|
Curly takes the low road again -- Another Jerrytm Lie
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:41:12 -0500, Jerry wrote: "Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:52:18 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: Feel free to prune as you feel fit, Ok pruned. Now let's talk about the way Curly lies and distorts the truth each time he is caught in a lie of his own. How can you tell Curly is lying? Easy, when his posts call someone else a liar, his nose grows another inch. It has to this date grown so long that it stretcheds around the world at pokes himself in the ass. Funny though, he doesn't notice and just thinks it's one of his countrymen in Argentina getting fresh. He gets all excited, but before he can discover that it's just his nose, he passes out from the fumes. By tomorrow, he will have penetrated himself, thus taking my advice, where I told him to go **** himself. If you had found any evidence of my lying then you'd have broadcast it on Fox "News". I challenge you to show a single example, you cannot for it doesn't exist. That's why you're rightfully viewed as a lying troll. Now, pretend that you are HH&C or ACMH and babble the same bull****. Lies. Dude, or whatever you claim to be, you are in this newsgroup telling your lies on a daily basis. You don't think you are fooling anyone but yourself, do you? Maybe they just killfiled you, or got tired of listening to your daily bull****. I have been pointing out your multiple lies for weeks now, and you keep asking for single examples. Don't worry about the pain you just felt with your last paragraph, you'll pass out from the stink again soon. |
Curly admits to being a neocon -- Another "Jerry Lie"tm
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:21:55 -0500, Jerry wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:31:21 -0500, Jerry wrote: "Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:10:44 -0400, BAR wrote: Can you define "neocon?" In one word, "liar." My but you're having a real tantrum today aren't you? If it bothers you so much getting caught in lies the solution is simple, don't do that... Hardly. You are the one who is lying. I'm enjoying pointing out the lies. You are a failure in that, too. -- --Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bush, a Disaster of Biblical Proportions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Health Care
"Hawke" wrote in message ... Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too expensive. Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff. That is one factor but there are many others such as malpractice insurance but the overriding component is that a corporate monopoly has seized control of the industry at large. Sure, Curley, malpractice insurance is a factor, and there are many other factors. It's not a single thing that's done all of it. But if you spend some time sorting out where the costs are you'll see that most of it boils down to the fact that doctors can -- and do -- employ more expensive drugs, procedures, and so on. I don't agree. It's all about treating a population and most of the population is healthy and doesn't require a lot of expensive procedures and medications. I think some amazing amount of health care dollars are spent on people in the last five years of their lives and something like the last six months equals more than what they spent on health care in their entire lives. So most people are not getting a lot of expensive procedures that cost an arm and a leg. g It doesn't matter. The expensive procedures and pills ($850 per person) are still being used, no matter who they're being used on. That's why our fundamental health costs are so high and getting higher. -- Ed Huntress |
I'm voting republican because...
|
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
You know neocons - they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. -- Ray Fischer You know liberal- they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. Can't think of anything to say all by yourself? The best you can do is alter what others say? Not very original, are you? You're a right winger! Hawke It was a dumb statement that both sides constantly make about each other. Gets old seeing it and the original statement was very unoriginal. I am neither right or left wing, they are both corrupted and nuts. |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
|
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:06:30 -0700, "Roy Blankenship"
wrote: "RM V2.0" wrote in message om... "Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:50:25 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote: Squirrely doesn't or at least says he won't be paying any under Obama. Cite? You know neocons - they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. -- Ray Fischer You know liberal- they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. Considering who has been in power and destroyed the country, maybe you should STFU. Destroyed the country? Which country is that? Argentina? Guatamala? England? Gunner |
Curly admits to being a neocon
|
Health Care
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too expensive. Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff. That is one factor but there are many others such as malpractice insurance but the overriding component is that a corporate monopoly has seized control of the industry at large. Sure, Curley, malpractice insurance is a factor, and there are many other factors. It's not a single thing that's done all of it. But if you spend some time sorting out where the costs are you'll see that most of it boils down to the fact that doctors can -- and do -- employ more expensive drugs, procedures, and so on. I don't agree. It's all about treating a population and most of the population is healthy and doesn't require a lot of expensive procedures and medications. I think some amazing amount of health care dollars are spent on people in the last five years of their lives and something like the last six months equals more than what they spent on health care in their entire lives. So most people are not getting a lot of expensive procedures that cost an arm and a leg. g It doesn't matter. The expensive procedures and pills ($850 per person) are still being used, no matter who they're being used on. That's why our fundamental health costs are so high and getting higher. -- Ed Huntress I think everyone knows that as time passes and improvements in medicine and technology occur it causes things to cost more. What I'm saying is that isn't the root cause of all the increases in our health care. If it just cost more for all the newfangled high tech stuff you couldn't blame the 10% a year increase in health care costs on that. The truth is most of the costs come from other areas. One of which is having to care for a continually increasing group of impoverished illegal aliens. Another area is the increasing inefficiency of the whole system. You have to look at all the reasons for the continuous increases in costs. New procedures, hardware, and medicine is only a small part of it. Hawke |
Health Care
"Hawke" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too expensive. Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff. That is one factor but there are many others such as malpractice insurance but the overriding component is that a corporate monopoly has seized control of the industry at large. Sure, Curley, malpractice insurance is a factor, and there are many other factors. It's not a single thing that's done all of it. But if you spend some time sorting out where the costs are you'll see that most of it boils down to the fact that doctors can -- and do -- employ more expensive drugs, procedures, and so on. I don't agree. It's all about treating a population and most of the population is healthy and doesn't require a lot of expensive procedures and medications. I think some amazing amount of health care dollars are spent on people in the last five years of their lives and something like the last six months equals more than what they spent on health care in their entire lives. So most people are not getting a lot of expensive procedures that cost an arm and a leg. g It doesn't matter. The expensive procedures and pills ($850 per person) are still being used, no matter who they're being used on. That's why our fundamental health costs are so high and getting higher. -- Ed Huntress I think everyone knows that as time passes and improvements in medicine and technology occur it causes things to cost more. What I'm saying is that isn't the root cause of all the increases in our health care. Of course not. But it's the driver for everything else. If it just cost more for all the newfangled high tech stuff you couldn't blame the 10% a year increase in health care costs on that. The truth is most of the costs come from other areas. One of which is having to care for a continually increasing group of impoverished illegal aliens. Another area is the increasing inefficiency of the whole system. You have to look at all the reasons for the continuous increases in costs. New procedures, hardware, and medicine is only a small part of it. You'll have to document that before I'll believe it. I've already been through this exercise, when I was a medical editor. It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length, is that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards and expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we use it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more; we're under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still more. -- Ed Huntress |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:06:30 -0700, "Roy Blankenship" wrote: "RM V2.0" wrote in message . com... "Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:50:25 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote: Squirrely doesn't or at least says he won't be paying any under Obama. Cite? You know neocons - they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. -- Ray Fischer You know liberal- they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. Considering who has been in power and destroyed the country, maybe you should STFU. Destroyed the country? Which country is that? Argentina? Guatamala? England? Michael Savage was going on about what a turd world country Argentina is, on his show yesterday. I was laughing so hard that I almost missed some of what he was saying. Luckily I was able to reach the volume knob. LOL! |
I'm voting republican because...
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Gunner" wrote in message ... On 19 Sep 2008 07:42:27 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote: Because of your greed and selfishness we all end up paying more. My money. My problem. I can live with it. And other people die. Clinton lied, people died. Gunner, How about deleting "rec.boats" as an addee in future responses to this and other threads? The cross posting is starting to screw up several newsgroups. Eisboch Don't blame gunner, the topic was started by Cliff. Take it up with him http://groups.google.com/group/misc....4e068af90d55c9 |
I'm voting republican because...
On Sep 19, 12:00*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:38:07 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote: On Sep 17, 10:24*am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:44:13 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote: Why can't you grasp the concept of getting your own health care and quit mooching off of me? Do you have any evidence that he does? Only that the little squirrel, the little hawke, and him want to. Cite? *Betcha you're making up lies again. -- Regards, Curly You don't want to mooch off of me? That is news! And you don't want free medical... right! |
I'm voting republican because...
"sittingduck" wrote in message fraid.org... Jerry wrote: Don't blame gunner Why not, you're both to stupid to change the newsgroups line in your newsreader. How the hell does anyone as dumb as you guys operate machinery? Scary thought..... -- http://improve-usenet.org Well, of course I know how to change the newsgroup line. How else would I be able to reply to you,? And hell yes we operate machinery. Don't try spamming our machinery group either. |
I'm voting republican because...
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:38:07 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote: On Sep 17, 10:24 am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:44:13 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote: Why can't you grasp the concept of getting your own health care and quit mooching off of me? Do you have any evidence that he does? Only that the little squirrel, the little hawke, and him want to. Cite? Betcha you're making up lies again. Yeah, he's fudging the truth to put it nicely. But I've changed my mind. I now want him to pay for my health care and everyone else's too. I want him to pay higher taxes so poor people can have money to buy crack with. And I want him to pay a much higher marginal tax rate and have to keep paying higher and higher insurance premiums until he can't afford to have any insurance at all. Since he's always wrong why should I care if he gets to participate in a good health care system. From now on I hope he has to stay in the lousy system we have in place. When he can't afford it any more I will be happy to hear him bellyaching. Hawke |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
"RM V2.0" wrote in message m... You know neocons - they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. -- Ray Fischer You know liberal- they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. Can't think of anything to say all by yourself? The best you can do is alter what others say? Not very original, are you? You're a right winger! Hawke It was a dumb statement that both sides constantly make about each other. Gets old seeing it and the original statement was very unoriginal. I am neither right or left wing, they are both corrupted and nuts. Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke |
Health Care
Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too expensive. Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff. That is one factor but there are many others such as malpractice insurance but the overriding component is that a corporate monopoly has seized control of the industry at large. Sure, Curley, malpractice insurance is a factor, and there are many other factors. It's not a single thing that's done all of it. But if you spend some time sorting out where the costs are you'll see that most of it boils down to the fact that doctors can -- and do -- employ more expensive drugs, procedures, and so on. I don't agree. It's all about treating a population and most of the population is healthy and doesn't require a lot of expensive procedures and medications. I think some amazing amount of health care dollars are spent on people in the last five years of their lives and something like the last six months equals more than what they spent on health care in their entire lives. So most people are not getting a lot of expensive procedures that cost an arm and a leg. g It doesn't matter. The expensive procedures and pills ($850 per person) are still being used, no matter who they're being used on. That's why our fundamental health costs are so high and getting higher. -- Ed Huntress I think everyone knows that as time passes and improvements in medicine and technology occur it causes things to cost more. What I'm saying is that isn't the root cause of all the increases in our health care. Of course not. But it's the driver for everything else. If it just cost more for all the newfangled high tech stuff you couldn't blame the 10% a year increase in health care costs on that. The truth is most of the costs come from other areas. One of which is having to care for a continually increasing group of impoverished illegal aliens. Another area is the increasing inefficiency of the whole system. You have to look at all the reasons for the continuous increases in costs. New procedures, hardware, and medicine is only a small part of it. You'll have to document that before I'll believe it. I've already been through this exercise, when I was a medical editor. It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length, is that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards and expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we use it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more; we're under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still more. -- Ed Huntress No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong. That probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least. That sort of thing happens all the time but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred. But I have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff. The prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is no rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room is more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons. You take someone with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people who need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a big time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for. What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for the people who aren't covered by insurance. That and the needless duplication, profit, and administrative waste. The bottom line is that what's happening now can't be sustained. We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Hawke |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
Gunner wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote: Curly Surmudgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:50:25 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote: Squirrely doesn't or at least says he won't be paying any under Obama. Cite? You know neocons - they like to make up facts to justify their irrational agenda. Neocons are Liberals? And neocons are stupid SOBs, too. -- Ray Fischer |
I'm voting republican because...
Gunner wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote: Because of your greed and selfishness we all end up paying more. My money. My problem. I can live with it. And other people die. Clinton lied, people died. That's childish and stupid even for a moron like you. -- Ray Fischer |
Health Care
Hawke wrote:
Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too expensive. Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff. That is one factor but there are many others such as malpractice insurance but the overriding component is that a corporate monopoly has seized control of the industry at large. Sure, Curley, malpractice insurance is a factor, and there are many other factors. It's not a single thing that's done all of it. But if you spend some time sorting out where the costs are you'll see that most of it boils down to the fact that doctors can -- and do -- employ more expensive drugs, procedures, and so on. I don't agree. It's all about treating a population and most of the population is healthy and doesn't require a lot of expensive procedures and medications. I think some amazing amount of health care dollars are spent on people in the last five years of their lives and something like the last six months equals more than what they spent on health care in their entire lives. So most people are not getting a lot of expensive procedures that cost an arm and a leg. g It doesn't matter. The expensive procedures and pills ($850 per person) are still being used, no matter who they're being used on. That's why our fundamental health costs are so high and getting higher. -- Ed Huntress I think everyone knows that as time passes and improvements in medicine and technology occur it causes things to cost more. What I'm saying is that isn't the root cause of all the increases in our health care. Of course not. But it's the driver for everything else. If it just cost more for all the newfangled high tech stuff you couldn't blame the 10% a year increase in health care costs on that. The truth is most of the costs come from other areas. One of which is having to care for a continually increasing group of impoverished illegal aliens. Another area is the increasing inefficiency of the whole system. You have to look at all the reasons for the continuous increases in costs. New procedures, hardware, and medicine is only a small part of it. You'll have to document that before I'll believe it. I've already been through this exercise, when I was a medical editor. It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length, is that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards and expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we use it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more; we're under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still more. -- Ed Huntress No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong. That probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least. That sort of thing happens all the time but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred. But I have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff. The prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is no rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room is more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons. You take someone with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people who need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a big time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for. What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for the people who aren't covered by insurance. That and the needless duplication, profit, and administrative waste. The bottom line is that what's happening now can't be sustained. We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up and quality went down. You need alternative forms of medicine. Hawke ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Health Care
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:17:05 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote: snip There is no rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room is more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons. snip ------- This is "Robin Hood" universal health care, where those with money pay for not only their own health care, but also the care for several others, either in full or partially. The Four Seasons is not under governmental mandate to put up for the night anyone that shows up and needs a room, regardless of their ability to pay. The Four Seasons may offer some discounts from their "list prices," but not for large fractions of their guests. Note that in many cases the person who pays the full skippie, is helping out the needy corporations who have managed to foist off their retiree health coverage onto the taxpayers through medicare, and medicare is not making full actual cost reimbursement. Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end? Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625). |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:03:19 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote: snip Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. snip ------- It's far more likely they were both involved in the heist and they are trying to "rat out" each other as part of a plea deal. Off with both their heads and let god sort'em out. Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end? Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625). |
Health Care
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "strabo" wrote in message ... snip As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up and quality went down. According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on this page: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317 You need alternative forms of medicine. I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch doctor. d8-) -- Ed Huntress HMO's were a big cause. People went to the doctor for more stuff. Kid has a cold, go to the hospital. etc. Plus the rest of the world pretty much rips off our medical research and gets the use without paying for the research. Plus go to the emergency room and they run a large battery of tests just so they can defend themselves in malpractice suits. Plus the paperwork required by insurance and government regulations adds a huge burden. |
Health Care
"CalifBill" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "strabo" wrote in message ... snip As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up and quality went down. According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on this page: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317 You need alternative forms of medicine. I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch doctor. d8-) -- Ed Huntress HMO's were a big cause. People went to the doctor for more stuff. Kid has a cold, go to the hospital. etc. Plus the rest of the world pretty much rips off our medical research and gets the use without paying for the research. Plus go to the emergency room and they run a large battery of tests just so they can defend themselves in malpractice suits. Plus the paperwork required by insurance and government regulations adds a huge burden. Yeah, but the trick is to put numbers on those pieces and to see which one(s) really matter. It's a little like earmarks in the federal budget: they get us ****ed off, and they encourage some bad behavior on the part of Congress. But in terms of relative costs, they're a drop in the bucket: earmarks amount to 6% of total discretionary spending, or less than 1/4 of the INTEREST, alone, on the national debt. So it's hard to keep these things in perspective. Health care is a lot harder to pick apart than some other spending, but the ones that are the really big items surprise most people. I'll leave aside for the moment what those items are. It would be like giving away the end to a movie. g -- Ed Huntress |
Health Care
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... snip? Ed said It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length, is that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards and expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we use it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more; we're under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still more. -- Ed Huntress No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong. That probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least. Yup. We have it, so we use it. That sort of thing happens all the time but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred. That's what it costs. It's the amortization cost. The operating cost is trivial. But I have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff. The prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is no rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room is more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons. Yet, many hospitals are going broke. Which suggests that it's time to look at their financials and to see what's actually going on. Speculation will get you nowhere, except into a blind alley of delusion. You take someone with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people who need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a big time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for. What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for the people who aren't covered by insurance. That's a big chunk, but not the biggest chunk. That and the needless duplication, profit, and administrative waste. Speculation on your part. Do you have the data? The bottom line is that what's happening now can't be sustained. True. We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Hawke |
Health Care
"Hawke" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... snip? Ed said It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length, is that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards and expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we use it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more; we're under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still more. -- Ed Huntress No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong. That probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least. Yup. We have it, so we use it. That sort of thing happens all the time but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred. That's what it costs. It's the amortization cost. The operating cost is trivial. But I have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff. The prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is no rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room is more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons. Yet, many hospitals are going broke. Which suggests that it's time to look at their financials and to see what's actually going on. Speculation will get you nowhere, except into a blind alley of delusion. You take someone with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people who need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a big time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for. What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for the people who aren't covered by insurance. That's a big chunk, but not the biggest chunk. That and the needless duplication, profit, and administrative waste. Speculation on your part. Do you have the data? The bottom line is that what's happening now can't be sustained. True. We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Hawke As for assuring that everyone has health care, I agree, a single-payer system is the only way. But don't count on it reducing costs. For that, we need to make some hard decisions and set new priorities for health care in general. The problem is immensely complex, and it would only be misleading to try to discuss it here. I've spent tens of hours with people at work on this subject, people who are bona fide experts with decades of experience, and I have some opinions on it as a result of those discussions. But it's not for here. -- Ed Huntress |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did
the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote:
Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. "Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich |
I'm voting republican because...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:43:40 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote: Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. And gridlocked by Republicans. It's idiotic to blame one party while ignoring the actions of the other. -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote: Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. Liar |
I'm voting republican because...
On Sep 22, 5:16*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:43:40 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote: Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. And gridlocked by Republicans. * Impossible. It's idiotic to blame one party while ignoring the actions of the other. -- Regards, Curly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--- * * * * * The Bush Doctrine: *Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--- .................................................. .............. * * * * Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access * * * * * * * * * athttp://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Health Care
Ed Huntress wrote:
"strabo" wrote in message ... snip As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up and quality went down. According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on this page: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317 'Private' insurance IS government sponsored and regulated. Government intervention was brought about by insurance and financial corporations seeking monopoly control of the industry. Insurance is not a proper venue of government regulation. Medical insurance is a primary influence on costs. If such controls were eliminated medical costs would fall by at least 50%. Medicare and medicaid are government insurance. You need alternative forms of medicine. I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch doctor. d8-) Before this is over there will be individuals in every neighborhood 'practicing' medicine sans license. -- Ed Huntress ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Health Care
"strabo" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "strabo" wrote in message ... snip As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up and quality went down. According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on this page: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317 'Private' insurance IS government sponsored and regulated. Government intervention was brought about by insurance and financial corporations seeking monopoly control of the industry. Oh, jesus. OK, strabo. I knew you'd find a way to have it both ways. But...but...tell us how they benefit from higher prices for health care. If they had a monopoly, they'd want higher prices to their customers or lower costs for themselves. Right? Insurance is not a proper venue of government regulation. Medical insurance is a primary influence on costs. If such controls were eliminated medical costs would fall by at least 50%. You're full of crap. You are totally, irrevocably, full of crap. Let's see your evidence. Medicare and medicaid are government insurance. Duh.... You need alternative forms of medicine. I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch doctor. d8-) Before this is over there will be individuals in every neighborhood 'practicing' medicine sans license. Before *what* is over? Are you talking about the End Times, or what? -- Ed Huntress |
Health Care
Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... snipped We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Keep it simple. Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920 with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the information needed to understand why costs are up. If you reply I expect to see the money differences. If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest house costing $150,000 would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be be customer safety, technology and regulations. Hawke ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Health Care
Ed Huntress wrote:
"strabo" wrote in message Insurance is not a proper venue of government regulation. Medical insurance is a primary influence on costs. If such controls were eliminated medical costs would fall by at least 50%. You're full of crap. You are totally, irrevocably, full of crap. Let's see your evidence. Isn't it obvious? With no contrants on their business, medical insurance companies could just refuse to pay any claim that was too expensive. -- Ray Fischer |
Health Care
"strabo" wrote in message ... Hawke wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... snipped We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Keep it simple. Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920 with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the information needed to understand why costs are up. my god, a flash of rationality in a pan of libertarian gunpowder... If you reply I expect to see the money differences. If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest house costing $150,000 would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be be customer safety, technology and regulations. Yup. But, far from being "excuses," most of them would be...improved safety, better technology, and tighter regulations. You can take the reactionary path, and drag medicine back into the stone age. Of course, you'd lose a number of people here (including me g) who would be already dead if you did so. Or you can recognize the difference between the building trade and the medical industry, particularly the part about the latter's role in saving and extending lives, and, even more important, vastly reducing human morbidity. In other words, making lives that formerly were miserable, constrained, and filled with pain into something resembling normal happiness, health, and productivity. It isn't a choice for which you'd get many takers, but it would be a lot cheaper. So, tell us, what kind of a future do you see for health care? Will you tolerate more cripples and shut-ins for the sake of saving some money? If not, then how much are you willing to pay? -- Ed Huntress |
Health Care
On Sep 22, 9:00*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"strabo" wrote in message ... Hawke wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message .. . snipped We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy.. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Keep it simple. Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920 with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the information needed to understand why costs are up. my god, a flash of rationality in a pan of libertarian gunpowder... If you reply I expect to see the money differences. If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest house costing $150,000 *would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be be customer safety, technology and regulations. Yup. But, far from being "excuses," most of them would be...improved safety, better technology, and tighter regulations. You can take the reactionary path, and drag medicine back into the stone age. Of course, you'd lose a number of people here (including me g) who would be already dead if you did so. Or you can recognize the difference between the building trade and the medical industry, particularly the part about the latter's role in saving and extending lives, and, even more important, vastly reducing human morbidity. In other words, making lives that formerly were miserable, constrained, and filled with pain into something resembling normal happiness, health, and productivity. It isn't a choice for which you'd get many takers, but it would be a lot cheaper. So, tell us, what kind of a future do you see for health care? Will you tolerate more cripples and shut-ins for the sake of saving some money? If not, then how much are you willing to pay? -- Ed Huntress Did you walk to school or carry your lunch? |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote: Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. No it isn't liar. Why do you lie so much? -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com |
Health Care
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "strabo" wrote in message Insurance is not a proper venue of government regulation. Medical insurance is a primary influence on costs. If such controls were eliminated medical costs would fall by at least 50%. You're full of crap. You are totally, irrevocably, full of crap. Let's see your evidence. Isn't it obvious? With no contrants on their business, medical insurance companies could just refuse to pay any claim that was too expensive. Well, you do have a point there. That's the idea around which they're dancing already, where they can. -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com