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.

"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!

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!




That's about the price of decent but not terrific individually purchased
health insurance for a fairly healthy couple with one or two kids.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"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!


How much do you pay up in Canuckastan? $12k is a little high, but for a
person over 50 you will pay probably $1100 month for insurance. For a
younger family, will be maybe $600 with a smaller deductible.

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.

On Feb 1, 9:24Â*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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), 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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

How many illegals should Texas pay for, Chuck. What part of that 30% are
illegals. Remember, your post earlier - the 'biggest' problem...
--
John H

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:02:28 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here 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.

No. We don't need to be providing health care insurance to illegal aliens.
I firmly do not believe in that.
--
John H