health). There's something wrong with a system that causes middle class men approaching and/or entering retirement to view the kids and the truly indigent as "competitors" for health care. You confuse access and insurance. Everyone has access to health care, however, some lack the ability to pay for that access. You propose to pay for that access with my money. Split the system. Basic, decent, public care adequate to sustain the general health of the poor or those who choose not to pay for anything more exotic, and traditional private practice for folks who want the best health care money (a lot of it) can buy. Won't work. The basic system will fall apart as soon as you allow the "boutiques" to exist. The free market is the best solution, you pay as you go. What needs to be fixed is the Worker's Comp system. Limited pool of money to treat those entitled with the result being that those needing care are denied.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Feb 1, 12:03 pm, BAR wrote: It will devolve to rationing. The problem you have is you can't control all of the costs. What are you going to do about salaries for the doctors, nurses, administration staff? You will have a hard time controlling the cost of living for one. What are fuel costs going to do to your ability to get supplies at an acceptable cost? Lack of cost control would not be anything new, would it? Salaries for doctors, nurses, administration staff would be paid from the public funds. The system would cost a bit more than the K-12 educational system currenty does. Doctors make more than teachers, but we wouldn't need a doctor for every 20-30 patients. Much of the care would be provided by nurse practitioners. Got the sniffles, sprain your ankle, upset stomach....see the nurse andhe or she will either prescribe some medicine or determine that your symptoms indicate need for more serious attention. My system would not pay the average "sniffles and annual check-up pediatrician" 1/4 million dollars a year. The insurance company and self insured tier (private healtth care) can pay whatever it wants to pay. If restricting access to the most ridiculously expensive medical procedures sounds heartless, it might be. But at what point do we draw the line? Let's assume that somebody develops a bang-on, foolproof, absolutely 100% effective sure cure for any type of cancer. Only problem, it relies on some ridiculously expensive rare metals and treatment can't be administered for less than $10-12mm per patient. Does society step up and spend $12mm in public funds to cure the cancer of a 90-year old diabetic also suffering from kidney failure and heart disease? Most medical ethicists would probably agree, "no". Restricting equals rationing. Restricting equals rationing? Consider my example above. Is adding a few weeks or a few months of life for a sick and very elderly patient a good use of (realistically) a million or more in public funds? You over look an important detail; under my system you and/or your insurance company could pay for as much treatment as you wanted. If 99- year old Joe is going to die next week and leave $1mm to his heirs without a heroic treatment, or live another 60 days if he spends everything he's got on a short term prop-up it should be his decision whether he checks out when nature intended or spends his entire estate staying alive a few more weeks. We can't, and shouldn't turn everybody into Terry Schiavo at public expense. The current system *already* restricts health care. Can that possibly be news? My sister-in-law, (age 60) has had about a dozen angioplasties and open heart surgery so far. She takes over $1000 of dollars worth of prescriptions a month. She is still able to work. Shocking fact- probably the only reason she isn't dead yet is that the company she works for has been sold 2-3 times along the way. Her insurance policies always have a "lifetime limit" of $1mm in treatment. She's so far beyond that it isn't funny- but each time the company has sold a new insurance company seems to come in. They are forced to take my sister-in-law because she is an employee of the company, and she gets a fresh start on another $1mm. To preserve freedom of choice in the marketplace, "boutique" level health care would also be available for those who chose to pay for it. Insurance companies could sell policies to provide more personalized service and fund the $500,000 heart/lung transplants and other exceptional cases. Those willing to pay could have luxury suites, gourmet menus, etc etc etc. The sky would be the limit. You are proposing a two tier system. The haves and the have nots. I propose a system modeled after the public school system. Public schools provide much more eduation to the have nots than they would ever receive if they had to pay tuition. At the same time, a robust system of private schools exists where families with the means and those willing to sacrifice can send their kids for a specialized or possibly superior education. General education? Public school. Want your kid to study in a religious, paramilitary, or academically elite environment? Pony up for private. I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the proposed public system. That's what the patient in John's video did, except then he decided to sue the Province to try to get the taxpayers to reimburse him for the expense associated with his prioritized treatment. That's not so different from deciding that Harvard offered a better education than Local State U, going there to get a degree, and then suing your home state for a refund representing the difference in tution. You want to bring the Canadian model to the USofA. No, not at all. "I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the public system." The major criticism with the Canadin system is that you can't use your money, no matter how much you have, to get to the head of the line for treatment or access the finest specialists in a particular field. My system would provide basic public health care for everybody, and if the well off want to buy additional insurance or pay out-of-pocket for something better they would still have the right to do so. You confuse access and insurance. Everyone has access to health care, however, some lack the ability to pay for that access. You propose to pay for that access with my money. Hate to break this to you, but under the current system the Easter Bunny doesn't just drop in and leave plastic eggs with thousands of dollars inside every time an uninsured person goes to the emergency room of your local hospital. You and I are already paying for this care. The doctors, the hospital staff etc don't work for free. The amounts charged off as uncollectible from indigent patients become "overhead", and the rates charged to insurance companies or those paying directly for care are then adjusted to cover the increased overhead (plus profit, of course- and the private hospitals are entitled to that). If you pay for your own health insurance or pay directly for your care, you are *already" paying. Another benefit of the public system is that it is much cheaper to prevent illness than to cure it. Getting a kid to the doctor or nurse practitioner once a year for a general exam will allow early detection of some conditions and preclude some half-million-dollar heroisms down the line. Split the system. Basic, decent, public care adequate to sustain the general health of the poor or those who choose not to pay for anything more exotic, and traditional private practice for folks who want the best health care money (a lot of it) can buy. Won't work. The basic system will fall apart as soon as you allow the "boutiques" to exist. Have the exclusive private schools put the public schools out of business? If people want access to the top tier of exotic treatments and highly specialized expertise they can pay for it. For the rest, the public system will be better than zero. The free market is the best solution, you pay as you go. The free market is alive and well under my proposal. Private health providers will be free to charge as much as they want to as many people as they can find to pay it. Only difference- there will no longer be a monopoly on health care controlled by the insurance cartels. Surely you aren't in favor of sustaining the current monopoly? Nothing free market at all in that. The basic public health care network breaks the existing monopoly. What needs to be fixed is the Worker's Comp system. Limited pool of money to treat those entitled with the result being that those needing care are denied.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Health care...Single Payer Style
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:17:35 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access. The rich has access to the best available food, cars, houses, clothes, ... I actually have a plan. We stop trying to deliver public health care through private practice. We would set up a "pretty good" system of public health clinics and hospitals across the country. No, there wouldn't be private rooms, and nobody would take up a *bed for cosmetic plastic surgery or vacuuming away body fat. Some of the most advanced heart transplant or other surgeries might not be available. A few people might die for lack of the most exotic or heroic treatments, but we would provide a basic level of care and repair to all comers. Think of it as a public school, not actually intended to be the very finest education available to anybody anywhere with any amount of money to spend, but better than adequate for most and much better than nothing for all. It will devolve to rationing. The problem you have is you can't control all of the costs. What are you going to do about salaries for the doctors, nurses, administration staff? You will have a hard time controlling the cost of living for one. What are fuel costs going to do to your ability to get supplies at an acceptable cost? If restricting access to the most ridiculously expensive medical procedures sounds heartless, it might be. But at what point do we draw the line? Let's assume that somebody develops a bang-on, foolproof, absolutely 100% effective sure cure for any type of cancer. Only problem, it relies on some ridiculously expensive rare metals and treatment can't be administered for less than $10-12mm per patient. Does society step up and spend $12mm in public funds to cure the cancer of a 90-year old diabetic also suffering from kidney failure and heart disease? Most medical ethicists would probably agree, "no". Restricting equals rationing. To preserve freedom of choice in the marketplace, "boutique" level health care would also be available for those who chose to pay for it. Insurance companies could sell policies to provide more personalized service and fund the $500,000 heart/lung transplants and other exceptional cases. Those willing to pay could have luxury suites, gourmet menus, etc etc etc. The sky would be the limit. You are proposing a two tier system. The haves and the have nots. I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the proposed public system. That's what the patient in John's video did, except then he decided to sue the Province to try to get the taxpayers to reimburse him for the expense associated with his prioritized treatment. That's not so different from deciding that Harvard offered a better education than Local State U, going there to get a degree, and then suing your home state for a refund representing the difference in tution. You want to bring the Canadian model to the USofA. There's something wrong with the perspective that poor kids should be denied access to decent health care (as in Texas, where a full 30% of workers have no health insurance and the state doesn't put up the 28- cents required to get 78-cents in Federal money for kids health). There's something wrong with a system that causes middle class men approaching and/or entering retirement to view the kids and the truly indigent as "competitors" for health care. You confuse access and insurance. Everyone has access to health care, however, some lack the ability to pay for that access. You propose to pay for that access with my money. Split the system. Basic, decent, public care adequate to sustain the general health of the poor or those who choose not to pay for anything more exotic, and traditional private practice for folks who want the best health care money (a lot of it) can buy. Won't work. The basic system will fall apart as soon as you allow the "boutiques" to exist. The free market is the best solution, you pay as you go. What needs to be fixed is the Worker's Comp system. Limited pool of money to treat those entitled with the result being that those needing care are denied.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - On Feb 1, 12:03 pm, BAR wrote: It will devolve to rationing. The problem you have is you can't control all of the costs. What are you going to do about salaries for the doctors, nurses, administration staff? You will have a hard time controlling the cost of living for one. What are fuel costs going to do to your ability to get supplies at an acceptable cost? Lack of cost control would not be anything new, would it? Salaries for doctors, nurses, administration staff would be paid from the public funds. The system would cost a bit more than the K-12 educational system currenty does. Doctors make more than teachers, but we wouldn't need a doctor for every 20-30 patients. Much of the care would be provided by nurse practitioners. Got the sniffles, sprain your ankle, upset stomach....see the nurse andhe or she will either prescribe some medicine or determine that your symptoms indicate need for more serious attention. My system would not pay the average "sniffles and annual check-up pediatrician" 1/4 million dollars a year. The insurance company and self insured tier (private healtth care) can pay whatever it wants to pay. If restricting access to the most ridiculously expensive medical procedures sounds heartless, it might be. But at what point do we draw the line? Let's assume that somebody develops a bang-on, foolproof, absolutely 100% effective sure cure for any type of cancer. Only problem, it relies on some ridiculously expensive rare metals and treatment can't be administered for less than $10-12mm per patient. Does society step up and spend $12mm in public funds to cure the cancer of a 90-year old diabetic also suffering from kidney failure and heart disease? Most medical ethicists would probably agree, "no". Restricting equals rationing. Restricting equals rationing? Consider my example above. Is adding a few weeks or a few months of life for a sick and very elderly patient a good use of (realistically) a million or more in public funds? You over look an important detail; under my system you and/or your insurance company could pay for as much treatment as you wanted. If 99- year old Joe is going to die next week and leave $1mm to his heirs without a heroic treatment, or live another 60 days if he spends everything he's got on a short term prop-up it should be his decision whether he checks out when nature intended or spends his entire estate staying alive a few more weeks. We can't, and shouldn't turn everybody into Terry Schiavo at public expense. The current system *already* restricts health care. Can that possibly be news? My sister-in-law, (age 60) has had about a dozen angioplasties and open heart surgery so far. She takes over $1000 of dollars worth of prescriptions a month. She is still able to work. Shocking fact- probably the only reason she isn't dead yet is that the company she works for has been sold 2-3 times along the way. Her insurance policies always have a "lifetime limit" of $1mm in treatment. She's so far beyond that it isn't funny- but each time the company has sold a new insurance company seems to come in. They are forced to take my sister-in-law because she is an employee of the company, and she gets a fresh start on another $1mm. To preserve freedom of choice in the marketplace, "boutique" level health care would also be available for those who chose to pay for it. Insurance companies could sell policies to provide more personalized service and fund the $500,000 heart/lung transplants and other exceptional cases. Those willing to pay could have luxury suites, gourmet menus, etc etc etc. The sky would be the limit. You are proposing a two tier system. The haves and the have nots. I propose a system modeled after the public school system. Public schools provide much more eduation to the have nots than they would ever receive if they had to pay tuition. At the same time, a robust system of private schools exists where families with the means and those willing to sacrifice can send their kids for a specialized or possibly superior education. General education? Public school. Want your kid to study in a religious, paramilitary, or academically elite environment? Pony up for private. I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the proposed public system. That's what the patient in John's video did, except then he decided to sue the Province to try to get the taxpayers to reimburse him for the expense associated with his prioritized treatment. That's not so different from deciding that Harvard offered a better education than Local State U, going there to get a degree, and then suing your home state for a refund representing the difference in tution. You want to bring the Canadian model to the USofA. No, not at all. "I have no problem allowing those with the means and desire to buy a premium level of health care over and above what is available through the public system." The major criticism with the Canadin system is that you can't use your money, no matter how much you have, to get to the head of the line for treatment or access the finest specialists in a particular field. My system would provide basic public health care for everybody, and if the well off want to buy additional insurance or pay out-of-pocket for something better they would still have the right to do so. You confuse access and insurance. Everyone has access to health care, however, some lack the ability to pay for that access. You propose to pay for that access with my money. Hate to break this to you, but under the current system the Easter Bunny doesn't just drop in and leave plastic eggs with thousands of dollars inside every time an uninsured person goes to the emergency room of your local hospital. You and I are already paying for this care. The doctors, the hospital staff etc don't work for free. The amounts charged off as uncollectible from indigent patients become "overhead", and the rates charged to insurance companies or those paying directly for care are then adjusted to cover the increased overhead (plus profit, of course- and the private hospitals are entitled to that). If you pay for your own health insurance or pay directly for your care, you are *already" paying. Another benefit of the public system is that it is much cheaper to prevent illness than to cure it. Getting a kid to the doctor or nurse practitioner once a year for a general exam will allow early detection of some conditions and preclude some half-million-dollar heroisms down the line. Split the system. Basic, decent, public care adequate to sustain the general health of the poor or those who choose not to pay for anything more exotic, and traditional private practice for folks who want the best health care money (a lot of it) can buy. Won't work. The basic system will fall apart as soon as you allow the "boutiques" to exist. Have the exclusive private schools put the public schools out of business? If people want access to the top tier of exotic treatments and highly specialized expertise they can pay for it. For the rest, the public system will be better than zero. The free market is the best solution, you pay as you go. The free market is alive and well under my proposal. Private health providers will be free to charge as much as they want to as many people as they can find to pay it. Only difference- there will no longer be a monopoly on health care controlled by the insurance cartels. Surely you aren't in favor of sustaining the current monopoly? Nothing free market at all in that. The basic public health care network breaks the existing monopoly. What needs to be fixed is the Worker's Comp system. Limited pool of money to treat those entitled with the result being that those needing care are denied.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's funny how in all this talk, and it's a bunch, you've totally skipped what your first article called the 'biggest' problem, i.e. illegal immigration. Nor do you address the fact that the Canadians and the Dutch, from what I've read or been told, don't go to other countries for 'boutique' medical care. They go because they can't afford the wait in their own country. You don't address that either. -- John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com