f



What will universal healthcare be like? Just look at the VA #2

With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that the
topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much ado is
made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health insurance,
which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans that do seem
insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely includes many young
and healthy individuals with low risk of serious illness who don�t believe
that health insurance would be cost-effective. But that wouldn�t make a
good talking point. 

If one wants to know how a national health care system would operate, one
needs to merely look at the systems our government has in place. The most
prominent form of socialized medicine in our country is the Department of
Veterans Affairs. With 235,000 employees and a budget of more than $60
billion, the VA is the federal government�s second largest department,
second only to the Department of Defense. It�s purpose it to provide
benefits, disability payments, and health care to military members once
they�ve left the service. The medical care provided at VA facilities is
generally considered to be top notch. That is, if you can even get to see
a doctor at all. 

For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically see a
doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy that
doctor�s office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other socialized
health system for that matter. Private insurance yields considerable
flexibility and a range of choices. If health care is handed to the state,
you do it the state�s way on the state�s terms and that�s it. If its
one-size-fits-all plan doesn�t suit you, that�s too bad. 

The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
that it is run by the government) is the notion that the laws of supply
and demand can be ignored. Proponents of socialized medicine knowingly or
unknowingly want to create a system of unlimited health care for all
Americans. Unfortunately, unlimited health care incurs unlimited costs.
Since a system that incurs unlimited costs is obviously impossible to
operate, rationing of supply is inevitable. Now we have scenarios in which
priorities are assigned, and people who have brain tumors that will kill
them in a year won�t be treated until the people with brain tumors that
will kill them in eleven months are cured. 

We can see evidence of this today in the Veterans Affairs health care
system. Patients sometimes have to wait months just to see a physician for
a non life-threatening condition. A backlog exists of 400,000 applications
and appeals for benefits, most of which are for veterans of previous wars.
This problem isn�t limited to the VA. In Canada, wait times to get into
hospitals can span weeks or months, including for simple procedures
(Compared with the US where wait times are generally dependent on
fulfilling medical requirements�such as no eating for a day or two). The
average wait time for treatment after seeing a general practitioner is a
little over 17 weeks. 

Inevitably, you will have people who simply support socialized medicine in
general, despite all its failing. They assert that everyone has a right to
cheap or free health care no matter how crappy it is. The problem is that
health care is not a right in the traditional sense of what a right is.
True rights relate to the individual, such as free speech or freedom of
religion. To exercise these rights, one does not have to coerce someone
else to do something against his or her will. With a socialized medical
system, one must coerce complete strangers into funding your actions. You
are forcing others to be your slave. 

Nationalizing health care, especially in the United States, would be a
disaster. The US government has shown an extraordinary propensity for
screwing up pretty much ANYTHING it gets involved in. Imagine yourself
dealing with the type of people at the IRS or DMV the next time you need
stitches. 

http://fraudwasteabuse.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/what-will-universal-healthcare-be-like/
0
deuteros (568)
3/5/2007 2:40:21 AM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

417 Replies
394 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 13

Deuteros wrote:

 > With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that
 > the topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much
 > ado is made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health
 > insurance, which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans
 > that do seem insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely
 > includes many  young and healthy individuals with low risk of serious
 > illness who don�t believe that health insurance would be
 > cost-effective. But that wouldn�t make a good talking point.

Likely?  Most of the uninsured are working class poor.  And the 40 
million uninsured doesn't take account of the millions of Americans who 
are under-insured.


> For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically see a
> doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy that
> doctor�s office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other socialized
> health system for that matter. 

I'm in British Columbia, Canada and have never waited more than an hour 
to see a general practitioner and I think I had to wait 10 days to see a 
specialist once for a consult for a condition that wasn't urgent or 
emergent.  My wife was in need of urgent care once and the specialist 
made room in his schedule to see her immediately.  You see, wait lists 
aren't managed by government officials.  They're managed by medical 
doctors.  If you need care in Canada, and it's important, you get it as 
quickly or nearly as quickly as one would in the USA.   In fact, 
Canada's health care system does better in many areas -- better survival 
rates for many types of childhood cancer, and kidney conditions, to name 
two.  Now, mind you, Canada's system isn't by definition "socialized", 
but is in fact a form of "social insurance".

Private insurance yields considerable
> flexibility and a range of choices. If health care is handed to the state,
> you do it the state�s way on the state�s terms and that�s it. If its
> one-size-fits-all plan doesn�t suit you, that�s too bad. 

Most of us simply want to get better without suffering and/or losing our 
life's savings.


> The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
> that it is run by the government) is the notion that the laws of supply
> and demand can be ignored. Proponents of socialized medicine knowingly or
> unknowingly want to create a system of unlimited health care for all
> Americans. Unfortunately, unlimited health care incurs unlimited costs.
> Since a system that incurs unlimited costs is obviously impossible to
> operate, rationing of supply is inevitable. Now we have scenarios in which
> priorities are assigned, and people who have brain tumors that will kill
> them in a year won�t be treated until the people with brain tumors that
> will kill them in eleven months are cured. 

What in fact does away with "supply and demand" is that "consumers" in 
the medical setting do not have full information and are often not 
rational.  For markets to function, i.e., for supply and demand to 
exist, these assumptions MUST be met.  When they're not things fail 
miserably.  Then there are the problems of uncertainty, externalities, 
and information asymmetry.   The health care sector is fraught by these 
problems leading to market failure and requiring government 
intervention.  Of course, the average citizen understands these issue 
about as well as they understand LVT.  Some are so ideologically blinded 
they think free market principles can apply where the characteristics of 
particular markets such as the health care sector makes it impossible.

A question: If private insurance is so efficient why do they depend on 
the US government to insure the elderly and the poor?  Nice subsidy to 
the private insurers, isn't it?  So much for efficiency gains due to 
competition, LOL!


> We can see evidence of this today in the Veterans Affairs health care
> system. Patients sometimes have to wait months just to see a physician for
> a non life-threatening condition. A backlog exists of 400,000 applications
> and appeals for benefits, most of which are for veterans of previous wars.
> This problem isn�t limited to the VA. In Canada, wait times to get into
> hospitals can span weeks or months, including for simple procedures
> (Compared with the US where wait times are generally dependent on
> fulfilling medical requirements�such as no eating for a day or two). The
> average wait time for treatment after seeing a general practitioner is a
> little over 17 weeks. 

Is that 17 week waits for life-threatening conditions or for non 
life-threatening conditions?  Are the hospital stays the author mentions 
even necessary?  Don't answer, I know: those 17 week waits for treatment 
are for elective surgery.  What's your wait in the United States if you 
don't have insurance?

> 
> Inevitably, you will have people who simply support socialized medicine in
> general, despite all its failing. They assert that everyone has a right to
> cheap or free health care no matter how crappy it is. The problem is that
> health care is not a right in the traditional sense of what a right is.
> True rights relate to the individual, such as free speech or freedom of
> religion. To exercise these rights, one does not have to coerce someone
> else to do something against his or her will. With a socialized medical
> system, one must coerce complete strangers into funding your actions. You
> are forcing others to be your slave. 

It's not socialized medicine.  It is social insurance.  �Socialism� is 
where the means of production are owned by the state.  Government-run 
health insurance is not �socialism,�and only an idiot and an ignoramus 
would call it that. Rather, government-run health insurance is a form
of �social insurance,� that can be coupled with privately owned 
for-profit or not-for-profit health care delivery systems.

*SOCIAL INSURANCE*.  BIG difference.  You know social insurance: things 
like bank deposit insurance, corporate limited liability, chapter 11 
protection? This in addition to landowner privilege (Federal flood 
insurance anyone? -- another form of "socialism" the wealthy love).  The 
"socialism" the wealthy love.  But God forbid similar asset protection 
is extended to the poor and their assets through health insurance.


> Nationalizing health care, especially in the United States, would be a
> disaster. 

It would be a disaster?  It wasn't a disaster when Canada did it 35 
years ago.  Observe how Canada's health population statistics have 
improved compared to the United States since 1971.  Observe bankruptcies 
due to medical expenses in Canada and the USA since 1971.  Observe the 
portion of GDP spent on health care in the USA (15%) and Canada (10%) 
since 1971, then compare the population health statistics again. 
Observe that any Canadian can quit their job and find another or start a 
business and not worry about insurance for themselves or families or 
their employees.  That's liberty, my friend.   And boy, that would be a 
real disaster for the United States, LOL.  The USA is the only developed 
nation in the world not offering it's citizens universal health 
coverage.  But it's the rest of the world that is out of step, not the 
U.S.A.

 > The US government has shown an extraordinary propensity for
 > screwing up pretty much ANYTHING it gets involved in. Imagine yourself
 > dealing with the type of people at the IRS or DMV the next time you
 > need stitches.


How many times have private insurers screwed things up?  In any case, 
most thoughtful proponents of health care reform in the USA has the US 
Government playing the role as bill payer (single payer) not running the 
hospitals and providing care, which would be left to doctors and nurses. 
  But of course the author doesn't mention this because it isn't 
consistent with his fear-mongering disinformation campaign.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/5/2007 4:51:05 AM
Michael Scheltgen <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in
news:esg7jm$ndh$1@webmail.usask.ca: 

> Deuteros wrote:
> 
> > With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that
> > the topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much
> > ado is made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health
> > insurance, which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans
> > that do seem insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely
> > includes many  young and healthy individuals with low risk of
> > serious illness who don�t believe that health insurance would be
> > cost-effective. But that wouldn�t make a good talking point.
> 
> Likely?  Most of the uninsured are working class poor.  And the 40 
> million uninsured doesn't take account of the millions of Americans
> who are under-insured.
> 
> 
>> For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically
>> see a doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy
>> that doctor�s office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other
>> socialized health system for that matter. 
> 
> I'm in British Columbia, Canada and have never waited more than an
> hour to see a general practitioner and I think I had to wait 10 days
> to see a specialist once for a consult for a condition that wasn't
> urgent or emergent.  My wife was in need of urgent care once and the
> specialist made room in his schedule to see her immediately.  You see,
> wait lists aren't managed by government officials.  They're managed by
> medical doctors.  If you need care in Canada, and it's important, you
> get it as quickly or nearly as quickly as one would in the USA.   In
> fact, Canada's health care system does better in many areas -- better
> survival rates for many types of childhood cancer, and kidney
> conditions, to name two.  Now, mind you, Canada's system isn't by
> definition "socialized", but is in fact a form of "social insurance".
> 
> Private insurance yields considerable
>> flexibility and a range of choices. If health care is handed to the
>> state, you do it the state�s way on the state�s terms and that�s it.
>> If its one-size-fits-all plan doesn�t suit you, that�s too bad. 
> 
> Most of us simply want to get better without suffering and/or losing
> our life's savings.
> 
> 
>> The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the
>> fact that it is run by the government) is the notion that the laws of
>> supply and demand can be ignored. Proponents of socialized medicine
>> knowingly or unknowingly want to create a system of unlimited health
>> care for all Americans. Unfortunately, unlimited health care incurs
>> unlimited costs. Since a system that incurs unlimited costs is
>> obviously impossible to operate, rationing of supply is inevitable.
>> Now we have scenarios in which priorities are assigned, and people
>> who have brain tumors that will kill them in a year won�t be treated
>> until the people with brain tumors that will kill them in eleven
>> months are cured. 
> 
> What in fact does away with "supply and demand" is that "consumers" in
> the medical setting do not have full information and are often not 
> rational.  For markets to function, i.e., for supply and demand to 
> exist, these assumptions MUST be met.  When they're not things fail 
> miserably.  Then there are the problems of uncertainty, externalities,
> and information asymmetry.   The health care sector is fraught by
> these problems leading to market failure and requiring government 
> intervention.  Of course, the average citizen understands these issue 
> about as well as they understand LVT.  Some are so ideologically
> blinded they think free market principles can apply where the
> characteristics of particular markets such as the health care sector
> makes it impossible. 
> 
> A question: If private insurance is so efficient why do they depend on
> the US government to insure the elderly and the poor?  Nice subsidy to
> the private insurers, isn't it?  So much for efficiency gains due to 
> competition, LOL!
> 
> 
>> We can see evidence of this today in the Veterans Affairs health care
>> system. Patients sometimes have to wait months just to see a
>> physician for a non life-threatening condition. A backlog exists of
>> 400,000 applications and appeals for benefits, most of which are for
>> veterans of previous wars. This problem isn�t limited to the VA. In
>> Canada, wait times to get into hospitals can span weeks or months,
>> including for simple procedures (Compared with the US where wait
>> times are generally dependent on fulfilling medical requirements�such
>> as no eating for a day or two). The average wait time for treatment
>> after seeing a general practitioner is a little over 17 weeks. 
> 
> Is that 17 week waits for life-threatening conditions or for non 
> life-threatening conditions?  Are the hospital stays the author
> mentions even necessary?  Don't answer, I know: those 17 week waits
> for treatment are for elective surgery.  What's your wait in the
> United States if you don't have insurance?
> 
>> 
>> Inevitably, you will have people who simply support socialized
>> medicine in general, despite all its failing. They assert that
>> everyone has a right to cheap or free health care no matter how
>> crappy it is. The problem is that health care is not a right in the
>> traditional sense of what a right is. True rights relate to the
>> individual, such as free speech or freedom of religion. To exercise
>> these rights, one does not have to coerce someone else to do
>> something against his or her will. With a socialized medical system,
>> one must coerce complete strangers into funding your actions. You 
>> are forcing others to be your slave. 
> 
> It's not socialized medicine.  It is social insurance.  �Socialism� is
> where the means of production are owned by the state.  Government-run 
> health insurance is not �socialism,�and only an idiot and an ignoramus
> would call it that. Rather, government-run health insurance is a form
> of �social insurance,� that can be coupled with privately owned 
> for-profit or not-for-profit health care delivery systems.
> 
> *SOCIAL INSURANCE*.  BIG difference.  You know social insurance:
> things like bank deposit insurance, corporate limited liability,
> chapter 11 protection? This in addition to landowner privilege
> (Federal flood insurance anyone? -- another form of "socialism" the
> wealthy love).  The "socialism" the wealthy love.  But God forbid
> similar asset protection is extended to the poor and their assets
> through health insurance. 
> 
> 
>> Nationalizing health care, especially in the United States, would be
>> a disaster. 
> 
> It would be a disaster?  It wasn't a disaster when Canada did it 35 
> years ago.  Observe how Canada's health population statistics have 
> improved compared to the United States since 1971.  Observe
> bankruptcies due to medical expenses in Canada and the USA since 1971.
>  Observe the portion of GDP spent on health care in the USA (15%) and
> Canada (10%) since 1971, then compare the population health statistics
> again. Observe that any Canadian can quit their job and find another
> or start a business and not worry about insurance for themselves or
> families or their employees.  That's liberty, my friend.   And boy,
> that would be a real disaster for the United States, LOL.  The USA is
> the only developed nation in the world not offering it's citizens
> universal health coverage.  But it's the rest of the world that is out
> of step, not the U.S.A.
> 
> > The US government has shown an extraordinary propensity for
> > screwing up pretty much ANYTHING it gets involved in. Imagine
> > yourself dealing with the type of people at the IRS or DMV the next
> > time you need stitches.
> 
> 
> How many times have private insurers screwed things up?  In any case, 
> most thoughtful proponents of health care reform in the USA has the US
> Government playing the role as bill payer (single payer) not running
> the hospitals and providing care, which would be left to doctors and
> nurses. 
>   But of course the author doesn't mention this because it isn't 
> consistent with his fear-mongering disinformation campaign.
> 

Make it unlawful for a doctor or hospital to receive payment from anyone 
but the patient.

-- 
Saint S�im� mac Liam 
Carriagemaker to the  court of Queen Maeve 
Prophet of The Great Tagger 
Canonized December '99 

0
gwyddon (2)
3/5/2007 4:59:49 AM
Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact

Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
longer than Americans.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/5/2007 5:28:46 AM
Deuteros wrote:

> 
> 
> If one wants to know how a national health care system would operate, one
> needs to merely look at the systems our government has in place. The most
> prominent form of socialized medicine in our country is the Department of
> Veterans Affairs. With 235,000 employees and a budget of more than $60
> billion, the VA is the federal government�s second largest department,
> second only to the Department of Defense. It�s purpose it to provide
> benefits, disability payments, and health care to military members once
> they�ve left the service. The medical care provided at VA facilities is
> generally considered to be top notch. That is, if you can even get to see
> a doctor at all.

Personally, I have exemplary medical care at my VA hospital. I don't go 
in if I have a cold, but the two times I had bona fide emergencies, they 
took care of me very well.

0
3/5/2007 7:45:26 AM
pijoe wrote:

> 
> 
> Personally, I have exemplary medical care at my VA hospital. I don't go 
> in if I have a cold, but the two times I had bona fide emergencies, they 
> took care of me very well.

Fortunate for you. If you were wounded in Iraq you would be getting a 
lot less, if the experience of Walter Reed Hospital is any guide. Walter 
Reed medical care is an example of government provided, government run 
medical "service".

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 10:57:26 AM
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:552bcnF23cvpdU3@mid.individual.net: 

> pijoe wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Personally, I have exemplary medical care at my VA hospital. I don't
>> go in if I have a cold, but the two times I had bona fide
>> emergencies, they took care of me very well.
> 
> Fortunate for you. If you were wounded in Iraq you would be getting a 
> lot less, if the experience of Walter Reed Hospital is any guide.
> Walter Reed medical care is an example of government provided,
> government run medical "service".
> 
> Bob Kolker
> 
>> 

Walter Reed is an Army hospital and not part of the VA system.

-- 
Saint S�im� mac Liam 
Carriagemaker to the  court of Queen Maeve 
Prophet of The Great Tagger 
Canonized December '99 

0
gwyddon (2)
3/5/2007 11:09:02 AM
S�im� mac Liam wrote:
>>
> 
> Walter Reed is an Army hospital and not part of the VA system.

It is government run. Now imagine ALL hospitals becoming like Walter 
Reed. That is what government run medical "service" will produce. A 
government run medical service is a goverment sized HMO. Is that what 
you want?

Whatever the government touches turns to shit.

For a rule good example of this read -Slide Rule- by Neville Schute 
Norway (he is the Neville Schute of "On the Beach"). Back in the 1930's 
the British government arranged to have large airships constructed. One 
construction would be done by a private firm (which became Vickers) and 
the other would be government run and managed. The private airship flew 
safely from England to Canada and back. The Government airship crashed 
and was destroyed on its maiden flight. And it was no accident. The 
Government airship was designed by a Government committee, not by 
competent engineers.

Here is a riddle for for you: What is a camel? Answer: A horse designed 
by a Government bureau.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 12:47:22 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:552hqtF2283oeU1@mid.individual.net...
> Whatever the government touches turns to shit.

Iraq: case in point.

-- 
C The Shocker
The Rebirth of Slick. Back by popular demand.
RSPW and RSFC's most dangerous poster. 


0
chrispdx (8)
3/5/2007 2:18:34 PM
C The Shocker wrote:

> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
> news:552hqtF2283oeU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>Whatever the government touches turns to shit.
> 
> 
> Iraq: case in point.

Good point. Wrong enemy, wrong war. We should have nuked Iran and North 
Korea without sending a single solidier to occupy ground. Anyone who 
sends a human to do what a machine can do better is criminally negligent.

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 2:28:26 PM
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message 
news:esfvuk$j5$1@news.onet.pl...
> With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that the
> topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much ado is
> made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health insurance,
> which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans that do seem
> insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely includes many young
> and healthy individuals with low risk of serious illness who don't believe
> that health insurance would be cost-effective. But that wouldn't make a
> good talking point.


The reason insurance isn't cost effective for a lot of people is because 
they know that, if they get ill, they can go to a hospital and get treated 
anyway.If neccessary, they can use the bankruptcy laws to avoid having to 
pay.
The bankruptcy system is a form of social insurance. It's like a tax on the 
hospital, the cost of which is passed on either to taxpayers or to anyone 
who pays for their own treatment.(This make insurance more expensive, thus 
encouraging more people to be uninsured.)
In other words, the USA already has a system of socialized medicine - just a 
very inefficient and expensive one.

The only real alternative to socialized medicine or universal insurance is 
to leave people bleeding to death in the streets.
>


0
never.mind (29)
3/5/2007 2:29:34 PM
Andy F. wrote:
> 
> The only real alternative to socialized medicine or universal insurance is 
> to leave people bleeding to death in the streets.

There is a third way: charitable foundations to help the ill and injured 
who don't have enough to pay for their care.

Long before socialism, charity kept the poor alive.

The reason why pinko stinkos hate charity is because the support the 
poor get is voluntary on the part of the givers. They want the have-nots 
to have absolute rights to support. They would much rather use guns, 
jails and laws to extort largess than depend on the good nature of some 
people who have the means to help others who are too poor to help 
themselves. They perfer tyranny to choice.

Good forbid that a poor man should eat a crumb, voluntarily given, from 
the table of a richer man. They want the richer man to -forced- to feed 
the poor.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 2:52:45 PM
This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay crooks
to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak minded
idiots may believe this trash.

Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies that 
as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
expensive. 

Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this number
is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!

The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free market"/"for
proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the 
medical benefits for the society.


Reading list about health care:
========================

http://cthealth.server101.com/Old Universal Health
Care/united_states_spends_most_on_health,_but_france_no__1_in_treatment.htm

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003972.php

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1914155&page=1


But this was quite expected. The corporate thieves which for decades stole
trillions of dollars are quite scared that the sleeping may awake and their
pervert looting party have to come to an end. Even in the last minute, they
push for "proposals" that are intended to screw the sick and elderly for a
quick buck: 

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/2ddd911c02a6a86d

Yet, despite all these evidence and hard facts, you continue to vomit lies
like, the big problems in Canada or elsewhere with the hope that the
readers are idiots enough not to look for the facts for themselves but
believe your lies. 

Sorry dumby bamby fellow (or rather felon). Today people got internet. The
information flow freely and unless you can get your corporate friends to
block any single international website and censor them like China do, you
are not going to stop the truth to come in. 

And the truth is: countries that pays 10% of what we pay score equal or
better results than US in some fields. And countries paying only 40% of
what we pay have medical care way way way better and anything the average
US people are allowed to dream at.


Also, you seems not to say a word about this quite interesting finding:
"""
Bush Administration push for privatization may have helped create Walter
Reed 'disaster'
"""
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_Administration_push_for_privatization_may_0303.html


In the end, nothing new under the sun. The corporate crooks use propaganda
to try to deceive people in order to preserve the status quo. They are
desperate to hide the truth and hope that enough propaganda may foul weak
minded individuals. But hopefully, today we got Internet and the truth is
harder to hide. 

And the truth is: The privatized US system it is a disaster. Universal
health care can provide much better services for a fraction of the money
It is incompatible with the status of a civilized nation to not have
universal healthcare system. I strongly believe that people opposing it are
either criminally interested to make money out of people death, suffering
and pains either they are individuals deceived by the pathetic propaganda
of the first group. PERIOD.



0
nospam191 (234)
3/5/2007 2:55:48 PM
Nospam wrote:
> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay crooks
> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak minded
> idiots may believe this trash.
> 
> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies that 
> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
> expensive. 
> 
> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this number
> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
> 
> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free market"/"for
> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the 
> medical benefits for the society.
> 
> 
> Reading list about health care:
> ========================
> 
> http://cthealth.server101.com/Old Universal Health
> Care/united_states_spends_most_on_health,_but_france_no__1_in_treatment.htm
> 
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003972.php
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1914155&page=1
> 
> 
> But this was quite expected. The corporate thieves which for decades stole
> trillions of dollars are quite scared that the sleeping may awake and their
> pervert looting party have to come to an end. Even in the last minute, they
> push for "proposals" that are intended to screw the sick and elderly for a
> quick buck: 
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/2ddd911c02a6a86d
> 
> Yet, despite all these evidence and hard facts, you continue to vomit lies
> like, the big problems in Canada or elsewhere with the hope that the
> readers are idiots enough not to look for the facts for themselves but
> believe your lies. 
> 
> Sorry dumby bamby fellow (or rather felon). Today people got internet. The
> information flow freely and unless you can get your corporate friends to
> block any single international website and censor them like China do, you
> are not going to stop the truth to come in. 
> 
> And the truth is: countries that pays 10% of what we pay score equal or
> better results than US in some fields. And countries paying only 40% of
> what we pay have medical care way way way better and anything the average
> US people are allowed to dream at.
> 
Good post!

> Likely?  Most of the uninsured are working class poor.  And the 40
> million uninsured doesn't take account of the millions of Americans who
> are under-insured. 
> 
> I'm in British Columbia, Canada and have never waited more than an hour
> to see a general practitioner and I think I had to wait 10 days to see a
> specialist once for a consult for a condition that wasn't urgent or
> emergent.  My wife was in need of urgent care once and the specialist
> made room in his schedule to see her immediately.  You see, wait lists
> aren't managed by government officials.  They're managed by medical
> doctors.  If you need care in Canada, and it's important, you get it as
> quickly or nearly as quickly as one would in the USA.   In fact,
> Canada's health care system does better in many areas -- better survival
> rates for many types of childhood cancer, and kidney conditions, to name
> two.  Now, mind you, Canada's system isn't by definition "socialized",
> but is in fact a form of "social insurance".
> 
> Most of us simply want to get better without suffering and/or losing our
> life's savings
> 
> What in fact does away with "supply and demand" is that "consumers" in
> the medical setting do not have full information and are often not
> rational.  For markets to function, i.e., for supply and demand to
> exist, these assumptions MUST be met.  When they're not things fail
> miserably.  Then there are the problems of uncertainty, externalities,
> and information asymmetry.   The health care sector is fraught by these
> problems leading to market failure and requiring government
> intervention.  Of course, the average citizen understands these issue
> about as well as they understand LVT.  Some are so ideologically blinded
> they think free market principles can apply where the characteristics of
> particular markets such as the health care sector makes it impossible.
> 
> A question: If private insurance is so efficient why do they depend on
> the US government to insure the elderly and the poor?  Nice subsidy to
> the private insurers, isn't it?  So much for efficiency gains due to
> competition, LOL! 
> 
> Is that 17 week waits for life-threatening conditions or for non
> life-threatening conditions?  Are the hospital stays the author mentions
> even necessary?  Don't answer, I know: those 17 week waits for treatment
> are for elective surgery.  What's your wait in the United States if you
> don't have insurance? 
> 
> t's not socialized medicine.  It is social insurance.  �Socialism� is
> where the means of production are owned by the state.  Government-run
> health insurance is not �socialism,�and only an idiot and an ignoramus
> would call it that. Rather, government-run health insurance is a form
> of �social insurance,� that can be coupled with privately owned
> for-profit or not-for-profit health care delivery systems.
> 
> *SOCIAL INSURANCE*.  BIG difference.  You know social insurance: things
> like bank deposit insurance, corporate limited liability, chapter 11
> protection? This in addition to landowner privilege (Federal flood
> insurance anyone? -- another form of "socialism" the wealthy love).  The
> "socialism" the wealthy love.  But God forbid similar asset protection
> is extended to the poor and their assets through health insurance. 
> 
> How many times have private insurers screwed things up?  In any case,
> most thoughtful proponents of health care reform in the USA has the US
> Government playing the role as bill payer (single payer) not running the
> hospitals and providing care, which would be left to doctors and nurses.
>   But of course the author doesn't mention this because it isn't
> consistent with his fear-mongering disinformation campaign. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> Also, you seems not to say a word about this quite interesting finding:
> """
> Bush Administration push for privatization may have helped create Walter
> Reed 'disaster'
> """
> http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_Administration_push_for_privatization_may_0303.html
> 
> 
> In the end, nothing new under the sun. The corporate crooks use propaganda
> to try to deceive people in order to preserve the status quo. They are
> desperate to hide the truth and hope that enough propaganda may foul weak
> minded individuals. But hopefully, today we got Internet and the truth is
> harder to hide. 
> 
> And the truth is: The privatized US system it is a disaster. Universal
> health care can provide much better services for a fraction of the money
> It is incompatible with the status of a civilized nation to not have
> universal healthcare system. I strongly believe that people opposing it are
> either criminally interested to make money out of people death, suffering
> and pains either they are individuals deceived by the pathetic propaganda
> of the first group. PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
0
ken8462 (3)
3/5/2007 3:01:50 PM
Nospam wrote:
> 
> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this number
> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!

With GOVHEALTH we will slip to 70-th in no time flat at it will cost of 
5 times what others are paying. We are 37-th because the governmment 
hobbles medical services without delivering them. Once the government 
gets in the business of delivery we will quickly sink to the bottom of 
the industrialized nation set.

The U.S. government is good at only one thing --- war. And it is not all 
that good either.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 4:45:27 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote
>C The Shocker wrote:
>> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>Whatever the government touches turns to shit.

>> Iraq: case in point.

> Good point. Wrong enemy, wrong war. We should have nuked Iran and North 
> Korea without sending a single solidier to occupy ground.

Keep your day job... you're not qualified to be a general.  Thank Allah.


0
3/5/2007 5:08:17 PM
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Nospam wrote:
>>
>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
>> number
>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>> while
>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>> times as
>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
> 
> With GOVHEALTH we will slip to 70-th in no time flat at it will cost of 
> 5 times what others are paying. We are 37-th because the governmment 
> hobbles medical services without delivering them. Once the government 
> gets in the business of delivery we will quickly sink to the bottom of 
> the industrialized nation set.
> 
> The U.S. government is good at only one thing --- war. And it is not all 
> that good either.
> 
> Bob Kolker

  Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths
  every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in
  spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation
  that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage.
0
ken8462 (3)
3/5/2007 5:10:23 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:552p60F23fjb6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Andy F. wrote:
>>
>> The only real alternative to socialized medicine or universal insurance 
>> is to leave people bleeding to death in the streets.
>
> There is a third way: charitable foundations to help the ill and injured 
> who don't have enough to pay for their care.
>
> Long before socialism, charity kept the poor alive.
>
> The reason why pinko stinkos hate charity is because the support the poor 
> get is voluntary on the part of the givers. They want the have-nots to 
> have absolute rights to support. They would much rather use guns, jails 
> and laws to extort largess than depend on the good nature of some people 
> who have the means to help others who are too poor to help themselves. 
> They perfer tyranny to choice.
>
> Good forbid that a poor man should eat a crumb, voluntarily given, from 
> the table of a richer man. They want the richer man to -forced- to feed 
> the poor.

Sir... sir?  May I have another bowl of gruel? 


0
3/5/2007 5:10:51 PM
"Nospam"  wrote
> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free 
> market"/"for
> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the
> medical benefits for the society.

You're a moron.

> Yet, despite all these evidence and hard facts,

Read:  my opinion...

> Sorry dumby bamby fellow (or rather felon). Today people got internet.

If it's on the internet, it has to be true.

Next time, come better prepared.  You're out of your league on Usenet.


0
3/5/2007 5:14:00 PM
D-Chance. wrote:>
> 
> Keep your day job... you're not qualified to be a general.  Thank Allah.

Nukes ended the war with the Japs.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 5:29:28 PM
Ken wrote:

> 
> 
>  Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths

You mean avoidable deaths. Most of the people who die are Children of a 
Lesser God. Good riddance.


>  every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in
>  spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation
>  that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage.

Then why do so many people want to come here, legally or illegally?

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 5:31:55 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>C The Shocker wrote:
>
>> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>> news:552hqtF2283oeU1@mid.individual.net...
>> 
>>>Whatever the government touches turns to shit.
>> 
>> 
>> Iraq: case in point.
>
>Good point. Wrong enemy, wrong war. We should have nuked Iran and North 
>Korea without sending a single solidier to occupy ground.

Gee, another genocidal lunatic.  What a surprise.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/5/2007 6:08:55 PM
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>  Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths
> 
> You mean avoidable deaths. Most of the people who die are Children of a 
> Lesser God. Good riddance.
> 
> 
>>  every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in
>>  spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation
>>  that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage.
> 
> Then why do so many people want to come here, legally or illegally?
> 
> Bob Kolker
> 


   For years, demographers have asked themselves this question: Why do 
adult Hispanics living in the United States live so long and never seem 
to get sick? Demographers call it the "Hispanic Paradox": Hispanics, who 
tend to be poorer and have fewer advantages than non-Latino whites, 
nonetheless seem to live longer and have healthier lives, on average, 
than their Anglo counterparts.

The disparity in life expectancy is large, report demographers Alberto 
Palloni of the University of Wisconsin and Elizabeth Arias of the 
National Center for Health Statistics. They found the overall adult 
mortality rate was a whopping 30 to 50 percent lower for Hispanics than 
for whites. Those differences "translate into five to eight years of 
additional life expectancy at age 45" for Hispanics living in the United 
States, Arias and Palloni reported in a recent issue of the journal 
Demography.
0
ken8462 (3)
3/5/2007 6:35:31 PM
On Mar 5, 6:55 am, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this number
> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>
> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free market"/"for
> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the
> medical benefits for the society.

the real difference is you're misrepresenting the WHO study- the
ranking isn't a ranking of the quality of healthcare- it's an
assessment that compares health care systems, using 5 indicators, not
just quality of care.  the indicators are:
1- overall level of population health
    - i.e. even if you have the best health care system available, but
your
      population is fat and lazy (um, much like much of the US),
you're going
      to take a ding in the ratings.
2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population
    - a big hit here will knock you down in the ranking even if you
have excellent
      quality of care in general
3-  overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of
patient satisfaction and how well the system acts)
    - patient satisfaction is going to vary widely, based on patient
*expectations*.
      like how kia looks pretty good compared to m-b in customer
satisfaction
      surveys i would think
4-  distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well
people of varying economic status find that they are served by the
health system);
5-  the distribution of the health system's financial burden within
the population (who pays the costs).

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/


in fact, not the actual quality of care at all.  that's the problem w/
many proponents of socialized medicine- they often address *equality*
of care, and *universal* care, but not so much *level* of care for
anyone other than the lowest rung.  what about the large majority of
us who already have good care?  they don't care if we get *worse*
care, as long as others get care as good as we have.

<snip>

0
news74 (3350)
3/5/2007 6:50:15 PM
"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
1173120612.229245.175820@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 3/5/07 11:50 AM:

> On Mar 5, 6:55 am, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this number
>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>> 
>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free market"/"for
>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the
>> medical benefits for the society.
> 
> the real difference is you're misrepresenting the WHO study- the
> ranking isn't a ranking of the quality of healthcare- it's an
> assessment that compares health care systems, using 5 indicators, not
> just quality of care.  the indicators are:
> 1- overall level of population health - i.e. even if you have the best health
> care system available, but your population is fat and lazy (um, much like much
> of the US), you're going to take a ding in the ratings.

In part - and only part - this is based on a health care system that is
based on pushing meds and not on preventative care, education, etc.
>       
> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a big hit
> here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent quality of
> care in general

If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down trodden,
can you really say you have excellent quality in general?

> 3-  overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient
> satisfaction and how well the system acts) - patient satisfaction is going to
> vary widely, based on patient *expectations*. like how kia looks pretty good
> compared to m-b in customer satisfaction surveys i would think

Are you prepping reasons why people would be dissatisfied with the
"excellent" care generally seen in the US?

> 4-  distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of
> varying economic status find that they are served by the health system);

I would say to be successful it should be fairly equitable.

> 5-  the distribution of the health system's financial burden within
> the population (who pays the costs).
> 
> http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
> 
> 
> in fact, not the actual quality of care at all.  that's the problem w/
> many proponents of socialized medicine- they often address *equality*
> of care, and *universal* care, but not so much *level* of care for
> anyone other than the lowest rung.  what about the large majority of
> us who already have good care?  they don't care if we get *worse*
> care, as long as others get care as good as we have.

Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
today.  

-- 
� If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
��Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
� One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted




0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/5/2007 7:10:32 PM
"S�im� mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns98E9D597F4C7ASim@216.196.97.136...
> Michael Scheltgen <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in
> news:esg7jm$ndh$1@webmail.usask.ca:
>
>> Deuteros wrote:
>>
>> > With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that
>> > the topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much
>> > ado is made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health
>> > insurance, which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans
>> > that do seem insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely
>> > includes many  young and healthy individuals with low risk of
>> > serious illness who don't believe that health insurance would be
>> > cost-effective. But that wouldn't make a good talking point.
>>
>> Likely?  Most of the uninsured are working class poor.  And the 40
>> million uninsured doesn't take account of the millions of Americans
>> who are under-insured.
>>
>>
>>> For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically
>>> see a doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy
>>> that doctor's office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other
>>> socialized health system for that matter.
>>
>> I'm in British Columbia, Canada and have never waited more than an
>> hour to see a general practitioner and I think I had to wait 10 days
>> to see a specialist once for a consult for a condition that wasn't
>> urgent or emergent.  My wife was in need of urgent care once and the
>> specialist made room in his schedule to see her immediately.  You see,
>> wait lists aren't managed by government officials.  They're managed by
>> medical doctors.  If you need care in Canada, and it's important, you
>> get it as quickly or nearly as quickly as one would in the USA.   In
>> fact, Canada's health care system does better in many areas -- better
>> survival rates for many types of childhood cancer, and kidney
>> conditions, to name two.  Now, mind you, Canada's system isn't by
>> definition "socialized", but is in fact a form of "social insurance".
>>
>> Private insurance yields considerable
>>> flexibility and a range of choices. If health care is handed to the
>>> state, you do it the state's way on the state's terms and that's it.
>>> If its one-size-fits-all plan doesn't suit you, that's too bad.
>>
>> Most of us simply want to get better without suffering and/or losing
>> our life's savings.
>>
>>
>>> The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the
>>> fact that it is run by the government) is the notion that the laws of
>>> supply and demand can be ignored. Proponents of socialized medicine
>>> knowingly or unknowingly want to create a system of unlimited health
>>> care for all Americans. Unfortunately, unlimited health care incurs
>>> unlimited costs. Since a system that incurs unlimited costs is
>>> obviously impossible to operate, rationing of supply is inevitable.
>>> Now we have scenarios in which priorities are assigned, and people
>>> who have brain tumors that will kill them in a year won't be treated
>>> until the people with brain tumors that will kill them in eleven
>>> months are cured.
>>
>> What in fact does away with "supply and demand" is that "consumers" in
>> the medical setting do not have full information and are often not
>> rational.  For markets to function, i.e., for supply and demand to
>> exist, these assumptions MUST be met.  When they're not things fail
>> miserably.  Then there are the problems of uncertainty, externalities,
>> and information asymmetry.   The health care sector is fraught by
>> these problems leading to market failure and requiring government
>> intervention.  Of course, the average citizen understands these issue
>> about as well as they understand LVT.  Some are so ideologically
>> blinded they think free market principles can apply where the
>> characteristics of particular markets such as the health care sector
>> makes it impossible.
>>
>> A question: If private insurance is so efficient why do they depend on
>> the US government to insure the elderly and the poor?  Nice subsidy to
>> the private insurers, isn't it?  So much for efficiency gains due to
>> competition, LOL!
>>
>>
>>> We can see evidence of this today in the Veterans Affairs health care
>>> system. Patients sometimes have to wait months just to see a
>>> physician for a non life-threatening condition. A backlog exists of
>>> 400,000 applications and appeals for benefits, most of which are for
>>> veterans of previous wars. This problem isn't limited to the VA. In
>>> Canada, wait times to get into hospitals can span weeks or months,
>>> including for simple procedures (Compared with the US where wait
>>> times are generally dependent on fulfilling medical requirements-such
>>> as no eating for a day or two). The average wait time for treatment
>>> after seeing a general practitioner is a little over 17 weeks.
>>
>> Is that 17 week waits for life-threatening conditions or for non
>> life-threatening conditions?  Are the hospital stays the author
>> mentions even necessary?  Don't answer, I know: those 17 week waits
>> for treatment are for elective surgery.  What's your wait in the
>> United States if you don't have insurance?
>>
>>>
>>> Inevitably, you will have people who simply support socialized
>>> medicine in general, despite all its failing. They assert that
>>> everyone has a right to cheap or free health care no matter how
>>> crappy it is. The problem is that health care is not a right in the
>>> traditional sense of what a right is. True rights relate to the
>>> individual, such as free speech or freedom of religion. To exercise
>>> these rights, one does not have to coerce someone else to do
>>> something against his or her will. With a socialized medical system,
>>> one must coerce complete strangers into funding your actions. You
>>> are forcing others to be your slave.
>>
>> It's not socialized medicine.  It is social insurance.  "Socialism" is
>> where the means of production are owned by the state.  Government-run
>> health insurance is not "socialism,"and only an idiot and an ignoramus
>> would call it that. Rather, government-run health insurance is a form
>> of "social insurance," that can be coupled with privately owned
>> for-profit or not-for-profit health care delivery systems.
>>
>> *SOCIAL INSURANCE*.  BIG difference.  You know social insurance:
>> things like bank deposit insurance, corporate limited liability,
>> chapter 11 protection? This in addition to landowner privilege
>> (Federal flood insurance anyone? -- another form of "socialism" the
>> wealthy love).  The "socialism" the wealthy love.  But God forbid
>> similar asset protection is extended to the poor and their assets
>> through health insurance.
>>
>>
>>> Nationalizing health care, especially in the United States, would be
>>> a disaster.
>>
>> It would be a disaster?  It wasn't a disaster when Canada did it 35
>> years ago.  Observe how Canada's health population statistics have
>> improved compared to the United States since 1971.  Observe
>> bankruptcies due to medical expenses in Canada and the USA since 1971.
>>  Observe the portion of GDP spent on health care in the USA (15%) and
>> Canada (10%) since 1971, then compare the population health statistics
>> again. Observe that any Canadian can quit their job and find another
>> or start a business and not worry about insurance for themselves or
>> families or their employees.  That's liberty, my friend.   And boy,
>> that would be a real disaster for the United States, LOL.  The USA is
>> the only developed nation in the world not offering it's citizens
>> universal health coverage.  But it's the rest of the world that is out
>> of step, not the U.S.A.
>>
>> > The US government has shown an extraordinary propensity for
>> > screwing up pretty much ANYTHING it gets involved in. Imagine
>> > yourself dealing with the type of people at the IRS or DMV the next
>> > time you need stitches.
>>
>>
>> How many times have private insurers screwed things up?  In any case,
>> most thoughtful proponents of health care reform in the USA has the US
>> Government playing the role as bill payer (single payer) not running
>> the hospitals and providing care, which would be left to doctors and
>> nurses.
>>   But of course the author doesn't mention this because it isn't
>> consistent with his fear-mongering disinformation campaign.
>>
>
> Make it unlawful for a doctor or hospital to receive payment from anyone
> but the patient.
>
Good idea, but it won't happen. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/5/2007 9:17:43 PM
Here is something for you to think about.  Let us say, our government 
decides that no one has to pay for the food they buy, or that they have to 
pay only a fraction of the real cost.  What incentive does the people who 
sell the foods we buy to lower their price?  Why should the sellers charge 
less for hamburger and more more steaks?  "If" someone else is paying for 
your trip to the supermarket, or subsidizing a large percentage of the cost 
of the purchase, would you eat more steaks and less hamburger, regardless of 
the cost?


"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:esg7jm$ndh$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Deuteros wrote:
>
> > With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that
> > the topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much
> > ado is made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health
> > insurance, which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans
> > that do seem insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely
> > includes many  young and healthy individuals with low risk of serious
> > illness who don�t believe that health insurance would be
> > cost-effective. But that wouldn�t make a good talking point.
>
> Likely?  Most of the uninsured are working class poor.  And the 40 million 
> uninsured doesn't take account of the millions of Americans who are 
> under-insured.
>
>
>> For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically see a
>> doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy that
>> doctor�s office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other socialized
>> health system for that matter.
>
> I'm in British Columbia, Canada and have never waited more than an hour to 
> see a general practitioner and I think I had to wait 10 days to see a 
> specialist once for a consult for a condition that wasn't urgent or 
> emergent.  My wife was in need of urgent care once and the specialist made 
> room in his schedule to see her immediately.  You see, wait lists aren't 
> managed by government officials.  They're managed by medical doctors.  If 
> you need care in Canada, and it's important, you get it as quickly or 
> nearly as quickly as one would in the USA.   In fact, Canada's health care 
> system does better in many areas -- better survival rates for many types 
> of childhood cancer, and kidney conditions, to name two.  Now, mind you, 
> Canada's system isn't by definition "socialized", but is in fact a form of 
> "social insurance".
>
> Private insurance yields considerable
>> flexibility and a range of choices. If health care is handed to the 
>> state,
>> you do it the state�s way on the state�s terms and that�s it. If its
>> one-size-fits-all plan doesn�t suit you, that�s too bad.
>
> Most of us simply want to get better without suffering and/or losing our 
> life's savings.
>
>
>> The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>> that it is run by the government) is the notion that the laws of supply
>> and demand can be ignored. Proponents of socialized medicine knowingly or
>> unknowingly want to create a system of unlimited health care for all
>> Americans. Unfortunately, unlimited health care incurs unlimited costs.
>> Since a system that incurs unlimited costs is obviously impossible to
>> operate, rationing of supply is inevitable. Now we have scenarios in 
>> which
>> priorities are assigned, and people who have brain tumors that will kill
>> them in a year won�t be treated until the people with brain tumors that
>> will kill them in eleven months are cured.
>
> What in fact does away with "supply and demand" is that "consumers" in the 
> medical setting do not have full information and are often not rational. 
> For markets to function, i.e., for supply and demand to exist, these 
> assumptions MUST be met.  When they're not things fail miserably.  Then 
> there are the problems of uncertainty, externalities, and information 
> asymmetry.   The health care sector is fraught by these problems leading 
> to market failure and requiring government intervention.  Of course, the 
> average citizen understands these issue about as well as they understand 
> LVT.  Some are so ideologically blinded they think free market principles 
> can apply where the characteristics of particular markets such as the 
> health care sector makes it impossible.
>
> A question: If private insurance is so efficient why do they depend on the 
> US government to insure the elderly and the poor?  Nice subsidy to the 
> private insurers, isn't it?  So much for efficiency gains due to 
> competition, LOL!
>
>
>> We can see evidence of this today in the Veterans Affairs health care
>> system. Patients sometimes have to wait months just to see a physician 
>> for
>> a non life-threatening condition. A backlog exists of 400,000 
>> applications
>> and appeals for benefits, most of which are for veterans of previous 
>> wars.
>> This problem isn�t limited to the VA. In Canada, wait times to get into
>> hospitals can span weeks or months, including for simple procedures
>> (Compared with the US where wait times are generally dependent on
>> fulfilling medical requirements�such as no eating for a day or two). The
>> average wait time for treatment after seeing a general practitioner is a
>> little over 17 weeks.
>
> Is that 17 week waits for life-threatening conditions or for non 
> life-threatening conditions?  Are the hospital stays the author mentions 
> even necessary?  Don't answer, I know: those 17 week waits for treatment 
> are for elective surgery.  What's your wait in the United States if you 
> don't have insurance?
>
>>
>> Inevitably, you will have people who simply support socialized medicine 
>> in
>> general, despite all its failing. They assert that everyone has a right 
>> to
>> cheap or free health care no matter how crappy it is. The problem is that
>> health care is not a right in the traditional sense of what a right is.
>> True rights relate to the individual, such as free speech or freedom of
>> religion. To exercise these rights, one does not have to coerce someone
>> else to do something against his or her will. With a socialized medical
>> system, one must coerce complete strangers into funding your actions. You
>> are forcing others to be your slave.
>
> It's not socialized medicine.  It is social insurance.  �Socialism� is 
> where the means of production are owned by the state.  Government-run 
> health insurance is not �socialism,�and only an idiot and an ignoramus 
> would call it that. Rather, government-run health insurance is a form
> of �social insurance,� that can be coupled with privately owned for-profit 
> or not-for-profit health care delivery systems.
>
> *SOCIAL INSURANCE*.  BIG difference.  You know social insurance: things 
> like bank deposit insurance, corporate limited liability, chapter 11 
> protection? This in addition to landowner privilege (Federal flood 
> insurance anyone? -- another form of "socialism" the wealthy love).  The 
> "socialism" the wealthy love.  But God forbid similar asset protection is 
> extended to the poor and their assets through health insurance.
>
>
>> Nationalizing health care, especially in the United States, would be a
>> disaster.
>
> It would be a disaster?  It wasn't a disaster when Canada did it 35 years 
> ago.  Observe how Canada's health population statistics have improved 
> compared to the United States since 1971.  Observe bankruptcies due to 
> medical expenses in Canada and the USA since 1971.  Observe the portion of 
> GDP spent on health care in the USA (15%) and Canada (10%) since 1971, 
> then compare the population health statistics again. Observe that any 
> Canadian can quit their job and find another or start a business and not 
> worry about insurance for themselves or families or their employees. 
> That's liberty, my friend.   And boy, that would be a real disaster for 
> the United States, LOL.  The USA is the only developed nation in the world 
> not offering it's citizens universal health coverage.  But it's the rest 
> of the world that is out of step, not the U.S.A.
>
> > The US government has shown an extraordinary propensity for
> > screwing up pretty much ANYTHING it gets involved in. Imagine yourself
> > dealing with the type of people at the IRS or DMV the next time you
> > need stitches.
>
>
> How many times have private insurers screwed things up?  In any case, most 
> thoughtful proponents of health care reform in the USA has the US 
> Government playing the role as bill payer (single payer) not running the 
> hospitals and providing care, which would be left to doctors and nurses. 
> But of course the author doesn't mention this because it isn't consistent 
> with his fear-mongering disinformation campaign. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/5/2007 9:22:02 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ebaa8e$0$14056$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>
> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
> longer than Americans.
>
In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in 
the USA. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/5/2007 9:23:32 PM
"Andy F." <never.mind@tesco.net> wrote in message 
news:552nqeF2390g3U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message 
> news:esfvuk$j5$1@news.onet.pl...
>> With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that the
>> topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much ado is
>> made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health insurance,
>> which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans that do seem
>> insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely includes many young
>> and healthy individuals with low risk of serious illness who don't 
>> believe
>> that health insurance would be cost-effective. But that wouldn't make a
>> good talking point.
>
>
> The reason insurance isn't cost effective for a lot of people is because 
> they know that, if they get ill, they can go to a hospital and get treated 
> anyway.If neccessary, they can use the bankruptcy laws to avoid having to 
> pay.
> The bankruptcy system is a form of social insurance. It's like a tax on 
> the hospital, the cost of which is passed on either to taxpayers or to 
> anyone who pays for their own treatment.(This make insurance more 
> expensive, thus encouraging more people to be uninsured.)
> In other words, the USA already has a system of socialized medicine - just 
> a very inefficient and expensive one.
>
> The only real alternative to socialized medicine or universal insurance is 
> to leave people bleeding to death in the streets.
>>
For most of this countries history, there was for all practical purposes, no 
such thing as a third party payment system.  How did the people in this 
country survive, thrive, and build the strongest economy in the world, 
without such a system?  The explosion in third party payment occurred when 
Roosevelt allowed companies to deduct the cost of medical care they gave to 
their employees.  Since that time, well beginning in 1950, medical price 
inflation has consistently outpaced the overall inflation rate.  Before 
1950, medical price inflation was consistently below the overall inflation 
rate.  What do you think caused that sudden change? 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/5/2007 9:29:32 PM
"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay 
> crooks
> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak minded
> idiots may believe this trash.
>
> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies that
> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
> expensive.
>
> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
> number
> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>
> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free 
> market"/"for
> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the
> medical benefits for the society.
>
Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is over 
a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third party 
payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is.  You 
will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of time, 
their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall rate 
of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the case? 
When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the core 
problem is. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/5/2007 9:34:02 PM
The mentally insane idiots pushing for "market solutions" to the health care
crisis, long held dear the concept of high deductible insurance plans, as a
way to cut costs. Well, guess what,  is doing more harm than good:

 """
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Pediatricians in the United States on Monday warned that
new high-deductible health plans risk compromising patient care, especially
among poorer children, with the unintended consequence of increasing
medical costs.
"""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070305/us_nm/pediatricians_healthplans_dc;_ylt=AlVg3ZM_SV4TTQsPu7VQB9zMWM0F

As expected, ALL the "market solutions" are proven to be just scams
specially crafted to harm people while bringing more profits to health
insurance (for profit) corporations.

What all these idiots fail to realize is that the market it is just one
rationing method. But instead of rationing based on a utilitarian or social
goal, the market rationing offer advantage based on the size of the pocket
only.

The market will never ever work to handle the complicated task of health
coverage. Ever. Only an insane delusional still can believe such a trash.


0
nospam191 (234)
3/5/2007 10:06:38 PM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> With GOVHEALTH we will slip to 70-th in no time flat at it will cost of
> 5 times what others are paying. We are 37-th because the governmment
> hobbles medical services without delivering them. Once the government
> gets in the business of delivery we will quickly sink to the bottom of
> the industrialized nation set.
> 
> The U.S. government is good at only one thing --- war. And it is not all
> that good either.

French can do it. Brits can do it. Canadians can do it. Germans can do it.
Swedes can do it... Heck, even Poland and some of other former communist
countries (with GDP/capita 10%..30% of US) can do it.
But you say that US will fail.

It is written in the libertarian party belief book that Americans must have
an IQ smaller than anybody else in the world, or you just make it up in
order to defend interest of looter insurance corporations ?


0
nospam191 (234)
3/5/2007 10:15:04 PM
ed wrote:

>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>> market"/"for proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare
>> decisions while the French system is highly regulated by government and
>> driven to maximize the medical benefits for the society.
> 
> the real difference is you're misrepresenting the WHO study- the
> ranking isn't a ranking of the quality of healthcare- it's an
> assessment that compares health care systems, using 5 indicators, not
> just quality of care.  the indicators are:
> 1- overall level of population health
>     - i.e. even if you have the best health care system available, but
> your
>       population is fat and lazy (um, much like much of the US),
> you're going   to take a ding in the ratings.

The "lazy" americans work on average 1777 hours a year while the Brits 1652,
French 1347 and Swedes 1316.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours

Yeah, it is easy to use bad words for your own people just to justify
corporate looting. Isn't it. Oooo I see, looting it is a right winger moral
value, so it must be defended at any costs.

> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population
>     - a big hit here will knock you down in the ranking even if you
> have excellent quality of care in general

The studies look at the status of the average population. The fact that Bill
Gates actually have better healthcare than any Frenchman, that is quite
possible. But in order to have 10 doctors watching him 24/7 US is paying
with over 47 milion uninsured. 

Every year, over 18000 preventable deaths happen due to lack of affordable
health care in US. 18000 means a September 11 genocide repeating at itself
at every 2 months over and over and over again. Yet, because this genocide
is bringing proffit to the rich corporations, this is a genocide that is
tolerated and you defend it on the usenet. For September 11 (a one time
event in history, killing as much as insurance companies kill in 2 only
months) 2 wars has been started.

So, yes. I don't give a penny for the fact that the US billionaires get the
best care in the world here. When for 47Milions the health care situation
is worst than in Africa.

> in fact, not the actual quality of care at all.  that's the problem w/
> many proponents of socialized medicine- they often address *equality*
> of care, and *universal* care, but not so much *level* of care for
> anyone other than the lowest rung.  what about the large majority of
> us who already have good care?  they don't care if we get *worse*
> care, as long as others get care as good as we have.

From the report comparing Brits and Americans:
"""
The upper crust in both countries was healthier than middle-class and
low-income people in the same country. But richer Americans' health status
resembled the health of the low-income British.

Health experts have known the U.S. population is less healthy than that of
other industrialized nations, according to several important measurements.
U.S. life expectancy, for example, ranks behind that of about two dozen
other countries, according to the World Health Organization.

Some have believed the U.S. has lagged because it has a more ethnically
diverse population than some of the higher-ranking countries, said Suzman,
who heads the National Institute on Aging's Behavioral and Social Research
Program. "Minority health in general is worse than white health," he said.

But the new study showed that when minorities are removed from the equation,
and adjustments are made to control for education and income, white people
in England are still healthier than white people in the United States. 

"As far as I know, this is the first study showing this," said Suzman who
called the results "surprising." But some other experts said the findings
were predictable.

Earlier studies have shown the United States does a poorer job than other
industrialized countries at providing primary medical care to its citizens,
particularly to those with less education and income, said Dr. Barbara
Starfield, a professor of health policy and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins
University.

"Countries oriented toward providing good primary care basically do better
in health," she said. 
"""

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-02-health-survey_x.htm

I hope all the rest of your attempts to spin the truth and deceive the
readers has been dismantled by this link. Read, learn and think. PLEASE !!!

0
nospam191 (234)
3/5/2007 10:38:36 PM
Nospam wrote:

> 
> It is written in the libertarian party belief book that Americans must have
> an IQ smaller than anybody else in the world, or you just make it up in
> order to defend interest of looter insurance corporations ?

I used to work for GOVCO. I knew whereof I speak. The Government is a 
blundering disaster. The main output of the Government are paving stones 
to line the road to Hell.

To see what the fell hand of Government can do, trace the decline and 
fall of NASA.

Or read -Sliderule- by Neville Schute Norway to see what the British 
Government can do.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/5/2007 10:44:39 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is
> over a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third
> party
> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is. 
> You will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of
> time, their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their
> overall rate
> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the
> case? When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the
> core problem is.

The core problem is the fact that access to health care it is incompatible
with business practice. 

You seems to be deluded by the corporate propaganda to believe that the core
problem is that the third party payer increase the costs because the system
does not encourage the "consumers" to restrain themselves in their
"consumption". This missguided idea it is generated especially because you
believe that the health care must be a private for proffit business.  If
this is your believe you are deadly wrong.

The market it is JUST A FORM OF RATIONING. What the market can do by leaving
some people out of care, the government can do with regulations. Let see an
example:

There are 10 people seeking medical attention at one moment in time. 
And there is medical capacity to take care of only 7.

A,B,C being poor people with serious problems, D,E,F are middle class people
with serious problems G,H are middle class people with "vanity medical
issues", I is a rich with serious problems and J is a rich with "vanity
medical issues".

A universal care system will give the green light to be taken care at
emergency of A,B,C,D,E,F and I. Then, G,H and J are told to wait 3 months
or so until there are openings in the system. In 3 months, G,H and J will
get their "vanity issues" taken care of.

A market based system will take care of D,E,F,G,H,I,J and let A,B,C out
FOREVER !!!. The A,B, and C will eventually die in pain. To prove the
quintessence of the "efficiency" of private sector. Yes, private insurance
companies  are very efficient at killing people, indeed.

The problem is NOT the inflation due to lack of "consumer shoping crap".
The problem is that the healthcare system is incompatible with a for proffit
business practice. PERIOD !!!.

0
nospam191 (234)
3/6/2007 12:16:24 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> Nospam wrote:
> 
>> 
>> It is written in the libertarian party belief book that Americans must
>> have an IQ smaller than anybody else in the world, or you just make it up
>> in order to defend interest of looter insurance corporations ?
> 
> I used to work for GOVCO. I knew whereof I speak. The Government is a
> blundering disaster. The main output of the Government are paving stones
> to line the road to Hell.

Why EVERYBODY else in the industrialized world can do it and US not ?

Maybe because US allowed pathetic antigovernment politicians (neocons,
libertarians & so) to get infiltrated into the position of power and IN
PURPOSE, these individuals undermine the system from inside out just to
prove their ideologic belief ?

Then, these individuals must be fired and serious people must be employed.
If one idiot do not believe that a government officer can do the job he
apply for, then why the fuck that idiot apply for that government job ?
Let him go in private industry and employ a serious person instead of the
junkie libertarian. PERIOD !!! 

> To see what the fell hand of Government can do, trace the decline and
> fall of NASA.

What about to trace it rise and the flight to the moon ? Oooo., I see.
NASA has been pushed up by the Democrat administrations and undermined by
rightards. 

Yes, I see a pattern. Right wingers are pure human shit.
Whatever they get the power they try to destroy the nation to prove their
deluded conservative ideology.



0
nospam191 (234)
3/6/2007 12:24:48 AM
In article <45eca8f0$0$17001$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
> > This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay 
> > crooks
> > to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak minded
> > idiots may believe this trash.
> >
> > Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies that
> > as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
> > expensive.
> >
> > Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
> > quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
> > number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
> > medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
> > number
> > is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
> > France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
> > much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
> >
> > The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free 
> > market"/"for
> > proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
> > French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the
> > medical benefits for the society.
> >
> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is over 
> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third party 
> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is.  You 
> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of time, 
> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall rate 
> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the case? 
> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the core 
> problem is. 

Don't keep us in suspense. (Better yet, don't think that we worship you 
for your special knowledge.) Just tell us what that problem is. 

My guess: A complex interaction between two forces: Third party payers 
whose primary purpose is to make profit and medical equipment 
manufacturers, whose primary purpose is to make a profit.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
0
3/6/2007 12:47:11 AM
In article <45eca7e5$0$27112$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> "Andy F." <never.mind@tesco.net> wrote in message 
> news:552nqeF2390g3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > "Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message 
> > news:esfvuk$j5$1@news.onet.pl...
> >> With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that the
> >> topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much ado is
> >> made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health insurance,
> >> which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans that do seem
> >> insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely includes many young
> >> and healthy individuals with low risk of serious illness who don't 
> >> believe
> >> that health insurance would be cost-effective. But that wouldn't make a
> >> good talking point.
> >
> >
> > The reason insurance isn't cost effective for a lot of people is because 
> > they know that, if they get ill, they can go to a hospital and get treated 
> > anyway.If neccessary, they can use the bankruptcy laws to avoid having to 
> > pay.
> > The bankruptcy system is a form of social insurance. It's like a tax on 
> > the hospital, the cost of which is passed on either to taxpayers or to 
> > anyone who pays for their own treatment.(This make insurance more 
> > expensive, thus encouraging more people to be uninsured.)
> > In other words, the USA already has a system of socialized medicine - just 
> > a very inefficient and expensive one.
> >
> > The only real alternative to socialized medicine or universal insurance is 
> > to leave people bleeding to death in the streets.
> >>
> For most of this countries history, there was for all practical purposes, no 
> such thing as a third party payment system.  How did the people in this 
> country survive, thrive, and build the strongest economy in the world, 
> without such a system?  The explosion in third party payment occurred when 
> Roosevelt allowed companies to deduct the cost of medical care they gave to 
> their employees.  Since that time, well beginning in 1950, medical price 
> inflation has consistently outpaced the overall inflation rate.  Before 
> 1950, medical price inflation was consistently below the overall inflation 
> rate.  What do you think caused that sudden change? 

You can't compare the economics of medical care in the late 1900s with 
that in the early 1800s. Why, in the 1800s, they were still working out 
the basics, such as washing your hands *before* surgery. One of the 
earliest cardiologists said, Just pierce the lung. When it deflates, you 
will have easy access to the heart. 

So, in answer to your question, "How did the people in this country 
survive, thrive, and build the strongest economy in the world, without 
such a system?" I'd answer, "They died a lot."

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
0
3/6/2007 12:51:13 AM
In article <45eca67b$0$4916$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
> news:45ebaa8e$0$14056$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
> >>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
> >
> > Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
> > effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
> > flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
> > longer than Americans.
> >
> In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in 
> the USA. 

No, they just ration it differently. In the US, health care is rationed 
according to who can afford to pay. 

Sometime in the 1990s(?), Oregon tried a radical idea. The made a 
database of diseases and injuries. Each one had fields for the number of 
people who were affected annually, the typical cost of treatment, and 
the typical effectiveness of treatment. They sorted the list in order of 
number of people, effectiveness of treatment, and inverse of cost. So 
for instance pneumonia showed up fairly early: relatively lots of people 
get it, it can be treated relatively cheaply, and treatment is very 
effective. At the end of the list were obscure diseases no one's ever 
heard about, that were expensive to treat, and for which treatment 
rarely worked. Then for each disease they calculated the cost to treat 
everyone who got it, and then a running total from the top of the list. 
When that total equaled the state's health-care budget, they stopped and 
said, above this list, we pay for. Below this list, tough. 

Unfortunately, some lady with a cute fourteen-year-old boy with some 
rare, expensive, fatal disease raised a ruckus and the program was 
canceled. The problem with the system was that it was a cold-hearted, 
calculated system for obtaining the greatest good for the greatest 
number. The alternative, a cold-hearted, calculated system for obtaining 
the greatest good for those who could afford it was considered more 
humane. 

Do we want to spend millions and millions of dollars to separate 
conjoined twins, or should we spend that money on pregnancy and 
childbirth education for young mothers?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
0
3/6/2007 12:59:54 AM
In article <5532bpF22uie1U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

> D-Chance. wrote:>
> > 
> > Keep your day job... you're not qualified to be a general.  Thank Allah.
> 
> Nukes ended the war with the Japs.

No, the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
0
3/6/2007 1:02:01 AM
"Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message 
news:C211B938.7A239%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1173120612.229245.175820@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 3/5/07 11:50 AM:
>
>> On Mar 5, 6:55 am, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
>>> number
>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>> while
>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times 
>>> as
>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>
>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free 
>>> market"/"for
>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while 
>>> the
>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize 
>>> the
>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>
>> the real difference is you're misrepresenting the WHO study- the
>> ranking isn't a ranking of the quality of healthcare- it's an
>> assessment that compares health care systems, using 5 indicators, not
>> just quality of care.  the indicators are:
>> 1- overall level of population health - i.e. even if you have the best 
>> health
>> care system available, but your population is fat and lazy (um, much like 
>> much
>> of the US), you're going to take a ding in the ratings.
>
> In part - and only part - this is based on a health care system that is
> based on pushing meds and not on preventative care, education, etc.

yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.

>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a big 
>> hit
>> here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent 
>> quality of
>> care in general
>
> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down trodden,
> can you really say you have excellent quality in general?

depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D

>> 3-  overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of 
>> patient
>> satisfaction and how well the system acts) - patient satisfaction is 
>> going to
>> vary widely, based on patient *expectations*. like how kia looks pretty 
>> good
>> compared to m-b in customer satisfaction surveys i would think
>
> Are you prepping reasons why people would be dissatisfied with the
> "excellent" care generally seen in the US?

nope, it's a general critique of the methods in the 'study'.  to show you 
such, and as an f.y.i., i'll gladly point out that people in the US are more 
satisfied w/ health care in the US than some of the industrialized countries 
ranked ahead of it.  especially striking is italians poor satisfaction w/ 
their health care system, even though they rank very highly in the who 
study.  this is even more true amongst the poor and elderly. 
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/10

>> 4-  distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people 
>> of
>> varying economic status find that they are served by the health system);
>
> I would say to be successful it should be fairly equitable.

if you wish, go right ahead and say it.  ;D

>> 5-  the distribution of the health system's financial burden within
>> the population (who pays the costs).
>>
>> http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
>>
>>
>> in fact, not the actual quality of care at all.  that's the problem w/
>> many proponents of socialized medicine- they often address *equality*
>> of care, and *universal* care, but not so much *level* of care for
>> anyone other than the lowest rung.  what about the large majority of
>> us who already have good care?  they don't care if we get *worse*
>> care, as long as others get care as good as we have.
>
> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
> today.

1- how would one show something like that?
2- i didn't state the majority *would* get worse care - just that proponents 
of socialized care often don't address the *quality*, but the *equality*. 
if people felt they could pay the same as they do now, and get as good or 
better care, very few would have any problem with it.  but the proponents 
rarely address this. 

0
news121 (2473)
3/6/2007 2:03:17 AM
"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
news:1586254.JLpcehbRXS@example.com...
> ed wrote:
>
>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>> market"/"for proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare
>>> decisions while the French system is highly regulated by government and
>>> driven to maximize the medical benefits for the society.
>>
>> the real difference is you're misrepresenting the WHO study- the
>> ranking isn't a ranking of the quality of healthcare- it's an
>> assessment that compares health care systems, using 5 indicators, not
>> just quality of care.  the indicators are:
>> 1- overall level of population health
>>     - i.e. even if you have the best health care system available, but
>> your
>>       population is fat and lazy (um, much like much of the US),
>> you're going   to take a ding in the ratings.
>
> The "lazy" americans work on average 1777 hours a year while the Brits 
> 1652,
> French 1347 and Swedes 1316.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hours
>
> Yeah, it is easy to use bad words for your own people just to justify
> corporate looting. Isn't it. Oooo I see, looting it is a right winger 
> moral
> value, so it must be defended at any costs.

lazy in terms being fat- i.e. lack of physical activity.  we don't walk 
anywhere, we don't exercise.  when we do exercise, we drive to the gym.  we 
circle parking lots for 15 minutes rather than take the spot at the edge of 
the lot.  that kind of lazy, got it?

>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population
>>     - a big hit here will knock you down in the ranking even if you
>> have excellent quality of care in general
>
> The studies look at the status of the average population. The fact that 
> Bill
> Gates actually have better healthcare than any Frenchman, that is quite
> possible. But in order to have 10 doctors watching him 24/7 US is paying
> with over 47 milion uninsured.

you're comparing extremes- what about the great middle mass of folks in the 
US?

<snip>
>> in fact, not the actual quality of care at all.  that's the problem w/
>> many proponents of socialized medicine- they often address *equality*
>> of care, and *universal* care, but not so much *level* of care for
>> anyone other than the lowest rung.  what about the large majority of
>> us who already have good care?  they don't care if we get *worse*
>> care, as long as others get care as good as we have.
>
> From the report comparing Brits and Americans:
> """
> The upper crust in both countries was healthier than middle-class and
> low-income people in the same country. But richer Americans' health status
> resembled the health of the low-income British.

see point one as a potential reason.

<snip>
> I hope all the rest of your attempts to spin the truth and deceive the
> readers has been dismantled by this link. Read, learn and think. PLEASE 
> !!!

spin and deceive?  please. 

0
news121 (2473)
3/6/2007 2:07:33 AM
Nospam wrote:
> 
> You seems to be deluded by the corporate propaganda to believe that the core
> problem is that the third party payer increase the costs because the system
> does not encourage the "consumers" to restrain themselves in their
> "consumption". This missguided idea it is generated especially because you
> believe that the health care must be a private for proffit business.  If
> this is your believe you are deadly wrong.

Food is a private for profit business and it is more essential to life 
than medical service. One might or might not live without medical 
services, but one will certainly die without food. So why do we assume 
food (which is more essential than medicine) is for profit, but medicine 
is not?

If being fed became a government function we should all go a bit hungry 
and when we did eat it would taste awful.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 2:23:40 AM
Nospam wrote:

> 
> 
> Why EVERYBODY else in the industrialized world can do it and US not ?

Because in the U.S. we still retain a decent sense of property, that is 
why. To a great extent we believe people ought to propser according to 
the value they produce, not because they -need- things.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 2:25:13 AM
Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> So, in answer to your question, "How did the people in this country 
> survive, thrive, and build the strongest economy in the world, without 
> such a system?" I'd answer, "They died a lot."

And we still do. So far every one who was ever born as died or will die.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 2:27:21 AM
Timberwoof wrote:>
> No, they just ration it differently. In the US, health care is rationed 
> according to who can afford to pay. 

That is not rationing. That is selling.

Rationing is allocation without regard for having the means of payment. 
Thus is a rationing system, rich and poor get the same allocation (at 
least in theory).  Thus the drooling idiot and the brilliant engineer 
will both get the same allocation of food and clothing in a rationing 
system.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 2:29:01 AM
Timberwoof wrote:>
> 
> No, the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.

The fuck they were. They intended to make the battle for Japan look like 
Okinowa to the tenth power.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 2:29:55 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
JZ3Hh.5604$P47.2652@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 7:03 PM:

> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
> news:C211B938.7A239%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
>> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
>> 1173120612.229245.175820@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 3/5/07 11:50 AM:
>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 6:55 am, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this number
>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>> 
>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>> market"/"for proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare
>>>> decisions while the French system is highly regulated by government and
>>>> driven to maximize the medical benefits for the society.
>>>> 
>>> the real difference is you're misrepresenting the WHO study- the ranking
>>> isn't a ranking of the quality of healthcare- it's an assessment that
>>> compares health care systems, using 5 indicators, not just quality of care.
>>> the indicators are: 1- overall level of population health - i.e. even if you
>>> have the best health care system available, but your population is fat and
>>> lazy (um, much like much of the US), you're going to take a ding in the
>>> ratings.
>>> 
>> In part - and only part - this is based on a health care system that is based
>> on pushing meds and not on preventative care, education, etc.
> 
> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.

How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
countries?

>>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a big hit
>>> here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent quality
>>> of care in general
>>> 
>> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down trodden,
>> can you really say you have excellent quality in general?
>> 
> depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D

Looking at our society, and most, there are for more poor.

>>> 3-  overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient
>>> satisfaction and how well the system acts) - patient satisfaction is going
>>> to vary widely, based on patient *expectations*. like how kia looks pretty
>>> good compared to m-b in customer satisfaction surveys i would think
>>> 
>> Are you prepping reasons why people would be dissatisfied with the
>> "excellent" care generally seen in the US?
>> 
> nope, it's a general critique of the methods in the 'study'.  to show you
> such, and as an f.y.i., i'll gladly point out that people in the US are more
> satisfied w/ health care in the US than some of the industrialized countries
> ranked ahead of it.  especially striking is italians poor satisfaction w/
> their health care system, even though they rank very highly in the who study.
> this is even more true amongst the poor and elderly.
> http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/10

Glad to hear my guess was wrong.  Thanks.

>>> 4-  distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of
>>> varying economic status find that they are served by the health system);
>>> 
>> I would say to be successful it should be fairly equitable.
>> 
> if you wish, go right ahead and say it.  ;D

Hurumph.  :)
> 
>>> 5-  the distribution of the health system's financial burden within
>>> the population (who pays the costs).
>>> 
>>> http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> in fact, not the actual quality of care at all.  that's the problem w/
>>> many proponents of socialized medicine- they often address *equality*
>>> of care, and *universal* care, but not so much *level* of care for
>>> anyone other than the lowest rung.  what about the large majority of
>>> us who already have good care?  they don't care if we get *worse*
>>> care, as long as others get care as good as we have.
>> 
>> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
>> today.
> 
> 1- how would one show something like that?

Find similar systems and compare care ... though you cannot just plop and
drop another system into the US society and expect it work the exact same
way.  You can show, however, that there are many, many people who have poor
health care and how the HMOs make things harder for both patients and
doctors.

> 2- i didn't state the majority *would* get worse care - just that proponents
> of socialized care often don't address the *quality*, but the *equality*.
> if people felt they could pay the same as they do now, and get as good or
> better care, very few would have any problem with it.  but the proponents
> rarely address this.

I have seen a number who do... the idea is that the care for most would go
up *and* it would be cheaper.

-- 
� Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
��A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking


0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 2:37:33 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

>> believe that the health care must be a private for proffit business.  If
>> this is your believe you are deadly wrong.
> 
> Food is a private for profit business and it is more essential to life
> than medical service. 

Libertarianism inducted adult attention deficit disorder at best. I already
explained to you personally at least 3 times. 

Here is the first post from a whole list:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7ab93c58f82cadfd


0
nospam191 (234)
3/6/2007 2:49:19 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> Nospam wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Why EVERYBODY else in the industrialized world can do it and US not ?
> 
> Because in the U.S. we still retain a decent sense of property, that is
> why. To a great extent we believe people ought to propser according to
> the value they produce, not because they -need- things.


How many lines of code wrote Bill Gates this year compared with an average
Microsoft employee ? How many goods produced a Wall Street gambler ?


No bamby. There is no connection from how much you produce and how much
wealth you accumulate. The top 1% of earners actually didn't produced
nothing in years. 

0
nospam191 (234)
3/6/2007 2:53:49 AM
"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> stated in post 1216555.blDZoGSThz@example.com
on 3/5/07 7:53 PM:

> Bob Kolker wrote:
> 
>> Nospam wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why EVERYBODY else in the industrialized world can do it and US not ?
>> 
>> Because in the U.S. we still retain a decent sense of property, that is
>> why. To a great extent we believe people ought to propser according to
>> the value they produce, not because they -need- things.
> 
> 
> How many lines of code wrote Bill Gates this year compared with an average
> Microsoft employee ? How many goods produced a Wall Street gambler ?

How many lines of code wrote Bill Gates?

Wow... he's more into tech than I thought.  :)
> 
> No bamby. There is no connection from how much you produce and how much
> wealth you accumulate. The top 1% of earners actually didn't produced
> nothing in years.
> 


-- 
� Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
��A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking

0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 2:59:22 AM
Timberwoof wrote:

> The problem with the system was that it was a cold-hearted,
> calculated system for obtaining the greatest good for the greatest
> number. The alternative, a cold-hearted, calculated system for obtaining
> the greatest good for those who could afford it was considered more
> humane.

This is exactly the greathest "success" of free market. The victim is ALWAYS
to blame. Therefore, if somebody is killed by the unaffordable health care,
the "root of all the problem" vanished away and nobody cares. The insurance
companies and banks actually get wealthy by foreclosure of the victim's
house. 

This is the reason they are fighting so desperate against the universal
health care system. Because for them, the crime pays off. Blame the victim
and get rich in the process by throwing out on the street the remaining
family. Free market at best !!!

If somebody died of a common disease because he could not afford health
insurance, the single one to blame is the victim, because poverty it is a
choice in the idiotic rightard ideology of greed.

> Do we want to spend millions and millions of dollars to separate
> conjoined twins, or should we spend that money on pregnancy and
> childbirth education for young mothers?

The sad fact is that if we eliminate the waste private insurers:
- dividends to shareholders
- insanely high compensation for CEOs, management and board of directors
- all the funds wasted in marketing
- all the payments army of lawyers to find ways to "legally" deny claims 
- all the funds wasted in marketing and promotion
- all the bribes to politicians and lobby expenses

And the waste with the overpriced drugs (they are monopoly for a drug while
the insurers are hundreds) we can do BOTH separate conjoined twins AND
pregnancy and childbirth education with the money to spare.

Keep in mind that you can import American drugs from Canada for cheaper than
you buy them in US. So:

Drug price sold to Canada + Export expenses to Canada + Import fees in
Canada + Expenses from Canadian pharmacy to the importer + Export expenses
from Canada to US + Import fees in US + distribution to you
It is way way cheaper than buying them directly from US.

The reason why is because the Canadian single insurer system have a much
better bargaining power than hundred of independent insurers. They
negotiate from monopoly to monopoly not from monopoly to a small company in
which the drug manufacturer may actually own a majority of shares.

It is useless and idiotic to oppose the universal health care. 

0
nospam191 (234)
3/6/2007 3:15:23 AM
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:

>>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>>
>> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>> longer than Americans.
>>
>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in 
>the USA. 

If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 4:06:32 AM
In article <45ece8c8$0$14144$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
> >>
> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
> >> longer than Americans.
> >>
> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in 
> >the USA. 
> 
> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.

No.

He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".

Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
injury diagnosed, let alone treated.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed 
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
0
alangbaker (17682)
3/6/2007 4:15:28 AM
In article <5541veF23itakU5@mid.individual.net>,
 Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:>
> > No, they just ration it differently. In the US, health care is rationed 
> > according to who can afford to pay. 
> 
> That is not rationing. That is selling.

I'll restate it then: No, they just distribute it differently. In the 
US, health care is distributed according to who can afford to pay. 

> Rationing is allocation without regard for having the means of payment. 
> Thus is a rationing system, rich and poor get the same allocation (at 
> least in theory).  Thus the drooling idiot and the brilliant engineer 
> will both get the same allocation of food and clothing in a rationing 
> system.

Does having more money give one more of a right to health care?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
0
3/6/2007 4:53:35 AM
In article <5541saF23itakU4@mid.individual.net>,
 Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > 
> > So, in answer to your question, "How did the people in this country 
> > survive, thrive, and build the strongest economy in the world, without 
> > such a system?" I'd answer, "They died a lot."
> 
> And we still do. So far every one who was ever born as died or will die.

Oh, so in other words, the whole health care system is entirely 
superfluous. Everybody's going to die anyway, so why invest any money at 
all into medical research or care for the sick and injured?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
0
3/6/2007 4:54:54 AM

Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
universal healthcare was so great.
0
jodaysmix (1)
3/6/2007 5:07:58 AM
Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>universal healthcare was so great.

Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
was so great.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:20:21 AM
Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>> >>
>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>> >> longer than Americans.
>> >>
>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in 
>> >the USA. 
>> 
>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>
>No.
>
>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".

Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
need it.

>Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
>injury diagnosed, let alone treated.

How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
neocon bullshitting?

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:21:45 AM
In article <45ecfa69$0$14070$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
> >> >>
> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
> >> >> longer than Americans.
> >> >>
> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
> >> >in 
> >> >the USA. 
> >> 
> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
> >
> >No.
> >
> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
> 
> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
> need it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

> 
> >Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
> >injury diagnosed, let alone treated.
> 
> How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
> neocon bullshitting?

Months and months. My own brother has now been told he may as well not 
come back for additional treatment no matter how much pain he is in 
unless it gets to the point where he cannot walk.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed 
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
0
alangbaker (17682)
3/6/2007 5:25:48 AM
In article 
<timberwoof.spam-C53362.20533505032007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
 Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:

> In article <5541veF23itakU5@mid.individual.net>,
>  Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
> > Timberwoof wrote:>
> > > No, they just ration it differently. In the US, health care is rationed 
> > > according to who can afford to pay. 
> > 
> > That is not rationing. That is selling.
> 
> I'll restate it then: No, they just distribute it differently. In the 
> US, health care is distributed according to who can afford to pay. 

Sorry, but it's not very different in Canada. The rich just go to the 
States and everyone else waits longer and longer with no end in sight.

> 
> > Rationing is allocation without regard for having the means of payment. 
> > Thus is a rationing system, rich and poor get the same allocation (at 
> > least in theory).  Thus the drooling idiot and the brilliant engineer 
> > will both get the same allocation of food and clothing in a rationing 
> > system.
> 
> Does having more money give one more of a right to health care?

It's just reality, TW.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed 
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
0
alangbaker (17682)
3/6/2007 5:26:50 AM
Nospam  <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>Bob Kolker wrote:
>
>> With GOVHEALTH we will slip to 70-th in no time flat at it will cost of
>> 5 times what others are paying. We are 37-th because the governmment
>> hobbles medical services without delivering them. Once the government
>> gets in the business of delivery we will quickly sink to the bottom of
>> the industrialized nation set.
>> 
>> The U.S. government is good at only one thing --- war. And it is not all
>> that good either.
>
>French can do it. Brits can do it. Canadians can do it. Germans can do it.
>Swedes can do it... Heck, even Poland and some of other former communist
>countries (with GDP/capita 10%..30% of US) can do it.
>But you say that US will fail.
>
>It is written in the libertarian party belief book that Americans must have
>an IQ smaller than anybody else in the world, or you just make it up in
>order to defend interest of looter insurance corporations ?

He assumes that everybody is as smart as he is.
>
-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:31:02 AM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Nospam wrote:

>> Why EVERYBODY else in the industrialized world can do it and US not ?
>
>Because in the U.S. we still retain a decent sense of property, that is 
>why. To a great extent we believe people ought to propser according to 
>the value they produce, not because they -need- things.

In the past six years the average worker has produced more than ever
but salaries have remained flat.  The value they produce has gone to
corporate profits that enrich the already healthy.

You propaganda is pure bullshit.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:32:43 AM
"Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message 
news:C21221FD.7A2AD%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> JZ3Hh.5604$P47.2652@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 7:03 PM:
>
>> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
>> news:C211B938.7A239%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
>>> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
>>> 1173120612.229245.175820@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 3/5/07 11:50 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 5, 6:55 am, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as 
>>>>> the
>>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
>>>>> number
>>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions  (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>>>> while
>>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>>>>> times as
>>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>>> market"/"for proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare
>>>>> decisions while the French system is highly regulated by government 
>>>>> and
>>>>> driven to maximize the medical benefits for the society.
>>>>>
>>>> the real difference is you're misrepresenting the WHO study- the 
>>>> ranking
>>>> isn't a ranking of the quality of healthcare- it's an assessment that
>>>> compares health care systems, using 5 indicators, not just quality of 
>>>> care.
>>>> the indicators are: 1- overall level of population health - i.e. even 
>>>> if you
>>>> have the best health care system available, but your population is fat 
>>>> and
>>>> lazy (um, much like much of the US), you're going to take a ding in the
>>>> ratings.
>>>>
>>> In part - and only part - this is based on a health care system that is 
>>> based
>>> on pushing meds and not on preventative care, education, etc.
>>
>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>
> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
> countries?

um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in less 
physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to be 
much healthier than fast food and instant meals).

>>>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a big 
>>>> hit
>>>> here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent 
>>>> quality
>>>> of care in general
>>>>
>>> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down 
>>> trodden,
>>> can you really say you have excellent quality in general?
>>>
>> depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D
>
> Looking at our society, and most, there are for more poor.

that depends on what you consider rich, and what you consider poor. not to 
mention the vast majority that fall in between.  and i've previously asked 
you to quantify how you define rich, but you wouldn't, so it's a useless 
comparison, eh?

>>>> 3-  overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of 
>>>> patient
>>>> satisfaction and how well the system acts) - patient satisfaction is 
>>>> going
>>>> to vary widely, based on patient *expectations*. like how kia looks 
>>>> pretty
>>>> good compared to m-b in customer satisfaction surveys i would think
>>>>
>>> Are you prepping reasons why people would be dissatisfied with the
>>> "excellent" care generally seen in the US?
>>>
>> nope, it's a general critique of the methods in the 'study'.  to show you
>> such, and as an f.y.i., i'll gladly point out that people in the US are 
>> more
>> satisfied w/ health care in the US than some of the industrialized 
>> countries
>> ranked ahead of it.  especially striking is italians poor satisfaction w/
>> their health care system, even though they rank very highly in the who 
>> study.
>> this is even more true amongst the poor and elderly.
>> http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/10
>
> Glad to hear my guess was wrong.  Thanks.
>
>>>> 4-  distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well 
>>>> people of
>>>> varying economic status find that they are served by the health 
>>>> system);
>>>>
>>> I would say to be successful it should be fairly equitable.
>>>
>> if you wish, go right ahead and say it.  ;D
>
> Hurumph.  :)
>>
>>>> 5-  the distribution of the health system's financial burden within
>>>> the population (who pays the costs).
>>>>
>>>> http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in fact, not the actual quality of care at all.  that's the problem w/
>>>> many proponents of socialized medicine- they often address *equality*
>>>> of care, and *universal* care, but not so much *level* of care for
>>>> anyone other than the lowest rung.  what about the large majority of
>>>> us who already have good care?  they don't care if we get *worse*
>>>> care, as long as others get care as good as we have.
>>>
>>> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
>>> today.
>>
>> 1- how would one show something like that?
>
> Find similar systems and compare care ... though you cannot just plop and
> drop another system into the US society and expect it work the exact same
> way.

that's the rub, eh?- no one seems to agree how similar systems are, and how 
applicable they would be in other countries.

>You can show, however, that there are many, many people who have poor
> health care and how the HMOs make things harder for both patients and
> doctors.

conversely you can show many, many people who have good health care, and 
examples of patients who have had great care from hmo's.  you hear the 
horror stories (which are there in any system), but don't hear from the vast 
majority who are happy with their health care.  i have kaiser permanente so 
cal- anecdotally, people hate it.  but studies required by california show 
that the vast majority (something like 93%) of patients are very satisfied. 
but more to the point, patient satisfaction is a poor reflection of quality 
of care.  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19977

>> 2- i didn't state the majority *would* get worse care - just that 
>> proponents
>> of socialized care often don't address the *quality*, but the *equality*.
>> if people felt they could pay the same as they do now, and get as good or
>> better care, very few would have any problem with it.  but the proponents
>> rarely address this.
>
> I have seen a number who do...

so let's see them.

> the idea is that the care for most would go
> up *and* it would be cheaper.

let's see the studies then... 

0
news121 (2473)
3/6/2007 5:52:25 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
xk7Hh.13064$bb1.4837@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 10:52 PM:

>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>>> 
>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
>> countries?
>> 
> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in less
> physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to be much
> healthier than fast food and instant meals).

What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.

If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and that
we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
argument.  

But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
> 
>>>>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a big hit
>>>>> here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent quality
>>>>> of care in general
>>>>> 
>>>> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down trodden,
>>>> can you really say you have excellent quality in general?
>>>> 
>>> depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D
>>> 
>> Looking at our society, and most, there are for more poor.
> 
> that depends on what you consider rich, and what you consider poor. not to
> mention the vast majority that fall in between.  and i've previously asked
> you to quantify how you define rich, but you wouldn't, so it's a useless
> comparison, eh?

I am not going to play the game where you deny it is obvious that there are
more poor people than there are wealthy.  That is just silly.

....
>>>> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
>>>> today.
>>> 
>>> 1- how would one show something like that?
>> 
>> Find similar systems and compare care ... though you cannot just plop and
>> drop another system into the US society and expect it work the exact same
>> way.
> 
> that's the rub, eh?- no one seems to agree how similar systems are, and how
> applicable they would be in other countries.

I do agree there is no easy answer... but clearly the system in the US is
severally broken.
> 
>> You can show, however, that there are many, many people who have poor
>> health care and how the HMOs make things harder for both patients and
>> doctors.
> 
> conversely you can show many, many people who have good health care, and
> examples of patients who have had great care from hmo's.  you hear the
> horror stories (which are there in any system), but don't hear from the vast
> majority who are happy with their health care.  i have kaiser permanente so
> cal- anecdotally, people hate it.  but studies required by california show
> that the vast majority (something like 93%) of patients are very satisfied.
> but more to the point, patient satisfaction is a poor reflection of quality
> of care.  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19977

When many people have no insurance and those that do are often stuck with
HMOs that are not focused on patient health, well, the system is broken.
> 
>>> 2- i didn't state the majority *would* get worse care - just that proponents
>>> of socialized care often don't address the *quality*, but the *equality*. if
>>> people felt they could pay the same as they do now, and get as good or
>>> better care, very few would have any problem with it.  but the proponents
>>> rarely address this.
>> 
>> I have seen a number who do...
> 
> so let's see them.

Busy this week... remind me in while and I will do some Googling for you.

>> the idea is that the care for most would go
>> up *and* it would be cheaper.
> 
> let's see the studies then...
> 

-- 
� Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
� Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
��Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros





0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 6:08:19 AM
Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>> >> >> longer than Americans.
>> >> >>
>> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>> >> >in 
>> >> >the USA. 
>> >> 
>> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>> 
>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> need it.
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong.

You right-wing morons always believe the bullshit you're fed, even
when it's nothing but lies.

According to the CIA world factbook the life expectancy of Canadians
is 80.22 years.  For Americans it's 77.85 years.

In 2001 the US spend 13.1% of GDP on health care while Canadians spent 9.5%.

Those are the facts.  You can either accept them and rethikn your
position, or you can continue to be a right-wing moron and cling to
the lies fed to you by the corporate shills in the right-wing media.

>> >Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
>> >injury diagnosed, let alone treated.
>> 
>> How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
>> neocon bullshitting?
>
>Months and months.

Neocon bullshitting as expected.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 6:12:51 AM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Nospam wrote:

>> Why EVERYBODY else in the industrialized world can do it and US not ?
>
>Because in the U.S. we still retain a decent sense of property, that is 
>why. To a great extent we believe people ought to propser according to 
>the value they produce, not because they -need- things.

In the past six years the average worker has produced more than ever
but salaries have remained flat.  The value they produce has gone to
corporate profits that enrich the already wealthy.

You propaganda is pure bullshit.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 6:13:19 AM
"Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message 
news:C2125363.7A2EC%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> xk7Hh.13064$bb1.4837@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 10:52 PM:
>
>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>>>>
>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
>>> countries?
>>>
>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in 
>> less
>> physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to be 
>> much
>> healthier than fast food and instant meals).
>
> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.
>
> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and 
> that
> we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
> argument.
>
> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.

so if not laziness, what's preventing americans from being 'not as physical 
as we should be,' or cooking up some healthy meals (which can be done quite 
cheaply) rather than eating fast food / cheap junk?

>>>>>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a 
>>>>>> big hit
>>>>>> here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent 
>>>>>> quality
>>>>>> of care in general
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down 
>>>>> trodden,
>>>>> can you really say you have excellent quality in general?
>>>>>
>>>> depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D
>>>>
>>> Looking at our society, and most, there are for more poor.
>>
>> that depends on what you consider rich, and what you consider poor. not 
>> to
>> mention the vast majority that fall in between.  and i've previously 
>> asked
>> you to quantify how you define rich, but you wouldn't, so it's a useless
>> comparison, eh?
>
> I am not going to play the game where you deny it is obvious that there 
> are
> more poor people than there are wealthy.  That is just silly.

the real point is the vast majority of the people in between.  i was playing 
along with your false dichotomy of rich / poor because you've previously 
refused to define it, but the vast majority of people (in the us) are 
neither, so you can't just ignore them in a discussion about what's good for 
most people.

>>>>> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
>>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> 1- how would one show something like that?
>>>
>>> Find similar systems and compare care ... though you cannot just plop 
>>> and
>>> drop another system into the US society and expect it work the exact 
>>> same
>>> way.
>>
>> that's the rub, eh?- no one seems to agree how similar systems are, and 
>> how
>> applicable they would be in other countries.
>
> I do agree there is no easy answer... but clearly the system in the US is
> severally broken.

it's only clear when you consider only the rich and poor, ignoring the mass 
of people in the middle.  simple fact is, *most* americans have health 
insurance of some sort.  quality of care is generally good.  things could be 
better, but 'broken', i would argue, it's not.

>>> You can show, however, that there are many, many people who have poor
>>> health care and how the HMOs make things harder for both patients and
>>> doctors.
>>
>> conversely you can show many, many people who have good health care, and
>> examples of patients who have had great care from hmo's.  you hear the
>> horror stories (which are there in any system), but don't hear from the 
>> vast
>> majority who are happy with their health care.  i have kaiser permanente 
>> so
>> cal- anecdotally, people hate it.  but studies required by california 
>> show
>> that the vast majority (something like 93%) of patients are very 
>> satisfied.
>> but more to the point, patient satisfaction is a poor reflection of 
>> quality
>> of care.  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19977
>
> When many people have no insurance and those that do are often stuck with
> HMOs that are not focused on patient health, well, the system is broken.

but *most* americans DO have insurance, and the *vast* majority of people in 
hmo's are very happy.  that is not cllearly broken in my book.

>>>> 2- i didn't state the majority *would* get worse care - just that 
>>>> proponents
>>>> of socialized care often don't address the *quality*, but the 
>>>> *equality*. if
>>>> people felt they could pay the same as they do now, and get as good or
>>>> better care, very few would have any problem with it.  but the 
>>>> proponents
>>>> rarely address this.
>>>
>>> I have seen a number who do...
>>
>> so let's see them.
>
> Busy this week... remind me in while and I will do some Googling for you.
>
>>> the idea is that the care for most would go
>>> up *and* it would be cheaper.
>>
>> let's see the studies then...

<snip> 

0
news121 (2473)
3/6/2007 6:15:16 AM
In article <C2125363.7A2EC%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:

> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> xk7Hh.13064$bb1.4837@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 10:52 PM:
> 
> >>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
> >>> 
> >> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
> >> countries?
> >> 
> > um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in less
> > physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to be 
> > much
> > healthier than fast food and instant meals).
> 
> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.
> 
> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and that
> we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
> argument.  
> 
> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.

I can't wait to hear your definition of "lazy".  I suppose you'll argue 
that people have no time for meal preparation or a workout *because* 
they aren't lazy. I suggest you don't hold yourself up as an example.

> > 
> >>>>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a big 
> >>>>> hit
> >>>>> here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent 
> >>>>> quality
> >>>>> of care in general
> >>>>> 
> >>>> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down 
> >>>> trodden,
> >>>> can you really say you have excellent quality in general?
> >>>> 
> >>> depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D
> >>> 
> >> Looking at our society, and most, there are for more poor.
> > 
> > that depends on what you consider rich, and what you consider poor. not to
> > mention the vast majority that fall in between.  and i've previously asked
> > you to quantify how you define rich, but you wouldn't, so it's a useless
> > comparison, eh?
> 
> I am not going to play the game where you deny it is obvious that there are
> more poor people than there are wealthy.  That is just silly.
> 
> ...
> >>>> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
> >>>> today.
> >>> 
> >>> 1- how would one show something like that?
> >> 
> >> Find similar systems and compare care ... though you cannot just plop and
> >> drop another system into the US society and expect it work the exact same
> >> way.
> > 
> > that's the rub, eh?- no one seems to agree how similar systems are, and how
> > applicable they would be in other countries.
> 
> I do agree there is no easy answer... but clearly the system in the US is
> severally broken.

The system starts with the patient.

> > 
> >> You can show, however, that there are many, many people who have poor
> >> health care and how the HMOs make things harder for both patients and
> >> doctors.
> > 
> > conversely you can show many, many people who have good health care, and
> > examples of patients who have had great care from hmo's.  you hear the
> > horror stories (which are there in any system), but don't hear from the 
> > vast
> > majority who are happy with their health care.  i have kaiser permanente so
> > cal- anecdotally, people hate it.  but studies required by california show
> > that the vast majority (something like 93%) of patients are very satisfied.
> > but more to the point, patient satisfaction is a poor reflection of quality
> > of care.  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19977
> 
> When many people have no insurance and those that do are often stuck with
> HMOs that are not focused on patient health, well, the system is broken.

The patients aren't focused on "patient health"... and that costs! Too 
many Americans are doing exactly what ed said they are doing and it 
drives up the cost for everyone.

> > 
> >>> 2- i didn't state the majority *would* get worse care - just that 
> >>> proponents
> >>> of socialized care often don't address the *quality*, but the *equality*. 
> >>> if
> >>> people felt they could pay the same as they do now, and get as good or
> >>> better care, very few would have any problem with it.  but the proponents
> >>> rarely address this.
> >> 
> >> I have seen a number who do...
> > 
> > so let's see them.
> 
> Busy this week... remind me in while and I will do some Googling for you.

Yeah... you're too busy cuz you're not lazy, right? Yet you can put in 
over a thousand posts a month of pure bullshit.

> 
> >> the idea is that the care for most would go
> >> up *and* it would be cheaper.
> > 
> > let's see the studies then...
> >

-- 
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, 
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Snit on Sandman-"The fact you call yourself a web "pro" is, frankly, a joke."
"Once we see or hear of couples - even a relatively small number - who 
engage in legal, consensual,adult incestuous relationships, the whole 
idea of incest with minors becomes thinkable." - Snit
0
noone (9909)
3/6/2007 6:24:03 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
VF7Hh.13066$bb1.3603@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 11:15 PM:

> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
> news:C2125363.7A2EC%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>> xk7Hh.13064$bb1.4837@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 10:52 PM:
>> 
>>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>>>>> 
>>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
>>>> countries?
>>>> 
>>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in less
>>> physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to be
>>> much healthier than fast food and instant meals).
>>> 
>> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.
>> 
>> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and that
>> we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
>> argument.
>> 
>> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
>> 
> so if not laziness, what's preventing americans from being 'not as physical as
> we should be,' or cooking up some healthy meals (which can be done quite
> cheaply) rather than eating fast food / cheap junk?

Who says anything is *preventing* them?

Your claim was that people in the US were lazier... now the topic is, what,
why we cook and exercise less?  Please, ed, stick to the topic.  I noted
someone else pointed you to support that folks in the US actually work
*more*, not less - though I did not examine the data you were shown.

>>>>>>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a big
>>>>>>> hit here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have excellent
>>>>>>> quality of care in general
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down
>>>>>> trodden, can you really say you have excellent quality in general?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D
>>>>> 
>>>> Looking at our society, and most, there are for more poor.
>>>> 
>>> that depends on what you consider rich, and what you consider poor. not to
>>> mention the vast majority that fall in between.  and i've previously asked
>>> you to quantify how you define rich, but you wouldn't, so it's a useless
>>> comparison, eh?
>>> 
>> I am not going to play the game where you deny it is obvious that there are
>> more poor people than there are wealthy.  That is just silly.
> 
> the real point is the vast majority of the people in between.  i was playing
> along with your false dichotomy of rich / poor because you've previously
> refused to define it, but the vast majority of people (in the us) are
> neither, so you can't just ignore them in a discussion about what's good for
> most people.

There are far, far more people who are on the low end of the spectrum who
have little or no insurance and poor access to health care.

> 
>>>>>> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is HMOs
>>>>>> today.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 1- how would one show something like that?
>>>>> 
>>>> Find similar systems and compare care ... though you cannot just plop and
>>>> drop another system into the US society and expect it work the exact same
>>>> way.
>>>> 
>>> that's the rub, eh?- no one seems to agree how similar systems are, and how
>>> applicable they would be in other countries.
>>> 
>> I do agree there is no easy answer... but clearly the system in the US is
>> severally broken.
>> 
> it's only clear when you consider only the rich and poor, ignoring the mass of
> people in the middle.  simple fact is, *most* americans have health insurance
> of some sort.  quality of care is generally good.  things could be better, but
> 'broken', i would argue, it's not.

How do you come to the conclusion that the care is generally good?  Have you
seen the studies of the number of deaths based on accidents in hospitals?  I
do not know if the stats in the US are worse than elsewhere, but they are
appalling in the US.  And, of course, with doctors being forced by HMOs to
see massive numbers of patients a day and other such idiotic things, well,
the system is clearly broken.  I do not have all the answers for fixing it,
but pretending it is fine as is, well, is silly.
> 
>>>> You can show, however, that there are many, many people who have poor
>>>> health care and how the HMOs make things harder for both patients and
>>>> doctors.
>>>> 
>>> conversely you can show many, many people who have good health care, and
>>> examples of patients who have had great care from hmo's.  you hear the
>>> horror stories (which are there in any system), but don't hear from the vast
>>> majority who are happy with their health care.  i have kaiser permanente so
>>> cal- anecdotally, people hate it.  but studies required by california show
>>> that the vast majority (something like 93%) of patients are very satisfied.
>>> but more to the point, patient satisfaction is a poor reflection of quality
>>> of care.  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19977
>>> 
>> When many people have no insurance and those that do are often stuck with
>> HMOs that are not focused on patient health, well, the system is broken.
>> 
> but *most* americans DO have insurance, and the *vast* majority of people in
> hmo's are very happy.  that is not cllearly broken in my book.

How do you figure that the vast majority are happy with HMOs?  And how many
people need to be without insurance for you to see it as a problem... and do
you count people as really insured when their pre-existing conditions are
not covered?

-- 
��Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
��Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
��Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC





0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 6:26:43 AM
"Steve Carroll" <noone@nowhere.net> stated in post
noone-6C6A9A.23240305032007@newsgroups.comcast.net on 3/5/07 11:24 PM:

> In article <C2125363.7A2EC%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>  Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> 
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>> xk7Hh.13064$bb1.4837@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 10:52 PM:
>> 
>>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>>>>> 
>>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
>>>> countries?
>>>> 
>>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in less
>>> physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to be
>>> much
>>> healthier than fast food and instant meals).
>> 
>> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.
>> 
>> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and that
>> we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
>> argument.  
>> 
>> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
> 
> I can't wait to hear your definition of "lazy".  I suppose you'll argue
> that people have no time for meal preparation or a workout *because*
> they aren't lazy. I suggest you don't hold yourself up as an example.

You can suppose whatever you like, Steve, but being that you are troll who
is consumed with your hatred, you are forging posts and spewing BS with sock
puppets, your chances of actually being able to hold an adult conversation
is nil.  

No go troll someone else.

-- 
� Teaching is a "real job"
��The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
� The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets




0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 6:34:31 AM
"Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message 
news:C21257B3.7A2FF%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> VF7Hh.13066$bb1.3603@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 11:15 PM:
>
>> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
>> news:C2125363.7A2EC%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>>> xk7Hh.13064$bb1.4837@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 10:52 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
>>>>> countries?
>>>>>
>>>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in 
>>>> less
>>>> physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to 
>>>> be
>>>> much healthier than fast food and instant meals).
>>>>
>>> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of 
>>> that.
>>>
>>> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and 
>>> that
>>> we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
>>>
>> so if not laziness, what's preventing americans from being 'not as 
>> physical as
>> we should be,' or cooking up some healthy meals (which can be done quite
>> cheaply) rather than eating fast food / cheap junk?
>
> Who says anything is *preventing* them?

so if nothing is preventing them, and they're not lazy, exactly what do you 
think is going on?

> Your claim was that people in the US were lazier... now the topic is, 
> what,
> why we cook and exercise less?

yup, that's the topic, as it relates to health.

> Please, ed, stick to the topic.  I noted
> someone else pointed you to support that folks in the US actually work
> *more*, not less -

and i already addressed that, as i'm sure you know...

> though I did not examine the data you were shown.
>
>>>>>>>> 2-  health inequalities (or disparities) within the population - a 
>>>>>>>> big
>>>>>>>> hit here will knock you down in the ranking even if you have 
>>>>>>>> excellent
>>>>>>>> quality of care in general
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you take care of the rick and famous and not the poor and down
>>>>>>> trodden, can you really say you have excellent quality in general?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> depends on the proportion of rich to poor, eh?  ;D
>>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at our society, and most, there are for more poor.
>>>>>
>>>> that depends on what you consider rich, and what you consider poor. not 
>>>> to
>>>> mention the vast majority that fall in between.  and i've previously 
>>>> asked
>>>> you to quantify how you define rich, but you wouldn't, so it's a 
>>>> useless
>>>> comparison, eh?
>>>>
>>> I am not going to play the game where you deny it is obvious that there 
>>> are
>>> more poor people than there are wealthy.  That is just silly.
>>
>> the real point is the vast majority of the people in between.  i was 
>> playing
>> along with your false dichotomy of rich / poor because you've previously
>> refused to define it, but the vast majority of people (in the us) are
>> neither, so you can't just ignore them in a discussion about what's good 
>> for
>> most people.
>
> There are far, far more people who are on the low end of the spectrum who
> have little or no insurance and poor access to health care.

again, you're ignoring the vast majority in the middle.

>>>>>>> Show the vast majority would get worse care than the mess that is 
>>>>>>> HMOs
>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1- how would one show something like that?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Find similar systems and compare care ... though you cannot just plop 
>>>>> and
>>>>> drop another system into the US society and expect it work the exact 
>>>>> same
>>>>> way.
>>>>>
>>>> that's the rub, eh?- no one seems to agree how similar systems are, and 
>>>> how
>>>> applicable they would be in other countries.
>>>>
>>> I do agree there is no easy answer... but clearly the system in the US 
>>> is
>>> severally broken.
>>>
>> it's only clear when you consider only the rich and poor, ignoring the 
>> mass of
>> people in the middle.  simple fact is, *most* americans have health 
>> insurance
>> of some sort.  quality of care is generally good.  things could be 
>> better, but
>> 'broken', i would argue, it's not.
>
> How do you come to the conclusion that the care is generally good?

you'll be on the fringe if you claim otherwise- people have criticisms of 
the us system, but you'll not find many arguing the care is not generally 
good.

> Have you
> seen the studies of the number of deaths based on accidents in hospitals?

yup.  i've not heard anything to suggest it's any higher in the united 
states though.

> I
> do not know if the stats in the US are worse than elsewhere, but they are
> appalling in the US.

if you're appalled by the accidental deaths in the us, you're probably lucky 
that you are here- i have no stats, but i've seen the hospitals in a couple 
foreign countries first hand, and heard second hand about a couple others... 
not good...

> And, of course, with doctors being forced by HMOs  to
> see massive numbers of patients a day and other such idiotic things,

how 'massive' a number are doctors being 'forced' to see?

> well,
> the system is clearly broken.  I do not have all the answers for fixing 
> it,
> but pretending it is fine as is, well, is silly.
>>
>>>>> You can show, however, that there are many, many people who have poor
>>>>> health care and how the HMOs make things harder for both patients and
>>>>> doctors.
>>>>>
>>>> conversely you can show many, many people who have good health care, 
>>>> and
>>>> examples of patients who have had great care from hmo's.  you hear the
>>>> horror stories (which are there in any system), but don't hear from the 
>>>> vast
>>>> majority who are happy with their health care.  i have kaiser 
>>>> permanente so
>>>> cal- anecdotally, people hate it.  but studies required by california 
>>>> show
>>>> that the vast majority (something like 93%) of patients are very 
>>>> satisfied.
>>>> but more to the point, patient satisfaction is a poor reflection of 
>>>> quality
>>>> of care.  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19977
>>>>
>>> When many people have no insurance and those that do are often stuck 
>>> with
>>> HMOs that are not focused on patient health, well, the system is broken.
>>>
>> but *most* americans DO have insurance, and the *vast* majority of people 
>> in
>> hmo's are very happy.  that is not cllearly broken in my book.
>
> How do you figure that the vast majority are happy with HMOs?

california mandates customer surveys, which are then printed in plan 
brochures.  i look at them each year during my open enrollment.

> And how many
> people need to be without insurance for you to see it as a problem...

i don't think you can put a number on it, but when almost 85% DO have 
insurance, it's not 'clearly broken' to me.  i know i used to be part of 
that group- i opted out.  ;D

> and do
> you count people as really insured when their pre-existing conditions are
> not covered?

how many people are in that group?

quick question- you're too busy to do research to support your point (which 
shouldn't be too hard, since you claim to have already read the studies. 
you must have a good idea where to find them...), but you keep posting?  ;D 

0
news121 (2473)
3/6/2007 6:55:44 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
Tf8Hh.5618$P47.1892@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 11:55 PM:

>>>>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
>>>>>> countries?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in
>>>>> less physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to
>>>>> be much healthier than fast food and instant meals).
>>>>> 
>>>> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.
>>>> 
>>>> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and
>>>> that we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
>>>> argument.
>>>> 
>>>> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
>>>> 
>>> so if not laziness, what's preventing americans from being 'not as physical
>>> as we should be,' or cooking up some healthy meals (which can be done quite
>>> cheaply) rather than eating fast food / cheap junk?
>>> 
>> Who says anything is *preventing* them?
>> 
> so if nothing is preventing them, and they're not lazy, exactly what do you
> think is going on?

Could be any number of things... what makes you think it is based on
laziness?  That, really, is the question... I am not interested in playin
the turn-around game.  If I wanted to do that I would dance the hokey pokey.

Good exercise, by the way.  :)

>> Your claim was that people in the US were lazier... now the topic is, what,
>> why we cook and exercise less?
>> 
> yup, that's the topic, as it relates to health.

So which is the topic?  It was laziness... now it is cooking and exercise.
Pick one... I would prefer the original.

>> Please, ed, stick to the topic.  I noted someone else pointed you to support
>> that folks in the US actually work *more*, not less -
>> 
> and i already addressed that, as i'm sure you know...

Nope... I did not read that part of the thread.

....
>>> the real point is the vast majority of the people in between.  i was playing
>>> along with your false dichotomy of rich / poor because you've previously
>>> refused to define it, but the vast majority of people (in the us) are
>>> neither, so you can't just ignore them in a discussion about what's good for
>>> most people.
>>> 
>> There are far, far more people who are on the low end of the spectrum who
>> have little or no insurance and poor access to health care.
>> 
> again, you're ignoring the vast majority in the middle.

They are not relevant to my point.
 
>>> it's only clear when you consider only the rich and poor, ignoring the mass
>>> of people in the middle.  simple fact is, *most* americans have health
>>> insurance of some sort.  quality of care is generally good.  things could be
>>> better, but 'broken', i would argue, it's not.
>>> 
>> How do you come to the conclusion that the care is generally good?
>> 
> you'll be on the fringe if you claim otherwise- people have criticisms of the
> us system, but you'll not find many arguing the care is not generally good.

Unlikely.

>> Have you seen the studies of the number of deaths based on accidents in
>> hospitals?
>> 
> yup.  i've not heard anything to suggest it's any higher in the united states
> though.

See my next sentence:

>> I do not know if the stats in the US are worse than elsewhere, but they are
>> appalling in the US.
>> 
> if you're appalled by the accidental deaths in the us, you're probably lucky
> that you are here- i have no stats, but i've seen the hospitals in a couple
> foreign countries first hand, and heard second hand about a couple others...
> not good...

Funny how you do not accept anecdotal evidence about the US.

>> And, of course, with doctors being forced by HMOs  to see massive numbers of
>> patients a day and other such idiotic things,
>> 
> how 'massive' a number are doctors being 'forced' to see?

Up to dozens a day... depends on the HMO.

>> well, the system is clearly broken.  I do not have all the answers for fixing
>> it, but pretending it is fine as is, well, is silly.

....
>>> but *most* americans DO have insurance, and the *vast* majority of people
>>> in
>>> hmo's are very happy.  that is not cllearly broken in my book.
>> 
>> How do you figure that the vast majority are happy with HMOs?
> 
> california mandates customer surveys, which are then printed in plan
> brochures.  i look at them each year during my open enrollment.

California is not the US... and, of course, I would want to see how those
studies are done.

>> And how many
>> people need to be without insurance for you to see it as a problem...
> 
> i don't think you can put a number on it, but when almost 85% DO have
> insurance, it's not 'clearly broken' to me.  i know i used to be part of
> that group- i opted out.  ;D

I am guessing you were financially above the average of the US.  Just a
guess.

>> and do
>> you count people as really insured when their pre-existing conditions are
>> not covered?
> 
> how many people are in that group?

Lots... I do not have a number to give you, but *many* people have
pre-existing conditions, and unless they get insurance through a company
plan they are generally out of luck.

> quick question- you're too busy to do research to support your point (which
> shouldn't be too hard, since you claim to have already read the studies.
> you must have a good idea where to find them...), but you keep posting?  ;D

Google.  As I have time later I can do some research for you...

-- 
��There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
� There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
��Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS



0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 7:04:36 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> Here is something for you to think about.  Let us say, our government 
> decides that no one has to pay for the food they buy, or that they have 
> to pay only a fraction of the real cost.  What incentive does the people 
> who sell the foods we buy to lower their price?  Why should the sellers 
> charge less for hamburger and more more steaks?  "If" someone else is 
> paying for your trip to the supermarket, or subsidizing a large 
> percentage of the cost of the purchase, would you eat more steaks and 
> less hamburger, regardless of the cost?

Jerry,

You're assuming the "consumer" in the health care setting is rational 
and has full information just like someone who's out grocery shopping. 
That's a faulty assumption.  Most of us can tell the difference between 
steak and hamburger.  How do you know whether the pain you feel in your 
abdomen is gas or, some serious G.I. problem?  If I offered you a free 
appendectomy would you take me up on it?  Health care or medical 
services is not an item that grants utility like filet mignon or lobster 
so conventional economics goes out the window.

Also, medical services are a lot more expensive than lobster or caviar 
-- so third party payment is inevitable.  And the risk of loss from not 
getting surgery or other health care is a lot greater than not having 
chateau briand :-)

In any case, most medical expenditures aren't spent on services where 
patients make the decision to go to an ER or see a G.P., it's spent on 
specialist services in hospitals.  Doctors are the gate keepers, not the 
patients.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/6/2007 7:08:08 AM
In article <45ed0663$0$14107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
> >> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
> >> >> >>>fact
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
> >> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
> >> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
> >> >> >> longer than Americans.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
> >> >> >than 
> >> >> >in 
> >> >> >the USA. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
> >> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
> >> >
> >> >No.
> >> >
> >> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
> >> 
> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
> >> need it.
> >
> >Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> You right-wing morons always believe the bullshit you're fed, even
> when it's nothing but lies.
> 
> According to the CIA world factbook the life expectancy of Canadians
> is 80.22 years.  For Americans it's 77.85 years.
> 
> In 2001 the US spend 13.1% of GDP on health care while Canadians spent 9.5%.
> 
> Those are the facts.  You can either accept them and rethikn your
> position, or you can continue to be a right-wing moron and cling to
> the lies fed to you by the corporate shills in the right-wing media.

Sorry to disappoint you, sunshine, but Canada's life expectancy has a 
lot more to do with the fact that one out of every two Canadian's isn't 
morbidly obese than it does with our health care system.

> 
> >> >Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
> >> >injury diagnosed, let alone treated.
> >> 
> >> How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
> >> neocon bullshitting?
> >
> >Months and months.
> 
> Neocon bullshitting as expected.

Riiiiight. 

And what sort of "bullshitting" was just clipping the real life 
experiences of my brother?

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed 
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
0
alangbaker (17682)
3/6/2007 7:17:07 AM
Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>In article <45ed0663$0$14107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> >> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
>> >> >> >>>fact
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>> >> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>> >> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>> >> >> >> longer than Americans.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
>> >> >> >than 
>> >> >> >in 
>> >> >> >the USA. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>> >> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>> >> >
>> >> >No.
>> >> >
>> >> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>> >> 
>> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> >> need it.
>> >
>> >Sorry, but you're wrong.
>> 
>> You right-wing morons always believe the bullshit you're fed, even
>> when it's nothing but lies.
>> 
>> According to the CIA world factbook the life expectancy of Canadians
>> is 80.22 years.  For Americans it's 77.85 years.
>> 
>> In 2001 the US spend 13.1% of GDP on health care while Canadians spent 9.5%.
>> 
>> Those are the facts.  You can either accept them and rethikn your
>> position, or you can continue to be a right-wing moron and cling to
>> the lies fed to you by the corporate shills in the right-wing media.
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, sunshine, but Canada's life expectancy has a 
>lot more to do with the fact that one out of every two Canadian's isn't 
>morbidly obese than it does with our health care system.

And you know this because it's what you want to believe?  You think
you can make up more bullshit and expect everybody to just accept it?

I can tell that you're making up lies by the mere fact there isn't
even one state, much less the entire United States, that has a 50%
obesity rate.  Further, Canada has as much of a problem with obesity
as does the US.

>> >> >Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
>> >> >injury diagnosed, let alone treated.
>> >> 
>> >> How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
>> >> neocon bullshitting?
>> >
>> >Months and months.
>> 
>> Neocon bullshitting as expected.
>
>Riiiiight. 
>
>And what sort of "bullshitting" was just clipping the real life 
>experiences of my brother?

Even assuming that you're not lying outright, one person's case says
NOTHING about the Canadian health care system.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 7:39:29 AM
Alan Baker wrote:

> 
>>> Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
>>> injury diagnosed, let alone treated.
>> How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
>> neocon bullshitting?
> 
> Months and months. My own brother has now been told he may as well not 
> come back for additional treatment no matter how much pain he is in 
> unless it gets to the point where he cannot walk.

That is a shame.  But I don't think a private insurance system would 
help him (They might not even offer him coverage).   Has he considered 
heading to the United States or another country and see if the 
provincial insurer would pay for his treatment?  I would encourage him 
to write letters to the editor, contact the media, talk to his MP and 
his MLA, and generally raise hell.  As a taxpayer (ie: premium payer) he 
shouldn't have to go through that.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/6/2007 7:40:21 AM
In article <45ed1ab1$0$14130$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >In article <45ed0663$0$14107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
> >> >> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
> >> >> >> >>>fact
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
> >> >> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite 
> >> >> >> >> its
> >> >> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that 
> >> >> >> >> live
> >> >> >> >> longer than Americans.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
> >> >> >> >than 
> >> >> >> >in 
> >> >> >> >the USA. 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
> >> >> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
> >> >> 
> >> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
> >> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
> >> >> need it.
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, but you're wrong.
> >> 
> >> You right-wing morons always believe the bullshit you're fed, even
> >> when it's nothing but lies.
> >> 
> >> According to the CIA world factbook the life expectancy of Canadians
> >> is 80.22 years.  For Americans it's 77.85 years.
> >> 
> >> In 2001 the US spend 13.1% of GDP on health care while Canadians spent 
> >> 9.5%.
> >> 
> >> Those are the facts.  You can either accept them and rethikn your
> >> position, or you can continue to be a right-wing moron and cling to
> >> the lies fed to you by the corporate shills in the right-wing media.
> >
> >Sorry to disappoint you, sunshine, but Canada's life expectancy has a 
> >lot more to do with the fact that one out of every two Canadian's isn't 
> >morbidly obese than it does with our health care system.
> 
> And you know this because it's what you want to believe?  You think
> you can make up more bullshit and expect everybody to just accept it?
> 
> I can tell that you're making up lies by the mere fact there isn't
> even one state, much less the entire United States, that has a 50%
> obesity rate.  Further, Canada has as much of a problem with obesity
> as does the US.

Not even close, sunshine.

Anyone who crosses the border can see it. 

As for the actual figure, look up "hyperbole".

> 
> >> >> >Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your 
> >> >> >injury diagnosed, let alone treated.
> >> >> 
> >> >> How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
> >> >> neocon bullshitting?
> >> >
> >> >Months and months.
> >> 
> >> Neocon bullshitting as expected.
> >
> >Riiiiight. 
> >
> >And what sort of "bullshitting" was just clipping the real life 
> >experiences of my brother?
> 
> Even assuming that you're not lying outright, one person's case says
> NOTHING about the Canadian health care system.

Actually, it says something very real. Hence you running away as fast as 
you can.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed 
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
0
alangbaker (17682)
3/6/2007 7:49:11 AM
Nospam wrote:>
> 
> How many lines of code wrote Bill Gates this year compared with an average
> Microsoft employee ? How many goods produced a Wall Street gambler ?

No relevent. Gates set up the business in which his code Proles prosper. 
And if they don't like it, they can become independent contractors (I 
was one for 20 years) or slave away for Steve Jobs or some other 
business setter-upper.



> 
> 
> No bamby. There is no connection from how much you produce and how much
> wealth you accumulate. The top 1% of earners actually didn't produced
> nothing in years. 

No. They are living off the returns of their prior labors. One of the 
beauties of capitalism. One can set up a business that will produce a 
revenue stream for many kalikams.

And if one of Bill Gates slaveys gets a good idea and has the drive, he 
too can set up a business in which he will get rich off the labor of 
others. That is one of the beauties of the system. One can start a 
business from scratch. Jobs and Wozniak did.

In prior generations so did Ed Land (Polaroid Corp), Thomas Edison, 
George Eastman and George Westinghouse. Edison was a poor boy who made 
good by Luck and Pluck.

Even you could get a Good Idea which if you can develop it and nurture 
it, may yet make you rich from the labor of others.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 7:57:34 AM
Nospam wrote:>
> This is exactly the greathest "success" of free market. The victim is ALWAYS
> to blame. Therefore, if somebody is killed by the unaffordable health care,
> the "root of all the problem" vanished away and nobody cares. The insurance
> companies and banks actually get wealthy by foreclosure of the victim's
> house. 

What if he is renting?

By the way, most mortgages have a life insurance protection feature. The 
bank would rather get paid off from life insurance than go through a 
foreclosure process.

People under 55 can get life insurance that will cover them for several 
hundred thousand dollars for relatively little money. It is called term 
insurance. If one is not a smoker of grossly overweight one can get a 
million dollars term for under fifty dollars a week. In short, 
foreclosure is totally avoidable. One's widow and kids get to keep the 
house.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:01:09 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:>
> 
> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.

Standing in line for months is Virtuous.

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:01:59 AM
Timberwoof wrote:
> Does having more money give one more of a right to health care?

It gives one more access. We all have the right to try to get rich 
enough to afford first line health care.

No one has or should have the "right" to free health care or free 
anything for that matter. The people who provide the service have to be 
paid (else they are slaves). You propose that the government steal the 
money to pay for the service.

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:04:28 AM
Timberwoof wrote:

> 
> Oh, so in other words, the whole health care system is entirely 
> superfluous. Everybody's going to die anyway, so why invest any money at 
> all into medical research or care for the sick and injured?

Only in a small percent of cases does acute health care save lives. Most 
of our life expectancy increase comes from improved hygene and 
immunizations. I would not say acute health care is superfluous. I would 
say there are more important factors such as eating right, excercising, 
avoiding certain bad habits (like smoking, overeathing, and too much 
boozing). That will do more on the statistical average than fancy acute 
care technology.

Clean public water supplies did more to increase life expectancy in the 
U.S. and England than did acute medical care. Once typhoid and cholera 
were licked (a matter of hygene and clean water) the life expectancy 
jumped five to seven years.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:08:49 AM
Jose wrote:

> 
> 
> Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
> universal healthcare was so great.

Only those Greedy Bastards who are tired of waiting in line and can 
afford to do otherwise sneak into the U.S. for health care. Good 
Canadians will wait their turn.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:09:50 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
> 
>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>>universal healthcare was so great.
> 
> 
> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
> was so great.

Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs. 
Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line. In the U.S., the custom 
is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:10:59 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> 
> 
> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
> need it.

Or it could be that Canadians have better eating and excercise habits. 
If Americans did not overeat and they excercised more their life 
expectancies would be increased anywhere from three to five years on 
average.

The main cause of premature death in the U.S. are Bad Habits rather than 
lack of acute care.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:12:57 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> 
> In the past six years the average worker has produced more than ever
> but salaries have remained flat.  The value they produce has gone to
> corporate profits that enrich the already wealthy.

Time for either forming or joining labor unions, yes? Union membership 
is protected by the law in the U.S. unless you fork for the U.S. 
government. Remember PATCO and the Air Controller's strike?


Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 8:15:32 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> Nospam wrote:>
>> 
>> How many lines of code wrote Bill Gates this year compared with an
>> average Microsoft employee ? How many goods produced a Wall Street
>> gambler ?
> 
> No relevent. Gates set up the business in which his code Proles prosper.

This is just the same obsolete ideology that claimed the slaves should be
happy with their enslavement.

Into your previous message you said:

"we believe people ought to propser according to the value they produce, not
because they -need- things".

The single reason Microsoft is still in business is because they hold a huge
marketshare, use and abuse proprietary file formats and protocols to make
almost impossible for the client to switch to a competing product without
major disruption. AKA, by customer enslavement.

It is this predatory business practice that prevent anybody else to enter
the market and push Microsoft away despite the fact that there are better
products outthere.  Today,  Linux is a 3D desktop much better than anything
Vista can offer to the advanced user, and Mac has been always more user
friendly with the beginners.

What Bill Gates is doing today it is maintaining his power by harming the
customers, harming the competition and yes not giving any opportunities to
his employees to start on their own. Microsoft is hot helping the society
at all today, but harming it like all the monopolies do.

So again. You defend the powerfull idle doing harm by attacking the valuable
producer. Disgusting right wing idiocy !!!


>> No bamby. There is no connection from how much you produce and how much
>> wealth you accumulate. The top 1% of earners actually didn't produced
>> nothing in years.
> 
> No. They are living off the returns of their prior labors. 

That is a lie. They are living by stealing the opportunity from others.
PERIOD. 

> One of the 
> beauties of capitalism. One can set up a business that will produce a
> revenue stream for many kalikams.

It is called abuse of power. Just stop the enforcement of property laws
(using violence) and see what happend. Yes, this is how it works, but it
works that way due to coercion and obsolete laws.

I am actually advocating a substractive investment system. The investor put
money into the business. Then, as he get dividends, his ownership is
reduced so that once he got dividends over "Euler's number" (2.718..) of
what he invested, his ownership vanish away completely and the business
ownership is now shared by the workers and the society on a 3/1 ratio.
Once a worker leave a company, his share will also start to vanish away so
that once he got 2.71 times of his share as dividends, his ownership in
company also is gone and the new employee gets it.

Then, the investor have to find a new business to invest his new wealth (2.7
times as big as before). By this model:
- the guys creating value are actually rewarded and motivated to do the best
- the society also get his fair share for educating the creators
- the original investor actually gets his fair share for his investment (2.7
times)

There is no reason the idle should keep receiving giveaways forever without
at least struggling to start new businesses. This is an obsolete idea that
favor the lazy over hardworking, favor the idle over productive.

> And if one of Bill Gates slaveys gets a good idea and has the drive, he
> too can set up a business 

Then Microsoft will destroy them as did with Stacker, Netscape, Digital
Research or others. Not by anything they invented or created but by unfair
and predatory business practice.



0
nospam191 (234)
3/6/2007 12:28:42 PM
Nospam wrote:

> 
> This is just the same obsolete ideology that claimed the slaves should be
> happy with their enslavement.

If the code proles at Mircosoft don't like it they can quit. -Real- 
slaves do not have that option. I am unaware of any major turnover 
problem at MicroSoft. It seems that the code proles who work there like 
it there.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 12:42:43 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:552p60F23fjb6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Andy F. wrote:
>>
>> The only real alternative to socialized medicine or universal insurance 
>> is to leave people bleeding to death in the streets.
>
> There is a third way: charitable foundations to help the ill and injured 
> who don't have enough to pay for their care.

Is there enough charity around to provide medical cover for 47 million 
people?

>
> Long before socialism, charity kept the poor alive.
>
> The reason why pinko stinkos hate charity is because the support the poor 
> get is voluntary on the part of the givers. They want the have-nots to 
> have absolute rights to support. They would much rather use guns, jails 
> and laws to extort largess than depend on the good nature of some people 
> who have the means to help others who are too poor to help themselves. 
> They perfer tyranny to choice.
>
> Good forbid that a poor man should eat a crumb, voluntarily given, from 
> the table of a richer man. They want the richer man to -forced- to feed 
> the poor.
>
I think people should pay for their own treatment. And since everybody has a 
risk of getting ill,everybody should be paying, either through taxes or 
universal insurance. 


0
never.mind (29)
3/6/2007 12:43:26 PM
Andy F. wrote:


> I think people should pay for their own treatment. And since everybody has a 
> risk of getting ill,everybody should be paying, either through taxes or 
> universal insurance. 

Unless they feel immortal and voluntarily forgo the insurance. In which 
case they should receive no treatment. There are many people who 
foolishly believe they are invulnerable or immortal.

And what about Christian Science people. Should they be forced to insure 
themselves. They do not hold with medical science/art at all.

And what about the premiums. Should people who have unhealthy habits pay 
the same premium as those who take better care of themselves. I think 
premiums should be roughly propotional to body weight or BMI. In a 
system of equal premiums, the slobs and the self indulgent are free riders.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 12:52:22 PM
Bob Kolker wrote:
> 
> And what about the premiums. Should people who have unhealthy habits pay 
> the same premium as those who take better care of themselves. I think 
> premiums should be roughly propotional to body weight or BMI. In a 
> system of equal premiums, the slobs and the self indulgent are free riders.

In addition to which old people should pay a higher premium than young 
people since they are more likely to consume medical services and in 
greater amounts using advanced technology to keep their rotting old 
bodies functioning.

If it is insurance you want, then be careful of what you wish for.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 12:55:12 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:

>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>> 
>> 
>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>> was so great.
>
>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs. 
>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line. In the U.S., the custom 
>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.

Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:51:11 PM
Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>In article <45ed1ab1$0$14130$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >In article <45ed0663$0$14107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> >> >> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
>> >> >> >> >>>fact
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>> >> >> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite 
>> >> >> >> >> its
>> >> >> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that 
>> >> >> >> >> live
>> >> >> >> >> longer than Americans.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
>> >> >> >> >than 
>> >> >> >> >in 
>> >> >> >> >the USA. 
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>> >> >> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> >> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> >> >> need it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry, but you're wrong.
>> >> 
>> >> You right-wing morons always believe the bullshit you're fed, even
>> >> when it's nothing but lies.
>> >> 
>> >> According to the CIA world factbook the life expectancy of Canadians
>> >> is 80.22 years.  For Americans it's 77.85 years.
>> >> 
>> >> In 2001 the US spend 13.1% of GDP on health care while Canadians spent 
>> >> 9.5%.
>> >> 
>> >> Those are the facts.  You can either accept them and rethikn your
>> >> position, or you can continue to be a right-wing moron and cling to
>> >> the lies fed to you by the corporate shills in the right-wing media.
>> >
>> >Sorry to disappoint you, sunshine, but Canada's life expectancy has a 
>> >lot more to do with the fact that one out of every two Canadian's isn't 
>> >morbidly obese than it does with our health care system.
>> 
>> And you know this because it's what you want to believe?  You think
>> you can make up more bullshit and expect everybody to just accept it?
>> 
>> I can tell that you're making up lies by the mere fact there isn't
>> even one state, much less the entire United States, that has a 50%
>> obesity rate.  Further, Canada has as much of a problem with obesity
>> as does the US.
>
>Not even close, sunshine.
>
>Anyone who crosses the border can see it. 

More of your bullshit.

You cling to your ignorance and prejudices rather than admit that
you've been suckered by corporate interests.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:52:26 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:

>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> need it.
>
>Or it could be that Canadians have better eating and excercise habits. 

No evidence of that.

>If Americans did not overeat and they excercised more their life 

If you educatd yourself and used your brain instead of arguing that
Americans are some of the laziest and fattest people on Earth ...

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:54:27 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Timberwoof wrote:
>
>> 
>> Oh, so in other words, the whole health care system is entirely 
>> superfluous. Everybody's going to die anyway, so why invest any money at 
>> all into medical research or care for the sick and injured?
>
>Only in a small percent of cases does acute health care save lives. Most 
>of our life expectancy increase comes from improved hygene and 
>immunizations.

Routine medical care, in other words.  Exactly the sort of medical
care that the US system does NOT provide to tens of millions of
people.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 5:58:12 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:>
> 
> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.

For the U.S. poor, there is no elsewhere. Sometimes they get quick 
treatment especially if they are bleeding from gunshot wounds.

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 6:26:28 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> 
> Routine medical care, in other words.  Exactly the sort of medical
> care that the US system does NOT provide to tens of millions of
> people.

That is not medical care. Hygene means clean water, untainted food, good 
habits and excercise all of which one can provide for himself, if he has 
the wits and the will to do so.

Excercise and weight control are worth 16 times more than medical care. 
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 6:28:47 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:>
>> 
>> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
>> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
>
>For the U.S. poor, there is no elsewhere.

That's the problem with US health care.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 6:31:31 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> Routine medical care, in other words.  Exactly the sort of medical
>> care that the US system does NOT provide to tens of millions of
>> people.
>
>That is not medical care.

Routine medical care is not medical care?

> Hygene means clean water, untainted food, good 
>habits and excercise all of which one can provide for himself, if he has 
>the wits and the will to do so.

Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when republicans
allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
causes health problems.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/6/2007 6:33:17 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> 
> That's the problem with US health care.

Really? I think the demise of the poor is good for the society.

If we paid the poor to be sterilized instead of taking care of their 
spawn the quality of our society would be enhanced. I think a private 
fund that bought up the eggs of the urban underclass (the key to 
population is women not men) would go a long way to improve things. You 
will notice I said bought. Everything is voluntary, get it?

Bob Kolekr


0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 7:02:56 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:>
> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when republicans
> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
> causes health problems.

Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted 
since the 19th century. Democrats have been doing much talking a little 
doing about cleanup. Democrats are interested in jobs, jobs, jobs, 
primarily which is why they are going to do squatdoodle about polluition.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 7:05:07 PM
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:02:56 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> That's the problem with US health care.
>
>Really? I think the demise of the poor is good for the society.
>
>If we paid the poor to be sterilized instead of taking care of their 
>spawn the quality of our society would be enhanced. I think a private 
>fund that bought up the eggs of the urban underclass (the key to 
>population is women not men) would go a long way to improve things. You 
>will notice I said bought. Everything is voluntary, get it?
>
>Bob Kolekr

If the rich could hire other people to die for them, the poor could make
a wonderful living.  ---Yiddish Proverb


0
sordo (1)
3/6/2007 7:09:41 PM
In article <45edaa59$0$14133$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >In article <45ed1ab1$0$14130$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >In article <45ed0663$0$14107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
> >> >> >> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from 
> >> >> >> >> >>>the 
> >> >> >> >> >>>fact
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and 
> >> >> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite 
> >> >> >> >> >> its
> >> >> >> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that 
> >> >> >> >> >> live
> >> >> >> >> >> longer than Americans.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot 
> >> >> >> >> >more 
> >> >> >> >> >than 
> >> >> >> >> >in 
> >> >> >> >> >the USA. 
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational 
> >> >> >> >> demands
> >> >> >> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
> >> >> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
> >> >> >> need it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sorry, but you're wrong.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You right-wing morons always believe the bullshit you're fed, even
> >> >> when it's nothing but lies.
> >> >> 
> >> >> According to the CIA world factbook the life expectancy of Canadians
> >> >> is 80.22 years.  For Americans it's 77.85 years.
> >> >> 
> >> >> In 2001 the US spend 13.1% of GDP on health care while Canadians spent 
> >> >> 9.5%.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Those are the facts.  You can either accept them and rethikn your
> >> >> position, or you can continue to be a right-wing moron and cling to
> >> >> the lies fed to you by the corporate shills in the right-wing media.
> >> >
> >> >Sorry to disappoint you, sunshine, but Canada's life expectancy has a 
> >> >lot more to do with the fact that one out of every two Canadian's isn't 
> >> >morbidly obese than it does with our health care system.
> >> 
> >> And you know this because it's what you want to believe?  You think
> >> you can make up more bullshit and expect everybody to just accept it?
> >> 
> >> I can tell that you're making up lies by the mere fact there isn't
> >> even one state, much less the entire United States, that has a 50%
> >> obesity rate.  Further, Canada has as much of a problem with obesity
> >> as does the US.
> >
> >Not even close, sunshine.
> >
> >Anyone who crosses the border can see it. 
> 
> More of your bullshit.
> 
> You cling to your ignorance and prejudices rather than admit that
> you've been suckered by corporate interests.

How have I been "suckered", Ray?

I live in *Canada* and I'm telling you what's happening here.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed 
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
0
alangbaker (17682)
3/6/2007 7:16:15 PM
In article <45edaad3$0$14133$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
> >> need it.
> >
> >Or it could be that Canadians have better eating and excercise habits. 
> 
> No evidence of that.
> 
> >If Americans did not overeat and they excercised more their life 
> 
> If you educatd yourself and used your brain instead of arguing that
> Americans are some of the laziest and fattest people on Earth ...

<yawn>

<http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/articles/adult
s/aobesity.htm>

"Canada-United States
While Canada�s obesity rates have, for the most part, been based on 
self-reported data, the United States has derived rates from actual 
measurements of height and weight since the early 1960s. With the 
directly measured data from the 2004 CCHS, it is possible to compare the 
prevalence of obesity in the two countries.
Age-standardized results show that 29.7% of Americans aged 18 or older 
were obese in 1999-2002, significantly above the 2004 figure for Canada 
(23.1%). Most of this difference was attributable to the situation among 
women. Whereas 23.2% of Canadian women were obese, the figure for 
American women was 32.6%. As well, each obesity category (Class I, II 
and III) accounted for a higher percentage of American than Canadian 
women (Table 3). The difference in obesity rates between American and 
Canadian women prevailed in all age groups except 45 to 54 and 75 or 
older (Chart 6)."

And:

<http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/
ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11868>

"The Dead Weight of Obesity?
But comparisons of obesity rates between the two countries (with obesity 
defined as a BMI over 30) tell a sharply different story. In 1998, 
American men were twice as obese as Canadian men (28 percent of the 
total U.S. male population versus 13 percent for Canada). American women 
were three times as obese as Canadian women (34 percent versus 11 
percent). Recent estimates of remaining life expectancy for people who 
are overweight and obese suggest that the consequences of these 
conditions are substantial."

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed 
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
0
alangbaker (17682)
3/6/2007 7:21:22 PM
Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> "The Dead Weight of Obesity?
> But comparisons of obesity rates between the two countries (with obesity 
> defined as a BMI over 30) tell a sharply different story. In 1998, 
> American men were twice as obese as Canadian men (28 percent of the 
> total U.S. male population versus 13 percent for Canada). American women 
> were three times as obese as Canadian women (34 percent versus 11 
> percent). Recent estimates of remaining life expectancy for people who 
> are overweight and obese suggest that the consequences of these 
> conditions are substantial."

This accounts for the difference in life expectancy of the white 
populations I think.

The black population is a different story. The leading cause of death 
among black males in the U.S. is gunshot and stab wounds.

If you take away the guns, knives and dope blacks would die of 
overweight just like their white counterparts.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 7:30:31 PM
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:07:58 -0600, Jose <jodaysmix@giganews.com>
wrote:

>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>universal healthcare was so great.

???  ROTFL!!!!

Uh, stupid?  More Americans get health care goods and services from
Canada than vice versa.  It's only the few wealthy Canadians who can
afford US health care and want either a luxury standard of care or
immediate treatment of non-urgent conditions.  But it's the millions
upon millions of poor and middle class Americans who can't afford US
health care who get treatment and medicines from Canada (often using
fake Canadian health care cards).  And it's not just the universally
available services they come for.  Thousands of Americans come to
Canada for laser eye surgery, cosmetic procedures, etc. at private
clinics because it is so much cheaper than in the USA.  

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/6/2007 7:40:28 PM
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:10:59 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>> 
>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>> was so great.
>
>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs. 
>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line.

Yes, actually, they do, and treating American "medical tourists" is
recognized as a huge cost to Canadian health care budgets.

>In the U.S., the custom 
>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.

But both poor and middle class Americans routinely go to Canada for
better treatment, because they are not treated with indifference,
contempt and even hostility just because they can't pay.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/6/2007 7:44:38 PM
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:29:55 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Timberwoof wrote:>
>> 
>> No, the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.
>
>The fuck they were. They intended to make the battle for Japan look like 
>Okinowa to the tenth power.

It would actually have been a trivial matter for the US Navy to
blockade Japan and starve them into the Stone Age rather than invade,
but the political repercussions were considered unacceptable.  From
the American perspective, the nukes seemed like a clean, safe,
efficient solution, and there is little doubt they saved the Japanese
people untold suffering.  Many more Japanese would have died much more
slowly and horribly of starvation, disease, etc. as well as in the
fighting if the A-bombs had not been dropped than died at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/6/2007 7:52:13 PM
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
>news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay 
>> crooks
>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak minded
>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>
>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies that
>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>> expensive.
>>
>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
>> number
>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times as
>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>
>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free 
>> market"/"for
>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize the
>> medical benefits for the society.
>>
>Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is over 
>a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third party 
>payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is.  You 
>will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of time, 
>their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall rate 
>of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the case? 
>When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the core 
>problem is. 

Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/6/2007 7:59:19 PM
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:25:48 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:

>My own brother has now been told he may as well not 
>come back for additional treatment no matter how much pain he is in 
>unless it gets to the point where he cannot walk.

Maybe there is just nothing they can do for him short of joint
replacement, which might be too risky, depending on the overall state
of his health.  Knees are like that.

In the US system, of course, they'd have him in for surgery in a
jiffy, as long as he could pay for it -- and as long as he didn't care
if the surgery was actually going solve the problem or not.  Still a
problem after surgery?  No problem!  Surgery is profitable, and how!
We'll just do _more_ surgery, and keep on doing more, and raking in
the dough, until he croaks on the operating table.  Problem solved!

You don't seem to have understood that private, for-profit medical
care just gets the incentives irretrievably wrong.  There's a saying
in med school that the ideal specialty is dermatology, because your
patients never die of anything you're treating them for, but they
never get better, either.  You might want to think about what that
implies.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/6/2007 8:36:36 PM
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:23:32 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in 
>the USA. 

Ah, so _that's_ what it's called when you provide needed treatments to
poor people who will benefit by them rather than unnecessary
treatments to rich ones who won't.

"Health care rationing."  Thanks.  I'll remember what it means the
next time I see that term used.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/6/2007 8:41:13 PM
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:22:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>Here is something for you to think about.  Let us say, our government 
>decides that no one has to pay for the food they buy, or that they have to 
>pay only a fraction of the real cost.  What incentive does the people who 
>sell the foods we buy to lower their price?  Why should the sellers charge 
>less for hamburger and more more steaks?  "If" someone else is paying for 
>your trip to the supermarket, or subsidizing a large percentage of the cost 
>of the purchase, would you eat more steaks and less hamburger, regardless of 
>the cost?

And here's something for _you_ to think about:

Do you know what kind of food you want to buy?  How do you know?

Now, do you know what kind of drugs and medical treatments you want to
buy?  How do you know?

Are we thinking yet?

You can't apply free market economics to a market where the producers
are deciding what the consumers are going to buy.  Do you think the
food industry would provide good quality at reasonable prices if you
went to a restaurant or grocery store and had to let the _owner_
decide what you were going to buy?

Hello?

Furthermore, are you allowed to buy whatever food you want?

How about drugs and medical services?

Is anyone who wants to do so allowed to produce and sell food in open
competition?

How about drugs and medical services?

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

You can't implement a system of massive rent seeking and then tell
people they have to either pay the rents or suffer and die.  At least
not if you don't want to spend Eternity in the Pit that is Bottomless.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/6/2007 8:58:02 PM
Nospam wrote:

> Bob Kolker wrote:
> 
> 
>>Nospam wrote:>
>>
>>>How many lines of code wrote Bill Gates this year compared with an
>>>average Microsoft employee ? How many goods produced a Wall Street
>>>gambler ?
>>
>>No relevent. Gates set up the business in which his code Proles prosper.
> 
> 
> This is just the same obsolete ideology that claimed the slaves should be
> happy with their enslavement.
> 

No fair calling it slavery and ignoring the definitional and salient
aspects of slavery.

> Into your previous message you said:
> 
> "we believe people ought to propser according to the value they produce, not
> because they -need- things".
> 
> The single reason Microsoft is still in business is because they hold a huge
> marketshare, use and abuse proprietary file formats and protocols to make
> almost impossible for the client to switch to a competing product without
> major disruption. AKA, by customer enslavement.
> 

Microsoft is still in business because people like the products. People 
have overwhelmingly many other options, and they choose M$.

People don't give a rat's patootie about formats and protocols. The one
everybody loves to complain about, MSWord, did not start out life as a 
Microsoft format, anyway - but as the Samna word processor.

Since revealed preferences is all but inarguable ( some say it's
tautological ), we're done.


> It is this predatory business practice that prevent anybody else to enter
> the market and push Microsoft away despite the fact that there are better
> products outthere.  Today,  Linux is a 3D desktop much better than anything
> Vista can offer to the advanced user, and Mac has been always more user
> friendly with the beginners.
> 

If it's better, why don't people choose them? Are you saying that
everybody is wrong, or that M$ has voodoo priests zombifying the
entire computer using populace?

If I am forced to choose between "people buy what they like" and
"dark sinister forces"...

> What Bill Gates is doing today it is maintaining his power by harming the
> customers, harming the competition and yes not giving any opportunities to
> his employees to start on their own.

That is absolute nonsense. M$'s thing is "developers, developers,
developers" - offering a perceived leg up for individuals who
*do* want to start their own. Once bought in, they get to
ride the tiger. How many people do you know who offered
software packages and built companies on this basis? I
know dozens.

It is a known *fact* that people, all people will do one thing
and say anopther. Almost all the time. Read "The Hidden Persuaders"
for examples ad nauseum. Watch "The Merchants of Cool" on the
Frontline website for an update to the '50s classic.

I prefer Linux myself, but I use M$ because there
are simply things I cannot do with Linux. But I do not
confuse that with some dark, evil plot to enslave
humanity. I sorta roll my eyes at the geek Utopianism
of it. As false dichotomies go, it's a doozy.

> Microsoft is hot helping the society
> at all today, but harming it like all the monopolies do.
> 

Yes, those evil monopolies, building rairoads,
skyscrapers and making home lighting oil cheap.

Your congnitive dissonance could power
a small lightbulb, bub. I don't see a lot
of interest in "forty acres and a mule" these days,
although there are people who *do* that.

> So again. You defend the powerfull idle doing harm by attacking the valuable
> producer. Disgusting right wing idiocy !!!
> 

If all else fails, fall short of even adhominem.

<snip>
> 
> 
> Then Microsoft will destroy them as did with Stacker, Netscape, Digital
> Research or others. Not by anything they invented or created but by unfair
> and predatory business practice.
> 

Stacker I'll give you. Nasty story. DR - Gary Killdall fluffed it.
Netscape? Ha! It's still there, on an "the enemy of my enemy is
my friend" basis.

Even *Stacker*, though - compression isn't exactly new, nor
is it all that proprietary. It's just applied coding
theory.

I guess you mmissed where Scott whatsisname basically gutted
Sun on the basis of whinging about M$, rather than improving
things to actually *compete* with them? When your browser
runs on to a Java based website that utterly and totally fails,
thank ole Scott. Then again, I've made good money
forklifting out *bad* Java code before...

That still does not change the fact that customers flock to
M$ releases on cue.

You may complain about M$ as a rent-seeking entity only. Beyond
that, it's all lickspittle hysteria. Sorry. Time for a new
hobby.

--
Les Cargill

0
lcargill1 (136)
3/6/2007 9:08:33 PM
royls@telus.net wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:10:59 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>
>>>Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>was so great.
>>
>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs. 
>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line.
> 
> 
> Yes, actually, they do, and treating American "medical tourists" is
> recognized as a huge cost to Canadian health care budgets.
> 

So why not raise the price to equalize it?

And before we get too gooey about how square-chinned
Canada is, remember that during Prohibition, booze
production along the US border was spun up to employ
people, even though booze was curiously *also* illegal
in Canada by its own clone of the Volstead Act.

Nice hunk of work, that. Admirable, even. Canada
should make money on the NHS if Murkins
are using it.

> 
>>In the U.S., the custom 
>>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
> 
> 
> But both poor and middle class Americans routinely go to Canada for
> better treatment, because they are not treated with indifference,
> contempt and even hostility just because they can't pay.
> 

The bony hand of Puritanism at work again. Bad health
is Gawds judgment on ye. Maybe that germ theory thing
will catch on....

> -- Roy L

--
Les Cargill
0
lcargill1 (136)
3/6/2007 9:14:43 PM
"Smit" <smit@cableone.invalid> stated in post
<5567v5F23egriU1@mid.individual.net> on 03/06/07 11:23 PM:

> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote in message 
> news:1173216260.495156.265080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > quick question- you're too busy to do research to support your point 
> >> > (which
> >> > shouldn't be too hard, since you claim to have already read the 
> >> > studies.
> >> > you must have a good idea where to find them...), but you keep posting? 
> >> > ;D
> >>
> >> Google.  As I have time later I can do some research for you...
> >
> > i can't wait.
> >
> > oh, while you're at it, did you ever find that article you claimed to
> > read where chavez went directly to bush to discuss holding down oil
> > prices?  ;D
>
> Of course I didn't, you silly troll. I was reading the article in my 
> psychiatrist's office one afternoon, and when I went back their the 
> following week, the magazine was, *gasp!*, gone!

Really, Steve, do you think anyone falls for this? You are now back in the killfile again. I'm planning on keeping you there for good.

My apologies to the netizens of csma. My pointing out Steves lies and busting his forgeries has apparently driven him over the edge. He just can't stop spewing his BS.

-- 
� �Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
� �Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
� �Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same

0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 9:18:53 PM
On Mar 5, 11:04 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "ed" <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> Tf8Hh.5618$P47.1...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 11:55 PM:
> >>>>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>
> >>>>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
> >>>>>> countries?
>
> >>>>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in
> >>>>> less physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends to
> >>>>> be much healthier than fast food and instant meals).
>
> >>>> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.
>
> >>>> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and
> >>>> that we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
> >>>> argument.
>
> >>>> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
>
> >>> so if not laziness, what's preventing americans from being 'not as physical
> >>> as we should be,' or cooking up some healthy meals (which can be done quite
> >>> cheaply) rather than eating fast food / cheap junk?
>
> >> Who says anything is *preventing* them?
>
> > so if nothing is preventing them, and they're not lazy, exactly what do you
> > think is going on?
>
> Could be any number of things...

it could be, but it's not.  ;D

> what makes you think it is based on
> laziness?

the average american watches more than 4.5 hours of tv a day (that's
over 2 months a year), and less time than that per WEEK exercising.
americans also routinely reply that they'd like to get more exercise
and eat better, but have no time.  what makes you think it's anything
OTHER than laziness?

> That, really, is the question... I am not interested in playin
> the turn-around game.  If I wanted to do that I would dance the hokey pokey.

of course you're interested in playing the turn-around game- it's your
m.o.

> Good exercise, by the way.  :)
>
> >> Your claim was that people in the US were lazier... now the topic is, what,
> >> why we cook and exercise less?
>
> > yup, that's the topic, as it relates to health.
>
> So which is the topic?  It was laziness... now it is cooking and exercise.
> Pick one... I would prefer the original.

one is a manifestation of the other.  i thought you could figure that
out by yourself, but i guess not.

> >> Please, ed, stick to the topic.  I noted someone else pointed you to support
> >> that folks in the US actually work *more*, not less -
>
> > and i already addressed that, as i'm sure you know...
>
> Nope... I did not read that part of the thread.
>
> >>> the real point is the vast majority of the people in between.  i was playing
> >>> along with your false dichotomy of rich / poor because you've previously
> >>> refused to define it, but the vast majority of people (in the us) are
> >>> neither, so you can't just ignore them in a discussion about what's good for
> >>> most people.
>
> >> There are far, far more people who are on the low end of the spectrum who
> >> have little or no insurance and poor access to health care.
>
> > again, you're ignoring the vast majority in the middle.
>
> They are not relevant to my point.

then your point is pointless, since wer're talking about the overall
quality of care, not just that amongst the rich and the poor.

> >>> it's only clear when you consider only the rich and poor, ignoring the mass
> >>> of people in the middle.  simple fact is, *most* americans have health
> >>> insurance of some sort.  quality of care is generally good.  things could be
> >>> better, but 'broken', i would argue, it's not.
>
> >> How do you come to the conclusion that the care is generally good?
>
> > you'll be on the fringe if you claim otherwise- people have criticisms of the
> > us system, but you'll not find many arguing the care is not generally good.
>
> Unlikely.

then show otherwise.

> >> Have you seen the studies of the number of deaths based on accidents in
> >> hospitals?
>
> > yup.  i've not heard anything to suggest it's any higher in the united states
> > though.
>
> See my next sentence:

i did- and?

> >> I do not know if the stats in the US are worse than elsewhere, but they are
> >> appalling in the US.
>
> > if you're appalled by the accidental deaths in the us, you're probably lucky
> > that you are here- i have no stats, but i've seen the hospitals in a couple
> > foreign countries first hand, and heard second hand about a couple others...
> > not good...
>
> Funny how you do not accept anecdotal evidence about the US.

i'm talking about overall conditions- something that can be easily and
directly observed.  the accidental deaths you're talking about, mostly
can not be.  there's a difference.

> >> And, of course, with doctors being forced by HMOs  to see massive numbers of
> >> patients a day and other such idiotic things,
>
> > how 'massive' a number are doctors being 'forced' to see?
>
> Up to dozens a day... depends on the HMO.

'dozens', as in 2 dozen?  that'd average 3 an hour, over an 8 hour
day.  hardly seems unreasonable for most routine things (which most
appointments are).  my last appointment at the doctor was to do a
blood workup- i saw the doctor for maybe 5 minutes, which was fine.
which leaves 55 minutes for the other 2 patients of the hour.  ;D

<snip>
> >>> but *most* americans DO have insurance, and the *vast* majority of people
> >>> in
> >>> hmo's are very happy.  that is not cllearly broken in my book.
>
> >> How do you figure that the vast majority are happy with HMOs?
>
> > california mandates customer surveys, which are then printed in plan
> > brochures.  i look at them each year during my open enrollment.
>
> California is not the US...

it's not, but it is a big chunk of it.

>  and, of course, I would want to see how those
> studies are done.

yet you didn't question the who study.  odd.  ;D

> >> And how many
> >> people need to be without insurance for you to see it as a problem...
>
> > i don't think you can put a number on it, but when almost 85% DO have
> > insurance, it's not 'clearly broken' to me.  i know i used to be part of
> > that group- i opted out.  ;D
>
> I am guessing you were financially above the average of the US.   Just a guess.

not when i was opting out i wasn't.  but i was young and healthy, so
health insurance wasn't a priority.

> >> and do
> >> you count people as really insured when their pre-existing conditions are
> >> not covered?
>
> > how many people are in that group?
>
> Lots... I do not have a number to give you, but *many* people have
> pre-existing conditions, and unless they get insurance through a company plan they are generally out of luck.

how do you know there are lots, if you don't know how many?

> > quick question- you're too busy to do research to support your point (which
> > shouldn't be too hard, since you claim to have already read the studies.
> > you must have a good idea where to find them...), but you keep posting?  ;D
>
> Google.  As I have time later I can do some research for you...

i can't wait.

oh, while you're at it, did you ever find that article you claimed to
read where chavez went directly to bush to discuss holding down oil
prices?  ;D

0
news74 (3350)
3/6/2007 9:24:20 PM
royls@telus.net wrote:
> 
> And here's something for _you_ to think about:
> 
> Do you know what kind of food you want to buy?  How do you know?
> 
> Now, do you know what kind of drugs and medical treatments you want to
> buy?  How do you know?

Crank up WebMD.com and find out. The information is all Out There for 
those with the wits to read it.

There is loads of information on treatments, drugs, conditions etc and 
most of it is easily accesible on the web.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/6/2007 9:27:43 PM
"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
1173216260.495156.265080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com on 3/6/07 2:24 PM:

> On Mar 5, 11:04 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "ed" <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>> Tf8Hh.5618$P47.1...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 11:55 PM:
>>>>>>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
>> 
>>>>>>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
>>>>>>>> countries?
>> 
>>>>>>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in
>>>>>>> less physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be much healthier than fast food and instant meals).
>> 
>>>>>> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of that.
>> 
>>>>>> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and
>>>>>> that we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have no
>>>>>> argument.
>> 
>>>>>> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
>> 
>>>>> so if not laziness, what's preventing americans from being 'not as
>>>>> physical
>>>>> as we should be,' or cooking up some healthy meals (which can be done
>>>>> quite
>>>>> cheaply) rather than eating fast food / cheap junk?
>> 
>>>> Who says anything is *preventing* them?
>> 
>>> so if nothing is preventing them, and they're not lazy, exactly what do you
>>> think is going on?
>> 
>> Could be any number of things...
> 
> it could be, but it's not.  ;D

That is what I have been asking you to support.  Can you?
> 
>> what makes you think it is based on
>> laziness?
> 
> the average american watches more than 4.5 hours of tv a day (that's
> over 2 months a year), and less time than that per WEEK exercising.
> americans also routinely reply that they'd like to get more exercise
> and eat better, but have no time.  what makes you think it's anything
> OTHER than laziness?

Compare them to other cultures... what makes you think folks in the US are
more lazy than others?

>> That, really, is the question... I am not interested in playin
>> the turn-around game.  If I wanted to do that I would dance the hokey pokey.
> 
> of course you're interested in playing the turn-around game- it's your
> m.o.

Incorrect.  I am asking you to support your claim.

>> Good exercise, by the way.  :)
>> 
>>>> Your claim was that people in the US were lazier... now the topic is, what,
>>>> why we cook and exercise less?
>> 
>>> yup, that's the topic, as it relates to health.
>> 
>> So which is the topic?  It was laziness... now it is cooking and exercise.
>> Pick one... I would prefer the original.
> 
> one is a manifestation of the other.  i thought you could figure that
> out by yourself, but i guess not.

You *claim* one is a manifestation of the other.  I am asking you to support
your claim.

>>>> Please, ed, stick to the topic.  I noted someone else pointed you to
>>>> support
>>>> that folks in the US actually work *more*, not less -
>> 
>>> and i already addressed that, as i'm sure you know...
>> 
>> Nope... I did not read that part of the thread.
>> 
>>>>> the real point is the vast majority of the people in between.  i was
>>>>> playing
>>>>> along with your false dichotomy of rich / poor because you've previously
>>>>> refused to define it, but the vast majority of people (in the us) are
>>>>> neither, so you can't just ignore them in a discussion about what's good
>>>>> for
>>>>> most people.
>> 
>>>> There are far, far more people who are on the low end of the spectrum who
>>>> have little or no insurance and poor access to health care.
>> 
>>> again, you're ignoring the vast majority in the middle.
>> 
>> They are not relevant to my point.
> 
> then your point is pointless, since wer're talking about the overall
> quality of care, not just that amongst the rich and the poor.

You missed my point.  I can accept that... and thus to you it is
"pointless".  OK.

>>>>> it's only clear when you consider only the rich and poor, ignoring the
>>>>> mass
>>>>> of people in the middle.  simple fact is, *most* americans have health
>>>>> insurance of some sort.  quality of care is generally good.  things could
>>>>> be
>>>>> better, but 'broken', i would argue, it's not.
>> 
>>>> How do you come to the conclusion that the care is generally good?
>> 
>>> you'll be on the fringe if you claim otherwise- people have criticisms of
>>> the
>>> us system, but you'll not find many arguing the care is not generally good.
>> 
>> Unlikely.
> 
> then show otherwise.

You make a claim... I note your support is "unlikely" and you want me to
show that... no, Ed, show support for your claims.

>>>> Have you seen the studies of the number of deaths based on accidents in
>>>> hospitals?
>> 
>>> yup.  i've not heard anything to suggest it's any higher in the united
>>> states
>>> though.
>> 
>> See my next sentence:
> 
> i did- and?
> 
>>>> I do not know if the stats in the US are worse than elsewhere, but they are
>>>> appalling in the US.
>> 
>>> if you're appalled by the accidental deaths in the us, you're probably lucky
>>> that you are here- i have no stats, but i've seen the hospitals in a couple
>>> foreign countries first hand, and heard second hand about a couple others...
>>> not good...
>> 
>> Funny how you do not accept anecdotal evidence about the US.
> 
> i'm talking about overall conditions- something that can be easily and
> directly observed.  the accidental deaths you're talking about, mostly
> can not be.  there's a difference.

There is a lot of data on accident / mistake related deaths in hospitals.

But a couple of anecdotes from people I do not know is not a very convincing
argument... though I accept it is likely the best you can do.

>>>> And, of course, with doctors being forced by HMOs  to see massive numbers
>>>> of
>>>> patients a day and other such idiotic things,
>> 
>>> how 'massive' a number are doctors being 'forced' to see?
>> 
>> Up to dozens a day... depends on the HMO.
> 
> 'dozens', as in 2 dozen?  that'd average 3 an hour, over an 8 hour
> day.  hardly seems unreasonable for most routine things (which most
> appointments are).  my last appointment at the doctor was to do a
> blood workup- i saw the doctor for maybe 5 minutes, which was fine.
> which leaves 55 minutes for the other 2 patients of the hour.  ;D

I have heard 40 to 50 a day... again, would have to do research... not worth
doing being that you have failed to support your claims.  Not interested in
changing the topic until you do.

> <snip>
>>>>> but *most* americans DO have insurance, and the *vast* majority of people
>>>>> in
>>>>> hmo's are very happy.  that is not cllearly broken in my book.
>> 
>>>> How do you figure that the vast majority are happy with HMOs?
>> 
>>> california mandates customer surveys, which are then printed in plan
>>> brochures.  i look at them each year during my open enrollment.
>> 
>> California is not the US...
> 
> it's not, but it is a big chunk of it.

But not a representative chunk.

>>  and, of course, I would want to see how those
>> studies are done.
> 
> yet you didn't question the who study.  odd.  ;D

What WHO study?  And I would want to see the study... yes.

>>>> And how many
>>>> people need to be without insurance for you to see it as a problem...
>> 
>>> i don't think you can put a number on it, but when almost 85% DO have
>>> insurance, it's not 'clearly broken' to me.  i know i used to be part of
>>> that group- i opted out.  ;D
>> 
>> I am guessing you were financially above the average of the US.   Just a
>> guess.
> 
> not when i was opting out i wasn't.  but i was young and healthy, so
> health insurance wasn't a priority.

You are lucky nothing big came up...

>>>> and do
>>>> you count people as really insured when their pre-existing conditions are
>>>> not covered?
>> 
>>> how many people are in that group?
>> 
>> Lots... I do not have a number to give you, but *many* people have
>> pre-existing conditions, and unless they get insurance through a company plan
>> they are generally out of luck.
> 
> how do you know there are lots, if you don't know how many?

Common sense.  Really.  Geez.

>>> quick question- you're too busy to do research to support your point (which
>>> shouldn't be too hard, since you claim to have already read the studies.
>>> you must have a good idea where to find them...), but you keep posting?  ;D
>> 
>> Google.  As I have time later I can do some research for you...
> 
> i can't wait.
> 
> oh, while you're at it, did you ever find that article you claimed to
> read where chavez went directly to bush to discuss holding down oil
> prices?  ;D

Directly to Bush?  As in sat in his office?  What are you talking about?

-- 
� Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
��A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking


0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 9:33:45 PM
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:24:20 -0600, ed wrote
(in article 
<1173216260.495156.265080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>):

> the average american watches more than 4.5 hours of tv a day (that's
> over 2 months a year), 

I watch /maybe/ 2 hours of TV a week, and only then if Rome 
(HBO) isn't a rerun.

> and less time than that per WEEK exercising.

I'm at the club for several hours, usually 4 days a week.

> americans also routinely reply that they'd like to get more exercise
> and eat better, but have no time.  

I swore off fast food years ago, which may or may not have 
changed much, but I feel better, could be placebo effect.



-- 
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
..........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

0
nunya (4574)
3/6/2007 10:17:52 PM
"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote in message 
news:1173216260.495156.265080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

>> > quick question- you're too busy to do research to support your point 
>> > (which
>> > shouldn't be too hard, since you claim to have already read the 
>> > studies.
>> > you must have a good idea where to find them...), but you keep posting? 
>> > ;D
>>
>> Google.  As I have time later I can do some research for you...
>
> i can't wait.
>
> oh, while you're at it, did you ever find that article you claimed to
> read where chavez went directly to bush to discuss holding down oil
> prices?  ;D

Of course I didn't, you silly troll. I was reading the article in my 
psychiatrist's office one afternoon, and when I went back their the 
following week, the magazine was, *gasp!*, gone! 


0
Smit7223 (201)
3/6/2007 10:23:29 PM
"Lefty Bigfoot" <nunya@busyness.info> stated in post
0001HW.C21344AF03E9D06CF0203648@news.verizon.net on 3/6/07 3:17 PM:

> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:24:20 -0600, ed wrote
> (in article 
> <1173216260.495156.265080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>):
> 
>> the average american watches more than 4.5 hours of tv a day (that's
>> over 2 months a year),
> 
> I watch /maybe/ 2 hours of TV a week, and only then if Rome
> (HBO) isn't a rerun.

That does not mean his average stat is incorrect.

>> and less time than that per WEEK exercising.
> 
> I'm at the club for several hours, usually 4 days a week.

Again.. 
 
>> americans also routinely reply that they'd like to get more exercise
>> and eat better, but have no time.
> 
> I swore off fast food years ago, which may or may not have
> changed much, but I feel better, could be placebo effect.

Likely not.

-- 
��Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
��Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
��Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC




0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 10:29:27 PM
In article <0001HW.C21344AF03E9D06CF0203648@news.verizon.net>,
 Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:24:20 -0600, ed wrote
> (in article 
> <1173216260.495156.265080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>):
> 
> > the average american watches more than 4.5 hours of tv a day (that's
> > over 2 months a year), 
> 
> I watch /maybe/ 2 hours of TV a week, and only then if Rome 
> (HBO) isn't a rerun.
> 
> > and less time than that per WEEK exercising.
> 
> I'm at the club for several hours, usually 4 days a week.
> 
> > americans also routinely reply that they'd like to get more exercise
> > and eat better, but have no time.  
> 
> I swore off fast food years ago, which may or may not have 
> changed much, but I feel better, could be placebo effect.

I don't eat fast food, don't drink alcohol, don't smoke, don't eat 
candy or snacks. I don't exercise much and I watch DVD on a regular 
basis (often running through seasons of popular TV series - we're at 
season 2 of 24 right now).

I feel great! :-D

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22317)
3/6/2007 10:41:18 PM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-480693.23411806032007@News.Individual.NET on 3/6/07 3:41 PM:

> In article <0001HW.C21344AF03E9D06CF0203648@news.verizon.net>,
>  Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:24:20 -0600, ed wrote
>> (in article 
>> <1173216260.495156.265080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>):
>> 
>>> the average american watches more than 4.5 hours of tv a day (that's
>>> over 2 months a year),
>> 
>> I watch /maybe/ 2 hours of TV a week, and only then if Rome
>> (HBO) isn't a rerun.
>> 
>>> and less time than that per WEEK exercising.
>> 
>> I'm at the club for several hours, usually 4 days a week.
>> 
>>> americans also routinely reply that they'd like to get more exercise
>>> and eat better, but have no time.
>> 
>> I swore off fast food years ago, which may or may not have
>> changed much, but I feel better, could be placebo effect.
> 
> I don't eat fast food, don't drink alcohol, don't smoke, don't eat
> candy or snacks. I don't exercise much and I watch DVD on a regular
> basis (often running through seasons of popular TV series - we're at
> season 2 of 24 right now).
> 
> I feel great! :-D

How you sleep at night, however, is anyone's guess.  :)

-- 
� If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
��Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
� One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted




0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/6/2007 11:07:03 PM
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:esj40i$km5$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> Here is something for you to think about.  Let us say, our government 
>> decides that no one has to pay for the food they buy, or that they have 
>> to pay only a fraction of the real cost.  What incentive does the people 
>> who sell the foods we buy to lower their price?  Why should the sellers 
>> charge less for hamburger and more more steaks?  "If" someone else is 
>> paying for your trip to the supermarket, or subsidizing a large 
>> percentage of the cost of the purchase, would you eat more steaks and 
>> less hamburger, regardless of the cost?
>
> Jerry,
>
> You're assuming the "consumer" in the health care setting is rational and 
> has full information just like someone who's out grocery shopping. That's 
> a faulty assumption.  Most of us can tell the difference between steak and 
> hamburger.  How do you know whether the pain you feel in your abdomen is 
> gas or, some serious G.I. problem?  If I offered you a free appendectomy 
> would you take me up on it?  Health care or medical services is not an 
> item that grants utility like filet mignon or lobster so conventional 
> economics goes out the window.

It has nothing to do with the knowledge of the consumer and everything to do 
with the "choices" we make when we have to pay for what we want, and when we 
do not have to pay for what we want.  The question I asked is the basic 
problem with a third party payment system.  "If" you are not the one paying 
the bill, you do not care what the cost is for the service (in this case) 
you want.  You have a situation where demand is virtually unlimited, with no 
effective way to control demand, other than to resort to rationing, which of 
course no one wants, but that is what you eventually have to resort to, 
because the cost of providing that service is rising faster than is 
sustainable.  But rationing, like price controls will not work over a long 
period of time, because neither addresses the supply/demand imbalance, which 
is the basic reason prices are rising.

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/6/2007 11:53:05 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45eda7ea.17056204@news.telus.net...
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:22:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Here is something for you to think about.  Let us say, our government
>>decides that no one has to pay for the food they buy, or that they have to
>>pay only a fraction of the real cost.  What incentive does the people who
>>sell the foods we buy to lower their price?  Why should the sellers charge
>>less for hamburger and more more steaks?  "If" someone else is paying for
>>your trip to the supermarket, or subsidizing a large percentage of the 
>>cost
>>of the purchase, would you eat more steaks and less hamburger, regardless 
>>of
>>the cost?
>
> And here's something for _you_ to think about:
>
> Do you know what kind of food you want to buy?  How do you know?

Most people tend to go to the supermarket and buy what is on sale.  Very few 
people will buy what they think is too expensive for their pocket book.  And 
they certainly are not about to buy a steak or a lobster too often, because 
they cost an arm and a leg.  On the other hand, they will buy hamburger more 
often.  On the other hand, "if" they did not have to pay for the food they 
buy, they will buy what they "want", regardless of cost.
>
> Now, do you know what kind of drugs and medical treatments you want to
> buy?  How do you know?

That is not the point I was making.  The point I was making is you cannot 
effectively control prices, when the person who uses the product or service, 
is not the one who pays for the product or service.  They have little to no 
incentive not to use the service regardless of how much it cost, because 
they are not the ones who are paying, someone else is paying.
>
> Are we thinking yet?
>
> You can't apply free market economics to a market where the producers
> are deciding what the consumers are going to buy.  Do you think the
> food industry would provide good quality at reasonable prices if you
> went to a restaurant or grocery store and had to let the _owner_
> decide what you were going to buy?

You have got to be real dumb, if you suspect that the restaurant or grocry 
store is selling you something you do not want, or is not good for you......
>
> Hello?
>
> Furthermore, are you allowed to buy whatever food you want?
>
> How about drugs and medical services?
>
> Is anyone who wants to do so allowed to produce and sell food in open
> competition?
>
> How about drugs and medical services?
>
> Are you starting to get the picture yet?
>
> You can't implement a system of massive rent seeking and then tell
> people they have to either pay the rents or suffer and die.  At least
> not if you don't want to spend Eternity in the Pit that is Bottomless.
>
> -- Roy L 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/6/2007 11:59:24 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ece8c8$0$14144$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>>>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>>>
>>> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>> longer than Americans.
>>>
>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in
>>the USA.
>
> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>
NO...spend some time and find out what they are doing to try and restrain 
the cost of that care. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 12:00:59 AM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ecfa69$0$14070$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
>>> >>>fact
>>> >>
>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>> >>
>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>>> >in
>>> >the USA.
>>>
>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>
>>No.
>>
>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>
> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
> need it.

Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.  The difference 
between Canada and the United States is miniscule.
>
>>Try injuring a knee in Canada and seeing how long it takes to get your
>>injury diagnosed, let alone treated.
>
> How long?  Do you have some actual evidence or is this just more
> neocon bullshitting?
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)

http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2006/02/Health_Care.php

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

http://www.newrules.org/equity/CNhealthcare.html 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 12:10:39 AM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45eda710.16838659@news.telus.net...
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:23:32 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in
>>the USA.
>
> Ah, so _that's_ what it's called when you provide needed treatments to
> poor people who will benefit by them rather than unnecessary
> treatments to rich ones who won't.

No, the rich in Canada, like the rich anywhere else, do not need any help 
from the government.  They have the resources to "opt out" of whatever 
system any government puts in place.  It is the very poor that you seem so 
concerned about, who gets the shaft, when they are promised free healthcare, 
and find out that in order to get that free health care, there are some 
serious strings attached, and those strings may result in you dying before 
you ever get the care you thought you should get.
>
> "Health care rationing."  Thanks.  I'll remember what it means the
> next time I see that term used.
>
Rationing occurs everytime you go to buy something, and decide not to buy 
it. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 12:15:01 AM
Don't want to find out the facts?

"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
news:2093440.OHIAmPsDC7@example.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is
>> over a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third
>> party
>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is.
>> You will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of
>> time, their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their
>> overall rate
>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the
>> case? When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what 
>> the
>> core problem is.
>
> The core problem is the fact that access to health care it is incompatible
> with business practice.
>
> You seems to be deluded by the corporate propaganda to believe that the 
> core
> problem is that the third party payer increase the costs because the 
> system
> does not encourage the "consumers" to restrain themselves in their
> "consumption". This missguided idea it is generated especially because you
> believe that the health care must be a private for proffit business.  If
> this is your believe you are deadly wrong.
>
> The market it is JUST A FORM OF RATIONING. What the market can do by 
> leaving
> some people out of care, the government can do with regulations. Let see 
> an
> example:
>
> There are 10 people seeking medical attention at one moment in time.
> And there is medical capacity to take care of only 7.
>
> A,B,C being poor people with serious problems, D,E,F are middle class 
> people
> with serious problems G,H are middle class people with "vanity medical
> issues", I is a rich with serious problems and J is a rich with "vanity
> medical issues".
>
> A universal care system will give the green light to be taken care at
> emergency of A,B,C,D,E,F and I. Then, G,H and J are told to wait 3 months
> or so until there are openings in the system. In 3 months, G,H and J will
> get their "vanity issues" taken care of.
>
> A market based system will take care of D,E,F,G,H,I,J and let A,B,C out
> FOREVER !!!. The A,B, and C will eventually die in pain. To prove the
> quintessence of the "efficiency" of private sector. Yes, private insurance
> companies  are very efficient at killing people, indeed.
>
> The problem is NOT the inflation due to lack of "consumer shoping crap".
> The problem is that the healthcare system is incompatible with a for 
> proffit
> business practice. PERIOD !!!.
> 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 12:15:50 AM
"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
news:7120844.kL1QXM2pZ0@example.com...
> Bob Kolker wrote:
>
>>> believe that the health care must be a private for proffit business.  If
>>> this is your believe you are deadly wrong.
>>
>> Food is a private for profit business and it is more essential to life
>> than medical service.
>
> Libertarianism inducted adult attention deficit disorder at best. I 
> already
> explained to you personally at least 3 times.
>
> Here is the first post from a whole list:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7ab93c58f82cadfd
>
>

They are talking about the impact of insurance.  That is not the critical 
issue. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 12:17:40 AM
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:timberwoof.spam-9CD34D.16471105032007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> In article <45eca8f0$0$17001$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>> > This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay
>> > crooks
>> > to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>> > minded
>> > idiots may believe this trash.
>> >
>> > Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies 
>> > that
>> > as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>> > expensive.
>> >
>> > Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>> > quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as 
>> > the
>> > number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>> > medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>> > number
>> > is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>> > while
>> > France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times 
>> > as
>> > much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>> >
>> > The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>> > market"/"for
>> > proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while 
>> > the
>> > French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize 
>> > the
>> > medical benefits for the society.
>> >
>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is 
>> over
>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third party
>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is. 
>> You
>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of 
>> time,
>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall 
>> rate
>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the 
>> case?
>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the core
>> problem is.
>
> Don't keep us in suspense. (Better yet, don't think that we worship you
> for your special knowledge.) Just tell us what that problem is.
>
> My guess: A complex interaction between two forces: Third party payers
> whose primary purpose is to make profit and medical equipment
> manufacturers, whose primary purpose is to make a profit.

The third party is any party that is paying the bills.  In the case of 
Medicaid and Medicare, that is the government.

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 12:19:13 AM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay
>>> crooks
>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>>> minded
>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>
>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies 
>>> that
>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>> number
>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>> while
>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times 
>>> as
>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>
>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>> market"/"for
>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while 
>>> the
>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize 
>>> the
>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>
>>Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is 
>>over
>>a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third party
>>payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is. 
>>You
>>will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of 
>>time,
>>their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall 
>>rate
>>of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the 
>>case?
>>When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the core
>>problem is.
>
> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>
Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there is 
virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to 
implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from 
prices to services. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 12:21:52 AM
Les Cargill wrote:

> 
> Microsoft is still in business because people like the products. People 
> have overwhelmingly many other options, and they choose M$.

Not necessarily. But most of them have no other option.
There has been in last decade quite a number of investigation about
Microsoft making deals with PC manufacturers not to preinstall any other OS
than Windows. Before Republicans there has been an antimonopoly
investigation in Microsoft practices but guess what ? Bush took the office
and .... nobody heard anymore about the Microsoft monopoly case. 

But of course, as a libertarian you must be the tape recorder singing PR
crap. 

> People don't give a rat's patootie about formats and protocols. 

They care about their data. And since their data is stored into a
proprietary format, they have to stay on the platform on which that
proprietary format is available. Otherwise, they lose all the data.

> If it's better, why don't people choose them? Are you saying that
> everybody is wrong, or that M$ has voodoo priests zombifying the
> entire computer using populace?

MS use and abuse their monopoly position, and "work" with the industry to
prevent others to enter the market. There are devices with drivers
available for Windows ONLY, there are software used in the business
environment that are written for Windows ONLY and there are the huge
problem of proprietary formats and protocols.

When Java started to grow as a platform Microsoft disliked the fact that the
software written with his Java compiler worked on the competing operating
systems. In direct violation of the Java license, Microsoft screwed the
compiler to make the code work worst IN PURPOSE on non Microsoft platform.

Sun sued and after years of legal battle won. However, Microsoft in meantime
worked for the C#/.NET an "alternative" to Java but closely linked to
Microsoft, including (the top of hypocrisy) public classes with PATENTED
INTERFACE !!! Then, they started to (again) use their monopolistic power to
mislead developers to use .NET instead of java. The reason is quite simple:
Undermine the crossplatform development and perpetuate the fact that
applications customers rely on are available on Windows ONLY.


> If I am forced to choose between "people buy what they like" and
> "dark sinister forces"...

It is called a monopoly.

> I prefer Linux myself, but I use M$ because there
> are simply things I cannot do with Linux. 

I know. Years ago I bought a webcam from a shity company called Ezonics. 
It didn't had a Linux driver and I asked the tech support who told me that
they do not have any plans to support any other operaring system than
Windows.

I offered them to write the driver myself for free if they give me the
documentation to do so. They said they are not interested to help any
driver development except what they develop by itself for Windows.

I asked angry to give me a refund. They replied that they do not give
refunds unless the camera it is broken so I should shut up and "use it in
Windows as anybody else do". 

Of course I never ever bought anything from that idiotical company and never
will. But they tricked me once to pay for that useless camera in the first
place. 

But this stupid attitude is well to common on many hardware and software
manufacturers. That is the power of the monopoly: Microsoft owns almost 98% 
of all the PC based desktops. Due to this fact, any shity company will never
invest a 10% required to port a software from Windows to Linux in order to
conquer the 2%. You invest 10% for a 2% more revenue it is not worth
economically. Only companies that start from scratch to develop a product
crossplatform do it, but some of them are also strongly "motivated" by
Microsoft not to do that. 

This facts prevent a large number of consumers to drop the unstable, slow
and insecure Windows for a better OS like Linux or Solaris. This
perpetuates the monopoly. As as with any monopoly, the market forces alone
will not break it. 

Even with the disastrous launch of Vista the market forces alone will just
not be able to break free of monopoly. 



0
nospam191 (234)
3/7/2007 12:49:08 AM
Nospam wrote:
> 
> Of course I never ever bought anything from that idiotical company and never
> will. But they tricked me once to pay for that useless camera in the first
> place. 

Caveat Emptor. Let the Buyer Beware.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 1:19:07 AM
Nospam wrote:

> Les Cargill wrote:
> 
> 
>>Microsoft is still in business because people like the products. People 
>>have overwhelmingly many other options, and they choose M$.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. But most of them have no other option.

Uh, wrong. Simply put, that's just wrong. I know a quy
who runs a VAX out of his house.

> There has been in last decade quite a number of investigation about
> Microsoft making deals with PC manufacturers not to preinstall any other OS
> than Windows. 

I'm familiar with those. The legal claims against them are
on shaky ground indeed. And to my knowlege, the
manufs. have acommodated this as a change. I'm
not current, but at one point it was entriely
possible to buy a system and not pay the Windows
Tax.

> Before Republicans there has been an antimonopoly
> investigation in Microsoft practices but guess what ? Bush took the office
> and .... nobody heard anymore about the Microsoft monopoly case. 
> 

It had largely been done at that point. After 2000, things
changed.

> But of course, as a libertarian you must be the tape recorder singing PR
> crap. 
> 

Suuuure. I'm not the one spouting empty rhetoric here.

> 
>>People don't give a rat's patootie about formats and protocols. 
> 
> 
> They care about their data.

M$ exports to XML and HTML. You are refuted.

> And since their data is stored into a
> proprietary format, they have to stay on the platform on which that
> proprietary format is available. Otherwise, they lose all the data.
> 
> 

M$ exports to XML and HTML. You are refuted.

>>If it's better, why don't people choose them? Are you saying that
>>everybody is wrong, or that M$ has voodoo priests zombifying the
>>entire computer using populace?
> 
> 
> MS use and abuse their monopoly position, and "work" with the industry to
> prevent others to enter the market. There are devices with drivers
> available for Windows ONLY,

And that is true.

> there are software used in the business
> environment that are written for Windows ONLY and there are the huge
> problem of proprietary formats and protocols.
>

It is indeed a huge problem, but most people do not understand
why.


> When Java started to grow as a platform Microsoft disliked the fact that the
> software written with his Java compiler worked on the competing operating
> systems. In direct violation of the Java license, Microsoft screwed the
> compiler to make the code work worst IN PURPOSE on non Microsoft platform.
> 
> Sun sued and after years of legal battle won. 

That is very true.

> However, Microsoft in meantime
> worked for the C#/.NET an "alternative" to Java but closely linked to
> Microsoft, including (the top of hypocrisy) public classes with PATENTED
> INTERFACE !!! Then, they started to (again) use their monopolistic power to
> mislead developers to use .NET instead of java.

They didn't have to lead very far - a great many developers
prefer that sort of thing. People like IDEs, too, alhtough
I cannot imagine why any developer above the mental
age of five *would*.

> The reason is quite simple:
> Undermine the crossplatform development and perpetuate the fact that
> applications customers rely on are available on Windows ONLY.
>

I do utterly and completely crossplatform development using the Tcl 
language. No host specific problems ( well,  a *few*, but not many ).

> 
> 
>>If I am forced to choose between "people buy what they like" and
>>"dark sinister forces"...
> 
> 
> It is called a monopoly.
> 

It is not a well founded concept. It is the product of *one*
monopolist using *his* newspaper to compete with *other* monopolists,
and people promulgate this rot as holy writ. Feh.

I do not completely understand why people are *attracted*
to M$, but I can certainly see it. I just wanna take advantage
of the economies of scale it creates, myself.

> 
>>I prefer Linux myself, but I use M$ because there
>>are simply things I cannot do with Linux. 
> 
> 
> I know. Years ago I bought a webcam from a shity company called Ezonics. 
> It didn't had a Linux driver and I asked the tech support who told me that
> they do not have any plans to support any other operaring system than
> Windows.
> 

The problem is that Ezonics would probably have to open the
product itself to publish the drivers - competitors would be
able to use that information against them. This is most
unfortunate. Hopefully, with USB and loadable
device drivers fro Linux, this will fade, but it's a pain now.

> I offered them to write the driver myself for free if they give me the
> documentation to do so. They said they are not interested to help any
> driver development except what they develop by itself for Windows.
> 

That's correct.

> I asked angry to give me a refund. They replied that they do not give
> refunds unless the camera it is broken so I should shut up and "use it in
> Windows as anybody else do". 
> 

As I am sure you know, you just have to be careful. Some mfgrs. are
Linux friendly, some are not.

> Of course I never ever bought anything from that idiotical company and never
> will. But they tricked me once to pay for that useless camera in the first
> place. 
> 

Caveat emptor :)

> But this stupid attitude is well to common on many hardware and software
> manufacturers. That is the power of the monopoly: Microsoft owns almost 98% 
> of all the PC based desktops. Due to this fact, any shity company will never
> invest a 10% required to port a software from Windows to Linux in order to
> conquer the 2%. You invest 10% for a 2% more revenue it is not worth
> economically. Only companies that start from scratch to develop a product
> crossplatform do it, but some of them are also strongly "motivated" by
> Microsoft not to do that. 
> 
> This facts prevent a large number of consumers to drop the unstable, slow
> and insecure Windows for a better OS like Linux or Solaris. This
> perpetuates the monopoly. As as with any monopoly, the market forces alone
> will not break it. 
> 

I think the end *users* derive the greatest value here. By there being
a "one size fits all" desktop O/S, they do receive a great deal
of benefeit.

But every time I have to use Remote Desktop instead of
an X server, I get a wee bit ill :)

> Even with the disastrous launch of Vista the market forces alone will just
> not be able to break free of monopoly. 
> 

Most people would put these chains on themselves. It's
*really* happened in just about every great industry - RCA
was not the first TV maker, but they made TV a real thing,
not a lab experiment.

--
Les Cargill
0
lcargill1 (136)
3/7/2007 2:11:19 AM
Les Cargill wrote:

> 
> I do utterly and completely crossplatform development using the Tcl 
> language. No host specific problems ( well,  a *few*, but not many ).

PERL transports very nicely too. I love PERL. The syntax has warts, but 
its capabilities are lovely indeed.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 2:21:34 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there is 
> virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to 
> implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from 
> prices to services.

And even that doesn't work. As sure as shit flows downhill there will 
arise a Black Market and The Peoples Goods will start to disappear and 
re-emerge in the Black Market. Supply and demand will reassert itself no 
matter what the government does.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 2:25:26 AM
In article <C2126094.7A315%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:

> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> Tf8Hh.5618$P47.1892@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 3/5/07 11:55 PM:
> 
> >>>>>>> yes, in part.  but largely because people are lazy.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> How do you figure?  How to you measure that and compare it to other
> >>>>>> countries?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> um, i figure because there have been studies done- americans engage in
> >>>>> less physical activity, and spend less time preparing food (which tends 
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> be much healthier than fast food and instant meals).
> >>>>> 
> >>>> What about the topic of being lazy?  I would like to see support of 
> >>>> that.
> >>>> 
> >>>> If you are trying to say the US diet, in general, is not a good one and
> >>>> that we, as a society, are not as physical as we should be then I have 
> >>>> no
> >>>> argument.
> >>>> 
> >>>> But that is not the same thing as being lazy.
> >>>> 
> >>> so if not laziness, what's preventing americans from being 'not as 
> >>> physical
> >>> as we should be,' or cooking up some healthy meals (which can be done 
> >>> quite
> >>> cheaply) rather than eating fast food / cheap junk?
> >>> 
> >> Who says anything is *preventing* them?
> >> 
> > so if nothing is preventing them, and they're not lazy, exactly what do you
> > think is going on?
> 
> Could be any number of things... what makes you think it is based on
> laziness?  That, really, is the question... I am not interested in playin
> the turn-around game.  If I wanted to do that I would dance the hokey pokey.
> 
> Good exercise, by the way.  :)
> 
> >> Your claim was that people in the US were lazier... now the topic is, 
> >> what,
> >> why we cook and exercise less?
> >> 
> > yup, that's the topic, as it relates to health.
> 
> So which is the topic?  It was laziness... now it is cooking and exercise.
> Pick one... I would prefer the original.

Wrong. It's about *not* doing healthy cooking and *not* exercising and 
it is related laziness. Get your money back on your psych degree, 
Snit... you were robbed.

> 
> >> Please, ed, stick to the topic.  I noted someone else pointed you to 
> >> support
> >> that folks in the US actually work *more*, not less -
> >> 
> > and i already addressed that, as i'm sure you know...
> 
> Nope... I did not read that part of the thread.
> 
> ...
> >>> the real point is the vast majority of the people in between.  i was 
> >>> playing
> >>> along with your false dichotomy of rich / poor because you've previously
> >>> refused to define it, but the vast majority of people (in the us) are
> >>> neither, so you can't just ignore them in a discussion about what's good 
> >>> for
> >>> most people.
> >>> 
> >> There are far, far more people who are on the low end of the spectrum who
> >> have little or no insurance and poor access to health care.
> >> 
> > again, you're ignoring the vast majority in the middle.
> 
> They are not relevant to my point.

You don't really have a point here, at least, not one that is relevant 
to the discussion... you're acting the part of a poser.

>  
> >>> it's only clear when you consider only the rich and poor, ignoring the 
> >>> mass
> >>> of people in the middle.  simple fact is, *most* americans have health
> >>> insurance of some sort.  quality of care is generally good.  things could 
> >>> be
> >>> better, but 'broken', i would argue, it's not.
> >>> 
> >> How do you come to the conclusion that the care is generally good?
> >> 
> > you'll be on the fringe if you claim otherwise- people have criticisms of 
> > the
> > us system, but you'll not find many arguing the care is not generally good.
> 
> Unlikely.
> 
> >> Have you seen the studies of the number of deaths based on accidents in
> >> hospitals?
> >> 
> > yup.  i've not heard anything to suggest it's any higher in the united 
> > states
> > though.
> 
> See my next sentence:
> 
> >> I do not know if the stats in the US are worse than elsewhere, but they 
> >> are
> >> appalling in the US.
> >> 
> > if you're appalled by the accidental deaths in the us, you're probably 
> > lucky
> > that you are here- i have no stats, but i've seen the hospitals in a couple
> > foreign countries first hand, and heard second hand about a couple 
> > others...
> > not good...
> 
> Funny how you do not accept anecdotal evidence about the US.
> 
> >> And, of course, with doctors being forced by HMOs  to see massive numbers 
> >> of
> >> patients a day and other such idiotic things,
> >> 
> > how 'massive' a number are doctors being 'forced' to see?
> 
> Up to dozens a day... depends on the HMO.
> 
> >> well, the system is clearly broken.  I do not have all the answers for 
> >> fixing
> >> it, but pretending it is fine as is, well, is silly.
> 
> ...
> >>> but *most* americans DO have insurance, and the *vast* majority of people
> >>> in
> >>> hmo's are very happy.  that is not cllearly broken in my book.
> >> 
> >> How do you figure that the vast majority are happy with HMOs?
> > 
> > california mandates customer surveys, which are then printed in plan
> > brochures.  i look at them each year during my open enrollment.
> 
> California is not the US... and, of course, I would want to see how those
> studies are done.
> 
> >> And how many
> >> people need to be without insurance for you to see it as a problem...
> > 
> > i don't think you can put a number on it, but when almost 85% DO have
> > insurance, it's not 'clearly broken' to me.  i know i used to be part of
> > that group- i opted out.  ;D
> 
> I am guessing you were financially above the average of the US.  Just a
> guess.
> 
> >> and do
> >> you count people as really insured when their pre-existing conditions are
> >> not covered?
> > 
> > how many people are in that group?
> 
> Lots... I do not have a number to give you, but *many* people have
> pre-existing conditions, and unless they get insurance through a company
> plan they are generally out of luck.
> 
> > quick question- you're too busy to do research to support your point (which
> > shouldn't be too hard, since you claim to have already read the studies.
> > you must have a good idea where to find them...), but you keep posting?  ;D
> 
> Google.  As I have time later I can do some research for you...

Yeah... you'll do research for *him* to support *your* 'point' (which is 
essentially a non-point in this discussion). It's astounding just how 
out of touch with reality you are.

-- 
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, 
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Snit on Sandman-"The fact you call yourself a web "pro" is, frankly, a joke."
"Once we see or hear of couples - even a relatively small number - who 
engage in legal, consensual,adult incestuous relationships, the whole 
idea of incest with minors becomes thinkable." - Snit
0
noone (9909)
3/7/2007 3:43:29 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

> Don't want to find out the facts?

The facts are very simple. There is no way a for proffit healthcare system
will work unregulated. And there is no way an for private profit health
insurance will work ever.

Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply because
everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation over
the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.


0
nospam191 (234)
3/7/2007 3:57:55 AM
In article <45ee1f46$0$16990$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> Uh, wrong. Simply put, that's just wrong. I know a quy
> who runs a VAX out of his house.

I'd run a VAX out of my house too! For the power it consumes, it doesn't 
really give all that much computational power any more. I'd replace it 
with an XServe.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
0
3/7/2007 4:13:26 AM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>> 
>> And here's something for _you_ to think about:
>> 
>> Do you know what kind of food you want to buy?  How do you know?
>> 
>> Now, do you know what kind of drugs and medical treatments you want to
>> buy?  How do you know?
>
>Crank up WebMD.com and find out. The information is all Out There for 
>those with the wits to read it.

You must be an idiot.

>There is loads of information on treatments, drugs, conditions etc and 
>most of it is easily accesible on the web.

Just as you can find all of the information you need to design and
write your own operating system.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:41:33 AM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:

>> That's the problem with US health care.
>
>Really? I think the demise of the poor is good for the society.

Another nazi-wannabe.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:42:05 AM
Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> >> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> >> >> >> >> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from 
>> >> >> >> >> >>>the 
>> >> >> >> >> >>>fact
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and 
>> >> >> >> >> >> more
>> >> >> >> >> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite 
>> >> >> >> >> >> its
>> >> >> >> >> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that 
>> >> >> >> >> >> live
>> >> >> >> >> >> longer than Americans.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot 
>> >> >> >> >> >more 
>> >> >> >> >> >than 
>> >> >> >> >> >in 
>> >> >> >> >> >the USA. 
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational 
>> >> >> >> >> demands
>> >> >> >> >> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >No.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> >> >> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> >> >> >> need it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Sorry, but you're wrong.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> You right-wing morons always believe the bullshit you're fed, even
>> >> >> when it's nothing but lies.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> According to the CIA world factbook the life expectancy of Canadians
>> >> >> is 80.22 years.  For Americans it's 77.85 years.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> In 2001 the US spend 13.1% of GDP on health care while Canadians spent 
>> >> >> 9.5%.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Those are the facts.  You can either accept them and rethikn your
>> >> >> position, or you can continue to be a right-wing moron and cling to
>> >> >> the lies fed to you by the corporate shills in the right-wing media.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry to disappoint you, sunshine, but Canada's life expectancy has a 
>> >> >lot more to do with the fact that one out of every two Canadian's isn't 
>> >> >morbidly obese than it does with our health care system.
>> >> 
>> >> And you know this because it's what you want to believe?  You think
>> >> you can make up more bullshit and expect everybody to just accept it?
>> >> 
>> >> I can tell that you're making up lies by the mere fact there isn't
>> >> even one state, much less the entire United States, that has a 50%
>> >> obesity rate.  Further, Canada has as much of a problem with obesity
>> >> as does the US.
>> >
>> >Not even close, sunshine.
>> >
>> >Anyone who crosses the border can see it. 
>> 
>> More of your bullshit.
>> 
>> You cling to your ignorance and prejudices rather than admit that
>> you've been suckered by corporate interests.
>
>How have I been "suckered", Ray?

You think that obscene profits for the medical industry is good for you.

>I live in *Canada* and I'm telling you what's happening here.

No, you're not.  You haven't a clue what's happening.  You don't know
what's happening in Canada and you sure as hell do not know what's
happening in the US.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:44:47 AM
Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> >> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> >> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> >> need it.
>> >
>> >Or it could be that Canadians have better eating and excercise habits. 
>> 
>> No evidence of that.
>> 
>> >If Americans did not overeat and they excercised more their life 
>> 
>> If you educatd yourself and used your brain instead of arguing that
>> Americans are some of the laziest and fattest people on Earth ...
>
><yawn>
>
><http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/articles/adult
>s/aobesity.htm>

    "The percentage of Canadians who are overweight or obese has risen
    dramatically in recent years, mirroring a worldwide phenomenon."

>"Canada-United States
>While Canada�s obesity rates have, for the most part, been based on 
>self-reported data, the United States has derived rates from actual 
>measurements of height and weight since the early 1960s.

Thus, there is no way to validly compare obesity rates between the two
countries.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:47:06 AM
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
>>>> >>>fact
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>>> >>
>>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>>>> >in
>>>> >the USA.
>>>>
>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>>
>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> need it.
>
>Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.

Yes.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

>  The difference 
>between Canada and the United States is miniscule.

You're either lying or stupid.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:52:21 AM
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>news:45ece8c8$0$14144$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>>>>
>>>> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>> longer than Americans.
>>>>
>>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in
>>>the USA.
>>
>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>
>NO...spend some time and find out what they are doing to try and restrain 
>the cost of that care. 

Like in the US where the cost of health care is contained by simply
refusing any health care to tens of millions of people.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:53:09 AM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:>
>> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when republicans
>> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
>> causes health problems.
>
>Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted 
>since the 19th century.

Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections of
corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:58:18 AM
Les Cargill  <uh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>Microsoft is still in business because people like the products. People 
>have overwhelmingly many other options, and they choose M$.

I wonder if you're deluded, stupid, or lying.

>People don't give a rat's patootie about formats and protocols.

Stupid it is.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:59:39 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:
> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> And here's something for _you_ to think about:
>>
>> Do you know what kind of food you want to buy?  How do you know?
>>
>> Now, do you know what kind of drugs and medical treatments you want to
>> buy?  How do you know?
> 
> Crank up WebMD.com and find out. The information is all Out There for 
> those with the wits to read it.
> 
> There is loads of information on treatments, drugs, conditions etc and 
> most of it is easily accesible on the web.
> 
> Bob Kolker
> 

LOL!  Yeah, just crank up WebMD.com when you're in a gurney awaiting 
treatment after a car accident.  And then order the doctors around (they 
just love that) telling them exactly what treatment you want for the 
injuries you and your doctors haven't even pinpointed yet.  Then expect 
them to carry out your morphine impaired directions even if it causes 
them to lose their medical licenses.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 6:31:20 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay 
>> crooks
>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak minded
>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>
>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies 
>> that
>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>> expensive.
>>
>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
>> number
>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured while
>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>> times as
>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>
>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free 
>> market"/"for
>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while the
>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize 
>> the
>> medical benefits for the society.
>>
> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is 
> over a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
> party payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of 
> inflation is.  You will find that in every one of these countries, over 
> a long period of time, their medical inflation rate is consistently 
> higher than their overall rate of inflation.  Ask yourself this very 
> simple question, why is that the case? When you figure that out, you 
> will then begin to understand what the core problem is.

I'm not even sure that's the case.  In Canada with a single payer/buyer 
of bills/goods and services inflation in the medical sector is right on 
par with increases in CPI.  The greatest cost increases occur where 
there are multiple insurers (like in the USA).  You might google "health 
insurance" "market failure" to discover why that's the case.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 8:17:48 AM
Nospam wrote:

> 
> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply because
> everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation over
> the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.

How about medical service for cash. Ordinary pricing will provide the 
regulation you speak of. The consumption of services will be limited by 
costs (largely a matter of technology) and the ability to pay. The 
hardship on the poor can be somewhat ameliorated by physicians and 
medical suppliers to give away some of their produce as charity. The 
poor have always survived by accepting crumbs from the tables of their 
betters. As Jesus said, the Poor will always be with us.

Also easing or eliminating license requirements will enable a larger 
number of providers to enter the market. The current licesnsing system 
is a subsidy given to physicians by the government. It is no different 
than the system of issuing medalians to taxi cab owners. It is a means 
of restricting supply to drive up prices for medical services.

That alternative is to have government flunkies allocate service 
opportunities and medical products based on "need" as defined by policy. 
What you will have is a system of allocating places on the lifeboats of 
the Titanic. There were boat spaces for 1500 and 2200 were aboard. All 
your precious government can do is to decide who drowns, and you may bet 
your farm that somehow the government flunkies will get seats. You 
fucking precious government does NOTHING to invent new medical 
techniques or permit the talented to sell their services as the market 
permits. You fucking precious government is the abominable No Man which 
can only restrict and refuse.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 9:42:59 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:>
> 
> Just as you can find all of the information you need to design and
> write your own operating system.

Been there, done that. Yes it is possible for those with the inclination 
and the wits. You are just miffed that most people are either too stupid 
or too lazy to do what is necessary to help themselves. They want 
someone to take care of them -for free-.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 9:44:28 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> 
> Another nazi-wannabe.

Not a Nazi. A Darwinist. I do not wish to kill anyone. I just wish to be 
allowed to permit people in the water to drown.

Do you know the difference between actively killing someone and 
permitting them to die (but not causing their extremity). If I don't 
feed a starving person, I am not doing any wrong provided I did not 
cause his iniability to feed himself. Burning crops is a crime. Not 
feeding the hungry is not a crime. It is unkind, perhaps. But think, if 
you are down to your last crust of bread and you will starve if you spit 
it, would you give away half to you starving neighbor's children? You 
bet you won't. So take your moral superiority elsewhere.

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 9:47:55 AM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:
> 
> LOL!  Yeah, just crank up WebMD.com when you're in a gurney awaiting 
> treatment after a car accident.  And then order the doctors around (they 
> just love that) telling them exactly what treatment you want for the 
> injuries you and your doctors haven't even pinpointed yet.  Then expect 
> them to carry out your morphine impaired directions even if it causes 
> them to lose their medical licenses.

One can also go the library and read the medical journals. I do. And if 
one is not sufficiently educated to profit by this excercise, then 
tought shit. The information is out there for those clever enough and 
energetic enough to get it.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 9:50:07 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
>>
>> LOL!  Yeah, just crank up WebMD.com when you're in a gurney awaiting 
>> treatment after a car accident.  And then order the doctors around 
>> (they just love that) telling them exactly what treatment you want for 
>> the injuries you and your doctors haven't even pinpointed yet.  Then 
>> expect them to carry out your morphine impaired directions even if it 
>> causes them to lose their medical licenses.
> 
> One can also go the library and read the medical journals. I do. And if 
> one is not sufficiently educated to profit by this excercise, then 
> tought shit. The information is out there for those clever enough and 
> energetic enough to get it.
> 
> Bob Kolker
> 

Riight!  Just roll your guerney to the hospital's medical library and do 
the above.  You missed the point:  can you use that information when 
you're unconcious or in pain and anesthetized?  Do you really believe 
reading a few medical journals allows you to override the decisions of a 
physician who's made a career out of performing particular procedures? 
A physician who is licensed and has his or her work reviewed regularly!? 
  Please.

And how is this supposed to alter the premiums you pay?  Not that it 
matters -- I'd venture you're on a government insurance plan of some 
sort anyways.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 10:13:55 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay
>>>> crooks
>>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>>>> minded
>>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>>
>>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international 
>>>> studies that
>>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>>> expensive.
>>>>
>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as 
>>>> the
>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>>> number
>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>>> while
>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>>>> times as
>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>
>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>> market"/"for
>>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions 
>>>> while the
>>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to 
>>>> maximize the
>>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>>
>>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate 
>>> is over
>>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
>>> party
>>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation 
>>> is. You
>>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of 
>>> time,
>>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their 
>>> overall rate
>>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that 
>>> the case?
>>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the 
>>> core
>>> problem is.
>>
>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>
> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there is 
> virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to 
> implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from 
> prices to services.

But there is not unlimited demand for medical services.  I am in Canada 
and can visit a GP anytime I want and pay no out of pocket expenses 
whatsoever, but I'm here typing this post.  I could be getting free 
health care -- I must be crazy to be sitting in front of my computer 
instead of visiting my GP for free!

It is important to recognise that health STATUS is the objective *not* 
health care.  If anything, health care causes a disutility since medical 
care is seldom pleasant (even with anesthesia).  Like I said, no one 
will line up for free appendectomies if they don't need them.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 10:23:21 AM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

 >no one will line up for free appendectomies if they don't need them.

That should read if their physician doesn't order them to get one.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 10:42:13 AM
On Mar 7, 12:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Bob Kolker  <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Ray Fischer wrote:>
> >> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when republicans
> >> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
> >> causes health problems.
>
> >Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted
> >since the 19th century.
>
> Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
> have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections of
> corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.

Is that why in most states, they have health warnings about swimming
in ponds, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and warning people to eat a very
small limited amount of fish or none at all?

That's a great improvement in your eyes?


0
noneedtoknow (858)
3/7/2007 10:44:23 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> Nospam wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
>> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply
>> because everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the
>> regulation over the practice are required to provide more care where is
>> needed most.
> 
> How about medical service for cash. 

That is crap.

> Ordinary pricing will provide the  regulation you speak of. 

This is a pathetic lie, libertarian style. Not at all.

The unemployed with an appendicitis will have less cash than Paris Hilton
for vanity surgery. Instead of reducing prices, the market will just
provide 10 doctors to assist into the nose correction for P.H. while 9
homeless die in pain because they doctors followed the money. 

The "free market" it is the most idiotic approach to healthcare and only
parasitic and criminal and mentally insane libertarians want that kind of
crap.

> The consumption of services will be limited by 
> costs (largely a matter of technology) and the ability to pay. The
> hardship on the poor can be somewhat ameliorated by physicians and
> medical suppliers to give away some of their produce as charity. The
> poor have always survived by accepting crumbs from the tables of their
> betters.

Well, let have the rich survive from leftovers. If you are that Spartan let
try a better approach: Test anyone's IQ at the age of 14 and sterilize any
man (regardless of wealth) with an IQ less than 120. 

Why the rightards libertarians always want money to be involved ? 

> Also easing or eliminating license requirements will enable a larger
> number of providers to enter the market. 

I heard the drill before. Libertarians believe that if we allow the butchers
to perform brain surgery, the price for brain surgery will go down.

Well, I agree with that IF AND ONLY IF the butcher will provide the surgery
for libertarians alone and ALL the libertarians will get their surgery
performed by butchers. By doing this, the average mentall sanity in the
world will skyrocket. That is a guarantee.


> your farm that somehow the government flunkies will get seats. You
> fucking precious government does NOTHING to invent new medical
> techniques or permit the talented to sell their services as the market
> permits. You fucking precious government is the abominable No Man which
> can only restrict and refuse.

What about make economy and do not provide ANY  medical care to person with
IQ less than 120 REGARDLESS OF THEIR WEALTH. It will be a better world
outthere without libertarians and neoconservatives.


0
nospam191 (234)
3/7/2007 11:30:55 AM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

> Riight!  Just roll your guerney to the hospital's medical library and do 

One does the research -before- one is ill. Once an acute condition 
occurs it is off to the hispital to be cared for by professionals that 
you already know. If one has not the means then fall bleeding on the 
threshold of The Emergency Room. They will treat you. The law requires it.

In the United States poor people are treated for free. The rest of us pay.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 1:08:47 PM
Nospam wrote:
> 
> What about make economy and do not provide ANY  medical care to person with
> IQ less than 120 REGARDLESS OF THEIR WEALTH. It will be a better world
> outthere without libertarians and neoconservatives.

You will see a black market in faked IQ tests scores.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 1:11:05 PM
Am I writing my posts in a language other than English?

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
> 
>> Riight!  Just roll your guerney to the hospital's medical library and do 
> 
> One does the research -before- one is ill. 

How do you know what acute condition is going to send you to the 
hospital?  Do you to study all acute and chronic conditions and choose 
the best doctor/hospital for each one and then have the ambulance 
driver/paramedics take you to the right hospital/doctor when something 
befalls you suddenly?  What if you're unconcious when the paramedics 
arrive? What if your "best doctor" is at a hospital without an ER?

You know, most of us have better things to do with our spare time than 
get a de facto medical degree, which is precisely what you're 
suggesting.  Nevermind just learing the basics but you expect people to 
keep up with the myriad of changes in teh medical field?  Please.

Do you know what S-P-E-C-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N is and why it is useful in 
our society?

> Once an acute condition 
> occurs it is off to the hispital to be cared for by professionals that 
> you already know. 

And what is all that journal reading going to accomplish?
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 1:55:16 PM
Bob Kolker wrote:


>> What about make economy and do not provide ANY  medical care to person
>> with IQ less than 120 REGARDLESS OF THEIR WEALTH. It will be a better
>> world outthere without libertarians and neoconservatives.
> 
> You will see a black market in faked IQ tests scores.

Jail the offenders. A world without libertarians and neocons will be a much
better world :-)

0
nospam191 (234)
3/7/2007 2:19:43 PM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

> Do you know what S-P-E-C-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N is and why it is useful in
> our society?

For a libertarians specialization is usefull ONLY to boost private proffits
and harm the skilled hardworking people.

As mater of fact anything that do not harm a hardworking person for the
benefit of aristocracy it is a horror for the libertarians.

0
nospam191 (234)
3/7/2007 2:22:15 PM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

> 
> Do you know what S-P-E-C-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N is and why it is useful in 
> our society?

I agree. That is why I go to a physician of my choice. I have 
discussions with him about his diagnostic approach and I have come to 
trust his judgement. Both he and I agree he is working for -me-.

Be that as it may, knowing some of the potential side effects are 
various drugs is handy and can be life saving. Also knowing something 
about the pros and cons of various diagnostic tools can be helpful. Just 
because one goes to a professional medical practicioner does not mean 
one must be an ignorant supplicant.

My parents were of a generation that regarded their physician as God. I 
have no such illusions. I was in a technological trade for 45 years so I 
know the pros and cons of technology. I also worked in developing 
software for analyzing x-ray photos of dye injections into the 
circulatory system. I have been preset during two catheterizations and I 
know the instruments quite well (I am not qualified to drill holes in 
anyone's femural arteries than my own, but I understand what the 
cardiologists are doing).

I agree. One should pick a pro that one trusts to do the work. But one 
should look over the medical help very carefully before hiring them.

P.S. I have learned that physicians repsect patients who have some 
knowlege of what is being done. You will get straighter talk from a doc 
if you understand what he is doing.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 3:04:40 PM
Nospam wrote:

> 
> For a libertarians specialization is usefull ONLY to boost private proffits
> and harm the skilled hardworking people.

Heck no. I -hire- people like that. Skilled techno-professionals are my 
kind of people. I was one such in the software business for 45 years 
(retired now). It is the bean counters and administrators that I have a 
hard time with. Actually I rather detest the Suits. I prefer the company 
of the technicians and the professionals provided they know what they 
are doing. I admire expertise and professional competence.

Unfortunately no great civilization has ever put techno-professionals in 
positions of power. They give them nice juicy crumbs and buy them toys 
to play with. That is the way of it. In Egypt the scribes, the 
draftsmen, the crane builders, the on-site managers never made it beyond 
middle management. No scribe ever became Pharoh or a Priest of Ra. 
However the Priests and Pharohs knew enough to keep their professional 
level middle managers happy. That way the pyramids got built on time. 
Give them grain, a nice house by the Nile and a promise of good 
treatment in the Next World and they will do a bang up job for the 
living god of Egypt.

Ditto for Babylon, Ashur, Judah, Alexandria and so on. As long as you 
provide the professionals with nice books, nice toys, nice offices and 
interesting work, they will break their balls for their masters. The 
Rulers and Lords have always known this. And that is why it is never 
going to change.

I used to je;[ make H-bombs in my mispent youth. Give me a lab, a state 
of the art computer and interesting work and I will do your bidding, no 
matter how evil the consequences. It is only when my Lords and Masters 
displayed their utter incompetence that I quit their employ and worked 
only for private business there after. Post 1968 I worked on six months 
for a federal contractor (money was tight at the time). For 33 years 
minus that six months I avoided federal and state contractors like the 
plague. I worked for industry and universities mostly. That and some 
small businesses (my favorite kind of employer. I love start up 
capitalists).

If I weren't Jewish and lived in Germany I would have happily worked for 
von Braun. The work was very interesting. Keep my interested and I won't 
let moral qualms get in the way of the job. At one time I did some 
mathematical programming on orbital calculations for the local 
university (very interesting work, by the way). Some of my figures did 
get used in the Redstone program, so in a way I -did- work for von Braun 
and I didn't even have to change my religion.

The techno-professionals will do the work (provide the technology and 
the task are interesting) and they won't ask too many questions or 
wonder if what they are doing is good or evil. That is way it works. It 
has always worked that way. It will always work that way. 
Techno-professionals will sell there souls for an interesting project.

Compared to great gadgets and hard problems, moral questions fade into 
insignificance.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 3:20:39 PM
In article <1173264263.377201.63130@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 12:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Bob Kolker  <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Ray Fischer wrote:>
> > >> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when republicans
> > >> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
> > >> causes health problems.
> >
> > >Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted
> > >since the 19th century.
> >
> > Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
> > have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections of
> > corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.
> 
> Is that why in most states, they have health warnings about swimming
> in ponds, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and warning people to eat a very
> small limited amount of fish or none at all?
> 
> That's a great improvement in your eyes?

Osprey is an idiot.  Here is proof that what Ray says is true - even in
Delaware:

�As recently as 1975, Delaware routinely experienced serious water
pollution and public health problems as a result of the discharge of
untreated sewage. Since then, as a result of voluntary efforts,
regulatory actions, and significant private and public investments in
wastewater treatment facilities, localized improvements in water
quality have been achieved.�

<http://tinyurl.com/26apkp>

Osprey is merely a Right Wing parrot that repeats Right Wing bullshit.
0
3/7/2007 3:32:11 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ee5345$0$14073$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:45ece8c8$0$14144$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>>>>>
>>>>> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>>> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>>> longer than Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>>>>in
>>>>the USA.
>>>
>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>
>>NO...spend some time and find out what they are doing to try and restrain
>>the cost of that care.
>
> Like in the US where the cost of health care is contained by simply
> refusing any health care to tens of millions of people.
>
Yes.  There is only two ways that rationing works.  The first is when you 
and I make the rationing decision, i.e. based on the cost we decide whether 
we will buy the product or use the service.  When a system is based on the 
"people" making the rationing decision, then inflation can be controlled 
effectively, becuase as prices rise, we tend to use less of that service. 
As we use less of for the service, the providers of that service will be 
constrained from raising the cost even more, because that will only mean 
even less people using the service.

But when someone else is paying for the service, "we" who use the service 
are not really concerned about how much that cost, since we are not the ones 
who pay for the service.  So, there is little incentive for the provider of 
the service to "voluntarily" reduce their cost.  So, in order to restrain 
the cost growth, the "payer" (which is some third party) will basically 
either institute price controls (which never works for the long term) or 
they resort to some sort of rationing scheme.  But Rationing is just like 
price controls, it never works for the long haul, so in time, more and more 
rationing has to occur.  And rationing can take many forms.  You can do what 
Oregon is doing and that is have a list of services that they will pay for 
and a list of services they will not pay for (the ones who need medical care 
and are not on the list of covered services, loses out on the lottery), but 
Oregon has already had to revise that list because the cost continues to 
rise.  You can ration care by the simple mechanism of capping the total 
amount of money you are willing to spend in any given year (a technique used 
in Canada), which of course means that someone who wants that care is not 
going to get it in that given year.  You can ration care by putting people 
on a waiting list.  In other words, there are all kinds of ways to ration 
care artifically.  But as I said in the beginning, it does not address the 
core problem. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 3:36:55 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ee5315$0$14073$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the
>>>>> >>>fact
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
>>>>> >than
>>>>> >in
>>>>> >the USA.
>>>>>
>>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>>>
>>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>>> need it.
>>
>>Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.
>
> Yes.
>
> https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook
>
>>  The difference
>>between Canada and the United States is miniscule.
>
> You're either lying or stupid.
>
From http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm...  Canada year 
2000 life expectancy 79.4.  United States, same year, 77.1.  A two year 
difference....big deal...


0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 3:43:34 PM
ignoring the questions asked.....

"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
news:1739325.lJkTeNLDWx@example.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Don't want to find out the facts?
>
> The facts are very simple. There is no way a for proffit healthcare system
> will work unregulated. And there is no way an for private profit health
> insurance will work ever.
>
> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply because
> everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation 
> over
> the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.
>
> 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 3:44:55 PM
"David W. Barnes" <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> wrote in message 
news:070320070732114827%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com...
> In article <1173264263.377201.63130@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 7, 12:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > Bob Kolker  <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Ray Fischer wrote:>
>> > >> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when 
>> > >> republicans
>> > >> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
>> > >> causes health problems.
>> >
>> > >Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted
>> > >since the 19th century.
>> >
>> > Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
>> > have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections of
>> > corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.
>>
>> Is that why in most states, they have health warnings about swimming
>> in ponds, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and warning people to eat a very
>> small limited amount of fish or none at all?
>>
>> That's a great improvement in your eyes?
>
> Osprey is an idiot.  Here is proof that what Ray says is true - even in
> Delaware:
>
> �As recently as 1975, Delaware routinely experienced serious water
> pollution and public health problems as a result of the discharge of
> untreated sewage. Since then, as a result of voluntary efforts,
> regulatory actions, and significant private and public investments in
> wastewater treatment facilities, localized improvements in water
> quality have been achieved.�
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/26apkp>
>
> Osprey is merely a Right Wing parrot that repeats Right Wing bullshit.

Do some research idiot.

See where Delaware is in the rankings..

http://www.ewg.org/reports/dishonorable/ddrivers.html

# 8


0
noneedtoknow (858)
3/7/2007 3:45:16 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:557fp5F22km4bU1@mid.individual.net...
> Nospam wrote:
>
>>
>> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
>> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply 
>> because
>> everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation 
>> over
>> the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.
>
> How about medical service for cash. Ordinary pricing will provide the 
> regulation you speak of. The consumption of services will be limited by 
> costs (largely a matter of technology) and the ability to pay. The 
> hardship on the poor can be somewhat ameliorated by physicians and medical 
> suppliers to give away some of their produce as charity. The poor have 
> always survived by accepting crumbs from the tables of their betters. As 
> Jesus said, the Poor will always be with us.
>
> Also easing or eliminating license requirements will enable a larger 
> number of providers to enter the market. The current licesnsing system is 
> a subsidy given to physicians by the government. It is no different than 
> the system of issuing medalians to taxi cab owners. It is a means of 
> restricting supply to drive up prices for medical services.
>
> That alternative is to have government flunkies allocate service 
> opportunities and medical products based on "need" as defined by policy. 
> What you will have is a system of allocating places on the lifeboats of 
> the Titanic. There were boat spaces for 1500 and 2200 were aboard. All 
> your precious government can do is to decide who drowns, and you may bet 
> your farm that somehow the government flunkies will get seats. You fucking 
> precious government does NOTHING to invent new medical techniques or 
> permit the talented to sell their services as the market permits. You 
> fucking precious government is the abominable No Man which can only 
> restrict and refuse.
>
Prior to the advent of the third party payment system there were a lot of 
charitable operations running hospitals, servicing those who needed help. 
After the advent of the third party those have for the most part 
disappeared. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 3:46:58 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45eee864$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Nospam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
>>> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply 
>>> because
>>> everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation 
>>> over
>>> the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.
>>
>>How about medical service for cash.
>
> How about you come up with another stupid idea?
>
It is really not that stupid, as long as the cash is coming from the person 
who uses the service. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 3:48:07 PM
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:esm3qp$ijb$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>> news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay
>>>>> crooks
>>>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>>>>> minded
>>>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies 
>>>>> that
>>>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as 
>>>>> the
>>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>>>> number
>>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>>>> while
>>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>>>>> times as
>>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>>> market"/"for
>>>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while 
>>>>> the
>>>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize 
>>>>> the
>>>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>>>
>>>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is 
>>>> over
>>>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
>>>> party
>>>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is. 
>>>> You
>>>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of 
>>>> time,
>>>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall 
>>>> rate
>>>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the 
>>>> case?
>>>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the 
>>>> core
>>>> problem is.
>>>
>>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>>
>> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there is 
>> virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to 
>> implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from 
>> prices to services.
>
> But there is not unlimited demand for medical services.  I am in Canada 
> and can visit a GP anytime I want and pay no out of pocket expenses 
> whatsoever, but I'm here typing this post.  I could be getting free health 
> care -- I must be crazy to be sitting in front of my computer instead of 
> visiting my GP for free!

What was my original question.  My original question was what is the medical 
inflation rate in Canada.  Look it up.  But don't "cherry pick" the data, 
look at the data over a ten year period of time (longer would be better). 
Find out what the medical inflation rate was and compare that to whatever 
the broader measure of inflation is in your country (in the US that would be 
something like the Consumer Price Index).  Tell us what you find.
>
> It is important to recognise that health STATUS is the objective *not* 
> health care.  If anything, health care causes a disutility since medical 
> care is seldom pleasant (even with anesthesia).  Like I said, no one will 
> line up for free appendectomies if they don't need them.

Ah but people will go to see a doctor more often, if they are not the ones 
paying the bill. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 3:52:48 PM
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:eslsfd$h5l$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay 
>>> crooks
>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>>> minded
>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>
>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies 
>>> that
>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as the
>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this 
>>> number
>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>> while
>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 times 
>>> as
>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>
>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free 
>>> market"/"for
>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while 
>>> the
>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize 
>>> the
>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>
>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is 
>> over a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
>> party payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation 
>> is.  You will find that in every one of these countries, over a long 
>> period of time, their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than 
>> their overall rate of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, 
>> why is that the case? When you figure that out, you will then begin to 
>> understand what the core problem is.
>
> I'm not even sure that's the case.  In Canada with a single payer/buyer of 
> bills/goods and services inflation in the medical sector is right on par 
> with increases in CPI.  The greatest cost increases occur where there are 
> multiple insurers (like in the USA).  You might google "health insurance" 
> "market failure" to discover why that's the case.

Canada's consumer Price Index has shown single digit increases for the last 
20 years.  Medical inflation is rising in double digits. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 4:05:12 PM
In article <TM-dnXyzpMWQQ3PYnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David W. Barnes" <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> wrote in message 
> news:070320070732114827%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com...
> > In article <1173264263.377201.63130@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 7, 12:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> > Bob Kolker  <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Ray Fischer wrote:>
> >> > >> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when 
> >> > >> republicans
> >> > >> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
> >> > >> causes health problems.
> >> >
> >> > >Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted
> >> > >since the 19th century.
> >> >
> >> > Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
> >> > have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections of
> >> > corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.
> >>
> >> Is that why in most states, they have health warnings about swimming
> >> in ponds, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and warning people to eat a very
> >> small limited amount of fish or none at all?
> >>
> >> That's a great improvement in your eyes?
> >
> > Osprey is an idiot.  Here is proof that what Ray says is true - even in
> > Delaware:
> >
> > �As recently as 1975, Delaware routinely experienced serious water
> > pollution and public health problems as a result of the discharge of
> > untreated sewage. Since then, as a result of voluntary efforts,
> > regulatory actions, and significant private and public investments in
> > wastewater treatment facilities, localized improvements in water
> > quality have been achieved.�
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/26apkp>
> >
> > Osprey is merely a Right Wing parrot that repeats Right Wing bullshit.
> 
> Do some research idiot.
> 
> See where Delaware is in the rankings..
> 
> http://www.ewg.org/reports/dishonorable/ddrivers.html
> 
> # 8

And that is relevant how?  Someone needs to be #8.  The point is, it
has improved since 1975.   Remember the claim you denied?

Stop trying to run from your stupidity.
0
3/7/2007 4:14:13 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45edaa0f$0$14133$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>
>>>
>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>> was so great.
>>
>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line. In the U.S., the custom
>>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>
> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
>
Much better than waiting days or months for the treatment. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 4:14:39 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:555q2kF23bh84U3@mid.individual.net...
> Ray Fischer wrote:>
>>
>> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
>> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
>
> For the U.S. poor, there is no elsewhere. Sometimes they get quick 
> treatment especially if they are bleeding from gunshot wounds.
>
All the poor have to do is go to the emergency care facility... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 4:15:37 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed99a9.13406255@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:10:59 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>
>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>> was so great.
>>
>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line.
>
> Yes, actually, they do, and treating American "medical tourists" is
> recognized as a huge cost to Canadian health care budgets.
>
>>In the U.S., the custom
>>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>
> But both poor and middle class Americans routinely go to Canada for
> better treatment, because they are not treated with indifference,
> contempt and even hostility just because they can't pay.
>
If you are poor, how do you afford the cost of travelling and staying in 
Canada? 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 4:16:43 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:554lufF228dusU2@mid.individual.net...
> Jose wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>> universal healthcare was so great.
>
> Only those Greedy Bastards who are tired of waiting in line and can afford 
> to do otherwise sneak into the U.S. for health care. Good Canadians will 
> wait their turn.
>
If you think you need the services of the medical profession, how is it that 
amounts to greed, to get the service you think you need? 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 4:17:49 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed8b13.9672406@news.telus.net...
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:07:58 -0600, Jose <jodaysmix@giganews.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>universal healthcare was so great.
>
> ???  ROTFL!!!!
>
> Uh, stupid?  More Americans get health care goods and services from
> Canada than vice versa.  It's only the few wealthy Canadians who can
> afford US health care and want either a luxury standard of care or
> immediate treatment of non-urgent conditions.  But it's the millions
> upon millions of poor and middle class Americans who can't afford US
> health care who get treatment and medicines from Canada (often using
> fake Canadian health care cards).  And it's not just the universally
> available services they come for.  Thousands of Americans come to
> Canada for laser eye surgery, cosmetic procedures, etc. at private
> clinics because it is so much cheaper than in the USA.
>
Well, yes.  Even a person with half a brain would want to pay less for 
anything.... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 4:19:02 PM
"David W. Barnes" <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> wrote in message 
news:070320070814134416%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com...
> In article <TM-dnXyzpMWQQ3PYnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
> <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> "David W. Barnes" <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> wrote in message
>> news:070320070732114827%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com...
>> > In article <1173264263.377201.63130@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mar 7, 12:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> > Bob Kolker  <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >Ray Fischer wrote:>
>> >> > >> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when
>> >> > >> republicans
>> >> > >> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food 
>> >> > >> that
>> >> > >> causes health problems.
>> >> >
>> >> > >Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted
>> >> > >since the 19th century.
>> >> >
>> >> > Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
>> >> > have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections 
>> >> > of
>> >> > corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.
>> >>
>> >> Is that why in most states, they have health warnings about swimming
>> >> in ponds, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and warning people to eat a very
>> >> small limited amount of fish or none at all?
>> >>
>> >> That's a great improvement in your eyes?
>> >
>> > Osprey is an idiot.  Here is proof that what Ray says is true - even in
>> > Delaware:
>> >
>> > �As recently as 1975, Delaware routinely experienced serious water
>> > pollution and public health problems as a result of the discharge of
>> > untreated sewage. Since then, as a result of voluntary efforts,
>> > regulatory actions, and significant private and public investments in
>> > wastewater treatment facilities, localized improvements in water
>> > quality have been achieved.�
>> >
>> > <http://tinyurl.com/26apkp>
>> >
>> > Osprey is merely a Right Wing parrot that repeats Right Wing bullshit.
>>
>> Do some research idiot.
>>
>> See where Delaware is in the rankings..
>>
>> http://www.ewg.org/reports/dishonorable/ddrivers.html
>>
>> # 8
>
> And that is relevant how?  Someone needs to be #8.  The point is, it
> has improved since 1975.   Remember the claim you denied?

No it hasn't asshole, in fact just last year in Wilmington they had MAJOR 
problems with the water.
Due to agriculture, the never ending expansion of business, factories, 
housing developments..our bay is in even worse shape now than ever. For the 
FIRST time in history, the Delaware weakfish is in danger.

0
noneedtoknow (858)
3/7/2007 4:23:08 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:>
>> 
>> Just as you can find all of the information you need to design and
>> write your own operating system.
>
>Been there, done that. Yes it is possible for those with the inclination 
>and the wits.

Just as it is possible for peopel to learn about the effect of verious
medications, their possible advrse effects and interactions with other
medications.

> You are just miffed that most people are either too stupid 
>or too lazy to do what is necessary to help themselves.

Just like you're too stupid and lazy to understand the economics of
health care.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 4:24:00 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Not a Nazi. A Darwinist.

That's the reasoning hitler used - get rid of all of the subhumans and
undesirables.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 4:25:07 PM
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Bob Kolker  <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:>

>> >> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when republicans
>> >> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food that
>> >> causes health problems.
>>
>> >Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted
>> >since the 19th century.
>>
>> Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
>> have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections of
>> corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.
>
>Is that why in most states, they have health warnings about swimming
>in ponds, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and warning people to eat a very
>small limited amount of fish or none at all?

Because, you stupid asshole, people got tired of corporations killing
them with stealth poisons.

>That's a great improvement in your eyes?

You're one of those morons who thinks that if you don't know about it
then it must not exist.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 4:28:32 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Nospam wrote:
>
>> 
>> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
>> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply because
>> everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation over
>> the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.
>
>How about medical service for cash.

How about you come up with another stupid idea?

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 4:29:24 PM
Osprey wrote:
> 
> Do some research idiot.
> 
> See where Delaware is in the rankings..
> 
> http://www.ewg.org/reports/dishonorable/ddrivers.html

The Delaware River is righteously polluted. Industry serving our needs.

If we are not polluting the environment we are not getting our money's 
worth from it. The idea is to keep the level of pollution on the sunny 
side of self-extinction.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 4:36:49 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> Just like you're too stupid and lazy to understand the economics of
> health care.

I understand it perfectly. Single Payer means the U.S. gummint becomes a 
monster HMO. I  prefer delicensing and cash on bbl-head. Pay for what 
you get. Get what you pay for. And the poor can always show up bleeding 
or puking in the Emergency Rooms. In the U.S. the Poor are treated for 
no charge. The rest of us pay for them.

This actually has an up side. In Boston, Boston City Hospital is one of 
the leading trauma centers in the U.S.A. It is the central treatment 
base for shot up or stabbed young negro males. Mass General is mostly 
for the white folks. Doctors who intern or do residence at BCH, aften 
end up in the military treating our soldiers. They have good solid 
experience.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 4:41:08 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>Not a Nazi. A Darwinist.
> 
> 
> That's the reasoning hitler used - get rid of all of the subhumans and
> undesirables.

Active killing is a no no. Let the unfit die of their own unfitness. You 
  obviously cannot distinguish between commission and omission. I do not 
propose to kill anyone but Muslims. I prefer to let the unfit perish of 
their own defect.

Give a hungry man a fish
You have fed him for today.

Let him starve
you can forget him forever.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 4:43:26 PM
Robert wrote:

> 
> 
> True difference is people used to die at a younger age, so spent less
> time as non productive consumers, especially of Medical care. The
> number of people at all ages over sixty five is growing at a rapid
> rate. This causes a increasing load on the medical system. 

Then why is life expectancy -increasing- in the U.S. We may be behind 
other countries, but our L.E. is still increasing.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 4:44:40 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:


> How about you come up with another stupid idea?

You mean paying cash for what you get is stupid. What do you do when you 
shop at the local supermarket? Do you buy on credit. Does insurance pay 
your food bills?

By paying cash up front you can also get a discount.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 4:45:59 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> Just like you're too stupid and lazy to understand the economics of
>> health care.
>
>I understand it perfectly.

No you don't.  All you do is parrot right-wing propaganda.

> Single Payer means the U.S. gummint becomes a 
>monster HMO.

Q.E.D.

> I  prefer delicensing and cash on bbl-head.

You also prefer to see poor people dying.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/7/2007 5:15:06 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> 
> You also prefer to see poor people dying.

Have I not said so many times? Why won't anyone take me at my word?

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 5:20:14 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

> 
> But when someone else is paying for the service, "we" who use the 
> service are not really concerned about how much that cost, since we are 
> not the ones who pay for the service.  So, there is little incentive for 
> the provider of the service to "voluntarily" reduce their cost.  So, in 
> order to restrain the cost growth, the "payer" (which is some third 
> party) will basically either institute price controls (which never works 
> for the long term) or they resort to some sort of rationing scheme.  But 
> Rationing is just like price controls, it never works for the long haul, 
> so in time, more and more rationing has to occur.  And rationing can 
> take many forms.  You can do what Oregon is doing and that is have a 
> list of services that they will pay for and a list of services they will 
> not pay for (the ones who need medical care and are not on the list of 
> covered services, loses out on the lottery), but Oregon has already had 
> to revise that list because the cost continues to rise.  You can ration 
> care by the simple mechanism of capping the total amount of money you 
> are willing to spend in any given year (a technique used in Canada), 
> which of course means that someone who wants that care is not going to 
> get it in that given year.  You can ration care by putting people on a 
> waiting list.  In other words, there are all kinds of ways to ration 
> care artifically.  But as I said in the beginning, it does not address 
> the core problem.

People can reduce the cost of their health care by adapting good habits. 
Watch the weight, excercise, don't smoke and don't dring too much booze. 
That will add more years to  life (on the average) than any fancy 
medical technology.

Unfortunately third party systems, a form of economic menage a trois, 
creates the illusion of free goods, particularly if the insurance is 
paid out of the general fund. Free goods means ulimited consumption. Not 
possible. And, as you say, some form of rationing (apportionment) is 
inevitable.

When are people going to learn what Robert A. Heinlein taught us:

TANSTAAFL

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 5:46:20 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

>>
>  From http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm...  Canada 
> year 2000 life expectancy 79.4.  United States, same year, 77.1.  A two 
> year difference....big deal...

The difference can be closed by healthy living habits.

Bob Kolker

> 
> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 5:47:25 PM
Nospam wrote:
> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
> 
>> Do you know what S-P-E-C-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N is and why it is useful in
>> our society?
> 
> For a libertarians specialization is usefull ONLY to boost private proffits
> and harm the skilled hardworking people.

You should read a few economics books.

> As mater of fact anything that do not harm a hardworking person for the
> benefit of aristocracy it is a horror for the libertarians.
> 

You're becoming more and more silly with each post, do you realize that? 
  If you dislike trade you should bake your own bread, grow all your own 
vegetables, tend livestock, make your own clothing, soap, car, etc... Do 
you do that?  No.  Then you're being a hypocrite.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 6:08:52 PM
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:27:21 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Timberwoof wrote:
>> 
>> So, in answer to your question, "How did the people in this country 
>> survive, thrive, and build the strongest economy in the world, without 
>> such a system?" I'd answer, "They died a lot."
>
>And we still do. So far every one who was ever born as died or will die.
>
>Bob Kolker

True difference is people used to die at a younger age, so spent less
time as non productive consumers, especially of Medical care. The
number of people at all ages over sixty five is growing at a rapid
rate. This causes a increasing load on the medical system. 

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
robpar (50)
3/7/2007 6:29:31 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
> "Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
> news:esm3qp$ijb$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>>>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay
>>>>>> crooks
>>>>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>>>>>> minded
>>>>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international 
>>>>>> studies that
>>>>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th 
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times 
>>>>>> as the
>>>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are 
>>>>>> due to
>>>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>>>>> number
>>>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) 
>>>>>> uninsured while
>>>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>>>>>> times as
>>>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>>>> market"/"for
>>>>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions 
>>>>>> while the
>>>>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to 
>>>>>> maximize the
>>>>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate 
>>>>> is over
>>>>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
>>>>> party
>>>>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation 
>>>>> is. You
>>>>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period 
>>>>> of time,
>>>>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their 
>>>>> overall rate
>>>>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that 
>>>>> the case?
>>>>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what 
>>>>> the core
>>>>> problem is.
>>>>
>>>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>>>
>>> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there 
>>> is virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than 
>>> to implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, 
>>> from prices to services.
>>
>> But there is not unlimited demand for medical services.  I am in 
>> Canada and can visit a GP anytime I want and pay no out of pocket 
>> expenses whatsoever, but I'm here typing this post.  I could be 
>> getting free health care -- I must be crazy to be sitting in front of 
>> my computer instead of visiting my GP for free!
> 
> What was my original question.  My original question was what is the 
> medical inflation rate in Canada.  Look it up.  But don't "cherry pick" 
> the data, look at the data over a ten year period of time (longer would 
> be better). Find out what the medical inflation rate was and compare 
> that to whatever the broader measure of inflation is in your country (in 
> the US that would be something like the Consumer Price Index).  Tell us 
> what you find.

I will get that info for you, but it may be the weekend before I can 
post it.

>>
>> It is important to recognise that health STATUS is the objective *not* 
>> health care.  If anything, health care causes a disutility since 
>> medical care is seldom pleasant (even with anesthesia).  Like I said, 
>> no one will line up for free appendectomies if they don't need them.
> 
> Ah but people will go to see a doctor more often, if they are not the 
> ones paying the bill.

Is that a bad thing?  What if they don't see their GP and forego care 
that is beneficial or preventative which could have saved the health 
care system loads of money in the future?  Some things are cheaper to 
nip in the bud right away.  And a visit to the GP is less expensive than 
going to the ER with a much more complicated condition later.

The decision that "consumers" can make is to visit their GP or not. 
Primary care is not the where the vast majority of expenditure is;  it 
is specialist, hospital, and intensive care that is costly.

It isn't a coincidence that Canada with no cost sharing  spends much 
less per capita than the USA where there are all kinds of copays, 
userfees, deductibles, etc.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 6:44:53 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

>>
> If you think you need the services of the medical profession, how is it 
> that amounts to greed, to get the service you think you need?

I was being sarcastic. I should have said so.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 7:19:04 PM
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:27:43 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote:
>> 
>> And here's something for _you_ to think about:
>> 
>> Do you know what kind of food you want to buy?  How do you know?
>> 
>> Now, do you know what kind of drugs and medical treatments you want to
>> buy?  How do you know?
>
>Crank up WebMD.com and find out. The information is all Out There for 
>those with the wits to read it.

And all the tests, x-rays, etc....?

How are you going to look in your own ear (we already know your
proficiency at looking up your own backside).

And who is going to write the prescriptions that will let you buy what
you (probably erroneously) think you want?

Do you ever _think_ about what you write before posting it?

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 7:22:04 PM
royls@telus.net wrote:

> 
> And who is going to write the prescriptions that will let you buy what
> you (probably erroneously) think you want?

I have gotten refills of some of my pharms on the net without a 
perscription.
> 
> Do you ever _think_ about what you write before posting it?

Of course. I have learned a lot about drug contraindications by reading 
the medical journals. Obviously one should not diagnose himself since he 
does not have the equipment at home.

Bob Kolker

> 
> -- Roy L
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 7:25:15 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
> news:45edaa0f$0$14133$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>> universal healthcare was so great.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>> was so great.
>>>
>>> Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>> Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line. In the U.S., the custom
>>> is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>>
>> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
>> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
>>
> Much better than waiting days or months for the treatment.

I'd rather see my primary care physician (for free) when I think 
something is wrong and have it dealt with immediately.  That, rather 
than waiting until some condition progresses and I wind up in a costly 
hospital bed.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/7/2007 7:40:48 PM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

> 
> I'd rather see my primary care physician (for free) when I think 
> something is wrong and have it dealt with immediately.  That, rather 
> than waiting until some condition progresses and I wind up in a costly 
> hospital bed.


Most likely you will end up in your own bed. There are not that many 
acute conditions that require a hospital stay. Most conditions can be 
handled with bedrest.

For example if you come down with bronchitis you will get a ten day 
course of anti biotics and be told to stay home, rest and drink plenty 
of liquids.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 8:30:31 PM
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:19:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed8b13.9672406@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:07:58 -0600, Jose <jodaysmix@giganews.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>
>> ???  ROTFL!!!!
>>
>> Uh, stupid?  More Americans get health care goods and services from
>> Canada than vice versa.  It's only the few wealthy Canadians who can
>> afford US health care and want either a luxury standard of care or
>> immediate treatment of non-urgent conditions.  But it's the millions
>> upon millions of poor and middle class Americans who can't afford US
>> health care who get treatment and medicines from Canada (often using
>> fake Canadian health care cards).  And it's not just the universally
>> available services they come for.  Thousands of Americans come to
>> Canada for laser eye surgery, cosmetic procedures, etc. at private
>> clinics because it is so much cheaper than in the USA.
>>
>Well, yes.  Even a person with half a brain would want to pay less for 
>anything.... 

And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
in the bastion of free markets...?

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 9:48:27 PM
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:14:43 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:10:59 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if 
>>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>>
>>>>Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>>was so great.
>>>
>>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs. 
>>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line.
>> 
>> Yes, actually, they do, and treating American "medical tourists" is
>> recognized as a huge cost to Canadian health care budgets. 
>
>So why not raise the price to equalize it?

They're using phony Canadian medical cards to get the treatment.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 9:49:52 PM
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:16:43 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed99a9.13406255@news.telus.net...
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:10:59 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>>
>>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>> was so great.
>>>
>>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line.
>>
>> Yes, actually, they do, and treating American "medical tourists" is
>> recognized as a huge cost to Canadian health care budgets.
>>
>>>In the U.S., the custom
>>>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>>
>> But both poor and middle class Americans routinely go to Canada for
>> better treatment, because they are not treated with indifference,
>> contempt and even hostility just because they can't pay.
>>
>If you are poor, how do you afford the cost of travelling and staying in 
>Canada? 

You can hitchhike -- from some US cities, you can _walk_ -- across the
border (maybe not so convenient now that the passport law has taken
effect), and if you are poor and American, you already know how to
survive without any money.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 9:52:54 PM
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:21:52 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is 
>>>over
>>>a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third party
>>>payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is. 
>>>You
>>>will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of 
>>>time,
>>>their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall 
>>>rate
>>>of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the 
>>>case?
>>>When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the core
>>>problem is.
>>
>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>
>Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there is 
>virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to 
>implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from 
>prices to services. 

But there _isn't_ unlimited demand for medical services.  People don't
go out and get a little knee surgery when they have some extra cash
lying around the way they will splurge on a fancy restaurant.  They
only want to get medical care when they need it (and often they don't
even then).  That's exactly the point.  Medical care doesn't work like
a normal market good because its elasticity of demand is near zero,
and it's typically the provider who is deciding what the consumer will
buy.  Trying to apply your neo-con free market nostrums to medical
care merely shows your ignorance of the relevant economics.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 9:59:46 PM
royls@telus.net wrote:
> 
> 
> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
> in the bastion of free markets...?

The drug companies are using the U.S. to subsidize their Canadian sales. 
They do it becuase they can. U.S. citizens buying their drugs up in 
Canada can get a little back.

The drug companies have s sweetheart deal with the U.S. gummint. The 
U.S. gummint will not use its clout to get the drugs cheaper.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/7/2007 10:07:44 PM
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 07:52:48 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
>news:esm3qp$ijb$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>>>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to pay
>>>>>> crooks
>>>>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>>>>>> minded
>>>>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international studies 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th into
>>>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due to
>>>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>>>>> number
>>>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>>>>> while
>>>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>>>>>> times as
>>>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>>>> market"/"for
>>>>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions while 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to maximize 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is 
>>>>> over
>>>>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
>>>>> party
>>>>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is. 
>>>>> You
>>>>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of 
>>>>> time,
>>>>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall 
>>>>> rate
>>>>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the 
>>>>> case?
>>>>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the 
>>>>> core
>>>>> problem is.
>>>>
>>>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>>>
>>> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there is 
>>> virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to 
>>> implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from 
>>> prices to services.
>>
>> But there is not unlimited demand for medical services.  I am in Canada 
>> and can visit a GP anytime I want and pay no out of pocket expenses 
>> whatsoever, but I'm here typing this post.  I could be getting free health 
>> care -- I must be crazy to be sitting in front of my computer instead of 
>> visiting my GP for free!
>
>What was my original question.  My original question was what is the medical 
>inflation rate in Canada.  Look it up.  But don't "cherry pick" the data, 
>look at the data over a ten year period of time (longer would be better). 
>Find out what the medical inflation rate was and compare that to whatever 
>the broader measure of inflation is in your country (in the US that would be 
>something like the Consumer Price Index).  Tell us what you find.

The "medical inflation rate" is higher than the CPI rate.  So what?
That's the same everywhere, partly because of the increasingly
burdensome rent seeking seen in virtually every aspect of medical care
provision.

>> It is important to recognise that health STATUS is the objective *not* 
>> health care.  If anything, health care causes a disutility since medical 
>> care is seldom pleasant (even with anesthesia).  Like I said, no one will 
>> line up for free appendectomies if they don't need them.
>
>Ah but people will go to see a doctor more often, if they are not the ones 
>paying the bill. 

Ah, but that does not mean they will go infinitely often if the cost
to them is zero.  They may well only increase their doctor visits from
"not often enough to maintain health" if they are paying the whole
shot to "just often enough to maintain health" if they pay nothing.

You stand refuted.

Sorry about that.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 10:15:40 PM
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:15:01 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45eda710.16838659@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:23:32 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than in
>>>the USA.
>>
>> Ah, so _that's_ what it's called when you provide needed treatments to
>> poor people who will benefit by them rather than unnecessary
>> treatments to rich ones who won't.
>
>No, the rich in Canada, like the rich anywhere else, do not need any help 
>from the government.

Irrelevant.  You need to address the fact that when medical care is
allocated according to money rather than need, the rich will get a lot
of "care" that does them no good, and may even harm them, while the
poor will lack the care that would do them a lot of good.  And the
fact is, you _can't_ address it.

>They have the resources to "opt out" of whatever 
>system any government puts in place.  It is the very poor that you seem so 
>concerned about, who gets the shaft, when they are promised free healthcare, 
>and find out that in order to get that free health care, there are some 
>serious strings attached, and those strings may result in you dying before 
>you ever get the care you thought you should get.

While with for-profit medical care, they would have no chance at all
of getting that care, while someone who can afford lots of care may
get killed on the operating table having an unnecessary but profitable
procedure done because the surgeon's kid just got accepted to an Ivy
League university, and he needs to make the tuition.  So?

>> "Health care rationing."  Thanks.  I'll remember what it means the
>> next time I see that term used.
>>
>Rationing occurs everytime you go to buy something, and decide not to buy 
>it. 

No, rationing is when the amount you can get is not governed by your
ability to pay for it.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 10:24:41 PM
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:53:05 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
>news:esj40i$km5$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>> Here is something for you to think about.  Let us say, our government 
>>> decides that no one has to pay for the food they buy, or that they have 
>>> to pay only a fraction of the real cost.  What incentive does the people 
>>> who sell the foods we buy to lower their price?  Why should the sellers 
>>> charge less for hamburger and more more steaks?  "If" someone else is 
>>> paying for your trip to the supermarket, or subsidizing a large 
>>> percentage of the cost of the purchase, would you eat more steaks and 
>>> less hamburger, regardless of the cost?
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> You're assuming the "consumer" in the health care setting is rational and 
>> has full information just like someone who's out grocery shopping. That's 
>> a faulty assumption.  Most of us can tell the difference between steak and 
>> hamburger.  How do you know whether the pain you feel in your abdomen is 
>> gas or, some serious G.I. problem?  If I offered you a free appendectomy 
>> would you take me up on it?  Health care or medical services is not an 
>> item that grants utility like filet mignon or lobster so conventional 
>> economics goes out the window.
>
>It has nothing to do with the knowledge of the consumer and everything to do 
>with the "choices" we make when we have to pay for what we want, and when we 
>do not have to pay for what we want.

Wrong.  It has nothing to do with having to pay, and everything to do
with _having_the_choices_made_FOR_you_ whether you have to pay or not.

>The question I asked is the basic 
>problem with a third party payment system.

But it just isn't.

>"If" you are not the one paying 
>the bill, you do not care what the cost is for the service (in this case) 
>you want.  You have a situation where demand is virtually unlimited,

Nope.  Wrong.

>with no 
>effective way to control demand, other than to resort to rationing, which of 
>course no one wants, but that is what you eventually have to resort to, 
>because the cost of providing that service is rising faster than is 
>sustainable.

But where is the money going?  Aye, there's the rub...

>But rationing, like price controls will not work over a long 
>period of time, because neither addresses the supply/demand imbalance, which 
>is the basic reason prices are rising.

Nonsense.  You need to learn that when rent seeking is driving price
increases, it has nothing to do with the consumer managing demand, and
everything to do with "producers" managing supply.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 10:32:01 PM
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:10:39 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>news:45ecfa69$0$14070$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
>>>> >>>fact
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>>> >>
>>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>>>> >in
>>>> >the USA.
>>>>
>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>>
>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>> need it.
>
>Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.  The difference 
>between Canada and the United States is miniscule.

So what?  All the top 50 or so countries have similar life
expectancies.  But Canada (80.22 years) is #12, and the USA (77.85) is
#47...

The point is, Americans' health is significantly worse than
Canadians', and they pay much more for health care than Canadians.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/7/2007 10:43:29 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef11ac.17981953@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:53:05 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message
>>news:esj40i$km5$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>> Here is something for you to think about.  Let us say, our government
>>>> decides that no one has to pay for the food they buy, or that they have
>>>> to pay only a fraction of the real cost.  What incentive does the 
>>>> people
>>>> who sell the foods we buy to lower their price?  Why should the sellers
>>>> charge less for hamburger and more more steaks?  "If" someone else is
>>>> paying for your trip to the supermarket, or subsidizing a large
>>>> percentage of the cost of the purchase, would you eat more steaks and
>>>> less hamburger, regardless of the cost?
>>>
>>> Jerry,
>>>
>>> You're assuming the "consumer" in the health care setting is rational 
>>> and
>>> has full information just like someone who's out grocery shopping. 
>>> That's
>>> a faulty assumption.  Most of us can tell the difference between steak 
>>> and
>>> hamburger.  How do you know whether the pain you feel in your abdomen is
>>> gas or, some serious G.I. problem?  If I offered you a free appendectomy
>>> would you take me up on it?  Health care or medical services is not an
>>> item that grants utility like filet mignon or lobster so conventional
>>> economics goes out the window.
>>
>>It has nothing to do with the knowledge of the consumer and everything to 
>>do
>>with the "choices" we make when we have to pay for what we want, and when 
>>we
>>do not have to pay for what we want.
>
> Wrong.  It has nothing to do with having to pay, and everything to do
> with _having_the_choices_made_FOR_you_ whether you have to pay or not.

You cannot be serious.  Healthcare rationing in its present form is having 
someone else make the choice for you.
>
>>The question I asked is the basic
>>problem with a third party payment system.
>
> But it just isn't.

Why isn't it?
>
>>"If" you are not the one paying
>>the bill, you do not care what the cost is for the service (in this case)
>>you want.  You have a situation where demand is virtually unlimited,
>
> Nope.  Wrong.

Why?
>
>>with no
>>effective way to control demand, other than to resort to rationing, which 
>>of
>>course no one wants, but that is what you eventually have to resort to,
>>because the cost of providing that service is rising faster than is
>>sustainable.
>
> But where is the money going?  Aye, there's the rub...

To pay for the same service that a prior person receiving that care, but at 
a higher price.
>
>>But rationing, like price controls will not work over a long
>>period of time, because neither addresses the supply/demand imbalance, 
>>which
>>is the basic reason prices are rising.
>
> Nonsense.  You need to learn that when rent seeking is driving price
> increases, it has nothing to do with the consumer managing demand, and
> everything to do with "producers" managing supply.
>
come back when you understand economics.... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:03:05 PM
"Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message 
news:1629053.Q3hRTWvUhG@example.com...
> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
>
>> Nospam wrote:
>>> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you know what S-P-E-C-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N is and why it is useful in
>>>> our society?
>>>
>>> For a libertarians specialization is usefull ONLY to boost private
>>> proffits and harm the skilled hardworking people.
>>
>> You should read a few economics books.
>
> I read and I understand. Your problem is not that you don't read, you just
> can not understand.
>
You have read and studied economics? 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:04:16 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:558c3eF23fahqU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>
>> But when someone else is paying for the service, "we" who use the service 
>> are not really concerned about how much that cost, since we are not the 
>> ones who pay for the service.  So, there is little incentive for the 
>> provider of the service to "voluntarily" reduce their cost.  So, in order 
>> to restrain the cost growth, the "payer" (which is some third party) will 
>> basically either institute price controls (which never works for the long 
>> term) or they resort to some sort of rationing scheme.  But Rationing is 
>> just like price controls, it never works for the long haul, so in time, 
>> more and more rationing has to occur.  And rationing can take many forms. 
>> You can do what Oregon is doing and that is have a list of services that 
>> they will pay for and a list of services they will not pay for (the ones 
>> who need medical care and are not on the list of covered services, loses 
>> out on the lottery), but Oregon has already had to revise that list 
>> because the cost continues to rise.  You can ration care by the simple 
>> mechanism of capping the total amount of money you are willing to spend 
>> in any given year (a technique used in Canada), which of course means 
>> that someone who wants that care is not going to get it in that given 
>> year.  You can ration care by putting people on a waiting list.  In other 
>> words, there are all kinds of ways to ration care artifically.  But as I 
>> said in the beginning, it does not address the core problem.
>
> People can reduce the cost of their health care by adapting good habits. 
> Watch the weight, excercise, don't smoke and don't dring too much booze. 
> That will add more years to  life (on the average) than any fancy medical 
> technology.

Yes they can, but that is not the problem....

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:05:14 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:558c5dF23fahqU2@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>>
>>  From http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm...  Canada 
>> year 2000 life expectancy 79.4.  United States, same year, 77.1.  A two 
>> year difference....big deal...
>
> The difference can be closed by healthy living habits.
>
Yep. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:05:54 PM
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:45ef545b$0$9437$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Bob Kolker wrote:
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>  From http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm...  Canada 
>>> year 2000 life expectancy 79.4.  United States, same year, 77.1.  A two 
>>> year difference....big deal...
>>
>>
>> The difference can be closed by healthy living habits.
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>>
>>>
>>>
>
> The difference might be completely due to the higher murder rate.
> Young people are most at risk to die by murder. One
> young persons  dying has a greater impact on
> life expectancy stats.
>
good point.  Here is a link to add to the discussion..

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/crime/a/abolitioncappun.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/02/murder.rate/ 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:09:48 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef143a.18635358@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:10:39 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:45ecfa69$0$14070$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the
>>>>> >>>fact
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
>>>>> >than
>>>>> >in
>>>>> >the USA.
>>>>>
>>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>>>
>>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>>> need it.
>>
>>Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.  The difference
>>between Canada and the United States is miniscule.
>
> So what?  All the top 50 or so countries have similar life
> expectancies.  But Canada (80.22 years) is #12, and the USA (77.85) is
> #47...
>
> The point is, Americans' health is significantly worse than
> Canadians', and they pay much more for health care than Canadians.
>
and it is not necessarily due to the healthcare system.... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:10:48 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef0f7a.17419118@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:15:01 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>news:45eda710.16838659@news.telus.net...
>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:23:32 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>>>>in
>>>>the USA.
>>>
>>> Ah, so _that's_ what it's called when you provide needed treatments to
>>> poor people who will benefit by them rather than unnecessary
>>> treatments to rich ones who won't.
>>
>>No, the rich in Canada, like the rich anywhere else, do not need any help
>>from the government.
>
> Irrelevant.  You need to address the fact that when medical care is
> allocated according to money rather than need, the rich will get a lot
> of "care" that does them no good, and may even harm them, while the
> poor will lack the care that would do them a lot of good.  And the
> fact is, you _can't_ address it.

Those with money, always trump those without money.  No system in the world 
that you can drean up is going to change that fact.
>
>>They have the resources to "opt out" of whatever
>>system any government puts in place.  It is the very poor that you seem so
>>concerned about, who gets the shaft, when they are promised free 
>>healthcare,
>>and find out that in order to get that free health care, there are some
>>serious strings attached, and those strings may result in you dying before
>>you ever get the care you thought you should get.
>
> While with for-profit medical care, they would have no chance at all
> of getting that care, while someone who can afford lots of care may
> get killed on the operating table having an unnecessary but profitable
> procedure done because the surgeon's kid just got accepted to an Ivy
> League university, and he needs to make the tuition.  So?

Those who need the care will also die before they get the care, because the 
"system" will not address their needs in time...that is what rationing does. 
In Canada for instance, it is the "system" that decides when you are going 
to get the care.  Some, who the "system" consider important, get to the 
front of the line, regardless of when they got on the line.  Others, because 
the "system" had concluded that they don't need to get in the front of the 
line, don't get in the front of the line, and some even die while waiting, 
and before they get the care they wanted.....
>
>>> "Health care rationing."  Thanks.  I'll remember what it means the
>>> next time I see that term used.
>>>
>>Rationing occurs everytime you go to buy something, and decide not to buy
>>it.
>
> No, rationing is when the amount you can get is not governed by your
> ability to pay for it.

Total foolishness.  You make a rationing decision everytime you make a 
purchase and everytime you do not make a purchase.

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:15:54 PM
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:esn178$td4$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
>> news:esm3qp$ijb$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>>> news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>>>>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to 
>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>> crooks
>>>>>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak 
>>>>>>> minded
>>>>>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international 
>>>>>>> studies that
>>>>>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th 
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured 
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5 
>>>>>>> times as
>>>>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>>>>> market"/"for
>>>>>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions 
>>>>>>> while the
>>>>>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to 
>>>>>>> maximize the
>>>>>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate 
>>>>>> is over
>>>>>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
>>>>>> party
>>>>>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation 
>>>>>> is. You
>>>>>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of 
>>>>>> time,
>>>>>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their 
>>>>>> overall rate
>>>>>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that 
>>>>>> the case?
>>>>>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the 
>>>>>> core
>>>>>> problem is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>>>>
>>>> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there 
>>>> is virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to 
>>>> implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from 
>>>> prices to services.
>>>
>>> But there is not unlimited demand for medical services.  I am in Canada 
>>> and can visit a GP anytime I want and pay no out of pocket expenses 
>>> whatsoever, but I'm here typing this post.  I could be getting free 
>>> health care -- I must be crazy to be sitting in front of my computer 
>>> instead of visiting my GP for free!
>>
>> What was my original question.  My original question was what is the 
>> medical inflation rate in Canada.  Look it up.  But don't "cherry pick" 
>> the data, look at the data over a ten year period of time (longer would 
>> be better). Find out what the medical inflation rate was and compare that 
>> to whatever the broader measure of inflation is in your country (in the 
>> US that would be something like the Consumer Price Index).  Tell us what 
>> you find.
>
> I will get that info for you, but it may be the weekend before I can post 
> it.

No problem.

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:17:19 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef0e4c.17117453@news.telus.net...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 07:52:48 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message
>>news:esm3qp$ijb$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>>>>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to 
>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>> crooks
>>>>>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak
>>>>>>> minded
>>>>>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international 
>>>>>>> studies
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th 
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5
>>>>>>> times as
>>>>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>>>>> market"/"for
>>>>>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions 
>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to 
>>>>>>> maximize
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third
>>>>>> party
>>>>>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation 
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of
>>>>>> time,
>>>>>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their 
>>>>>> overall
>>>>>> rate
>>>>>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> case?
>>>>>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the
>>>>>> core
>>>>>> problem is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>>>>
>>>> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there 
>>>> is
>>>> virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to
>>>> implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from
>>>> prices to services.
>>>
>>> But there is not unlimited demand for medical services.  I am in Canada
>>> and can visit a GP anytime I want and pay no out of pocket expenses
>>> whatsoever, but I'm here typing this post.  I could be getting free 
>>> health
>>> care -- I must be crazy to be sitting in front of my computer instead of
>>> visiting my GP for free!
>>
>>What was my original question.  My original question was what is the 
>>medical
>>inflation rate in Canada.  Look it up.  But don't "cherry pick" the data,
>>look at the data over a ten year period of time (longer would be better).
>>Find out what the medical inflation rate was and compare that to whatever
>>the broader measure of inflation is in your country (in the US that would 
>>be
>>something like the Consumer Price Index).  Tell us what you find.
>
> The "medical inflation rate" is higher than the CPI rate.  So what?
> That's the same everywhere, partly because of the increasingly
> burdensome rent seeking seen in virtually every aspect of medical care
> provision.
>
NO!!!   Look at the US statistics on medical inflation.  If you did that you 
would find that when the series first started (sometime in the late 1930's 
as I recall) up to 1950, medical inflation was consistently below the 
Consumer Price Index.  After 1950, medical inflation was consistenly higher 
than the Consumer Price Index.  So, it is pretty obvious, something 
fundamentally caused that permanent shift. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:20:59 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef0a47.16088043@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:21:52 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate is
>>>>over
>>>>a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third 
>>>>party
>>>>payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation is.
>>>>You
>>>>will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of
>>>>time,
>>>>their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their overall
>>>>rate
>>>>of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that the
>>>>case?
>>>>When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the 
>>>>core
>>>>problem is.
>>>
>>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>>
>>Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there is
>>virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to
>>implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from
>>prices to services.
>
> But there _isn't_ unlimited demand for medical services.  People don't
> go out and get a little knee surgery when they have some extra cash
> lying around the way they will splurge on a fancy restaurant.  They
> only want to get medical care when they need it (and often they don't
> even then).  That's exactly the point.  Medical care doesn't work like
> a normal market good because its elasticity of demand is near zero,
> and it's typically the provider who is deciding what the consumer will
> buy.  Trying to apply your neo-con free market nostrums to medical
> care merely shows your ignorance of the relevant economics.
>
I did not say that there was unlimited demand for the service, I said there 
was "virtually unlimited demand" for the service.  But the same basic 
principal applies, regardless of how you split hairs on what I said.  Both 
end up in the same place, i.e. you cannot effectively control price 
increases, when demand is not constrained by price.  As for demand, it was 
not so long ago that price was a factor in whether you got the care you 
wanted or did not get the care you wanted.  It then depended on your ability 
to pay, just like it depends on your ability to pay that determines what 
kind of car you buy, whether you buy steak or hamburger today, or whether 
you go to a high price resturant today, or Burger King, whether you own a 
house or you rent a house or apartment.  The only difference was, there were 
charitable hospitals who took care of those who could not pay.  Today, most 
of those charitable hospitals are as extinct as some animals.  But having 
said that, there is no such thing as a perfect system.  Someone is going to 
suffer, regardless of what system you can dream up. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:27:48 PM
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:esn4g2$ur1$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> news:45edaa0f$0$14133$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>>> universal healthcare was so great.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>>> was so great.
>>>>
>>>> Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>>> Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line. In the U.S., the custom
>>>> is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>>>
>>> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
>>> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
>>>
>> Much better than waiting days or months for the treatment.
>
> I'd rather see my primary care physician (for free) when I think something 
> is wrong and have it dealt with immediately.  That, rather than waiting 
> until some condition progresses and I wind up in a costly hospital bed.

Then don't go to Oregon.... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:40:47 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef0971.15873663@news.telus.net...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:16:43 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>news:45ed99a9.13406255@news.telus.net...
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:10:59 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>>> was so great.
>>>>
>>>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line.
>>>
>>> Yes, actually, they do, and treating American "medical tourists" is
>>> recognized as a huge cost to Canadian health care budgets.
>>>
>>>>In the U.S., the custom
>>>>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>>>
>>> But both poor and middle class Americans routinely go to Canada for
>>> better treatment, because they are not treated with indifference,
>>> contempt and even hostility just because they can't pay.
>>>
>>If you are poor, how do you afford the cost of travelling and staying in
>>Canada?
>
> You can hitchhike -- from some US cities, you can _walk_ -- across the
> border (maybe not so convenient now that the passport law has taken
> effect), and if you are poor and American, you already know how to
> survive without any money.
>
I suppose you "could.  But that is an awful long trip from anywhere in the 
southern states.  And you better hope like heck the weather is good, that 
your condition will not worsen, while you are trying to get there. 
Personally, if I were poor, I would simply walk into the emergency room, 
because in this country they cannot turn you away legally.  A whole lot 
faster and easier.... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:43:35 PM
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef08c5.15702378@news.telus.net...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:19:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ed8b13.9672406@news.telus.net...
>>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:07:58 -0600, Jose <jodaysmix@giganews.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>
>>> ???  ROTFL!!!!
>>>
>>> Uh, stupid?  More Americans get health care goods and services from
>>> Canada than vice versa.  It's only the few wealthy Canadians who can
>>> afford US health care and want either a luxury standard of care or
>>> immediate treatment of non-urgent conditions.  But it's the millions
>>> upon millions of poor and middle class Americans who can't afford US
>>> health care who get treatment and medicines from Canada (often using
>>> fake Canadian health care cards).  And it's not just the universally
>>> available services they come for.  Thousands of Americans come to
>>> Canada for laser eye surgery, cosmetic procedures, etc. at private
>>> clinics because it is so much cheaper than in the USA.
>>>
>>Well, yes.  Even a person with half a brain would want to pay less for
>>anything....
>
> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
> in the bastion of free markets...?
>
>
Because they will not buy the product if they think the price is too high? 
Because a pharmaceutical company is in the business to make money, and the 
way to make money is to sell more of what they have to sell, even if the 
profit margin may be lower...the alternative is not to sell the product at 
all in those countries, which means they make a little less money. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:46:12 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:558rdiF23b4nuU1@mid.individual.net...
> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
>> in the bastion of free markets...?
>
> The drug companies are using the U.S. to subsidize their Canadian sales. 
> They do it becuase they can. U.S. citizens buying their drugs up in Canada 
> can get a little back.

Canada is also getting a free ride.
>
> The drug companies have s sweetheart deal with the U.S. gummint. The U.S. 
> gummint will not use its clout to get the drugs cheaper.
>
How do they do that? 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/7/2007 11:47:18 PM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

> Nospam wrote:
>> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
>> 
>>> Do you know what S-P-E-C-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N is and why it is useful in
>>> our society?
>> 
>> For a libertarians specialization is usefull ONLY to boost private
>> proffits and harm the skilled hardworking people.
> 
> You should read a few economics books.

I read and I understand. Your problem is not that you don't read, you just
can not understand.


> You're becoming more and more silly with each post, do you realize that?
>   If you dislike trade you should bake your own bread, grow all your own
> vegetables, tend livestock, make your own clothing, soap, car, etc... Do
> you do that?  No.  Then you're being a hypocrite.

Nope. You with your primitive libertarian ideology of greed are the top
shelf of hypocrisy. 

I never opposed trade, only I was asking for fair trade.
I never opposed the private property, I only opposed the unlimited
accumulation of property.
I even didn't opposed the capitalism, I only opposed the capitalist
unbounded greed.
I never been on extreme left, I just opposed the hideous pathetic extreme
right.

Libertarians are just the quintessence of the greed inducted evil. They are
so stupid that are not capable in their chicken mind (I beg pardons from 
birds for insulting them by comparison) to made difference betwen fanatic
extremes and a decent middle.

They are so mentally challenged that they can not grasp the existence of
relative position and the existence of space between extremes. In their
mononeuronal brain, libertarian sit on the extreme right and call extreme
left everything it is on their left side, despite that there it is actually
the moderated right.

I assume it is futile to ask you to get a brain, but just try look and see
that all the huge suffering in the world has been generated by idiots
worshiping a fixed idea and having no brain power to compromise nor see the
truth.

From Bin Laden and Talibans, to Stalin and Hitler to Robespierre and Marat
to Spanish inquisition and ending with Nero, Caligula and others like them,
everytime in the human history the fanatic idiots fixed on a single extreme
ideology and never willing to think were the biggest criminals. 

Today's the libertarian ideology pushing toward a new extreme right, it is
the new poison of the human society. As Nazi before, you get stuck into a
single idea (in the libertarian case greed) and you are ready to commit any
single atrocity required to achieve this pathetic goal. And you find no
problem to accuse others, to justify your pathetic greed. Shame on you
pathological greedy libertarians !!! Shame on your primitive ideology !!!


0
nospam191 (234)
3/7/2007 11:48:22 PM
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
>>>
>>  From http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm...  
>> Canada year 2000 life expectancy 79.4.  United States, same year, 
>> 77.1.  A two year difference....big deal...
> 
> 
> The difference can be closed by healthy living habits.
> 
> Bob Kolker
> 
>>
>>

The difference might be completely due to the higher murder rate.
Young people are most at risk to die by murder. One
young persons  dying has a greater impact on
life expectancy stats.

--
Les Cargill

0
lcargill1 (136)
3/8/2007 12:10:04 AM
Les Cargill wrote:
> 
> The difference might be completely due to the higher murder rate.
> Young people are most at risk to die by murder. One
> young persons  dying has a greater impact on
> life expectancy stats.

That brings us back to Negros then. They suffer the highest murder rate 
of any group in the U.S.. There is no cure. Black on black crime will 
take its toll and there is not a blessed thing we can do about it.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 1:02:53 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

>>
> I suppose you "could.  But that is an awful long trip from anywhere in 
> the southern states.  And you better hope like heck the weather is good, 
> that your condition will not worsen, while you are trying to get there. 
> Personally, if I were poor, I would simply walk into the emergency room, 
> because in this country they cannot turn you away legally.  A whole lot 
> faster and easier....

In the U.S. the Poor are treated for no charge (to them). The rest of us 
pay. In most States it is illegal to turn a patient away from an 
emergency facility, particularly if he is wounded or acutely ill.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 2:00:20 AM
In article <qYWdnXFKwIFwe3PYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David W. Barnes" <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> wrote in message 
> news:070320070814134416%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com...
> > In article <TM-dnXyzpMWQQ3PYnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
> > <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "David W. Barnes" <yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com> wrote in message
> >> news:070320070732114827%yeahyeahyeah@yeah.com...
> >> > In article <1173264263.377201.63130@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mar 7, 12:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> > Bob Kolker  <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >Ray Fischer wrote:>
> >> >> > >> Which isn't a problem in the US.  Except, of course, when
> >> >> > >> republicans
> >> >> > >> allow corporations to pollute the air and water and sell food 
> >> >> > >> that
> >> >> > >> causes health problems.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >Fuck that. The air and water in the U.S. has been steadily polluted
> >> >> > >since the 19th century.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Obviously you're reduced to playing dishonest games.  Air and water
> >> >> > have been greatly improved since the 1970s, despite the objections 
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > corporate interests and the republicans that serve them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that why in most states, they have health warnings about swimming
> >> >> in ponds, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and warning people to eat a very
> >> >> small limited amount of fish or none at all?
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a great improvement in your eyes?
> >> >
> >> > Osprey is an idiot.  Here is proof that what Ray says is true - even in
> >> > Delaware:
> >> >
> >> > �As recently as 1975, Delaware routinely experienced serious water
> >> > pollution and public health problems as a result of the discharge of
> >> > untreated sewage. Since then, as a result of voluntary efforts,
> >> > regulatory actions, and significant private and public investments in
> >> > wastewater treatment facilities, localized improvements in water
> >> > quality have been achieved.�
> >> >
> >> > <http://tinyurl.com/26apkp>
> >> >
> >> > Osprey is merely a Right Wing parrot that repeats Right Wing bullshit.
> >>
> >> Do some research idiot.
> >>
> >> See where Delaware is in the rankings..
> >>
> >> http://www.ewg.org/reports/dishonorable/ddrivers.html
> >>
> >> # 8
> >
> > And that is relevant how?  Someone needs to be #8.  The point is, it
> > has improved since 1975.   Remember the claim you denied?
> 
> No it hasn't asshole, in fact just last year in Wilmington they had MAJOR 
> problems with the water.

Stop denying reality.

> Due to agriculture, the never ending expansion of business, factories, 
> housing developments..our bay is in even worse shape now than ever. For the 
> FIRST time in history, the Delaware weakfish is in danger.

Read the article, dip shit.
0
3/8/2007 2:03:17 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

>>
> How do they do that?

Price capping. But this will ultimately lead to no production of no 
medical products.

Since the U.S. gummint won't price cap and Candada will, the difference 
is made up on the backs of American consumers.

One obvious way of lowering medication development costs is lowering the 
onerous costs of regulation which not only do not guarantee saftey (hi 
Vioxx), but often delay or prevent the introduction of good products. 
See the sad story of the FDA and TpA (Tissue plasminogen activator).

The U.S. gummint paves to road to Hell with good intentions and bad 
policies.


Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 2:06:01 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> Les Cargill wrote:
> 
>>
>> The difference might be completely due to the higher murder rate.
>> Young people are most at risk to die by murder. One
>> young persons  dying has a greater impact on
>> life expectancy stats.
> 
> 
> That brings us back to Negros then. They suffer the highest murder rate 
> of any group in the U.S..

Even if that is true, it's not even 1/20th of the whole story.

If the cause of the higher murder rate is cultural, then
why is the culture that way? Saying it's *genetic*,
is a fraud, pure and simple.

> There is no cure. Black on black crime will 
> take its toll and there is not a blessed thing we can do about it.
> 

There are a great many things that we can do. Murder rates overall
have declined with the gradual civilization of people. The high
rates cohorts can expect the most rapid improvement.

> Bob Kolker
> 

--
Les Cargill
0
lcargill1 (136)
3/8/2007 2:14:59 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
>>
>> But when someone else is paying for the service, "we" who use the 
>> service are not really concerned about how much that cost, since we 
>> are not the ones who pay for the service.  So, there is little 
>> incentive for the provider of the service to "voluntarily" reduce 
>> their cost.  So, in order to restrain the cost growth, the "payer" 
>> (which is some third party) will basically either institute price 
>> controls (which never works for the long term) or they resort to some 
>> sort of rationing scheme.  But Rationing is just like price controls, 
>> it never works for the long haul, so in time, more and more rationing 
>> has to occur.  And rationing can take many forms.  You can do what 
>> Oregon is doing and that is have a list of services that they will pay 
>> for and a list of services they will not pay for (the ones who need 
>> medical care and are not on the list of covered services, loses out on 
>> the lottery), but Oregon has already had to revise that list because 
>> the cost continues to rise.  You can ration care by the simple 
>> mechanism of capping the total amount of money you are willing to 
>> spend in any given year (a technique used in Canada), which of course 
>> means that someone who wants that care is not going to get it in that 
>> given year.  You can ration care by putting people on a waiting list.  
>> In other words, there are all kinds of ways to ration care 
>> artifically.  But as I said in the beginning, it does not address the 
>> core problem.
> 
> 
> People can reduce the cost of their health care by adapting good habits. 
> Watch the weight, excercise, don't smoke and don't dring too much booze. 
> That will add more years to  life (on the average) than any fancy 
> medical technology.
> 

There's little or no (useful) evidence that bad habits cost any more 
than good ones. We've been over this. The data sets are skewed by
far too many biases to enumerate. We cannot even conclusively say what
the effects of *smoking* are to any precision. We know they are
nonzero, and that is about it. That's a sad comment on the
pathetic excuse for decision support we put up with.

Again, since the fastest-growing specialty is sports medicine, who's
totting up the cost for "good" behaviors? Is anyone? Those guys
do not work for free, you know.

The bony hand of Puritanism is all over this entire subject, and
so long as people feel their identity-political agenda is being
served, they don't care. Don't beleive me? What was wrought by
Prohibition?


> Unfortunately third party systems, a form of economic menage a trois, 
> creates the illusion of free goods, particularly if the insurance is 
> paid out of the general fund. Free goods means ulimited consumption. Not 
> possible. And, as you say, some form of rationing (apportionment) is 
> inevitable.
> 

Right now, the system is rife with subsidies. If the data were
made available to the right people with the right mandate and
enough protection from the general propaganda industry, I bet
we'd be resolved into a comfortable rut within five years.

Not gonna happen. The *rank and file* think they benefeit
from this system. See also the Billary Health Plan.

> When are people going to learn what Robert A. Heinlein taught us:
> 
> TANSTAAFL
> 
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
> 
> Bob Kolker
> 

--
Les Cargill
0
lcargill1 (136)
3/8/2007 2:26:30 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:

> 
> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef0e4c.17117453@news.telus.net...
<snip>
> NO!!!   Look at the US statistics on medical inflation.  If you did that 
> you would find that when the series first started (sometime in the late 
> 1930's as I recall) up to 1950, medical inflation was consistently below 
> the Consumer Price Index.  After 1950, medical inflation was consistenly 
> higher than the Consumer Price Index.  So, it is pretty obvious, 
> something fundamentally caused that permanent shift.

Are you looking for the "something"?  Truman, in a fit of idiocy that
damn near took the postWWII boom out, *froze wages* after WWII by fiat.

Companies began offering perks as sweeteners in an increasingly (after
a span of time ) competitive hiring market. One was BCBS.

--
Les Cargill
0
lcargill1 (136)
3/8/2007 2:29:35 AM
Les Cargill wrote:
>>
> 
> There are a great many things that we can do. Murder rates overall
> have declined with the gradual civilization of people. The high
> rates cohorts can expect the most rapid improvement.

In your dreams. And don't walk alone in Roxbury (Boston Area) at night.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 2:39:09 AM
Les Cargill wrote:

> 
> The bony hand of Puritanism is all over this entire subject, and
> so long as people feel their identity-political agenda is being
> served, they don't care. Don't beleive me? What was wrought by
> Prohibition?

Corruption and Death. Next question? And it didn't work, besides.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 2:41:10 AM
Les Cargill wrote:>
> Are you looking for the "something"?  Truman, in a fit of idiocy that
> damn near took the postWWII boom out, *froze wages* after WWII by fiat.
> 
> Companies began offering perks as sweeteners in an increasingly (after
> a span of time ) competitive hiring market. One was BCBS.

And that is why the Proles think their bosses owe them health care.

BCBS was initiated in 1929 as a reasonably priced insurance scheme so 
that workers could afford insurance out of their own pockets. It was a 
rational cost spreading and risk spreading scheme. It became perverted 
as a result of wage freezes, as you pointed out. Back in the Old Days, 
physicians did pro bono work and offered their services free or at very 
reduced rates to the indigent. Dem days are gone forever, mostly due to 
government policy.

Now we live in the Age of the HMO and the Suits are running things, not 
the doctors.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 2:45:27 AM
Bob Kolker wrote:

> Les Cargill wrote:
> 
>>>
>>
>> There are a great many things that we can do. Murder rates overall
>> have declined with the gradual civilization of people. The high
>> rates cohorts can expect the most rapid improvement.
> 
> 
> In your dreams.

This is a *fact*. Look it up. Try "Freakonomics".

> And don't walk alone in Roxbury (Boston Area) at night.
> 
> Bob Kolker

--
Les Cargill
0
lcargill1 (136)
3/8/2007 3:25:48 AM
 <royls@telus.net> wrote:
> Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
>>royls@telus.net wrote:

>>> And here's something for _you_ to think about:
>>> 
>>> Do you know what kind of food you want to buy?  How do you know?
>>> 
>>> Now, do you know what kind of drugs and medical treatments you want to
>>> buy?  How do you know?
>>
>>Crank up WebMD.com and find out. The information is all Out There for 
>>those with the wits to read it.
>
>And all the tests, x-rays, etc....?

Didn't you realize?  His solution is to make everybody become their
own doctor.

>How are you going to look in your own ear (we already know your
>proficiency at looking up your own backside).

There's nothing to see in there anyway.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 3:37:53 AM
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>> was so great.
>>>
>>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line. In the U.S., the custom
>>>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>>
>> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
>> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
>>
>Much better than waiting days or months for the treatment. 

Spending ten times as much is "better"?

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 3:39:30 AM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>The difference can be closed by healthy living habits.

Or better medical care.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 3:41:44 AM
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef143a.18635358@news.telus.net...
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:10:39 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>news:45ecfa69$0$14070$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the
>>>>>> >>>fact
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
>>>>>> >than
>>>>>> >in
>>>>>> >the USA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>>>>
>>>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>>>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>>>> need it.
>>>
>>>Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.  The difference
>>>between Canada and the United States is miniscule.
>>
>> So what?  All the top 50 or so countries have similar life
>> expectancies.  But Canada (80.22 years) is #12, and the USA (77.85) is
>> #47...
>>
>> The point is, Americans' health is significantly worse than
>> Canadians', and they pay much more for health care than Canadians.
>>
>and it is not necessarily due to the healthcare system.... 

Americans PAY MORE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE!

Roughly 50% more.  You'd have to be pretty stupid to try and defend
that.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 3:43:01 AM
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>>> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>>>> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>>>> longer than Americans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>>>>>in
>>>>>the USA.
>>>>
>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>>
>>>NO...spend some time and find out what they are doing to try and restrain
>>>the cost of that care.
>>
>> Like in the US where the cost of health care is contained by simply
>> refusing any health care to tens of millions of people.
>>
>Yes.  There is only two ways that rationing works.  The first is when you 
>and I make the rationing decision, i.e. based on the cost we decide whether 
>we will buy the product or use the service.

Which is social darwinism - you simply kill off poor people.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 3:45:02 AM
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>Nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
>>>> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply 
>>>> because
>>>> everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation 
>>>> over
>>>> the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.
>>>
>>>How about medical service for cash.
>>
>> How about you come up with another stupid idea?
>>
>It is really not that stupid, as long as the cash is coming from the person 
>who uses the service. 

You just want to kill off poor people.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 3:48:10 AM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> How about you come up with another stupid idea?
>
>You mean paying cash for what you get is stupid.

I wasn't being serious about you coming up with another stupid idea,
but it seems that you accomodated be anyway.

> What do you do when you 
>shop at the local supermarket?

Cost of a year's worth of food is several orders of magnitude cheaper
than the cost of extraordinary medical care.  If you want to kill of
the unlucky, the young, and the poor then your stupid idea would work.
Of course, it would also cost more in increased crime rates and
decreased productivity, but you don't seem to be capable of
considering much beyond your own selfish wants.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 3:51:20 AM
HEY I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS THREAD COULD BE ANY MORE BORING OK 
THANK YOU BYE

-- 
Rockboy

Stop pretending you're so good
Stop assuming that I would
0
rockboy (15)
3/8/2007 4:02:43 AM
Rockboy  <rockboy@rockboy.net> wrote:
>HEY I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS THREAD COULD BE ANY MORE BORING OK 
>THANK YOU BYE

You just made it more boring.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 4:59:55 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Rockboy  <rockboy@rockboy.net> wrote:
>> HEY I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS THREAD COULD BE ANY MORE BORING OK 
>> THANK YOU BYE
> 
> You just made it more boring.

NO I DID NOT MR FISCHER I MADE IT SUPER EXCITING YABBA DABAA DOO

-- 
Rockboy

Stop pretending you're so good
Stop assuming that I would
0
rockboy (15)
3/8/2007 5:06:08 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> 
> 
> Didn't you realize?  His solution is to make everybody become their
> own doctor.

No. That would go against rational specialization. But -anyone- can 
become knowledgible and learn how to select their doctors more 
effectively and keep up with medical technology. One can become an 
intelligent consumer of medical services.

Once can also learn how to avoid certain chronic and acute conditions by 
taking up good living habits. Learning the physiology and etiology of 
diseases can be a great help.

The biggest cost saving in handling disease is avoidance. Avoidance is 
sixteen times as cost effective as treatment. An ounce of prevention is 
worth a pound of cure.

If you really want to lower the cost of medical services open the entire 
business up to competition. Remove or reduce licensing restrictions and 
reduce the regulatory costs of developing new treatments. That is the 
only way to get costs as low as they can get along with reducing the 
custs by reducing the demand for treatment. Avoiding disease is the 
cheapest way of treating disease.

Another step is to put an end to economic menage a trois. Everyone pays 
for his own health insurance. When it comes out of pocket, the consumer 
will be careful what he purchases and from whom he purchases. And those 
who cannot afford insurance can show up dying at an Emergency Room. Such 
persons will be treated at no cost -to them-. The rest of us will end up 
paying. There is nothing wrong with the Poor begging for crumbs from 
their betters.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 9:32:26 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> 
> Spending ten times as much is "better"?

If one can afford it. Time is money.

If I had a lot of money I wouldn't mind spending some of it to be first 
in line. Money talks. Lots of money shouts out loud. And if I didn't 
have enough money I would wait in line quietly.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 9:34:18 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>The difference can be closed by healthy living habits.
> 
> 
> Or better medical care.

Wrong. Nothing can cure chronic overweight as well as "won't power". I 
won't eat so much. Substituting medical care for good judgement is one 
of the things driving up costs. A person owes it to himself to treat his 
body right. Fobbing off the costs of correct health maintainance on the 
public is just plain wrong. The surest way to encourage people to behave 
sensibly is to make unsensible behaviour very expensive -to them-. That 
is why I think medical services should be purchased out of pocket.

When it is your nickle you will learn to become both careful and wise.

This attitude "the government will take care of me" leads to ruination. 
We occupy the frontline of the battle for our own well being. We are 
primarily responsible for our health, each and every one of us.

For example, anyone who becomes ill because he smokes should not receive 
one cent from the public treasury for his treatment. He brought it on 
himself. For accidents it is a different story. One can purchase 
insurance out of pocket. Insurance is the oldest and best way of 
spreading the risk over a cohort. It goes back at least as far as Lloyds 
of London.

Everyone should buy his own insurance and his premium should be 
proportional to his risk. So if smokers (for example) want health 
insurance they should pay much more for it than non-smokers. People 
should pay a premium proportional to their BMI for health insurance. The 
skinnier pay less.

But the pinko stinko socialists want to equalize the payments so that 
the people who live unwisely get a free ride from the people who watch 
out for their own well being. Essentially prudence and good judgement 
are penalized by the collectivists. The stupid and the short sighted are 
given a free ride at the expense of the more careful and prudent.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 9:43:44 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> 
> 
> Americans PAY MORE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE!

That is primarily due to stupid organization of the system. The 
government with their corporate bribe-buddies have contrived a system 
that rewards the unproductive.

A modicum of competition would go a long way to fix that.

The pinko stinko socialists want to make the gummint the HBO from Hell.

I can see it now. Initially things -will get better-. By eliminating 
some overhead costs will come down some. Then as people are given 
treatment with no regard to their means to pay for it the lines will 
form. Then the gummint will have ration the service. Then we will end up 
like Canada. Want an MRI? Stand in line for six months. Or be at death's 
door. Then you will get quick service.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 9:49:32 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> 
> Which is social darwinism - you simply kill off poor people.

Not kill off the poor. Permit them to die. You don't know the difference 
between omission and comission. If you push someone into the water, your 
are guilty of attempted drowning. If someone falls into the water 
accidently or through their own stupidity and you don't pull them out, 
you are guilty of nothing.

Must people are poor because they are either stupid or lazy.

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 9:51:57 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>>
>>>Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
>>>>>Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply 
>>>>>because
>>>>>everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation 
>>>>>over
>>>>>the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.
>>>>
>>>>How about medical service for cash.
>>>
>>>How about you come up with another stupid idea?
>>>
>>
>>It is really not that stupid, as long as the cash is coming from the person 
>>who uses the service. 
> 
> 
> You just want to kill off poor people.

Yoo hoo!  Omission vs Comission. Do you know the difference? Apparently 
not.

Give a man a fish, you have fed him for to  day.
Teach him to fish, you have fed him for life.
Let him starve, you can forget all about him.

Bob Kolker

> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 9:53:37 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> Cost of a year's worth of food is several orders of magnitude cheaper
> than the cost of extraordinary medical care.  If you want to kill of
> the unlucky, the young, and the poor then your stupid idea would work.
> Of course, it would also cost more in increased crime rates and
> decreased productivity, but you don't seem to be capable of
> considering much beyond your own selfish wants.

Crime is easy to deal with. Shoot the bastards. What do bullets cost?

Since there are more of Us than there are of Them, We shall win, 
eventually. People will learn to avoid poverty or to live with it 
peacefully.

You wish to give people what they need. I wish to let them acquire what 
they deserve.

Bob Kolker
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 9:59:08 AM
Nospam wrote:
> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
> 
>> Nospam wrote:
>>> Michael Scheltgen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you know what S-P-E-C-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N is and why it is useful in
>>>> our society?
>>> For a libertarians specialization is usefull ONLY to boost private
>>> proffits and harm the skilled hardworking people.
>> You should read a few economics books.
> 
> I read and I understand. Your problem is not that you don't read, you just
> can not understand.
> 
> 
>> You're becoming more and more silly with each post, do you realize that?
>>   If you dislike trade you should bake your own bread, grow all your own
>> vegetables, tend livestock, make your own clothing, soap, car, etc... Do
>> you do that?  No.  Then you're being a hypocrite.
> 
> Nope. You with your primitive libertarian ideology of greed are the top
> shelf of hypocrisy. 

Take an ESL course with that economics course:  If you read and 
understood any of my posts over the years you'd know I'm not an 
apologist for privilege or a libertarian.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/8/2007 1:03:06 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
> news:558rdiF23b4nuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
>>> in the bastion of free markets...?
>>
>> The drug companies are using the U.S. to subsidize their Canadian 
>> sales. They do it becuase they can. U.S. citizens buying their drugs 
>> up in Canada can get a little back.
> 
> Canada is also getting a free ride.

Actually, Canadians aren't getting a free ride as much as Americans are 
simply being ripped off by pharmaceutical firms in the United States and 
Europe.

>>
>> The drug companies have s sweetheart deal with the U.S. gummint. The 
>> U.S. gummint will not use its clout to get the drugs cheaper.
>>
> How do they do that?

They become sole buyer (monopsonist) for all medicaid, medicare, and VHA 
patients for starters.  This will counter the government enforced 
monopoly privilege of the pharmaceutical compaines.
0
mjs818 (23)
3/8/2007 1:35:28 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> Didn't you realize?  His solution is to make everybody become their
>> own doctor.
>
>No. That would go against rational specialization. But -anyone- can 
>become knowledgible and learn how to select their doctors more 
>effectively and keep up with medical technology.

You are an idiot.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 5:43:26 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> Spending ten times as much is "better"?
>
>If one can afford it. Time is money.

You _are_ an idiot.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 5:43:41 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>The difference can be closed by healthy living habits.
>> 
>> Or better medical care.
>
>Wrong.

Liar.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 5:44:11 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:

>> Americans PAY MORE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE!
>
>That is primarily due to stupid organization of the system.

A system which you have been defending.

> The 
>government with their corporate bribe-buddies have contrived a system 
>that rewards the unproductive.
>
>A modicum of competition would go a long way to fix that.

Chanting your mantra isn't a solution.

>The pinko stinko socialists want to make the gummint the HBO from Hell.

Whereas you just want to see people die.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 5:45:19 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Which is social darwinism - you simply kill off poor people.
>
>Not kill off the poor. Permit them to die. You don't know the difference 
>between omission and comission.

The nazis "permitted" millions of people die die in concentration
camps.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 5:46:27 PM
Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> 
>> Cost of a year's worth of food is several orders of magnitude cheaper
>> than the cost of extraordinary medical care.  If you want to kill of
>> the unlucky, the young, and the poor then your stupid idea would work.
>> Of course, it would also cost more in increased crime rates and
>> decreased productivity, but you don't seem to be capable of
>> considering much beyond your own selfish wants.
>
>Crime is easy to deal with.

You really are an arrogant idiot.

> Shoot the bastards.

Let's start with you.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer2 (760)
3/8/2007 5:47:09 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ef86be$0$14134$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the 
>>>>>>>>fact
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>>>> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>>>>> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>>>>> longer than Americans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the USA.
>>>>>
>>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>>>
>>>>NO...spend some time and find out what they are doing to try and 
>>>>restrain
>>>>the cost of that care.
>>>
>>> Like in the US where the cost of health care is contained by simply
>>> refusing any health care to tens of millions of people.
>>>
>>Yes.  There is only two ways that rationing works.  The first is when you
>>and I make the rationing decision, i.e. based on the cost we decide 
>>whether
>>we will buy the product or use the service.
>
> Which is social darwinism - you simply kill off poor people.
>
Poor people get the short end of the stick, regardless of what system you 
create. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 5:58:01 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45f04bf3$0$14084$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is social darwinism - you simply kill off poor people.
>>
>>Not kill off the poor. Permit them to die. You don't know the difference
>>between omission and comission.
>
> The nazis "permitted" millions of people die die in concentration
> camps.
>
No, the Nazi's did not do that.  The people of Germany did that.  The Nazi's 
were the ones who did the evil act. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 5:59:16 PM
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:45ef71ad$0$8980$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Bob Kolker wrote:
>
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The difference might be completely due to the higher murder rate.
>>> Young people are most at risk to die by murder. One
>>> young persons  dying has a greater impact on
>>> life expectancy stats.
>>
>>
>> That brings us back to Negros then. They suffer the highest murder rate 
>> of any group in the U.S..
>
> Even if that is true, it's not even 1/20th of the whole story.
>
> If the cause of the higher murder rate is cultural, then
> why is the culture that way? Saying it's *genetic*,
> is a fraud, pure and simple.

Good question, why is the murder rate higher?
>
>> There is no cure. Black on black crime will take its toll and there is 
>> not a blessed thing we can do about it.
>>
>
> There are a great many things that we can do. Murder rates overall
> have declined with the gradual civilization of people. The high
> rates cohorts can expect the most rapid improvement.
>
like?
>
> --
> Les Cargill 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:01:10 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ef8645$0$14134$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>news:45ef143a.18635358@news.telus.net...
>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:10:39 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:45ecfa69$0$14070$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the
>>>>>>> >>>fact
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite 
>>>>>>> >> its
>>>>>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that 
>>>>>>> >> live
>>>>>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more
>>>>>>> >than
>>>>>>> >in
>>>>>>> >the USA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>>>>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>>>>> need it.
>>>>
>>>>Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.  The difference
>>>>between Canada and the United States is miniscule.
>>>
>>> So what?  All the top 50 or so countries have similar life
>>> expectancies.  But Canada (80.22 years) is #12, and the USA (77.85) is
>>> #47...
>>>
>>> The point is, Americans' health is significantly worse than
>>> Canadians', and they pay much more for health care than Canadians.
>>>
>>and it is not necessarily due to the healthcare system....
>
> Americans PAY MORE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE!

Indirectly yes.  But not directly, since Americans actually do not pay for 
their healthcare, some third party pays for the healthcare we receive for 
the most part.

>
> Roughly 50% more.  You'd have to be pretty stupid to try and defend
> that.
>

I am not about to defend it.  I am making the argument that ANY third party 
payment system creates bigger problems, and that these problems are long 
term in nature.

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:05:55 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45f04baf$0$14084$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>> Americans PAY MORE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE!
>>
>>That is primarily due to stupid organization of the system.
>
> A system which you have been defending.
>
A "system" that both of you are defending, just in different ways..... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:06:49 PM
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:45ef7519$0$9007$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>
>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>> news:45ef0e4c.17117453@news.telus.net...
> <snip>
>> NO!!!   Look at the US statistics on medical inflation.  If you did that 
>> you would find that when the series first started (sometime in the late 
>> 1930's as I recall) up to 1950, medical inflation was consistently below 
>> the Consumer Price Index.  After 1950, medical inflation was consistenly 
>> higher than the Consumer Price Index.  So, it is pretty obvious, 
>> something fundamentally caused that permanent shift.
>
> Are you looking for the "something"?  Truman, in a fit of idiocy that
> damn near took the postWWII boom out, *froze wages* after WWII by fiat.
>
> Companies began offering perks as sweeteners in an increasingly (after
> a span of time ) competitive hiring market. One was BCBS.
>
Not addreesing the question asked...... 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:07:35 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ef877a$0$14134$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>Nospam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Health care insurance it is just incompatible with business practice.
>>>>> Once you cover everybody, the demand will always exceed the supply
>>>>> because
>>>>> everybody wants to be healthier. At that point in time, the regulation
>>>>> over
>>>>> the practice are required to provide more care where is needed most.
>>>>
>>>>How about medical service for cash.
>>>
>>> How about you come up with another stupid idea?
>>>
>>It is really not that stupid, as long as the cash is coming from the 
>>person
>>who uses the service.
>
> You just want to kill off poor people.
>
Have we stopped people from dying?  What is forced rationing, "if" not 
killing off people? 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:10:56 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:45ef8572$0$14134$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Bob Kolker  <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Jose  <jodaysmix@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Canadians would not be going to the United States for treatment if
>>>>>>universal healthcare was so great.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans would not be going to Canada for treatment if US healthcare
>>>>> was so great.
>>>>
>>>>Americans mostly to do Canadian vendors for lower priced medical drugs.
>>>>Americans don't go to Canada to stand in line. In the U.S., the custom
>>>>is for the poor to go to Emergency Rooms for quick treatment.
>>>
>>> Where "quick" means hours of waiting for medical care that could be
>>> treated elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
>>>
>>Much better than waiting days or months for the treatment.
>
> Spending ten times as much is "better"?
>
If you have a life threatening illness, and you want the help to save your 
life, you do not care what it cost.  And you sure as heck don't like it when 
some third party says, I do not think you have a life threatening condition, 
so you are just going to have to wait because "we" think that someone else 
has a much more "imminent" problem, so they get to go to the front of the 
line.  Besides, the patient does not really care if it cost ten times more, 
or a hundred times more, they just want the care.  The reason is simple, the 
patient is not the one who is going to have to pay, someone else is paying. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:16:07 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:55991kF2409onU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>>
>> I suppose you "could.  But that is an awful long trip from anywhere in 
>> the southern states.  And you better hope like heck the weather is good, 
>> that your condition will not worsen, while you are trying to get there. 
>> Personally, if I were poor, I would simply walk into the emergency room, 
>> because in this country they cannot turn you away legally.  A whole lot 
>> faster and easier....
>
> In the U.S. the Poor are treated for no charge (to them). The rest of us 
> pay. In most States it is illegal to turn a patient away from an emergency 
> facility, particularly if he is wounded or acutely ill.
>
Right!!! 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:17:23 PM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:5599cbF20voq4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>>
>> How do they do that?
>
> Price capping. But this will ultimately lead to no production of no 
> medical products.

Which is the basic problem with price controls....it never works over a long 
period of time.  It is at best a stopgap measure.....
>
> Since the U.S. gummint won't price cap and Candada will, the difference is 
> made up on the backs of American consumers.

How?
>
> One obvious way of lowering medication development costs is lowering the 
> onerous costs of regulation which not only do not guarantee saftey (hi 
> Vioxx), but often delay or prevent the introduction of good products. See 
> the sad story of the FDA and TpA (Tissue plasminogen activator).

That is going to solve the overall problem?  How?

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:19:49 PM
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:esp3ev$gr7$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>> news:558rdiF23b4nuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
>>>> in the bastion of free markets...?
>>>
>>> The drug companies are using the U.S. to subsidize their Canadian sales. 
>>> They do it becuase they can. U.S. citizens buying their drugs up in 
>>> Canada can get a little back.
>>
>> Canada is also getting a free ride.
>
> Actually, Canadians aren't getting a free ride as much as Americans are 
> simply being ripped off by pharmaceutical firms in the United States and 
> Europe.
>

Big deal, one country is getting a freer ride than another country....  The 
simple fact is, if it was not for American phamaceutical companies who after 
all are the ones who create most of these new drugs, Canada would not even 
have the "choice" because their country does not invent these drugs.
>>>
>>> The drug companies have s sweetheart deal with the U.S. gummint. The 
>>> U.S. gummint will not use its clout to get the drugs cheaper.
>>>
>> How do they do that?
>
> They become sole buyer (monopsonist) for all medicaid, medicare, and VHA 
> patients for starters.  This will counter the government enforced monopoly 
> privilege of the pharmaceutical compaines.

Look, a drug company spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to find 
the next new wonder drug.  They spend that money in the hopes of hitting the 
jackpot, because if they cannot do that, then the money they spent is going 
to bankrupt them.  "If" there is not chance of hitting the jackpot, then 
there is no incenstive to take the risk. And while they do hit the jackpot 
from time to time, they also spend a whole lot of money, that never results 
in success....sort of like throwing money down a toilet.  So, the government 
is in what I think of as a Catch 22 position.  "If" they do not provide the 
companies from making that windfall profit, then there is no incentive for 
the company to even try to make the windfall profit.  And if the company is 
not even willing to take the gamble, then everyone loses, because there 
would be no new drugs.   And even when a company "thinks" they have a great 
new drug, they also then have to spend even more money, a whole lot more 
money, to convince the government that the product is safe enough to 
use...more money down the proverbial toilet, with no guarantees of success. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 6:29:52 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:
> 
> 
> The nazis "permitted" millions of people die die in concentration
> camps.

No. No. The Narzis -put- there victims there and killed them there. That 
is an act of comission. Like I said you do not know the difference 
between omission and comission. If I throw you into deep water while you 
are weighed down, that is murder. An act of comission. If you fall into 
the water by accident and I don't rescue you and you drown, that is an 
act of omission. Acts of omission are generally not actionable unless 
there was a contractual obligation to act.

Bob Kolker



> 
0
nowhere3 (558)
3/8/2007 6:38:23 PM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> 
> "Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
> news:esp3ev$gr7$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:558rdiF23b4nuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
>>>>> in the bastion of free markets...?
>>>>
>>>> The drug companies are using the U.S. to subsidize their Canadian 
>>>> sales. They do it becuase they can. U.S. citizens buying their drugs 
>>>> up in Canada can get a little back.
>>>
>>> Canada is also getting a free ride.
>>
>> Actually, Canadians aren't getting a free ride as much as Americans 
>> are simply being ripped off by pharmaceutical firms in the United 
>> States and Europe.
>>
> 
> Big deal, one country is getting a freer ride than another country....  
> The simple fact is, if it was not for American phamaceutical companies 
> who after all are the ones who create most of these new drugs, Canada 
> would not even have the "choice" because their country does not invent 
> these drugs.

Who discovered insulin again?

 From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/other/

"One argument [is that] he Canadians don't invent the drugs. They're 
parasitic on our R&D. It's unfair.

In fact, the pharmaceutical industry is what's parasitic on publicly 
funded research. The pharmaceutical industry likes to depict itself as a 
research-based industry, as the source of innovative drugs. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. This is their incredible PR and their 
nerve.

In fact, if you look at where the original research comes from on which 
new drugs are based, it tends to be from the NIH [National Institutes of 
Health], from the academic medical centers, and from foreign academic 
medical centers. Studies of this, looking at the seminal research on 
which drug patents are based, have found that about 15 percent of the 
basic research papers, reporting the basic research, came from industry. 
That's just 15 percent.

The other 85 percent came from NIH-supported work carried out in 
American academic medical centers. In one study, 30 percent came from 
foreign academic medical centers. So what we know about the numbers 
indicates that the foreign academic medical centers are responsible for 
more new drug discoveries than the industry itself."



>>>>
>>>> The drug companies have s sweetheart deal with the U.S. gummint. The 
>>>> U.S. gummint will not use its clout to get the drugs cheaper.
>>>>
>>> How do they do that?
>>
>> They become sole buyer (monopsonist) for all medicaid, medicare, and 
>> VHA patients for starters.  This will counter the government enforced 
>> monopoly privilege of the pharmaceutical compaines.
> 
> Look, a drug company spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to 
> find the next new wonder drug.  They spend that money in the hopes of 
> hitting the jackpot, because if they cannot do that, then the money they 
> spent is going to bankrupt them.  "If" there is not chance of hitting 
> the jackpot, then there is no incenstive to take the risk. And while 
> they do hit the jackpot from time to time, they also spend a whole lot 
> of money, that never results in success....sort of like throwing money 
> down a toilet.  So, the government is in what I think of as a Catch 22 
> position.  "If" they do not provide the companies from making that 
> windfall profit, then there is no incentive for the company to even try 
> to make the windfall profit.  And if the company is not even willing to 
> take the gamble, then everyone loses, because there would be no new 
> drugs.   And even when a company "thinks" they have a great new drug, 
> they also then have to spend even more money, a whole lot more money, to 
> convince the government that the product is safe enough to use...more 
> money down the proverbial toilet, with no guarantees of success.

Oh yay, "me too" drugs -- new patentable drugs that aren't any more 
effective than generics.  Really useful.


When is the last time you heard of pharmaceutical company going bankrupt?

More from the PBS documentary:

"[What is] the profitability of this industry, compared to other 
American industries?

Numero uno. The pharmaceutical industry is stunningly, staggeringly 
profitable. The 10 drug companies on the Fortune 500 list last year took 
in net profits of 18.5 percent on sales. That's 18.5 percent. That is 
stunning. The median for the other industries on the Fortune 500 list 
was a little over 3 percent, 3.3 percent of sales. This has been the 
case for the last 20 years; this is not just a fluke of last year. Year 
after year after year, the pharmaceutical industry has led all other 
industries in profits. ...

The drug companies make the case that their prices are so high, and that 
total expenditures are so high, because their R&D costs are very high, 
as though they were just eking out, just barely managing to survive. But 
what we can see is that their profits are very much higher than their 
R&D costs, and therefore they could spend more on R&D if they wanted, 
and still have plenty of profits left over.

They are numero uno in R&D as well, aren't they?

Their R&D costs are very high, in absolute terms. But in relative terms, 
they're quite small, that is, relative to their other expenditures and 
to their profits. The drug companies spend on average, by their own 
figures, last year, 15 percent to 17 percent on R&D. That's a lot of 
money. There's no question that that's a lot of money. But their profits 
are higher. Their profits are 18.5 percent. That's higher than their R&D.

What's really interesting is what they spend on marketing and 
administration, by their own figures, on average 35 percent. That's over 
twice as much as what they spend on R&D. So if they point to their R&D 
costs as some sort of justification for the high prices, what on earth 
can they say about their marketing costs, which are over twice that much?

Marketing and administration?

Marketing and administration, yes. One of the problems with talking 
about the R&D cost and the marketing cost and the profits, and the way 
the pharmaceutical industry does business, is that they're very 
secretive about the details. You can't get at exactly what the details 
are. But you can get close enough. You can infer from certain things.

The major drug companies, in general, combine marketing with 
administrative costs. So in their annual reports and in their SEC 
filings, they will give total expenditures for something they call 
"marketing administration." The indications are that the lion's share of 
that is for marketing. One company, one of the major companies, does 
break it down, does separate out marketing from administration. That 
company attributes 35 percent to marketing, 6 percent to administration.

If you then also look at how the employees are apportioned, by their own 
figures, over a third of their employees are in marketing -- not 
marketing administration, but marketing. So I think it's safe to 
conclude that somewhere on the order of 30 percent -- over twice the R&D 
costs -- are marketing[!]"
0
mjs818 (23)
3/8/2007 11:03:26 PM
"Robert" <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote in message 
news:pq81v214khq2jdo7v5pciq7490vd1gn36m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:44:40 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Robert wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> True difference is people used to die at a younger age, so spent less
>>> time as non productive consumers, especially of Medical care. The
>>> number of people at all ages over sixty five is growing at a rapid
>>> rate. This causes a increasing load on the medical system.
>>
>>Then why is life expectancy -increasing- in the U.S. We may be behind
>>other countries, but our L.E. is still increasing.
>>
>>Bob Kolker
>
>  Better sanitation, better hygiene, better food, and better medical
> care. I am a prime example, now 68 tears old, fifty years ago, I would
> have died at 63 when I had my heart attack. I now have a pace maker,
> that keeps my heart pumping correctly. BTW my private insurance paid
> for every thing but the deductible. $500.00 which most people never
> pay.
>

Theuy may not have paid ot when you had your surgery.

Today the bills o out while you are still in the hospital, and collections 
notices go out while you are rehabbing.

Medcical bills, promarily hospital bills, are the #A1 cause of bankruptcy..

Oh, and a lot of what was once paid by insurance no lionger is.

For example. no hospital in the US has its own emergency room anymore ---  
they have all been spun off/sold off as private enterprises.

So, if you are picked up by an ambulace ( easily $1000), admitted to an 
emergency room ( even if just for triage) then transferred tot he hospital 
bills of several thousand dollars NOT COVERED BY MOST INSURANCE are awaiting 
you when you get home.

A recetn study found the average hospital stay by Americans resuluted iin 
bills of $5000 not covered by insurance.


Larry

> -- 
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
> 


0
larryhewi (69)
3/8/2007 11:42:33 PM
"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
news:esq4nv$s6$1@webmail.usask.ca...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message 
>> news:esp3ev$gr7$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:558rdiF23b4nuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
>>>>>> in the bastion of free markets...?
>>>>>
>>>>> The drug companies are using the U.S. to subsidize their Canadian 
>>>>> sales. They do it becuase they can. U.S. citizens buying their drugs 
>>>>> up in Canada can get a little back.
>>>>
>>>> Canada is also getting a free ride.
>>>
>>> Actually, Canadians aren't getting a free ride as much as Americans are 
>>> simply being ripped off by pharmaceutical firms in the United States and 
>>> Europe.
>>>
>>
>> Big deal, one country is getting a freer ride than another country.... 
>> The simple fact is, if it was not for American phamaceutical companies 
>> who after all are the ones who create most of these new drugs, Canada 
>> would not even have the "choice" because their country does not invent 
>> these drugs.
>
> Who discovered insulin again?
>
It is not who discovered one drug, it is who discovered most of the drugs we 
use today. 

0
okamuraj005 (102)
3/8/2007 11:52:08 PM
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:44:40 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Robert wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> True difference is people used to die at a younger age, so spent less
>> time as non productive consumers, especially of Medical care. The
>> number of people at all ages over sixty five is growing at a rapid
>> rate. This causes a increasing load on the medical system. 
>
>Then why is life expectancy -increasing- in the U.S. We may be behind 
>other countries, but our L.E. is still increasing.
>
>Bob Kolker

  Better sanitation, better hygiene, better food, and better medical
care. I am a prime example, now 68 tears old, fifty years ago, I would
have died at 63 when I had my heart attack. I now have a pace maker,
that keeps my heart pumping correctly. BTW my private insurance paid
for every thing but the deductible. $500.00 which most people never
pay. 

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
robpar (50)
3/9/2007 12:05:45 AM
Robert wrote:
> 
>   Better sanitation, better hygiene, better food, and better medical

Which is what I have been telling you. Sanitation and hygene have for 
influence on life exepectancy than actue condition medical care.

In England that added five years to the life expectancy just by spiking 
the pumps that were spewing water carrying cholera and typhoid.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/9/2007 12:22:20 AM
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

> 
> 
> Who discovered insulin again?

Back in the twenties. Now who developed the technique of genetically 
modifying bacteria so that they produce -human insulin- by the vatful. 
It wasn't a Canadian firm.

Finding the cause of diabetes was important, but equally import was 
finding out how to produce -human insulin- as opposed to chopping up 
kine to make -bovine insulin-. Bovine insulin is better than nothing, 
but human insulin is best and it can be produced in such quantities that 
  it is inexpensive.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/9/2007 12:28:47 AM
Larry Hewitt wrote:

> 
> So, if you are picked up by an ambulace ( easily $1000), admitted to an 
> emergency room ( even if just for triage) then transferred tot he hospital 
> bills of several thousand dollars NOT COVERED BY MOST INSURANCE are awaiting 
> you when you get home.

However if you are Poor and do not have a pot to piss in, the laws 
require the emergency facilities to render treatment. In the U.S.A. the 
poor are treated at no charge to them. The rest of us pay for it.

The obvious thing for a non-rich person to do is sell or give away all 
his goods and become a pauper. Then he will get all of his medical care 
at no charge.

Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/9/2007 12:31:35 AM
"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> stated in post
55bo76F24fhsmU2@mid.individual.net on 3/8/07 5:31 PM:

> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> 
>> 
>> So, if you are picked up by an ambulace ( easily $1000), admitted to an
>> emergency room ( even if just for triage) then transferred tot he hospital
>> bills of several thousand dollars NOT COVERED BY MOST INSURANCE are awaiting
>> you when you get home.
> 
> However if you are Poor and do not have a pot to piss in, the laws
> require the emergency facilities to render treatment. In the U.S.A. the
> poor are treated at no charge to them. The rest of us pay for it.
> 
> The obvious thing for a non-rich person to do is sell or give away all
> his goods and become a pauper. Then he will get all of his medical care
> at no charge.

Incorrect: the poor do not get care for free... they get *some* care,
generally emergency, for free.  Other than that, well, many are just toast.
The system is filled with gaps, overlaps, red tape beyond reason, etc.

-- 
��Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
��Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
��Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC




0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/9/2007 12:55:02 AM
On Mar 8, 4:55 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Bob Kolker" <nowh...@nowhere.com> stated in post
> 55bo76F24fhs...@mid.individual.net on 3/8/07 5:31 PM:
> > However if you are Poor and do not have a pot to piss in, the laws
> > require the emergency facilities to render treatment. In the U.S.A. the
> > poor are treated at no charge to them. The rest of us pay for it.
>
> > The obvious thing for a non-rich person to do is sell or give away all
> > his goods and become a pauper. Then he will get all of his medical care
> > at no charge.
>
> Incorrect: the poor do not get care for free... they get *some* care,
> generally emergency, for free.  Other than that, well, many are just toast.

perhaps you've heard of medicaid and the state children's health
insurance program?  they cover much more than emergency care:
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/benefits/index.jsp

<snip>

0
news74 (3350)
3/9/2007 1:13:18 AM
"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
1173402798.187421.75480@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com on 3/8/07 6:13 PM:

> On Mar 8, 4:55 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "Bob Kolker" <nowh...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>> 55bo76F24fhs...@mid.individual.net on 3/8/07 5:31 PM:
>>> However if you are Poor and do not have a pot to piss in, the laws
>>> require the emergency facilities to render treatment. In the U.S.A. the
>>> poor are treated at no charge to them. The rest of us pay for it.
>> 
>>> The obvious thing for a non-rich person to do is sell or give away all
>>> his goods and become a pauper. Then he will get all of his medical care
>>> at no charge.
>> 
>> Incorrect: the poor do not get care for free... they get *some* care,
>> generally emergency, for free.  Other than that, well, many are just toast.
> 
> perhaps you've heard of medicaid and the state children's health
> insurance program?  they cover much more than emergency care:
> http://www.kff.org/medicaid/benefits/index.jsp
> 
> <snip>
> 
You snipped the comments I made that talked about such programs.
Looking at the site for my state I see data from... 2004?  Nothing newer?
Why?

-- 
� Different version numbers refer to different versions
� Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
��The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM

0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/9/2007 1:25:56 AM
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:10:48 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef143a.18635358@news.telus.net...
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:10:39 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>news:45ecfa69$0$14070$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> Alan Baker  <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> >> Deuteros  <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>The reason for the failure of socialized medicine (aside from the
>>>>>> >>>fact
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Aside from the fact that where it's used it is cheaper and more
>>>>>> >> effective that the health care system used in the US.  Despite its
>>>>>> >> flaws, the Canadian system costs less and produces people that live
>>>>>> >> longer than Americans.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more 
>>>>>> >than
>>>>>> >in
>>>>>> >the USA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by "ration" you mean "refuse to accomodate the irrational demands
>>>>>> of hypochondriacs" then you're probably right.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>He means ration, as in "to distribute" and "to use sparingly".
>>>>
>>>> Since Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans then it
>>>> should be obvious that healthcare isn't being denied to people who
>>>> need it.
>>>
>>>Have you looked at the statistics on life expectancy.  The difference
>>>between Canada and the United States is miniscule.
>>
>> So what?  All the top 50 or so countries have similar life
>> expectancies.  But Canada (80.22 years) is #12, and the USA (77.85) is
>> #47...
>>
>> The point is, Americans' health is significantly worse than
>> Canadians', and they pay much more for health care than Canadians.
>>
>and it is not necessarily due to the healthcare system.... 

Oh, sure, it _could_ be due to the position of Jupiter...

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/9/2007 1:28:47 AM
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:47:18 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>news:558rdiF23b4nuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>> And why is it less in the country of socialized medicine, rather than
>>> in the bastion of free markets...?
>>
>> The drug companies are using the U.S. to subsidize their Canadian sales. 
>> They do it becuase they can. U.S. citizens buying their drugs up in Canada 
>> can get a little back.
>
>Canada is also getting a free ride.

??  ROTFL!!

>> The drug companies have s sweetheart deal with the U.S. gummint. The U.S. 
>> gummint will not use its clout to get the drugs cheaper.
>>
>How do they do that? 

In return for a few billion dollars a year in profits taxes, the US
government gives Big Pharma patent monopolies that let them extort
hundreds of billions in economic rents from consumers in the USA and
other countries.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/9/2007 1:35:45 AM
On Mar 8, 5:25 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1173402798.187421.75...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com on 3/8/07 6:13 PM:
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:55 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> "Bob Kolker" <nowh...@nowhere.com> stated in post
> >> 55bo76F24fhs...@mid.individual.net on 3/8/07 5:31 PM:
> >>> However if you are Poor and do not have a pot to piss in, the laws
> >>> require the emergency facilities to render treatment. In the U.S.A. the
> >>> poor are treated at no charge to them. The rest of us pay for it.
>
> >>> The obvious thing for a non-rich person to do is sell or give away all
> >>> his goods and become a pauper. Then he will get all of his medical care
> >>> at no charge.
>
> >> Incorrect: the poor do not get care for free... they get *some* care,
> >> generally emergency, for free.  Other than that, well, many are just toast.
>
> > perhaps you've heard of medicaid and the state children's health
> > insurance program?  they cover much more than emergency care:
> >http://www.kff.org/medicaid/benefits/index.jsp
>
> > <snip>
>
> You snipped the comments I made that talked about such programs.

the one line i snipped- 'The system is filled with gaps, overlaps, red
tape beyond reason, etc.' did not really relevant to my refutation of
your comment that the poor do not get more than emergency care for
free.

> Looking at the site for my state I see data from... 2004?  Nothing newer?
> Why?

because it's an independent compilation of data.  if you want up to
date info, check the state specific website.
https://azweb.statemedicaid.us/healthplanlinks/searchresults.asp?type=2

if previously posted statements about your income was / is still
correct (sweet tomato- if that was really your wife posting- said they
youmade $100 too much to qualify for wic as a family of 2, but
qualified as a family of 3), you should look into it.

0
news74 (3350)
3/9/2007 1:35:55 AM
Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
> It is not who discovered one drug, it is who discovered most of the 
> drugs we use today.

Discovery is an important part of drug development, but making a drug 
producible in economically large quantities is just as important. What 
good is a superdrug that is so expensive and can be made only in small 
quantities? Not much good to the great bulk of the population.

Penicillin did not become a hit until it could be mass produced.

Ditto for insulin. Bovine insulin from the gibblets of a million steers 
was in relatively short supply and it is not nearly as effective as 
human insulin.

Bob Kolker


Bob Kolker

0
nowhere3 (558)
3/9/2007 2:02:52 AM
"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
1173404155.864104.121190@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com on 3/8/07 6:35 PM:

> On Mar 8, 5:25 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "ed" <n...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
>> 1173402798.187421.75...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com on 3/8/07 6:13 PM:
>> 
>>> On Mar 8, 4:55 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>> "Bob Kolker" <nowh...@nowhere.com> stated in post
>>>> 55bo76F24fhs...@mid.individual.net on 3/8/07 5:31 PM:
>>>>> However if you are Poor and do not have a pot to piss in, the laws
>>>>> require the emergency facilities to render treatment. In the U.S.A. the
>>>>> poor are treated at no charge to them. The rest of us pay for it.
>> 
>>>>> The obvious thing for a non-rich person to do is sell or give away all
>>>>> his goods and become a pauper. Then he will get all of his medical care
>>>>> at no charge.
>> 
>>>> Incorrect: the poor do not get care for free... they get *some* care,
>>>> generally emergency, for free.  Other than that, well, many are just toast.
>> 
>>> perhaps you've heard of medicaid and the state children's health
>>> insurance program?  they cover much more than emergency care:
>>> http://www.kff.org/medicaid/benefits/index.jsp
>> 
>>> <snip>
>> 
>> You snipped the comments I made that talked about such programs.
> 
> the one line i snipped- 'The system is filled with gaps, overlaps, red
> tape beyond reason, etc.' did not really relevant to my refutation of
> your comment that the poor do not get more than emergency care for
> free.
> 
>> Looking at the site for my state I see data from... 2004?  Nothing newer?
>> Why?
> 
> because it's an independent compilation of data.  if you want up to
> date info, check the state specific website.
> https://azweb.statemedicaid.us/healthplanlinks/searchresults.asp?type=2
> 
> if previously posted statements about your income was / is still
> correct (sweet tomato- if that was really your wife posting- said they
> youmade $100 too much to qualify for wic as a family of 2, but
> qualified as a family of 3), you should look into it.

I make no bones about not being rich... and I have looked into some of those
programs.  I am a home owner (though my home is hardly a expensive one, even
for this area) and a new enough car where I do not qualify for most of the
programs... add to that my income changes by semester pretty heavily.. and
believe me when I tell you that the paper work and the red tape in such
programs is just beyond belief... and you never get the same answer twice.
Heck, the one time I received a letter of acceptance for one of the programs
I *also* received a letter of rejection... from the same person on the same
day.  I called to get clarification and was told to go with the last time
stamp... so, it turns out, I was accepted for 10 minutes and some odd
seconds... and then my average income bumped my out of the program.  :)

My daughter had some medical work done recently (she is OK).  I was told
that if it was over X amount I would qualify for assistance... it was over
double that.  When I send in the paper work, though, I was told that she did
not apply... no reason given.  Part of the "problem" is that I am honest and
report my income... and since I teach and do web design and consulting and
tutoring and the like no two months are the same.

-- 
� Teaching is a "real job"
��The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
� The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets




0
SNIT1 (7401)
3/9/2007 2:34:34 AM
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:15:54 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef0f7a.17419118@news.telus.net...
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:15:01 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:45eda710.16838659@news.telus.net...
>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:23:32 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In Canada from what I hear, they also ration care a whole lot more than 
>>>>>in
>>>>>the USA.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so _that's_ what it's called when you provide needed treatments to
>>>> poor people who will benefit by them rather than unnecessary
>>>> treatments to rich ones who won't.
>>>
>>>No, the rich in Canada, like the rich anywhere else, do not need any help
>>>from the government.
>>
>> Irrelevant.  You need to address the fact that when medical care is
>> allocated according to money rather than need, the rich will get a lot
>> of "care" that does them no good, and may even harm them, while the
>> poor will lack the care that would do them a lot of good.  And the
>> fact is, you _can't_ address it.
>
>Those with money, always trump those without money.  No system in the world 
>that you can drean up is going to change that fact.

Wrong.  I live in Canada, and I can go to almost any doctor's office,
emergency ward, lab, operating room, etc. and see people with no money
getting care before ones that have money.

>>>They have the resources to "opt out" of whatever
>>>system any government puts in place.  It is the very poor that you seem so
>>>concerned about, who gets the shaft, when they are promised free 
>>>healthcare,
>>>and find out that in order to get that free health care, there are some
>>>serious strings attached, and those strings may result in you dying before
>>>you ever get the care you thought you should get.
>>
>> While with for-profit medical care, they would have no chance at all
>> of getting that care, while someone who can afford lots of care may
>> get killed on the operating table having an unnecessary but profitable
>> procedure done because the surgeon's kid just got accepted to an Ivy
>> League university, and he needs to make the tuition.  So?
>
>Those who need the care will also die before they get the care, because the 
>"system" will not address their needs in time...that is what rationing does.

Wrong.  That is what misplacing priorities does, whether they are the
priorities of patients, doctors, bureaucrats, HMO executives,
insurance company lawyers, or whatever.  
 
>In Canada for instance, it is the "system" that decides when you are going 
>to get the care.

Wrong.  I live in Canada, and the "system" has never decided when I or
anyone else I know got care.  The main thing that decides is whether
you want your care on a busy day or a slow day.  I wouldn't advise
going to emergency to have a wart removed late on a Saturday night.

>Some, who the "system" consider important, get to the 
>front of the line, regardless of when they got on the line.

That is true to some extent, and it is a matter of policy: acute cases
get priority over chronic cases, workers compensation cases get
priority over retirees, etc.

>Others, because 
>the "system" had concluded that they don't need to get in the front of the 
>line, don't get in the front of the line, and some even die while waiting, 
>and before they get the care they wanted.....

Yep.  I have news for you, pal: we are all going to die anyway,
whether we get the care we want or not.  In the USA, the system is
geared to take all your money (unless you just have way too much of
it) in the weeks or months just before you kick the bucket, unless you
are covered by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance -- and
sometimes even when you assumed you _were_ covered by them.

In Canada and other countries with "socialized medicine," there is
some attempt at triage based on the condition of the patient rather
than the size of his wallet or insurance coverage.  I know a nurse who
says many terminal patients plead for all sorts of expensive tests and
treatments that will do them no good, just because they are trying to
get a reprieve from the Grim Reaper by any means whatever.  They'll
take herbs by the fistful, go to the Philippines for treatment by
faith healers, anything.  In the USA, whatever they could afford, they
would get, no matter how wasteful of medical resources and their own
money.

You need to get your head around the fact that a market for medical
goods and services cannot function efficiently because it does not
have the necessary sovereign, rational consumers.

>>>> "Health care rationing."  Thanks.  I'll remember what it means the
>>>> next time I see that term used.
>>>>
>>>Rationing occurs everytime you go to buy something, and decide not to buy
>>>it.
>>
>> No, rationing is when the amount you can get is not governed by your
>> ability to pay for it.
>
>Total foolishness.

<yawn>

"ration, v.t., 4. to supply, apportion or distribute as rations"
"ration, 2. n., an allotted amount"
-- Webster's New Universal Unabridged

Got it?  A ration is an _allotted_ amount, not a _chosen_ amount.

>You make a rationing decision everytime you make a 
>purchase and everytime you do not make a purchase.

Nope.  Rationing is allotment by an outside agency, not one's own
choice of amount.  You are just flat wrong.  That is normal, routine,
and expected, and I should perhaps warn you that that is what will
inevitably happen every time you presume to dispute with me.  Not that
you are intelligent enough to take such a warning to heart.

-- Roy L
0
royls (41)
3/9/2007 3:02:15 AM
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:20:59 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:45ef0e4c.17117453@news.telus.net...
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 07:52:48 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Scheltgen" <mjs818@econ.usask.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:esm3qp$ijb$1@webmail.usask.ca...
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <royls@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45ed9d93.14409140@news.telus.net...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:34:02 -0800, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:3008931.0kjmbs9ojd@example.com...
>>>>>>>> This post seems to be  yet another effort corporate thieves is to 
>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>> crooks
>>>>>>>> to spew lies on the internet, in the desperate hope that some weak
>>>>>>>> minded
>>>>>>>> idiots may believe this trash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite a number of reports provide evidence from international 
>>>>>>>> studies
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> as much you privatize a medical system as worst it gets and as
>>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on a study from the World Health Organization US ranks 37th 
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> quality of healthcare (rather mediocre) yet we pay over 2.5 times as
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> number 1: France !!! And in US over 50% of all bankruptcies are due 
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> medical problems in middle class INSURED people while in France this
>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>> is 0 !!! US have 47Milions (over 15.6% of the population) uninsured
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> France have none. Yet, we pay per capita (uninsured included) 2.5
>>>>>>>> times as
>>>>>>>> much as French do. Quite ridiculous !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The difference ? US system is strongly privatized and the "free
>>>>>>>> market"/"for
>>>>>>>> proffit" is allowed to dictate most of the healthcare decisions 
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> French system is highly regulated by government and driven to 
>>>>>>>> maximize
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> medical benefits for the society.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do a little more research. Find out what the medical inflation rate 
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>> a long period of time, in any country with a fairly extensive third
>>>>>>> party
>>>>>>> payment system.  Then find out what their overall rate of inflation 
>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>> will find that in every one of these countries, over a long period of
>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>> their medical inflation rate is consistently higher than their 
>>>>>>> overall
>>>>>>> rate
>>>>>>> of inflation.  Ask yourself this very simple question, why is that 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> case?
>>>>>>> When you figure that out, you will then begin to understand what the
>>>>>>> core
>>>>>>> problem is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hehe.  YOU obviously haven't figured it out yet, champ....
>>>>>>
>>>>> Cute but no cigar.  You cannot effectively control prices, when there 
>>>>> is
>>>>> virtually unlimited demand for ANY product or service, other than to
>>>>> implement a system, like socialism, where you control everything, from
>>>>> prices to services.
>>>>
>>>> But there is not unlimited demand for medical services.  I am in Canada
>>>> and can visit a GP anytime I want and pay no out of pocket expenses
>>>> whatsoever, but I'm here typing this post.  I could be getting free 
>>>> health
>>>> care -- I must be crazy to be sitting in front of my computer instead of
>>>> visiting my GP for free!
>>>
>>>What was my original question.  My original question was what is the 
>>>medical
>>>inflation rate in Canada.  Look it up.  But don't "cherry pick" the data,
>>>look at the data over a ten year period of time (longer would be better).
>>>Find out what the medical inflation rate was and compare that to whatever
>>>the broader measure of inflation is in your country (in the US that would 
>>>be
>>>something like the Consumer Price Index).  Tell us what you find.
>>
>> The "medical inflation rate" is higher than the CPI rate.  So what?
>> That's the same everywhere, partly because of the increasingly
>> burdensome rent seeking seen in virtually every aspect of medical care
>> provision.
>>
>NO!!!   Look at the US statistics on medical inflation.  If you did that you 
>would find that when the series first started (sometime in the late 1930's 
>as I recall) up to 1950, medical inflation was consistently below the 
>Consumer Price Index.  After 1950, medical inflation was consistenly higher 
>than the Consumer Price Index.  So,