Why don't the liberal whiners start a health insurance company?
Spob
health insurance and greedy companies that do their best to avoid
paying on claims, why hasn't there been an insurance company formed by
outraged liberals who would be willing to forego the huge salaries of
the typical corporate hierarchy and pour it all back into coverage
benefits and lowered premiums?
thats@fact
That's pretty much what will be forced upon the entire medical
insurance industry after President Hillary is sworn in, which was of
course what she tried to do over a dozen years ago as first lady. At
that time corporate America and their GOP stooges in congress were
able to shut her down.
Now, unfortunately for 'poor' Corporate America - the American public
is demanding a real solution to the problem, so even if Hillary is not
our next prez, whoever is will find it mighty difficult to try and
maintain the status quo on our current system.
Daniel T.
The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in
France live longer, healthier lives, despite the fact that they pay less
per capita on health care?
Larry Bud
Because Americans eat like crap.
To judge a health care system solely based on an individual's life
expectancy is like judging the quality of a mechanic by looking at the
mileage on an odometer. Sometimes the car owner never changes the oil
and spills food all over the interior.
mpa...@gmail.com
Read the WHO report rather than quote statistics. In addition to
numbers and rankings, the WHO report actually contains words. If you
read the WHO report, the longevity figure in the industrialized
countries is due to lifestyle rather than healthcare. The most
significant factor is smoking. The WHO report stated that the reason
the French longevity figure is higher is because of the low percentage
of French women smokers. Whe the WHO study factored out the French
women, France has a lower longevity figure than the US.
Additionally, the WHO report stated that there were 4 non-healthcare
factors, such as gang violence, in the US that pulled down the US
longevity figure.
NOW... About that "Pay Less" part. The reason the French pay less is
because of Government price restriction called Tarif de Convention.
An office visit is limited to 21 euros. An average French General
Practioner made $55,000. Our nurses make more than that.
Rod Speed
Because those salarys are a tiny part of the total fund turnover
and arent even visible in the coverage benefits and premiums.
Rod Speed
> Spob <pongespob_...@yahoo.com> wrote
Essentially because their lifestyle and demography is quite different.
Daniel T.
> On Jul 10, 2:21 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Spob <pongespob_paresqua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So with all the gnashing of teeth regarding prohibitive costs of
> > > health insurance and greedy companies that do their best to avoid
> > > paying on claims, why hasn't there been an insurance company formed by
> > > outraged liberals who would be willing to forego the huge salaries of
> > > the typical corporate hierarchy and pour it all back into coverage
> > > benefits and lowered premiums?
> >
> > The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in
> > France live longer, healthier lives, despite the fact that they pay less
> > per capita on health care?
>
> Read the WHO report rather than quote statistics.
Let's do that:
Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191
member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health
care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria
and Japan.
The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic
product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries
according to its performance, the report finds.
The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic
product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th .
Fairness of financial contribution: The measurement is based on the
fraction of a household¹s capacity to spend (income minus food
expenditure) that goes on health care (including tax payments, social
insurance, private insurance and out of pocket payments).
...
In North America, Canada rates as the country with the fairest
mechanism for health system finance ranked at 17-19, while the
United States is at 54-55
--http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
(Note that 54-55 ranking for fairness! Ugh.)
The only thing the US rated high on is responsiveness. As we are often
told, people in the US don't have to wait in line as long... If they can
afford the treatment in the first place.
> NOW... About that "Pay Less" part. The reason the French pay less is
> because of Government price restriction called Tarif de Convention.
> An office visit is limited to 21 euros. An average French General
> Practioner made $55,000. Our nurses make more than that.
Thank you for at least admitting that we do in fact pay more for what
care we get... A lot more.
Now that we have established that the French do in fact pay less (*much*
less,) we have to ask ourselves why we can't have a system where *we*
pay less. Especially considering that we get poorer performance.
Daniel T.
> To judge a health care system solely based on an individual's life
> expectancy is like judging the quality of a mechanic by looking at the
> mileage on an odometer. Sometimes the car owner never changes the oil
> and spills food all over the interior.
Good thing the WHO didn't do that then.
George
Better diet? moderate consumption of red wine?
Chois...@search.aol.com
news:A4SdnfJ_TJwovwnb...@comcast.com:
> Better diet?
no french fries
simple_...@yahoo.com
> The reason the French pay less is
> because of Government price restriction called Tarif de Convention.
> An office visit is limited to 21 euros. An average French General
> Practioner made $55,000. Our nurses make more than that.
The French health care system is the best in the world. Unlike
Canadian single-payer system, the French system is a multi-payer
system. Details: http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=197
Rod Speed
> mpa...@gmail.com wrote
>> The reason the French pay less is because of Government
>> price restriction called Tarif de Convention. An office visit is
>> limited to 21 euros. An average French General Practioner
>> made $55,000. Our nurses make more than that.
> The French health care system is the best in the world.
Nope. Not on any measure.
Shawn Hirn
"Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> The only thing the US rated high on is responsiveness. As we are often
> told, people in the US don't have to wait in line as long... If they can
> afford the treatment in the first place.
Actually, even people in the United States who CAN afford the best
treatment can end up waiting a while for medical care. Three weeks ago,
I had to be rushed by ambulance to an emergency room at a major urban
hospital for a head injury I sustained when I was mugged. I was bleeding
profusely. The bandage I was given when I got to the ER did not help at
all. The wound was minor, but the bleeding was worsened because I am on
a daily aspirin regimen and aspirin slows down blood clotting. I waited
four hours to see a doctor, then another hour until I was actually
treated. Another patient in line with me helped me to control my
bleeding while we both waited for treatment! A woman who was waiting for
treatment of a stomach pain told me she had been waiting there for eight
hours!
If I want an appointment with an eye doctor or a neurologist, or even my
regular family doctor, I have to make the appointment weeks or months in
advance for routine care. If I have a bad cold, I could wait hours
before I get a return call from my doctor, and that's typical of others
I know. I have an employer-sponsored medical plan that has been written
up in U.S. News & World Reports as one of the best in the United States,
and yet I find that access to many healthcare services is not nearly as
easy as I would prefer.
Shawn Hirn
"thats@fact" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current and
retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the obligation to
provide healthcare for its employees and retirees would increase
profits, make more money available for hiring new employees, and it
would American make companies more competitive with foreign companies
who do not have to pay their employees' healthcare costs.
Bob F
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-2C7AF6.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
But it would be socialism.
Bob
Rod Speed
Pity the US already has that, whatever you call it.
Shawn Hirn
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it would be socialism.
So? Socialism is the best approach in some situations. Capitalism is not
a one-size fits all solution to the world's problems, nor is socialism.
muzic...@yahoo.com
> Actually, even people in the United States who CAN afford the best
> treatment can end up waiting a while for medical care....I waited
> four hours to see a doctor, then another hour until I was actually
> treated.
I think you're going on a false premise if you're including yourself
in the group who can afford the best treatment.
Think Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Clinton etc. would have to
wait 4 hours for treatment or ever have to deal with some surly cow to
go through the whole "who's your insurance carrier" paperwork drill?
Or wait on a list like us peons for an organ if they needed a
transplant?
Shawn Hirn
muzic...@yahoo.com wrote:
Probably not, but I am sure my medical plan would allow me to go to the
same hospital and see the same doctors they do for non-elective
specialized care, such as cardiac treatment. When I had to be
hospitalized four years ago, I received top flight care and all I had to
pay was a few dollars for the optional phone and TV in the hospital
room. One of the specialists I see now is widely regarded as being one
of the best in his field; and I pay nothing for his consultations, but
getting an appointment requires some advanced planning if its not an
emergency.
ra...@vt.edu
> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current and
> retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the obligation to
> provide healthcare for its employees and retirees would increase
> profits, make more money available for hiring new employees, and it
> would American make companies more competitive with foreign companies
> who do not have to pay their employees' healthcare costs.
I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have to
pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs. I worked
there and saw the break out of my salary and the taxes and fees
they had to pay on it. There is definitely a health care cost
being paid by the company. Of course, *all* companies have to
pay it for everyone, and everyone gets the same coverage, but
they are paying for it. I have to assume it works like that
in most of the countries with universal health care.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
mpa...@gmail.com
Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.
You have illustrated a point I have been trying to make. The WHO
study ranks France as #1 and the US as #37. These rankings are bogus
because there are non healthcare criteria in the ranking. One of them
is Percentage of government funding. The US percentage is 50%; France
is Much, Much higher. As a result, the US ranks 57th on this one
critereon. In truth, ALL of the funding is collected by the employer
from the employee.
Dennis
wrote:
>But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current and
>retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the obligation to
>provide healthcare for its employees and retirees would increase
>profits, make more money available for hiring new employees, and it
>would American make companies more competitive with foreign companies
>who do not have to pay their employees' healthcare costs.
Unless some major efficiences were realized by the change, there would
be no difference. Government-run healthcare still must be paid for --
from taxes. Workers would need higher wages to cover the taxes. Just
moves the expense to the employer from one pocket to another.
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
SMS
> The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in
> France live longer, healthier lives, despite the fact that they pay less
> per capita on health care?
Who ever said the French system is so awful? What it is, is extremely
expensive (though it cost less per capita than the U.S. system because
much less is siphoned off at the source by insurance companies).
In any case, health care is just one component of life expectancy. Diet
is a big part, and the French government doesn't let agribusiness, or
the meat and dairy industries set public policy as happens in the U.S..
The obesity epidemic is a result of the government actually promoting
unhealthy diet and lifestyles, rather than just butting out entirely.
Higher infant mortality and child mortality rates reduces the U.S.
average life expectancy even though these are only partially affected by
the health care system, other social policies, diet, and environment.
r wiley
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message news:469500fa$0$27162$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Daniel T. wrote:
>
>> The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in France live longer, healthier lives, despite the fact
>> that they pay less per capita on health care?
>
> Who ever said the French system is so awful? What it is, is extremely expensive (though it cost less per capita than the U.S.
> system because much less is siphoned off at the source by insurance companies).
>
> In any case, health care is just one component of life expectancy. Diet is a big part, and the French government doesn't let
> agribusiness, or the meat and dairy industries set public policy as happens in the U.S.. The obesity epidemic is a result of the
> government actually promoting unhealthy diet and lifestyles, rather than just butting out entirely.
>
Get serious. The French eat fried sugar washed down with wine.
Tell us about the nutritional value of pate de fois gras
rw
Rod Speed
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>> healthcare costs.
> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
> to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
No they dont.
> I worked there and saw the break out of my salary
> and the taxes and fees they had to pay on it.
Nope, they just deduct that from the wages before the monkeys get their pay.
> There is definitely a health care cost being paid by the company.
Nope.
> Of course, *all* companies have to pay it for everyone,
Nope.
> and everyone gets the same coverage,
Nope, they have separate insurance available too, essentially to pay for the
difference between what they get charged and what the system pays for.
> but they are paying for it.
Nope.
> I have to assume it works like that in most
> of the countries with universal health care.
Nope, the individual pays, as a form of taxation. The US is close to unique amoungst
modern first world countrys where the employer pays for quite a bit of the health care costs.
Rod Speed
> On Jul 11, 9:27 am, r...@vt.edu wrote:
>> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>>> healthcare costs.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have to
>> pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs. I worked
>> there and saw the break out of my salary and the taxes and fees
>> they had to pay on it. There is definitely a health care cost
>> being paid by the company. Of course, *all* companies have to
>> pay it for everyone, and everyone gets the same coverage, but
>> they are paying for it. I have to assume it works like that
>> in most of the countries with universal health care.
> Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.
> You have illustrated a point I have been trying to make.
Nope. He just mangled the story completely.
> The WHO study ranks France as #1 and the US as #37. These rankings
> are bogus because there are non healthcare criteria in the ranking.
Wrong.
> One of them is Percentage of government funding.
> The US percentage is 50%; France is Much, Much higher.
Wrong again.
> As a result, the US ranks 57th on this one critereon.
Wrong again.
> In truth, ALL of the funding is collected by the employer from the employee.
Wrong again. The most that most modern first world countrys do is deduct
that tax from the employee's wages, just like the US does with SS.
Thats not the same thing as the employer paying for the health care costs.
Even that doesnt happen in the US either, the employee pays some of those costs.
dfr
> Daniel T. wrote
>> The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in France live longer,
>> healthier lives, despite the fact that they pay less per capita on health care?
> Who ever said the French system is so awful? What it is, is extremely
> expensive (though it cost less per capita than the U.S. system because
> much less is siphoned off at the source by insurance companies).
> In any case, health care is just one component of life expectancy.
> Diet is a big part, and the French government doesn't let agribusiness, or the meat and dairy
> industries set public policy as happens in the U.S..
Pig ignorant fantasy. The entire agricultural subsidy
scheme is set by those industrys, right thruout the EU.
> The obesity epidemic is a result of the government actually promoting unhealthy diet and
> lifestyles,
Another pig ignorant fantasy. Its mostly the result
of the fast food industry and how that operates.
> rather than just butting out entirely.
No modern first world country is ever stupid enough to do that.
> Higher infant mortality and child mortality rates reduces the U.S. average life expectancy
The US has a lower average life expectancy than France even if you take those
out, largely due to demographics and the very much high levels of obesity in the US.
SMS
>> Higher infant mortality and child mortality rates reduces the U.S. average life expectancy
>
> The US has a lower average life expectancy than France even if you take those
> out, largely due to demographics and the very much high levels of obesity in the US.
If you read the NEJM report (March 2005) on obesity and life expectancy,
the difference in average life expectancy if everyone were to achieve an
optimal BMI, is only 0.75 years, but France currently has 2.6 years
greater life expectancy. So there's still 1.85 years that need to be
attributed to other factors. Infant mortality, which is high in the U.S.
due to the lack of availability of pre-natal care to a large segment of
the society, is one factor.
The CDC states that health care accounts for 10% of the factors
affecting life expectancy.
Lifestyle is the greatest influence, but it isn't just diet. It's
stress, smoking (yet France has far more smokers, both male and female,
than the U.S.).
Obesity in the U.S. is often government sponsored. Look at the USDA food
guidelines, the school lunch program (cheese, cheese, more cheese, free
cheese, milk, and more milk). Yeah, no one forces parents to have their
kids eat the school lunches, but many parents mistakenly assume the the
schools just must be providing healthy lunches, which isn't the case.
Of course with France, there's always the French Paradox and
procyanidins. Amusingly many people believe that _any_ red wine will
have the desired effect, but the research shows that this isn't the
case, it's only certain red wines.
SMS
> You have illustrated a point I have been trying to make. The WHO
> study ranks France as #1 and the US as #37. These rankings are bogus
> because there are non healthcare criteria in the ranking. One of them
> is Percentage of government funding. The US percentage is 50%; France
> is Much, Much higher. As a result, the US ranks 57th on this one
> critereon. In truth, ALL of the funding is collected by the employer
> from the employee.
That's correct, partially. The funding from the employees is not
sufficient to cover the cost, and the government has to make up the
deficit. There's also the issue of French doctors leaving because of the
low salaries, so France has less physicians, per capita, than many other
countries.
dfr
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:53:08 -0400, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>> healthcare costs.
> Unless some major efficiences were realized by the change,
It would wipe out most of the overheads in the insurance industry.
> there would be no difference. Government-run healthcare still must be paid
> for -- from taxes. Workers would need higher wages to cover the taxes.
> Just moves the expense to the employer from one pocket to another.
Nope, wipes out most of the overheads in the insurance industry.
reinhardt
They started 2:
Tenet in 1968 and HealthSouth in 1987 (both traded on the stock
exchange)
Without socialized healthcare these companies would not exist.
They will both benefit greatly with further "socialization" regardless
of the affiliation of the next administration.
William Souden
reinhardt
good read on Medicare and Corporate healthcare
ra...@vt.edu
> ra...@vt.edu wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
> > to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
> No they dont.
Yes, they do.
> > I worked there and saw the break out of my salary
> > and the taxes and fees they had to pay on it.
> Nope, they just deduct that from the wages before the monkeys get their pay.
Like I said, I saw the breakout. Yes, some was deducted from salary,
but there was also a matching part from the employer. You can argue
that that amounts to the same thing, but that's not how the accounting
shows it.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
dfr
> dfr wrote:
>>> Higher infant mortality and child mortality rates reduces the U.S. average life expectancy
>> The US has a lower average life expectancy than France even if you take those out, largely due to
>> demographics and the very much high levels of obesity in the US.
> If you read the NEJM report (March 2005) on obesity and life
> expectancy, the difference in average life expectancy if everyone
> were to achieve an optimal BMI, is only 0.75 years, but France
> currently has 2.6 years greater life expectancy. So there's still
> 1.85 years that need to be attributed to other factors.
Yes, that's why I mentioned demographics and lifestyle in another post.
> Infant mortality, which is high in the U.S. due to the lack of availability
> of pre-natal care to a large segment of the society, is one factor.
Not when you take that out, like I said.
> The CDC states that health care accounts for 10% of the factors affecting life expectancy.
> Lifestyle is the greatest influence, but it isn't just diet. It's stress,
No evidence that affects life expectancy much.
> smoking (yet France has far more smokers, both male and female, than the U.S.).
Yep, that effect is overridden by other factors.
> Obesity in the U.S. is often government sponsored.
Nope, hardly ever.
> Look at the USDA food guidelines, the school lunch program (cheese, cheese, more cheese, free
> cheese, milk, and more milk).
And hardly anyone takes any noticed of those guidelines and the
school lunch programs have no effect on adult obesity anyway.
> Yeah, no one forces parents to have their kids eat the school lunches,
And we didnt see modern obesity levels in the
past when those school lunches were just as bad.
> but many parents mistakenly assume the the schools just must be providing healthy lunches, which
> isn't the case.
Sure, but its a trivial part of US adult obesity.
> Of course with France, there's always the French Paradox and procyanidins. Amusingly many people
> believe that _any_ red wine will have the desired effect, but the research shows that this isn't
> the case, it's only certain red wines.
Pity the bulk of the french arent drinking those.
Rod Speed
>>> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
>>> to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
>> No they dont.
> Yes, they do.
No they dont.
You wont be able to find a cite to substantiate your claim.
>>> I worked there and saw the break out of my salary
>>> and the taxes and fees they had to pay on it.
>> Nope, they just deduct that from the wages before the monkeys get their pay.
> Like I said, I saw the breakout.
You didnt understand what you saw.
> Yes, some was deducted from salary, but there
> was also a matching part from the employer.
Nope.
> You can argue that that amounts to the same thing,
Corse it is.
> but that's not how the accounting shows it.
You dont understand what it shows.
z
> So with all the gnashing of teeth regarding prohibitive costs of
> health insurance and greedy companies that do their best to avoid
> paying on claims, why hasn't there been an insurance company formed by
> outraged liberals who would be willing to forego the huge salaries of
> the typical corporate hierarchy and pour it all back into coverage
> benefits and lowered premiums?
We did. It's called Medicare. Look it up.
z
> You have illustrated a point I have been trying to make. The WHO
> study ranks France as #1 and the US as #37. These rankings are bogus
> because there are non healthcare criteria in the ranking. One of them
> is Percentage of government funding. The US percentage is 50%; France
> is Much, Much higher. As a result, the US ranks 57th on this one
> critereon. In truth, ALL of the funding is collected by the employer
what are you talking about? What rightwing lie-feed are you parroting
now?
rick++
> Think Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Clinton etc. would have to
> wait 4 hours for treatment or ever have to deal with some surly cow to
> go through the whole "who's your insurance carrier" paperwork drill?
> Or wait on a list like us peons for an organ if they needed a
> transplant?
Rich people in the US and abroad pay extra privately for faster
service.
ra...@vt.edu
> ra...@vt.edu wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ra...@vt.edu wrote
> >>> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
> >>> to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
> >> No they dont.
> > Yes, they do.
> No they dont.
> You wont be able to find a cite to substantiate your claim.
Actually, I can. Here is a web link:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html
And the relevant quote from the above page:
"Health care financing. To finance benefits under French national
health insurance for the 80 percent of the population covered by
the CNAMTS, employers pay 12.8 percent of the wage bill, and employees
pay 6.9 percent of their full salary, bringing the total payroll tax
for health insurance to 19.7 percent of all wages."
> > Like I said, I saw the breakout.
> You didnt understand what you saw.
I understood it quite well. The person showing it to me also explained
it in case I didn't understand it.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
z
>There's also the issue of French doctors leaving because of the
> low salaries, so France has less physicians, per capita, than many other
> countries.
Right:
France Physicians (density per 1 000 population) 3.37 (2004)
United States of America Physicians (density per 1 000 population)
2.56 (2000)
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=healthpersonnel
When will people learn not to parrot rightwing lie-sites without
checking?
clams casino
and that's the common fault that keeps coming up over and over again
with the US system - excessive (non medical) overhead costs. Some
consistency in paperwork would likely go a long way in cutting costs
(doctor, insurance provider as well as employer).
clams casino
>
>
>Pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>
>Another pig ignorant fantasy.
>
Are you related to Rod Speed?
z
> > The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in
> > France live longer, healthier lives, despite the fact that they pay less
> > per capita on health care?
>
> Because Americans eat like crap.
Sorry, all that stuff gets factored out. The famous JAMA 7/26/2000
paper points out that it's not US bad habits that are to blame; we're
the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females and males, 5th best
for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption of animal fats and
third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And deaths from
unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are not
included. You may have noted that French people smoke? cigarettes?
tobacco? gasp choke, die?
Why are people so stuck on the idea that they are getting the best
medical care in the world, with no supporting data whatsoever? Is the
fact that they are not so completely unthinkable that they just can't
wrap their brains around it? Or are they so petrified that they might
turn socialist that they are willing to trade away years of their
lives rather than even consider and discard the concept that perhaps
other systems perform better?
William Souden
It is welfare boy with yet another name. Remember aam jones" from Russia?
mpa...@gmail.com
It is not from a right wing site. It is directly from the WHO study.
Most people simply cite a news story that reprints the single page of
the WHO press release. If you want the full data, you will have to
read a couple hundred pages. HOWEVER it is very interesting to see
the hidden bias. AND to see why the ranking number is not related to
health care. Let me give you one quick example. If I have more
time. I will write more examples tomorrow.
In this one example I will illustrate France with a #1 ranking. One
of the criteria is longevity, which is longer in France than the US.
HOWEVER, if you actually read the report, rather than the press
release, WHO states that the major factor separating industrialized
counties is lifestyle, prinicipally smoking. WHO also states that the
French Longevity figures are due to the low incidence of French women
smokers. WHO also stated that if you factor out the French women,
then the French longevity is not as great a the US.
SO... Here is the example. Let's create two separate countries out of
France. In one French country we include only the French women. In
the other French country we only include the French men. Both groups
of citizens have the exact same health care. HOWEVER, since the
French women country have a longer longevity figure, the French women
country will have a higher WHO ranking than the French men country.
The French men country will, due to a lower longevity figure, will
drop down.
SOooo... Here are two subcountries with the exact healthcare, but
different WHO healthcare rankings.
More to come tomorrow... If I have time.
z
> In article <1184135811.020810.77...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> muzicia...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 12:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Actually, even people in the United States who CAN afford the best
> > > treatment can end up waiting a while for medical care....I waited
> > > four hours to see a doctor, then another hour until I was actually
> > > treated.
>
> > I think you're going on a false premise if you're including yourself
> > in the group who can afford the best treatment.
>
> > Think Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Clinton etc. would have to
> > wait 4 hours for treatment or ever have to deal with some surly cow to
> > go through the whole "who's your insurance carrier" paperwork drill?
> > Or wait on a list like us peons for an organ if they needed a
> > transplant?
>
> same hospital and see the same doctors they do for non-elective
> specialized care, such as cardiac treatment.
Well, you may be sure, but read the fine print. Regarding
"participating providers". Then call up the doctor and the hospital to
see if they are participating with your insurance company at this
time. Then call the insurance company to doublecheck. I saw two
specialists last year; waited months to get appointments. After the
first visit with each, before either could really start a treatment
plan, I got a letter from the insurance company at the beginning of
their contract year, informing me as a courtesy that both these were
no longer participating. Which was nice of them, as I would have been
stuck with the bill if I didn't notice and kept going. The neurologist
alone had charged the plan $750 for the first visit, and that was what
the plan paid as "usual and customary", so you don't want to get stuck
paying for half your treatment.
> When I had to be
> hospitalized four years ago, I received top flight care and all I had to
> pay was a few dollars for the optional phone and TV in the hospital
> room.
Hey! Just like my dad in Canada! Got to see a cardiac surgeon in
Toronto rated one of the best in the world! Didn't have to wait any,
either! Flew him there from out west instead of making him go to some
local hospital with delusions of competency! Except where did you get
a plan with no deductible?
z
> "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The only thing the US rated high on is responsiveness. As we are often
> > told, people in the US don't have to wait in line as long... If they can
> > afford the treatment in the first place.
>
> Actually, even people in the United States who CAN afford the best
> I had to be rushed by ambulance to an emergency room at a major urban
> hospital for a head injury I sustained when I was mugged. I was bleeding
> profusely. The bandage I was given when I got to the ER did not help at
> all. The wound was minor, but the bleeding was worsened because I am on
> a daily aspirin regimen and aspirin slows down blood clotting. I waited
> four hours to see a doctor, then another hour until I was actually
> bleeding while we both waited for treatment! A woman who was waiting for
> treatment of a stomach pain told me she had been waiting there for eight
> hours!
ERs have been known as hellholes for years. My last visit, I had to
sit in the waiting room holding a bath towel to my bleeding head wound
for two hours. The punchline is that I was the only one there. It was
6 pm so I assume the staff were having dinner, except for the
receptionist. I don't say that sarcastically. They see people coming
in with a knife sticking out of their eyeball, so what constitutes an
emergency requiring them to drop everything immediately for the
average patient might not impress them quite as much. The last time I
took a friend to the ER with unexplained passing out, we had to wait
five hours before getting called; then immediate admission and IV and
"good think you came in when you did". We had literally been standing
up with the intention of leaving to see if it would go away by itself
overnight when they called us.
"According to a national study released Wednesday, South Dakotans have
the quickest visits to the emergency room in the country: two hours,
38 minutes. Idaho and Iowa round out the top three
Hospital officials say the reason South Dakota ranks so high, is
because we're small.
Dr. Harms says, "Midwestern cities and states have less population to
deal with in the first place."
Last year South Dakota ranked third with an average wait time that was
ten minutes shorter: two hours 28 minutes.
Nationally, patients can expect to spend an average of four hours in
the emergency room, up 18-minutes from last year."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19469119/
"This problem and its consequences, which many hospitals face, were
brought home to many when Edith Rodriguez died waiting to be treated
on the floor of Los Angeles' Martin Luther King Jr. Harbor Hospital
last month.
The problem isn't confined to hospitals that serve mostly the
uninsured. Wait times of several hours also occur at places like Hoag
Hospital in Orange County, Calif., according to Carla Schneider, a
registered nurse and director of the emergency care unit there. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3322309
> If I want an appointment with an eye doctor or a neurologist, or even my
> regular family doctor, I have to make the appointment weeks or months in
> advance for routine care. If I have a bad cold, I could wait hours
> before I get a return call from my doctor, and that's typical of others
> I know. I have an employer-sponsored medical plan that has been written
> up in U.S. News & World Reports as one of the best in the United States,
> and yet I find that access to many healthcare services is not nearly as
> easy as I would prefer.
In March I succumbed to my insurance company's nagging me to get an
annual physical. The first available appointment was the end of May. A
week later I got a rejection letter from the insurance company. They
don't pay for annual physicals, only every two years. $250. This is a
widely recognized "good" insurance company.
A while back I had leg pain so bad I couldn't walk to my car at work
without having to take a break halfway. Took 6 months to get an
appointment with a specialist. This is in a state with top grade
medical care, and me with a "good" plan (not the same as the one I
have now, mentioned last paragraph). He sent me for an MRI, and then
the insurance company refused to pay on the grounds that the doctor
hadn't preauthorized it with them. The MRI folks, doctor, and
insurance company all started pointing fingers as to who was to blame,
while telling me I need to pay now. Luckily for me, I knew enough
about participating providers to be able to quote the contract,
stating that as long as I went to a participating provider, I would
not be on the hook for payment for anything that he or she referred me
to. That hadn't stopped everybody from trying to get me to pay for the
MRI, of course. I just kept pointing out that contract to them until
they all stopped bothering me. The punchline here was that the MRI
place and the doctor were part of the same group practice, just down
the hall from each other. The real punchline is that by the time all
this got settled, my leg got better by itself. This illustrates the
first rule of saving costs on medical care; if you can stall the
patient long enough, most of them will get better by themselves and
not cost you anything. A few will die, which is also cheap.
William Souden
Hey, welfare Rod. why the new name?
What does dfr stand for?
dolt filing replies?
Rod Speed
>> Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote
>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>> healthcare costs.
> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
> to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
Pity that french companys arent who the US companys compete with.
Its certainly not true of the foreign companys that US companys compete with.
Rod Speed
> Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> The real question is, if the French system is so awful,
>>> why do people in France live longer, healthier lives, despite
>>> the fact that they pay less per capita on health care?
>> Because Americans eat like crap.
> Sorry, all that stuff gets factored out.
Nope.
> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out
> that it's not US bad habits that are to blame;
Its wrong.
> we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females and males,
> 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption of animal
> fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance.
And close to the worst with morid obesity and diabetes rates etc etc etc.
> And deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents,
> are not included. You may have noted that French people smoke?
> cigarettes? tobacco? gasp choke, die?
And dont get anything like the same rates of mobid obesity and diabetes etc.
> Why are people so stuck on the idea that they are getting the best
> medical care in the world, with no supporting data whatsoever?
That last is a lie.
> Is the fact that they are not so completely unthinkable that they
> just can't wrap their brains around it? Or are they so petrified
> that they might turn socialist that they are willing to trade away
> years of their lives rather than even consider and discard the
> concept that perhaps other systems perform better?
Or the factors are too complicated for them and you to grasp.
dfr
You'd still have the massive bureaucracy that all those insurance
companys with their separate plans and rates etc involve.
Any universal national system wipes out all those costs.
Rod Speed
I just got instant service, at about 7:30pm, when I showed up with unstable angina.
Got the same instant service previously when I
showed up with what turned out to be gallstones.
Both with a decent national health service free hospital, didnt cost me a cent.
Didnt even have to pay for the TV either.
Daniel T.
> Why are people so stuck on the idea that they are getting the best
> medical care in the world, with no supporting data whatsoever? Is the
> fact that they are not so completely unthinkable that they just can't
> wrap their brains around it? Or are they so petrified that they might
> turn socialist that they are willing to trade away years of their
> lives rather than even consider and discard the concept that perhaps
> other systems perform better?
I think it has a lot to do with that factor the USA is number one in...
"responsiveness". Those Americans who actually can see a doctor find
that the doctors are responsive to client/patient expectations with
regard to non-health areas such as being treated with dignity and
respect, etc.
Of course, all that responsiveness doesn't mean a thing if you can't
afford to see the doctor in the first place.
Rod Speed
> z <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
>> Why are people so stuck on the idea that they are getting the best
>> medical care in the world, with no supporting data whatsoever?
>> Is the fact that they are not so completely unthinkable that they
>> just can't wrap their brains around it? Or are they so petrified that
>> they might turn socialist that they are willing to trade away years
>> of their lives rather than even consider and discard the concept
>> that perhaps other systems perform better?
> I think it has a lot to do with that factor the USA is number one in... "responsiveness".
Nope, its mostly just the usual mindless american complete
ignorance about anything outside the US combined with
being stupid enough to buy the claims made by the industry
when it stomps on any suggestion that a decent universal
national health care system would be much better value.
> Those Americans who actually can see a doctor find that the doctors
> are responsive to client/patient expectations with regard to non-health
> areas such as being treated with dignity and respect, etc.
There's plenty who dont buy that.
> Of course, all that responsiveness doesn't mean a thing
> if you can't afford to see the doctor in the first place.
And its useless if the doctor hasnt got a clue too.
Daniel T.
Of course. Rich people are going to get care no matter what system they
live under. That, I think, is a given. That is why the focus should be
on what kind of care (if any) poor and middle class people get...
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal
bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal
Health Affairs.
...
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health
insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the
bankrupting illness.
...
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent
owned a home and the same number had attended college.
-- http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
The USA is the least fair of all the OECD member countries, and ranks
54/55th place among the 191 WHO member countries.
SMS
> Like I said, I saw the breakout. Yes, some was deducted from salary,
> but there was also a matching part from the employer. You can argue
> that that amounts to the same thing, but that's not how the accounting
> shows it.
In France, the employer pays 12.8% of payroll, the employee pays 7.5%
"Contribution Sociale Generalisée" most of which goes to health insurance.
Not sure when you worked in France, but in the past, the employee paid
6.8% for health insurance but there was no "Contribution Sociale
Generalisée." So the 6.8% employee contribution was replaced by the 7.5%
"Contribution Sociale Generalisée." There is also another 2.5% that the
employee may be paying to a "mutual insurer."
There is still a fairly high co-pay, of 20-30% of doctor fees.
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current and
> > retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the obligation to
> > provide healthcare for its employees and retirees would increase
> > profits, make more money available for hiring new employees, and it
> > would American make companies more competitive with foreign companies
> > who do not have to pay their employees' healthcare costs.
> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have to
> pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs. I worked
> there and saw the break out of my salary and the taxes and fees
> they had to pay on it.
"THEY" had to pay? You mean the amount that YOU had to pay.
Since it was YOU doing the work and all of the taxes, etc, are
really money generated by YOU as part of your total compensation.
It is like the so-called "employer's contribution" to American
Socialist Insecurity. That money is really paid out of the
labour of the employee.
Or the way that an American company that offers benefits, like
health insurance, is really paying for those out of the labour of
the employees. The reason it can help the employees, is the
discount for large groups (as compared to the price for one
person buying one policy.)
The employer isn't giving you anything for "free."
> There is definitely a health care cost
> being paid by the company. Of course, *all* companies have to
> pay it for everyone, and everyone gets the same coverage, but
> they are paying for it. I have to assume it works like that
> in most of the countries with universal health care.
In New Zealand, it is partial. There is a basic personal income
tax. Which is just one lump number. And, behind the scenes,
some gubmint bureaucrats allocate some of that to the health
system. But they don't tell me how much, on my tax forms.
However, there is a separate payment to Accicdent Compensation
Corp, which is supposedly the only system of its type in the
world. Basically, ACC covers accidents and some other traumas,
including temporary pensions while recovering. That is a
separate line item for employees, or a whole separate bill for
self-employed folks. The premiums are a percentage of income,
based on job category (I.e. how safe/dangerous it is.) Although
it covers non-job accidents, like car crashes, or severe sports
injuries.
But people can receive "free" medical care, and "free" ACC
payments, even if they never worked or paid into the system. And
there was a particularity egregious stunt some years ago,
involving ACC handing out $10K payments to anyone giving a
semi-convincing claim of having been molested as a child (withOUT
any legal action against anyone, or even naming the alleged
perp.)
And don't get me started on the quality and attitude problems
involved...
--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
scharf...@geemail.com says...
> Daniel T. wrote:
>
> > The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in
> > France live longer, healthier lives, despite the fact that they pay less
> > per capita on health care?
> Who ever said the French system is so awful? What it is, is extremely
> expensive (though it cost less per capita than the U.S. system because
> much less is siphoned off at the source by insurance companies).
>
> In any case, health care is just one component of life expectancy. Diet
> is a big part, and the French government doesn't let agribusiness, or
> the meat and dairy industries set public policy as happens in the U.S..
> The obesity epidemic is a result of the government actually promoting
> unhealthy diet and lifestyles, rather than just butting out entirely.
Puh-leeeeze... Nobody is forcing the Twinkies down anyone else's
throat. And nobody is tying crowds of people down to a couch,
and preventing them from exercising.
There are plenty of obese people in NZ, too. But I manage to
stay close to my medically-recommended weight. And I do so
through daily exercise, and a decent diet.
It's a thang called personal responsibility. I'm not some kind
of zombie being controlled by McDonald's adverts on the TeeVee.
> Higher infant mortality and child mortality rates reduces the U.S.
> average life expectancy even though these are only partially affected by
> the health care system, other social policies, diet, and environment.
Infant and child mortality rates can include things like
violence. A moron mother is a higher risk of neglecting or
beating her child to death.
And, of course, the folks dragging down the average life-span can
involve the 16-25 group involved in violence, like gang fights.
Plus the high level of automobile accidents. (I wonder if France
has less of those?)
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
scharf...@geemail.com says...
> dfr wrote:
>
> >> Higher infant mortality and child mortality rates reduces the U.S. average life expectancy
> >
> > out, largely due to demographics and the very much high levels of obesity in the US.
> If you read the NEJM report (March 2005) on obesity and life expectancy,
> the difference in average life expectancy if everyone were to achieve an
> optimal BMI, is only 0.75 years, but France currently has 2.6 years
> greater life expectancy. So there's still 1.85 years that need to be
> attributed to other factors. Infant mortality, which is high in the U.S.
> due to the lack of availability of pre-natal care to a large segment of
> the society, is one factor.
>
> The CDC states that health care accounts for 10% of the factors
> affecting life expectancy.
>
> Lifestyle is the greatest influence, but it isn't just diet. It's
> stress, smoking (yet France has far more smokers, both male and female,
> than the U.S.).
Poor health practices are kind of like lying or irresponsibility.
Do it in one area of life, and chances are, you will be doing it
is other areas.
The person with such contempt for their body that they smoke, is
also likely to eat junk food, and fail to exercise. It's a
package deal.
> Obesity in the U.S. is often government sponsored. Look at the USDA food
> guidelines, the school lunch program (cheese, cheese, more cheese, free
> cheese, milk, and more milk). Yeah, no one forces parents to have their
> kids eat the school lunches, but many parents mistakenly assume the the
> schools just must be providing healthy lunches, which isn't the case.
Yep, let's just blame the obesity on everyone except the person
shovelling down the food, while refusing to exercise. I wasn't
aware that American thiry-year-olds were getting school lunches,
causing them to continue ballooning up.
booker
> There are plenty of obese people in NZ, too. But I manage to stay close
> to my medically-recommended weight. And I do so through daily exercise,
> and a decent diet.
Sorry, fat is now the norm in the US. That makes -you- the freak.
Vic Smith
>Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:53:08 -0400, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>>> healthcare costs.
>
>> Unless some major efficiences were realized by the change,
>
>It would wipe out most of the overheads in the insurance industry.
>
>> there would be no difference. Government-run healthcare still must be paid
>> for -- from taxes. Workers would need higher wages to cover the taxes.
>> Just moves the expense to the employer from one pocket to another.
>
>Nope, wipes out most of the overheads in the insurance industry.
>
Not just overhead - profit.
How much of that is held in insurance company and other health care
related stocks as profit is anybody's guess - certainly hundreds of
billions.
That comes directly from your pocket.
Just looked at my wife's paycheck. She provides our insurance now.
We have Aetna HMO, and a dental plan. 2 people. No complaints.
Pretty representative of many families, but for a couple the insurance
is less. If a kid is being insured and it's a family plan the cost
are considerably higher. You've seen the numbers.
Weekly: $393 gross. $70 med/dental.
18% of her gross pay goes to health insurance.
Will she be taxed 18% for a gov health plan?
Nope. Taxes probably won't even change for her.
Let's look at when I was working and our weekly gross was higher.
Same insurance plan.
Weekly: $2400 gross. $70 med/dental
3% of our gross pay went to health insurance.
Would I have been taxed more than 3% for a gov health plan?
Yep.
Pretty simple personal economics.
Of course most people who lose their job and can't afford health
insurance premiums can suddenly lose their life savings and their home
should a serious medical condition arise, which is a big psychological
component of the issue.
That's why I have always supported a guv system, even when it would
have cost me more.
Here's another issue I haven't seen mentioned.
There are many jobs where wages are suppressed for the benefit
of health insurance availability. Workers put up with low wages
and restricted mobility because to move to something "better"
is difficult or impossible due to employer/employee insurance
cost ratios, which can be easily manipulated by employers.
Anyway, there are many complexities to the issue clouded by political
BS.
--Vic
Rod Speed
>>>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>>>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>>>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>>>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>>>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>>>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>>>> healthcare costs.
>>> Unless some major efficiences were realized by the change,
>> It would wipe out most of the overheads in the insurance industry.
>>> there would be no difference. Government-run healthcare still must
>>> be paid for -- from taxes. Workers would need higher wages to
>>> cover the taxes. Just moves the expense to the employer from one
>>> pocket to another.
>> Nope, wipes out most of the overheads in the insurance industry.
> Not just overhead - profit.
True.
> How much of that is held in insurance company and other health care
> related stocks as profit is anybody's guess - certainly hundreds of billions.
> That comes directly from your pocket.
True.
> Just looked at my wife's paycheck. She provides our insurance now.
> We have Aetna HMO, and a dental plan. 2 people. No complaints.
> Pretty representative of many families, but for a couple the insurance
> is less. If a kid is being insured and it's a family plan the cost
> are considerably higher. You've seen the numbers.
> Weekly: $393 gross. $70 med/dental.
> 18% of her gross pay goes to health insurance.
> Will she be taxed 18% for a gov health plan?
> Nope. Taxes probably won't even change for her.
> Let's look at when I was working and our weekly gross was higher.
> Same insurance plan.
> Weekly: $2400 gross. $70 med/dental
> 3% of our gross pay went to health insurance.
> Would I have been taxed more than 3% for a gov health plan?
> Yep.
> Pretty simple personal economics.
> Of course most people who lose their job and can't afford
> health insurance premiums can suddenly lose their life
> savings and their home should a serious medical condition
> arise, which is a big psychological component of the issue.
True.
> That's why I have always supported a guv system,
Yeah, I just used mine, for a heart stent. Didnt cost me a cent
except for the daily paper, even the TV was free in both hospitals.
> even when it would have cost me more.
I doubt it would have, because those insurance company overheads
and profits wouldnt have been included in what you pay.
> Here's another issue I haven't seen mentioned.
> There are many jobs where wages are suppressed for the benefit
> of health insurance availability. Workers put up with low wages
> and restricted mobility because to move to something "better"
> is difficult or impossible due to employer/employee insurance
> cost ratios, which can be easily manipulated by employers.
True.
> Anyway, there are many complexities to the issue clouded by political BS.
True. Its obvious why the insurance company interests dont want to see it.
Rod Speed
Nope, the french dont get the same levels of morbid obesity
even tho french males smoke more than US males do.
simple_...@yahoo.com
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/56439
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ra...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > > I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
> > > to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
>
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> > > I worked there and saw the break out of my salary
> > > and the taxes and fees they had to pay on it.
> > Nope, they just deduct that from the wages before the monkeys get their pay.
> Like I said, I saw the breakout. Yes, some was deducted from salary,
> but there was also a matching part from the employer. You can argue
> that that amounts to the same thing, but that's not how the accounting
> shows it.
The employer was NOT just giving away some money. "Their"
contribution came out of YOUR labour. Listing it as separate on
the accounting is just a way to look good in the eyes of
individuals whose numeric attention span fails to understand
this.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
<1184182558.9...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gzuc...@snail-mail.net says...
> On Jul 10, 11:04 am, Spob <pongespob_paresqua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So with all the gnashing of teeth regarding prohibitive costs of
> > health insurance and greedy companies that do their best to avoid
> > paying on claims, why hasn't there been an insurance company formed by
> > outraged liberals who would be willing to forego the huge salaries of
> > the typical corporate hierarchy and pour it all back into coverage
> > benefits and lowered premiums?
> We did. It's called Medicare. Look it up.
Are you sure? Can someone who is under 65, and NOT disabled, and
does NOT have children, and who isn't a child, participate in
either Medicare or Medicaid?
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ra...@vt.edu wrote
> > > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> ra...@vt.edu wrote
>
> > >>> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
> > >>> to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
>
> > >> No they dont.
>
> > > Yes, they do.
>
>
> > You wont be able to find a cite to substantiate your claim.
>
> Actually, I can. Here is a web link:
> http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html
>
> And the relevant quote from the above page:
> "Health care financing. To finance benefits under French national
> health insurance for the 80 percent of the population covered by
> the CNAMTS, employers pay 12.8 percent of the wage bill, and employees
> pay 6.9 percent of their full salary, bringing the total payroll tax
> for health insurance to 19.7 percent of all wages."
> > > Like I said, I saw the breakout.
> > You didnt understand what you saw.
> I understood it quite well. The person showing it to me also explained
> it in case I didn't understand it.
The above quote says "19.7 percent of all wages." Meaning, 19.7
percent of the money YOU worked to earn.
Really, an employer wouldn't pay "their" 12.8 percent
contribution, unless you worked for them. And did enough dollar
value of work to cover your wages, taxes, health service
deduction, AND "their" contribution.
Shawn Hirn
z <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:12 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <1184135811.020810.77...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > muzicia...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Jul 11, 12:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Actually, even people in the United States who CAN afford the best
> > > > treatment can end up waiting a while for medical care....I waited
> > > > four hours to see a doctor, then another hour until I was actually
> > > > treated.
> >
> > > I think you're going on a false premise if you're including yourself
> > > in the group who can afford the best treatment.
> >
> > > Think Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Clinton etc. would have to
> > > wait 4 hours for treatment or ever have to deal with some surly cow to
> > > go through the whole "who's your insurance carrier" paperwork drill?
> > > Or wait on a list like us peons for an organ if they needed a
> > > transplant?
> >
> > Probably not, but I am sure my medical plan would allow me to go to the
> > same hospital and see the same doctors they do for non-elective
> > specialized care, such as cardiac treatment.
>
> Well, you may be sure, but read the fine print. Regarding
> "participating providers". Then call up the doctor and the hospital to
> see if they are participating with your insurance company at this
> time. Then call the insurance company to doublecheck.
Nope. I subscribe to a PPO, not an HMO. I do not need a referral to see
a specialist; I can go to any specialist in or out of network based on
my own decision. If I go out of network, all I have to do is pay a $10
co-pay, and, I have put that to the test already. I received expensive
treatment at an out of network hospital several years ago based on a
recommendation from my out of network family doctor and all I paid for
was the co-pay and my telephone use, and I had a private room.
> Hey! Just like my dad in Canada! Got to see a cardiac surgeon in
> Toronto rated one of the best in the world! Didn't have to wait any,
> either! Flew him there from out west instead of making him go to some
> local hospital with delusions of competency! Except where did you get
> a plan with no deductible?
My employer, and by the way, I am not bashing the Canadian system.
Shawn Hirn
z <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
> In March I succumbed to my insurance company's nagging me to get an
> annual physical. The first available appointment was the end of May. A
> week later I got a rejection letter from the insurance company. They
> don't pay for annual physicals, only every two years. $250. This is a
> widely recognized "good" insurance company.
>
> A while back I had leg pain so bad I couldn't walk to my car at work
> without having to take a break halfway. Took 6 months to get an
> appointment with a specialist.
If I were in that situation, I would have gone to the ER if I knew the
only other option was waiting so long for treatment. I agree that that
anyone who says access to medical care in the United States is great is
living in a fantasy world.
mpa...@gmail.com
> On Jul 10, 11:04 am, Spob <pongespob_paresqua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So with all the gnashing of teeth regarding prohibitive costs of
> > health insurance and greedy companies that do their best to avoid
> > paying on claims, why hasn't there been an insurance company formed by
> > outraged liberals who would be willing to forego the huge salaries of
> > the typical corporate hierarchy and pour it all back into coverage
> > benefits and lowered premiums?
>
> We did. It's called Medicare. Look it up.
You are right. Medicare is an insurance that you prepay during your
working years. If you die before you start to use it, those
prepayments are lost and your heirs are not entitled to those payments
that you never got to use.
I also took a look at an average person who retires this year. I went
back through the years and fornd the average salary for each year in
the past, calculated the yearly medicare payment, and the earnings it
would have earned if it had been invested in the same modest
investments that the Galviston County retirement fund used.
The earnings, at retirement, would have purchase a far superior
private health insurance plan.
AND If you die, at any time, your heirs would have legal possession of
those earnings.
On another note: I have a relative who used to sell insurance. He
never purchased health insurance for himself or his family. Instead,
he put the "insurance payments" in his own investment portfolio.
Whenever he had medical costs, he paid with cash out of the
"insurance" portfolio. Now that he is retired, he has absolutely no
health cost worries.
gjensen
income kids without health Insurance, parents pay a premium based on
their income. it stated in the late 1990's and it is working well.
More Information here http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.com/singleparent/kids-health-insurance.html
Dennis
Cool. But then I've always taken a certain satisfaction from living
apart from the herd. The fringes of the various bell curves suit me
just fine.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
ra...@vt.edu
> In article <f73c4h$lhg$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, ra...@vt.edu says...
> > I understood it quite well. The person showing it to me also explained
> > it in case I didn't understand it.
> The above quote says "19.7 percent of all wages." Meaning, 19.7
> percent of the money YOU worked to earn.
> Really, an employer wouldn't pay "their" 12.8 percent
> contribution, unless you worked for them. And did enough dollar
> value of work to cover your wages, taxes, health service
> deduction, AND "their" contribution.
Like I said, you could make the argument that "their" contribution
is just another part of your wages, but at least it's a part you
don't pay income taxes on. Looked at from the company's point of
view wages and payroll taxes are all in the overhead that must be
covered by corporate income. It's still a cost to the company no
matter what you call it.
My original post was about the idea that government funded health
care would mean US companies would not have to pay for it, making
them more competitive, and I was trying to point out that it's
*still* a cost factor for the company either as taxes or wages
paid out.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Bob F
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fl06qF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> I just got instant service, at about 7:30pm, when I showed up with
> unstable angina.
>
> Got the same instant service previously when I
> showed up with what turned out to be gallstones.
>
> Both with a decent national health service free hospital, didnt cost
> me a cent.
>
> Didnt even have to pay for the TV either.
>
Gawdamm socialists. Socialized medicine never works. :-)\\
Bob
z
> > A while back I had leg pain so bad I couldn't walk to my car at work
> > without having to take a break halfway. Took 6 months to get an
> > appointment with a specialist.
>
> If I were in that situation, I would have gone to the ER if I knew the
> only other option was waiting so long for treatment. I agree that that
> anyone who says access to medical care in the United States is great is
> living in a fantasy world.
What would the ER have done? Told me there was nothing broken, and
advised me to see a specialist.
z
> The earnings, at retirement, would have purchase a far superior
> private health insurance plan.
What private health insurance plan(s) is/are this, which are sold to
over 65s as a substitute for Medicare rather than coordinating with it?
z
> Nope. I subscribe to a PPO, not an HMO. I do not need a referral to see
> a specialist; I can go to any specialist in or out of network based on
> my own decision. If I go out of network, all I have to do is pay a $10
> co-pay, and, I have put that to the test already. I received expensive
> treatment at an out of network hospital several years ago based on a
> recommendation from my out of network family doctor and all I paid for
> was the co-pay and my telephone use, and I had a private room.
Well, picking from the website of a Big Well Regarded Insurer, and
their Best PPO plan, I see:
In network copay, nonspecialist $20, specialist, $35; out of network,
50%.
In network deductible, $500; out of network, $1000
In network hospital admission, 20%; out of network, 50%.
etc.
Cost to me per month for this plan as an individual would be $675.
Assuming they would give it to me.
I'm not disputing your post, I'm just saying you got one of the good
deals insurers give to their biggest employer/clients who swing a lot
of weight and cash around. Maybe a large union is involved. Most
people's mileage will differ.
z
> > Why are people so stuck on the idea that they are getting the best
> > medical care in the world, with no supporting data whatsoever?
>
> That last is a lie.
Ah, the data is there but if you informed us as to where or what,
you'd have to kill us.
z
>
> > Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>> The real question is, if the French system is so awful,
> >>> why do people in France live longer, healthier lives, despite
> >>> the fact that they pay less per capita on health care?
> > Sorry, all that stuff gets factored out.
>
> Nope.
>
> > The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out
> > that it's not US bad habits that are to blame;
>
> Its wrong.
Well why the hell don't you write a letter in and point that out? or
maybe you did already and I missed it.
>
> > we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females and males,
> > 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption of animal
> > fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance.
>
> And close to the worst with morid obesity and diabetes rates etc etc etc.
Once again, according to mysterious data only known to yourself. We've
got more fatties than France but not many more than UK or Canada, and
our rates for associated things like fat consumption and cholesterol
are among the better. Our rate of diabetes is compatible with most
European countries, and far less than the world's highest.
>
> Or the factors are too complicated for them and you to grasp.
Well, give us a try anyway. Maybe we're not as brilliant as yourself,
but who knows.
z
> On Jul 11, 3:37 pm, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 11:01 am, mpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > You have illustrated a point I have been trying to make. The WHO
> > > study ranks France as #1 and the US as #37. These rankings are bogus
> > > because there are non healthcare criteria in the ranking. One of them
> > > is Percentage of government funding. The US percentage is 50%; France
> > > is Much, Much higher. As a result, the US ranks 57th on this one
> > > critereon. In truth, ALL of the funding is collected by the employer
> > > from the employee.-
>
> > what are you talking about? What rightwing lie-feed are you parroting
> > now?
>
> It is not from a right wing site. It is directly from the WHO study.
> Most people simply cite a news story that reprints the single page of
> the WHO press release. If you want the full data, you will have to
> read a couple hundred pages. HOWEVER it is very interesting to see
> the hidden bias. AND to see why the ranking number is not related to
> health care. Let me give you one quick example. If I have more
> time. I will write more examples tomorrow.
>
> In this one example I will illustrate France with a #1 ranking. One
> of the criteria is longevity, which is longer in France than the US.
> HOWEVER, if you actually read the report, rather than the press
> release, WHO states that the major factor separating industrialized
> counties is lifestyle, prinicipally smoking. WHO also states that the
> French Longevity figures are due to the low incidence of French women
> smokers. WHO also stated that if you factor out the French women,
> then the French longevity is not as great a the US.
>
> SO... Here is the example. Let's create two separate countries out of
> France. In one French country we include only the French women. In
> the other French country we only include the French men. Both groups
> of citizens have the exact same health care. HOWEVER, since the
> French women country have a longer longevity figure, the French women
> country will have a higher WHO ranking than the French men country.
> The French men country will, due to a lower longevity figure, will
> drop down.
>
> SOooo... Here are two subcountries with the exact healthcare, but
> different WHO healthcare rankings.
>
> More to come tomorrow... If I have time.
Where is all this?
not here
http://www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex_notes_en.pdf
or here
http://www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf
or here
http://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/index.html
or here
http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/WomenMonograph.pdf
or here
http://www.who.int/gender/documents/Gender_Tobacco_2.pdf
or here
http://search.who.int/search?ie=utf8&site=default_collection&client=WHO&proxystylesheet=WHO&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8&q=smoking+women+france&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fwhr
I give up, ok? can you tell us where you get all this now?
freeisbest
> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in messagenews:469500fa$0$27162$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> > Daniel T. wrote:
>
> >> The real question is, if the French system is so awful, why do people in France live longer, healthier lives, despite the fact
> >> that they pay less per capita on health care?
>
> > system because much less is siphoned off at the source by insurance companies).
>
> > In any case, health care is just one component of life expectancy. Diet is a big part, and the French government doesn't let
> > agribusiness, or the meat and dairy industries set public policy as happens in the U.S.. The obesity epidemic is a result of the
> > government actually promoting unhealthy diet and lifestyles, rather than just butting out entirely.
>
> Tell us about the nutritional value of pate de fois gras
I thought the film "Ratatouille" was cute too, and like you, I've
read quite a few travel articles that describe French restaurant
meals, from French down-home country cooking to haut cuisine.
However, if you had every visited France... never mind.
The actual subject here is the number of Americans either
untreated or treated cheaply and expediently; the number of Americans
with no access to health care (at least 45 million); our mediocre life
expectancy; and the fact that the distribution of medical care was
hijacked by corporations. All that the bad news.
The good news is that we currently spend more than enough money on
"health" right now. Forcing the hijackers out will direct those
multiple billions into the practice of medicine, free American
corporations from being the nation's de facto 'health care' payers,
and allow us to begin playing, catch-up so that the day may come when
we won't have to worry that the person standing next to us in the
elevator may have an untreated case of tuberculosis...
Rod Speed
Pity US companys dont compete with french companys much and that
the companys that US companys do compete with dont have to pay for
the health cover that their employees get from the govt, so they can
compete much better than the US companys can.
The french are a complete red herring.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Just look at where significant advances in medical care like
bypasses and stents etc etc etc often come from for starters.
Just as true with polio vaccination for example.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote
>>> Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> The real question is, if the French system is so awful,
>>>>> why do people in France live longer, healthier lives, despite
>>>>> the fact that they pay less per capita on health care?
>>>> Because Americans eat like crap.
>>> Sorry, all that stuff gets factored out.
>> Nope.
>>> The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out
>>> that it's not US bad habits that are to blame;
>> Its wrong.
> Well why the hell don't you write a letter in and point that out?
No need, plenty of others did just that.
> or maybe you did already and I missed it.
>>> we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females and males,
>>> 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption of
>>> animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance.
>> And close to the worst with morid obesity and diabetes rates etc etc etc.
> Once again, according to mysterious data only known to yourself.
Nope.
> We've got more fatties than France but not many more than UK or Canada,
Fattys aint the same thing as morbid obesity.
> and our rates for associated things like fat
> consumption and cholesterol are among the better.
Pity about the rate of mobid obesity.
> Our rate of diabetes is compatible with most European countries,
Meaningless waffle.
> and far less than the world's highest.
No conflict with what I said.
>>> Is the fact that they are not so completely unthinkable that they
>>> just can't wrap their brains around it? Or are they so petrified
>>> that they might turn socialist that they are willing to trade away
>>> years of their lives rather than even consider and discard the
>>> concept that perhaps other systems perform better?
>> Or the factors are too complicated for them and you to grasp.
> Well, give us a try anyway.
No thanks, you cant even manage to work out the difference between fattys and morbid obesity.
> Maybe we're not as brilliant as yourself,
Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?
> but who knows.
Its obvious to everyone when you cant even manage to work out the difference between fattys and
morbid obesity.
SMS
> And the relevant quote from the above page:
> "Health care financing. To finance benefits under French national
> health insurance for the 80 percent of the population covered by
> the CNAMTS, employers pay 12.8 percent of the wage bill, and employees
> pay 6.9 percent of their full salary, bringing the total payroll tax
Rod is wrong of course, but the breakout has changed now with the
employer paying 12.8% and the employee paying 7.5% "Contribution Sociale
Generalisée" most of which goes to health insurance.
"The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that onlookers will
have trouble telling which is the nut. "
ra...@vt.edu
> ra...@vt.edu wrote:
> > And the relevant quote from the above page:
> > "Health care financing. To finance benefits under French national
> > health insurance for the 80 percent of the population covered by
> > the CNAMTS, employers pay 12.8 percent of the wage bill, and employees
> > pay 6.9 percent of their full salary, bringing the total payroll tax
> > for health insurance to 19.7 percent of all wages."
> Rod is wrong of course, but the breakout has changed now with the
> employer paying 12.8% and the employee paying 7.5% "Contribution Sociale
> Generalisee" most of which goes to health insurance.
I haven't worked there since 1994, but I knew darn well there was
a separate employer contribution to the healthcare system. Yes, the
exact percentages will vary from country to country and time to time.
My point was to expose the fiction that employers don't have to pay
anything for healthcare in the places with government run systems.
It may be a better deal. It may be cheaper. Somebody still has to
pay, and that means a tax, usually on payrolls both employer and employee
parts.
> "The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that onlookers will
> have trouble telling which is the nut. "
Yep, I've quite responding to him.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Rod Speed
>>> And the relevant quote from the above page:
>>> "Health care financing. To finance benefits under French national
>>> health insurance for the 80 percent of the population covered by
>>> the CNAMTS, employers pay 12.8 percent of the wage bill, and
>>> employees pay 6.9 percent of their full salary, bringing the total
>>> payroll tax for health insurance to 19.7 percent of all wages."
>> Rod is wrong of course, but the breakout has changed now with the
>> employer paying 12.8% and the employee paying 7.5% "Contribution
>> Sociale Generalisee" most of which goes to health insurance.
> I haven't worked there since 1994, but I knew darn well there was
> a separate employer contribution to the healthcare system. Yes, the
> exact percentages will vary from country to country and time to time.
> My point was to expose the fiction that employers don't have to pay
> anything for healthcare in the places with government run systems.
It aint a 'fiction', there are plenty of countrys where that doesnt happen.
> It may be a better deal. It may be cheaper.
> Somebody still has to pay, and that means a tax,
Yes.
> usually on payrolls both employer and employee parts.
Not usually both.
>> "The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
>> onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut. "
> Yep, I've quite responding to him.
Closing your eyes to the facts doesnt change a damned thing.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> z <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
>>> Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Daniel T. <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>>> The only thing the US rated high on is responsiveness.
>>>>> As we are often told, people in the US don't have to wait in
>>>>> line as long...If they can afford the treatment in the first place.
>>>> Actually, even people in the United States who CAN afford the best
>>>> treatment can end up waiting a while for medical care. Three weeks
>>>> ago, I had to be rushed by ambulance to an emergency room at a
>>>> major urban hospital for a head injury I sustained when I was
>>>> mugged. I was bleeding profusely. The bandage I was given when I
>>>> got to the ER did not help at all. The wound was minor, but the
>>>> bleeding was worsened because I am on a daily aspirin regimen and
>>>> aspirin slows down blood clotting. I waited four hours to see a
>>>> doctor, then another hour until I was actually treated. Another
>>>> patient in line with me helped me to control my bleeding while we
>>>> both waited for treatment! A woman who was waiting for treatment
>>>> of a stomach pain told me she had been waiting there for eight hours!
>>> ERs have been known as hellholes for years. My last visit, I had to
>>> sit in the waiting room holding a bath towel to my bleeding head
>>> wound for two hours. The punchline is that I was the only one
>>> there. It was 6 pm so I assume the staff were having dinner, except
>>> for the receptionist. I don't say that sarcastically. They see
>>> people coming in with a knife sticking out of their eyeball, so
>>> what constitutes an emergency requiring them to drop everything
>>> immediately for the average patient might not impress them quite as
>>> much. The last time I took a friend to the ER with unexplained
>>> passing out, we had to wait five hours before getting called; then
>>> immediate admission and IV and "good think you came in when you
>>> did". We had literally been standing up with the intention of leaving
>>> to see if it would go away by itself overnight when they called us.
>> I just got instant service, at about 7:30pm, when I showed up with unstable angina.
> So that's why you were absent for a while.
Yep. They wouldnt even let me go home and collect anything from there,
I had to get one of the neighbours to collect some stuff from the house.
> I've been having a bastard of a time with my angina recently too.
> I'm putting the blame on the unusually cold winter, even my doctor's
> comfortable enough with that excuse, after all neither of us want to
> bother with any fancy ways of dealing with the problem.
In my case the anginine when I showed up at the hospital
made the problem go away instantly and then a blood test
at 3am showed that I had got some heart damage so they
wouldnt even let me get out of bed for a couple of days.
>> Got the same instant service previously when I
>> showed up with what turned out to be gallstones.
>> Both with a decent national health service free hospital, didnt cost me a cent.
> Neither does an ambulance in my state for their own residents.
> Interstate visitors had better be wary of the $700 bill that they'll
> incur though.
I actually drove myself to the hospital both times. Not the smartest thing
I ever did the second time, because I assumed it was just the gallstones again.
Tho one of the ambos in the free ambulance trip to the airport and back
from it for the air ambulance to sydney which was also free said that 3 of
the ambos had also driven themselves to the hospital in the same situation.
Mainly because thats quicker than waiting for an ambulance to show up.
I'd likely do it again if it ever happens again,
tho I'd get a neighbour to drive instead next time.
>> Didnt even have to pay for the TV either.
> Lucky you, the damned thing cost me a dollar a day
> back in xmas 1999 and they only had 5 channels.
It was free in the local hospital and in St Vincents in Sydney.
St Vincents is one hell of a hospital, the most recently built of the large
ones, up the hill at Kings Cross with 5 star hotel views across Sydney.
I got a stent, interesting operation, you can watch them
work out which artery is blocked and watch them do the
balloon and insert the stent, only a local anaesthetic.
I lied, I did have to pay for the paper. Its free in the private side.
>>> "According to a national study released Wednesday, South Dakotans
>>> have the quickest visits to the emergency room in the country: two
>>> hours, 38 minutes. Idaho and Iowa round out the top three
>>> Hospital officials say the reason South Dakota ranks so high, is
>>> because we're small.
>>> Dr. Harms says, "Midwestern cities and states have less population
>>> to deal with in the first place."
>>> Last year South Dakota ranked third with an average wait time that
>>> was ten minutes shorter: two hours 28 minutes.
>>> Nationally, patients can expect to spend an average of four hours in
>>> the emergency room, up 18-minutes from last year."
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19469119/
>>> "This problem and its consequences, which many hospitals face, were
>>> brought home to many when Edith Rodriguez died waiting to be treated
>>> on the floor of Los Angeles' Martin Luther King Jr. Harbor Hospital
>>> last month.
>>> The problem isn't confined to hospitals that serve mostly the
>>> uninsured. Wait times of several hours also occur at places like
>>> Hoag Hospital in Orange County, Calif., according to Carla
>>> Schneider, a registered nurse and director of the emergency care
>>> unit there. " http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3322309
>>>
>>>> If I want an appointment with an eye doctor or a neurologist, or
>>>> even my regular family doctor, I have to make the appointment weeks
>>>> or months in advance for routine care. If I have a bad cold, I
>>>> could wait hours before I get a return call from my doctor, and
>>>> that's typical of others I know. I have an employer-sponsored
>>>> medical plan that has been written up in U.S. News & World Reports
>>>> as one of the best in the United States, and yet I find that
>>>> access to many healthcare services is not nearly as easy as I
>>>> would prefer.
>>>
>>> In March I succumbed to my insurance company's nagging me to get an
>>> annual physical. The first available appointment was the end of
>>> May. A week later I got a rejection letter from the insurance
>>> company. They don't pay for annual physicals, only every two years.
>>> $250. This is a widely recognized "good" insurance company.
>>>
>>> A while back I had leg pain so bad I couldn't walk to my car at work
>>> without having to take a break halfway. Took 6 months to get an
>>> appointment with a specialist. This is in a state with top grade
>>> medical care, and me with a "good" plan (not the same as the one I
>>> have now, mentioned last paragraph). He sent me for an MRI, and then
>>> the insurance company refused to pay on the grounds that the doctor
>>> hadn't preauthorized it with them. The MRI folks, doctor, and
>>> insurance company all started pointing fingers as to who was to
>>> blame, while telling me I need to pay now. Luckily for me, I knew
>>> enough about participating providers to be able to quote the
>>> contract, stating that as long as I went to a participating
>>> provider, I would not be on the hook for payment for anything that
>>> he or she referred me to. That hadn't stopped everybody from trying
>>> to get me to pay for the MRI, of course. I just kept pointing out
>>> that contract to them until they all stopped bothering me. The
>>> punchline here was that the MRI place and the doctor were part of
>>> the same group practice, just down the hall from each other. The
>>> real punchline is that by the time all this got settled, my leg got
>>> better by itself. This illustrates the first rule of saving costs
>>> on medical care; if you can stall the patient long enough, most of
>>> them will get better by themselves and not cost you anything. A few
>>> will die, which is also cheap.
Helen Weed
> Bob F <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:srhi-2C7AF6.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>> In article <1184080727.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "thats@fact" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 10, 11:04 am, Spob <pongespob_paresqua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> So with all the gnashing of teeth regarding prohibitive costs of
>>>>> health insurance and greedy companies that do their best to avoid
>>>>> paying on claims, why hasn't there been an insurance company
>>>>> formed by
>>>>> outraged liberals who would be willing to forego the huge
>>>>> salaries of
>>>>> the typical corporate hierarchy and pour it all back into
>>>>> coverage
>>>>> benefits and lowered premiums?
>>>>
>>>> insurance industry after President Hillary is sworn in, which was
>>>> of
>>>> course what she tried to do over a dozen years ago as first lady.
>>>> At
>>>> that time corporate America and their GOP stooges in congress were
>>>> able to shut her down.
>>>>
>>>> Now, unfortunately for 'poor' Corporate America - the American
>>>> public
>>>> is demanding a real solution to the problem, so even if Hillary is
>>>> not
>>>> our next prez, whoever is will find it mighty difficult to try and
>>>> maintain the status quo on our current system.
>
>>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current and
>>> retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the obligation to
>>> provide healthcare for its employees and retirees would increase
>>> profits, make more money available for hiring new employees, and it
>>> would American make companies more competitive with foreign
>>> companies who do not have to pay their employees' healthcare costs.
>
>> But it would be socialism.
>
> Pity the US already has that, whatever you call it.
>
>
wrong again, Rod
Helen Weed
your comments are the red herring!
Helen Weed
>>> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>>>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>>>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>>>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>>>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>>>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>>>> healthcare costs.
>>> there and saw the break out of my salary and the taxes and fees
>>> they had to pay on it. There is definitely a health care cost
>>> being paid by the company. Of course, *all* companies have to
>>> pay it for everyone, and everyone gets the same coverage, but
>>> they are paying for it. I have to assume it works like that
>>> in most of the countries with universal health care.
>
>> Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.
>
>> You have illustrated a point I have been trying to make.
>
>
>> The WHO study ranks France as #1 and the US as #37. These rankings
>> are bogus because there are non healthcare criteria in the ranking.
>
>
>> One of them is Percentage of government funding.
>> The US percentage is 50%; France is Much, Much higher.
>
>
>> As a result, the US ranks 57th on this one critereon.
>
>
>> In truth, ALL of the funding is collected by the employer from the employee.
>
> that tax from the employee's wages, just like the US does with SS.
>
> Thats not the same thing as the employer paying for the health care costs.
> Even that doesnt happen in the US either, the employee pays some of those costs.
>
>
Boy! Talk about mangling facts and concepts! What are you smoking?
Helen Weed
>
>>> But corporate America is downing under healthcare costs for current
>>> and retired employees. Freeing corporate American from the
>>> obligation to provide healthcare for its employees and retirees
>>> would increase profits, make more money available for hiring new
>>> employees, and it would American make companies more competitive
>>> with foreign companies who do not have to pay their employees'
>>> healthcare costs.
>
>> I'm sorry, but I know for sure that companies in France have
>> to pay a big piece of their employees' health care costs.
>
>
> Its certainly not true of the foreign companys that US companys compete with.
>
>
Pity you aren't thinking clearly, dear!
Rod Speed
> wrong again, Rod
Nope.
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag, cheap!!!
Ward Abbott
wrote:
>Rod Speed wrote:
>Boy! Talk about mangling facts and concepts! What are you smoking?
Helen honey...is it really necessary to quote all this drivel just to
add your ONE line of uninteresting comment?
clams casino
Is it really necessary to respond to the "pig ignorant drivel in a
bag" from Rod?