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?

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 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.

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

"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

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.

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.

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.