universal healthcare
shims
shims
Dave
"shims" <shims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddac750f-c1ec-45b4...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
It would be run by the same bozos that mismanaged the iraq fiasco. If that
doesn't scare the shit out of you, you simply haven't been paying
ttention. -Dave
Rod Speed
> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
None.
Depending on how its done, there can be some downsides,
just like there can be with less than universal health care.
Rod Speed
> "shims" <shims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ddac750f-c1ec-45b4...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
> It would be run by the same bozos that mismanaged the iraq fiasco.
Wrong. It would actually be run by the same people that do Medicare fine.
> If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you simply haven't been paying ttention.
Or you could actually have enough of a clue to work out who did Medicare fine.
John Weiss
>
>> It would be run by the same bozos that mismanaged the iraq fiasco.
>
> Wrong. It would actually be run by the same people that do Medicare fine.
Medicare is NOT done "fine"! The drug program is an abortion. Doctors have
left the program or refuse to take new Medicare patients because the
reimbursement rates for many procedures don't even cover their costs.
>> If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you simply haven't been paying
>> ttention.
>
> Or you could actually have enough of a clue to work out who did Medicare fine.
He has more of a clue than you do.
John Weiss
>
>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
>
> None.
BS! Try talking to a few Canadians or Brits, who allegedly have it...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> It would be run by the same bozos that mismanaged the iraq fiasco.
>> Wrong. It would actually be run by the same people that do Medicare fine.
> Medicare is NOT done "fine"!
Wrong.
> The drug program is an abortion.
Irrelevant to that stupid line about Iraq.
> Doctors have left the program or refuse to take new Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates for many
> procedures don't even cover their costs.
And they wouldnt have that option with an universal health care system.
>>> If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you simply haven't been paying ttention.
>> Or you could actually have enough of a clue to work out who did Medicare fine.
> He has more of a clue than you do.
You in spades.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> None.
Dont need to. My country has it, it works fine, unlike you fools that
have a complete abortion that doesnt cover a vast chunk of consumers.
George
different things. I know someone who is on Medicare (mainly because they
were screwed out of half their pension and all employment health
benefits when their employer filed bankruptcy just before they retired)
who had trouble swallowing. His primary care doc referred him for an
endoscopic exam. It took three months before he received the exam. In
that time the tumor they found went from much more treatable to a lot
harder to treat and he his currently undergoing treatment. There is
nothing unique or unusual about the wait for many procedures because few
docs will accept the Medicare reimbursements.
Dave
>
> Dont need to. My country has it, it works fine, unlike you fools that
> have a complete abortion that doesnt cover a vast chunk of consumers.
Don't know where you live Rod but it obviously isn't in the U.S. Universal
healthcare WILL NOT work in the U.S. Most who live in the U.S. know that,
but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about so shut the fuck up
and stop trying to make it worse for those of us who DO live in the
.S. -Dave
John Weiss
>
> Don't know where you live Rod but it obviously isn't in the U.S. Universal
> healthcare WILL NOT work in the U.S. Most who live in the U.S. know that,
> but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about so shut the fuck up
> and stop trying to make it worse for those of us who DO live in the
> .S.
Rod's our persistent troll, an Aussie welfare hog...
Rod Speed
>>>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
>>> It would be run by the same bozos that mismanaged the iraq fiasco.
>> Wrong. It would actually be run by the same people that do Medicare fine.
>>> If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you simply haven't been paying ttention.
>> Or you could actually have enough of a clue to work out who did Medicare fine.
> Reading about stuff in another country and experiencing it are two different things.
Completely trivial to work out that Medicare is nothing like Iraq.
> I know someone who is on Medicare (mainly because they were screwed out of half their pension and all employment
> health benefits when their employer filed bankruptcy just before they retired) who had trouble swallowing. His primary
> care doc referred him for an endoscopic exam. It took three months before he received the exam.
There are plenty that get that result with the current system who dont qualify for Medicare.
> In that time the tumor they found went from much more treatable to a lot harder to treat
You dont know that if he didnt get that endoscopic exam at the start.
> and he his currently undergoing treatment. There is nothing unique or unusual about the wait for many procedures
> because few docs will accept the Medicare reimbursements.
True in spades when you dont qualify for Medicare.
And nothing like Iraq.
And I've just used a decent universal health care system, for a life threatening
problem, heart attack, and it worked very well indeed, only thing I had to pay
for was newspapers while in hospital, and I have to pay for them when not in
hospital anyway. The TV was free. I got a free air ambulance ride to the state
capital and got the stent in the most recent big hospital in that city, all for free.
And the meds are grossly subsidised, so the cost is quite acceptible too.
Rod Speed
>>> BS! Try talking to a few Canadians or Brits, who allegedly have it...
>> Dont need to. My country has it, it works fine, unlike you fools that
>> have a complete abortion that doesnt cover a vast chunk of consumers.
> Don't know where you live Rod
Australia.
> but it obviously isn't in the U.S. Universal healthcare WILL NOT work in the U.S.
Thats what fools claimed in every single modern first world country that didnt
have it and it works fine in every single one that had enough of a clue to have
it in spite of the lies spewed by the insurance industry prior to its introduction.
> Most who live in the U.S. know that, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about
> so shut the fuck up and stop trying to make it worse for those of us who DO live in the .S.
Go and fuck yourself.
William Souden
obviously doing today.
Rod Speed
> Dave <no...@nohow.not> wrote
So stupid that it cant manage to grasp that I have said repeatedly
that I have never ever accepted a cent of welfare in my entire life,
and I dont expect I will ever qualify for welfare either, because
ours is means tested and I am rolling in assets.
No surprise that it cant manage to work out the basics with universal health care either
and just buys the lies of the vested interests that dont want to see that in the US.
You clowns have never ever used a real universal health
care system, so what the fuck would you clowns know ?
timeOday
Everything has some downsides. But ask Canadians and Brits if they want
to give up universal health care!
My biggest concern is that there's little discussion about how to reduce
medical costs in the US instead of simply redistributing them. We need
to break the AMA and allow more people to become doctors, and curb
prescription drug advertising, and use some rational basis for when to
use expensive drugs and procedures for a small chance of success.
Marsha
> My biggest concern is that there's little discussion about how to reduce
> medical costs in the US instead of simply redistributing them. We need
> to break the AMA and allow more people to become doctors, and curb
> prescription drug advertising, and use some rational basis for when to
> use expensive drugs and procedures for a small chance of success.
I can't speak for other specialties, but open-heart surgery programs
have not even been close to meeting enrollment for residents for at
least a couple of years. Why? Malpractice suits and increasingly
reduced reimbursement from insurance companies, who would rather pay an
exorbitant amount for a more temporary measure like a stent. Medical
costs are due, in large part, to malpractice suits which are largely
without merit, as least in my experience. Doctors must order every test
under the sun in order to cover their ass, and even that doesn't stop
someone from filing a frivolous suit.
Marsha/Ohio
Rod Speed
>>>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
>>> None.
>> BS! Try talking to a few Canadians or Brits, who allegedly have it...
> Everything has some downsides. But ask Canadians and Brits if they
> want to give up universal health care!
>
> My biggest concern is that there's little discussion about how to
> reduce medical costs in the US instead of simply redistributing them.
Thats what any universal system does, eliminates a huge swag of the
paperwork system involved in deciding what premium to charge individuals,
checking on their claims and deciding who wont get insurance anymore etc.
> We need to break the AMA and allow more people to become doctors,
That arguably just increases the medical costs with all those extra doctors
providing unnecessary medical services to produce a decent income.
There's already a problem with hordes of fools wasting doctor's time with
stuff as basic as the common cold and the system having to pay for that.
> and curb prescription drug advertising,
No need to do that if the end user gets to pay a substantial copayment for the drugs.
> and use some rational basis for when to use expensive
> drugs and procedures for a small chance of success.
Hell of a lot easier said than done. The best way to get them only used
when they make sense is to have a substantial copayment so the
patients make sure that they are worth the cost out of their own pocket.
Thats one area where the US system does work reasonably well
with those who dont have all the drugs paid for by their insurance.
Rod Speed
> timeOday wrote:
>> My biggest concern is that there's little discussion about how to
>> reduce medical costs in the US instead of simply redistributing
>> them. We need to break the AMA and allow more people to become
>> doctors, and curb prescription drug advertising, and use some
>> rational basis for when to use expensive drugs and procedures for a
>> small chance of success.
>
> I can't speak for other specialties, but open-heart surgery programs
> have not even been close to meeting enrollment for residents for at
> least a couple of years. Why? Malpractice suits and increasingly
> reduced reimbursement from insurance companies, who would rather pay an exorbitant amount for a more temporary measure
> like a stent.
It isnt a temporary measure, its the treatment of choice when bypass isnt warranted.
> Medical costs are due, in large part, to malpractice suits which are largely without merit, as least in my experience.
Your experience is irrelevant. You still get very high costs for stuff like
bypasses even in countrys which dont have the insane US malpractice farce.
> Doctors must order every test under the sun in order to cover their ass, and even that doesn't stop someone from
> filing a frivolous suit.
And plenty of countrys arent stupid enough to allow that.
William Souden
William Souden
sales fool/race track bum.
William Souden
political parties in Canada,Europe or Australia calling for privatization?
Dave
> You clowns have never ever used a real universal health
> care system, so what the fuck would you clowns know ?
That's exactly the point though Rod. What you call "real" universal health
care will NEVER be a reality in the U.S. The U.S. Government is not
incompetent, they DELIBERATELY FUCK UP. Our government is run by traitors,
we have NOBODY representing the average U.S. citizen. Ask the average U.S.
citizen how Iraq should be handled. Then compare that with the way Iraq is
actually handled. Iraq is just one of millions of issues you could point to
and see that whatever THE PEOPLE want is in DIRECT CONFLICT with what our
government is actually doing. The U.S. people do not want universal health
care. THEY DO NOT WANT IT!!! But unfortunately, it will probably be
foisted upon us anyway, eventually. When that happens, the people it
affects (all of us) will have strong opinions about the way it should be
managed. And guess what? THAT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. It will be MIS-Managed
to the point where health care will be a thousand times worse than it is
now.
Or put simply, Universal Health Care will not work in the U.S. until the
U.S. has a GOVERNMENT that works in the U.S. That will happen sometime
after Hell freezes over. Us clowns only look like clowns as we are
represented by clowns. :( -Dave
Dave
"William Souden" <sou...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MAVJj.297$vF....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> If single payer plans are so bad why aren't any of the major political
> parties in Canada,Europe or Australia calling for privatization?
Because in countries with good governments that actually try to represent
the people, single payer might work OK. -Dave
Marsha
> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>>I can't speak for other specialties, but open-heart surgery programs
>>have not even been close to meeting enrollment for residents for at
>>least a couple of years. Why? Malpractice suits and increasingly
>>reduced reimbursement from insurance companies, who would rather pay an exorbitant amount for a more temporary measure
>>like a stent.
>
>
> It isnt a temporary measure, its the treatment of choice when bypass isnt warranted.
>
Well, that's a stupid statement. Of course stenting a vessel is the
choice of treatment when bypass isn't warraneted. But, when bypass
should be the treatment of choice, such as in triple, double and
sometimes single-vessel disease, cardiologists do not always give it as
an option. I have seen far too many patients come back for repeat
stenting of the same vessel, often with a heart attack, than would
happen with bypass surgery. They don't call it the Cash Lab, instead of
the Cath Lab, for nothing. BTW, what exactly is your experience in
working with open-heart surgery and stenting in the USA?
Marsha/Ohio
Gordon
06da32...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
The fact that it would be managed (mis-managed!!) by the
government. THat's all the down-side I need to hear.
Dennis
wrote:
>What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
Government-run health care: the efficiency of the Post Office, the
compassion of the IRS.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
William Souden
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:01:44 -0700 (PDT), shims <shims...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
>
> Government-run health care: the efficiency of the Post Office, the
> compassion of the IRS.
>
>
As opposed to compassion of the health care industry.
Speaking of the post office do you think Fedex could deliver a letter
for 41 cents?
Rod Speed
> If single payer plans are so bad why aren't any of the major
> political parties in Canada,Europe or Australia calling for privatization?
One of ours did for a while, then even they realised that the voters wouldnt buy it.
With our system you are welcome to pay the levy that funds the universal system
and go entirely with the insurance system or pay without bothering with insurance tho.
Rod Speed
>> You clowns have never ever used a real universal health
>> care system, so what the fuck would you clowns know ?
> That's exactly the point though Rod. What you call "real" universal health care will NEVER be a reality in the U.S.
Thats what every single one of the industry stooges claimed in every other
first world country when they were considering a universal health care system.
EVERY SINGLE ONE managed it fine.
> The U.S. Government is not incompetent, they DELIBERATELY FUCK UP.
Every other first world country ran exactly the same line. Its a lie.
> Our government is run by traitors, we have NOBODY representing the average U.S. citizen.
Every other first world country ran exactly the same line. Its a lie.
> Ask the average U.S. citizen how Iraq should be handled.
There was overwhelming support for the invasion of Iraq before it happened.
Hardly anyone realised that those fool Iraqis would
actually be as stupid as they have been, including me.
> Then compare that with the way Iraq is actually handled. Iraq is just one of millions of issues you could point to
> and see that whatever THE PEOPLE want is in DIRECT CONFLICT with what our government is actually doing.
> The U.S. people do not want universal health care. THEY DO NOT WANT IT!!!
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
THEY ALSO DONT WANT THE CURRENT SYSTEM WERE IF YOUR
EMPLOYER DOESNT PROVIDE ADEQUATE INSURANCE, YOU ARE
FUCKED AND CAN VERY EASILY BE BANKRUPTED BY A SERIOUS
MEDICAL PROBLEM. IN SPADES WITH A CHRONIC ONE LIKE DIABETES.
> But unfortunately, it will probably be foisted upon us anyway, eventually.
And when even the US has what ever other modern first world
country has had enough of a clue to have, you will find that it works
fine and cost a hell of a lot less than your current system does.
> When that happens, the people it affects (all of us) will have strong opinions about the way it should be managed.
Wrong again. Democracys dont work like that. Hardly anyone
understands the basics of what they havent personally experienced
or is even capable of considering the vested interests lies.
> And guess what? THAT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. It will be MIS-Managed to the point where health care will be a thousand
> times worse than it is now.
Thats what every single one of the industry stooges claimed in every other
first world country when they were considering a universal health care system.
EVERY SINGLE ONE managed it fine.
> Or put simply, Universal Health Care will not work in the U.S. until the U.S. has a GOVERNMENT that works in the U.S.
Thats what every single one of the industry stooges claimed in every other
first world country when they were considering a universal health care system.
EVERY SINGLE ONE managed it fine.
> That will happen sometime after Hell freezes over. Us clowns only look like clowns as we are represented by clowns.
> :(
Thats what every single one of the industry stooges claimed in every other
first world country when they were considering a universal health care system.
EVERY SINGLE ONE managed it fine.
Rod Speed
>>> I can't speak for other specialties, but open-heart surgery programs
>>> have not even been close to meeting enrollment for residents for at
>>> least a couple of years. Why? Malpractice suits and increasingly
>>> reduced reimbursement from insurance companies, who would rather
>>> pay an exorbitant amount for a more temporary measure like a stent.
>> It isnt a temporary measure, its the treatment of choice when bypass isnt warranted.
> Well, that's a stupid statement.
Nope, yours was. Stents arent used as a temporary measure anywhere.
> Of course stenting a vessel is the choice of treatment when bypass isn't warraneted.
Pity a stent is never a temporary measure.
> But, when bypass should be the treatment of choice, such as in triple, double and
> sometimes single-vessel disease, cardiologists do not always give it as an option.
No one ever uses stents as a temporary measure.
> I have seen far too many patients come back for repeat stenting of the same vessel, often with a heart attack, than
> would happen with bypass surgery.
Thats true in spades of bypasses, including my neighbour.
> They don't call it the Cash Lab, instead of the Cath Lab, for nothing.
Just the usual juvenile silly stuff.
> BTW, what exactly is your experience in working with open-heart surgery and stenting in the USA?
The stats are available to everyone capable of finding
them, you dont need any personal involvement.
Ron Peterson
> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
Universal health care may not be implemented correctly. (e.g. the goal
should be to keep people healthy).
--
Ron
Rod Speed
>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
> Universal health care may not be implemented correctly.
> (e.g. the goal should be to keep people healthy).
No possible when they choose to be obscenely obese and to smoke etc.
Rod Speed
> shims <shims...@gmail.com> wrote
>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
> None.
Thats overstating it.
One real downside is that you cant choose to not bother with any
form of insurance or payment into the health care system and
decide that you will live healthily and pay for any problems you
do have out of your own pocket and just pull the plug on your 'life'
if you end up with a serious medical condition like diabetes etc
and expect your car insurance etc to cover accidents etc.
> Depending on how its done, there can be some downsides,
> just like there can be with less than universal health care.
Marsha
>nothing worth quoting or replying to, as usual<
Marsha/Ohio
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:ft99d2$3qc$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Stormin Mormon
for drilling oil in Alaska. They enjoy hearing the citizens complain. Didn't
you read Orwell's book _1984_ ?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"William Souden" <sou...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MAVJj.297$vF....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Stormin Mormon
convenience, all rolled into one.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:piegv31vt2fm7tvcj...@4ax.com...
Napoleon
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The speed of the lines at the DMV. The effectiveness of FEMA. For your
>convenience, all rolled into one.
I'll take it. We have that now in the "private, for-profit" health
insurance industry, and we get the pleasure of paying outrageous costs
for it.
Universal healthcare may be ineffective (it isn't) and slow (it
isn't), but at least it's free (yeah and I don't want to hear about
taxes going up, blah, blah - it's about time OUR taxes go to US and
not to foreigners).
-N
Napoleon
>Because in countries with good governments that actually try to represent
>the people, single payer might work OK. -Dave
See, in Amerika, there are no "people," just "consumers." There are no
"citizens," just "shoppers." The only "people" deserving of universal
healthcare are Bush, his cronies and the entire US government. But
none for you and me - you socialist, pinko, welfare hogs!
Napoleon
<r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
>Universal health care may not be implemented correctly. (e.g. the goal
>should be to keep people healthy).
It would only be implemented as Universal HEALTH INSURANCE. Health
insurance has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you healthy.
Insurance companies are there to make money, not so you can get your
proper tests, drugs and procedures to keep you healthy and alive.
Once Americans get that concept through their heads, they will realize
that private health insurance is a thousand times worse than
socialized medicine. Health insurance companies are ripping you off
people! They are not in business to help get the proper health care.
-N
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Click here: Free Market Cure - A Short Course in Brain Surgery
<http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php>
What our health care and insurance system in the U.S. has done is
protect only those most able to afford _good_ insurance, and to a
lesser extent, those who are totally irresponsible, all at the expense
of the working stiff.
I am old enough to remember when my doctor apologized to me for having
to raise his office visit fee from $15 to $25. I'm old enough to
remember when greed hadn't permeated the system, and insurance was
actually affordable to just about everyone - without any governmental
interference.
The "cure" for the U.S. is probably not nationalized health care - the
wait for care as shown in the video is evidence of that. However, the
Canadian coming HERE for an operation was a bit of a chuckle to me,
especially when everyday citizens are now going out of the U.S. to
have their operations. As an example; my mechanic's assistant in
Florida went to _India_ to have both his knees replaced. He paid
$10,000 compared to a U.S. price of over $120,000. With the falling
dollar - caused by such unconstitutional corporate welfare as the
Federal bailout of the slime at Bear-Stearns - that operation is
probably now up to $25,000, but still way cheaper than the same
operation would be in the U.S., whether nationalized or not.
The laugh is that Canadian in that video could have probably cut his
costs in half by going to Thailand or somewhere other than the U.S.
for his operation! For the director to not mention that is
disingenuous and shows more bias than detachedly examining the
failures of both systems.
The cure for the US system, in my mind, is very simple, but painful.
For a year, BAN insurance companies entirely. EVERYONE pays the same
for care and medication OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET. Loans are OK, but
charity and all other sources of aid are outlawed. At the end of that
year, once the truly free market has done its magic, those revised
market prices are fixed and tagged to the cost of living. From that
point forward, the insurance companies are then _no longer allowed_ to
negotiate lower rates with doctors and hospitals and drug companies.
Why do this? Insurance used to work only on the idea that it paid the
full doctor fees for subscribers. Enough people joined, and the cost
of illness or injury was spread across the subscriber base, and the
invested premiums were used to provide some profit to the company if
it wasn't a mutual company. In mutual companies, the profits went
towards reducing premiums.
Cherry-picking customers wasn't allowed in many of these companies, as
they were set up as ethnic or industry-centric companies. Textile
workers would have a joint insurance by paying dues within a
particular plant. Those dues would be put in a general fund for the
use of those textile workers, as determined by a vote of the
membership. The Irish and other ethnic groups made similar insurance
pacts within their communities. These eventually grew into
professionally managed companies, and the risks were spread over
larger population bases.
The point is that ***the actions of those companies had no negative
impact on the people who were uninsured.*** Everyone was treated
equally, with the exception of the few charity cases that a doctor
might take.
Once the for-profit insurance companies strong-armed the doctors into
accepting lower payment rates than a person off-the-street for the
same procedure, huge hidden profits started rolling in to those
companies, allowing them to both reduce premiums (slightly) and drive
out competition, and allow their investors to enjoy greater dividends
off the backs of the ill.
Doctors then started increasing fees to other patients, including the
uninsured, to offset their reduced income, then realized they could
charge even more than reasonable fees in general, and finally greed
took the industry over and made it into the Medusa that it is today.
No political candidate has the strength to make the hard decisions
that would really correct the problem. Ron Paul would have tried, but
if Hillary couldn't buck the system at the height of Clinton's power,
chances are nil that he would have been able to make any effective
change even if elected. The industries are just too powerful by now.
I could continue to detail how the concept of insurance is a socialist
construct that is inherently anti-capitalist and has to be treated as
such, but that would take more time than I have available right now.
Ron Peterson
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Ron Peterson
> <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> >Universal health care may not be implemented correctly. (e.g. the goal
> >should be to keep people healthy).
> It would only be implemented as Universal HEALTH INSURANCE. Health
> insurance has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you healthy.
> Insurance companies are there to make money, not so you can get your
> proper tests, drugs and procedures to keep you healthy and alive.
But universal health insurance is just a way to make sure that the
doctors, clinics, and hospitals get paid.
Medicare, for instance, outside of the initial welcome to Medicare
checkup doesn't cover annual checkups which are essential to health
care.
> Once Americans get that concept through their heads, they will realize
> that private health insurance is a thousand times worse than
> socialized medicine. Health insurance companies are ripping you off
> people! They are not in business to help get the proper health care.
Universal health insurance isn't socialized medicine. Clinics and
hospitals need to be run more efficiently to cut medical costs and
improve outcomes. The CEO of the Mayo Clinic was on CSPAN claiming
that Minnesota has much lower costs for health care and better
outcomes because of the quality of his clinic.
--
Ron
Ron Peterson
There is a very high tax on tobacco that should be sufficient to pay
for medical costs engendered by smoking. (I know that government
organizations hijack that money for other purposes).
--
Ron
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote
>>> shims <shimshad...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
>>> Universal health care may not be implemented correctly.
>>> (e.g. the goal should be to keep people healthy).
>> No possible when they choose to be obscenely obese and to smoke etc.
> There is a very high tax on tobacco that should be
> sufficient to pay for medical costs engendered by smoking.
Yes, our govt goes that route.
Not feasible with obesity tho.
And smokers arent such a problem health care costs wise either
because there is a real sense in which those who get killed by the
smoking avoid the high costs of the decrepit for the medical system.
> (I know that government organizations hijack that money for other purposes).
Sure, but what matters is that the total revenue from the tax
does amount to more than the smokers cost in health care costs.
Rod Speed
> Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> wrote
>> Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote
>>> Universal health care may not be implemented correctly.
>>> (e.g. the goal should be to keep people healthy).
>> It would only be implemented as Universal HEALTH INSURANCE.
>> Health insurance has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you healthy.
>> Insurance companies are there to make money, not so you can get your
>> proper tests, drugs and procedures to keep you healthy and alive.
> But universal health insurance is just a way to make
> sure that the doctors, clinics, and hospitals get paid.
> Medicare, for instance, outside of the initial welcome to Medicare checkup
> doesn't cover annual checkups which are essential to health care.
No they arent, even for the elderly.
Its only really cancer that benefits from getting caught early and annual
checkups hardly ever catch cancer except with pap smeers for women.
>> Once Americans get that concept through their heads, they will
>> realize that private health insurance is a thousand times worse than
>> socialized medicine. Health insurance companies are ripping you off
>> people! They are not in business to help get the proper health care.
> Universal health insurance isn't socialized medicine.
Indeed, its just a different way of paying for health care costs, just a form of taxation.
> Clinics and hospitals need to be run more efficiently
> to cut medical costs and improve outcomes.
Thats arguable when the vast bulk of health care costs are for the elderly.
> The CEO of the Mayo Clinic was on CSPAN claiming
> that Minnesota has much lower costs for health care
> and better outcomes because of the quality of his clinic.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Stormin Mormon
regulated government run private pay. It's massively over regulated.
If you think more regs (total control over) the health care is going to
help, I must gently disagree with you. I think that more gov't control means
more dissatisfaction.
So, it's a false comparison. You can't compare free market to socialized --
cause we don't have true free market captialist health care.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Napoleon" <ana...@666yes.net> wrote in message
news:3ulhv3lpakgkn2827...@4ax.com...
Cheapo Groovo
492201...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, shims...@gmail.com
says...
> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
>
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/C9EA529E-202B-4FDC-8225-9D4E9851856B/
George Grapman
As opposed to insurance companies making the decision.
Rod Speed
> shims...@gmail.com wrote
>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
> Gov't decides who gets service
Nope, not with a decent universal health care system that just does the payment side.
> http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/C9EA529E-202B-4FDC-8225-9D4E9851856B/
clams_casino
Best part is that smokers subsidize SS. They almost never get back
what they pay in.
James
> Cheapo Groovo <c...@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > shimshad...@gmail.com wrote
> >> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
> > Gov't decides who gets service
>
> Nope, not with a decent universal health care system that just does the payment side.
>
>
can have what service. There are some services not covered like
cosmetic surgery, circumsicion etc. But if it is a medically necessary
service, and a doctor agrees to it, it gets done, and the government
billed.
This is a downside in a way. You will find our ERs crowded, often by
people without an emergency type of complaint. There is no penalty for
coming to emerg. Thats slows down emerg care for those who really need
it.
But we don't have insurance people making decisions on what is covered
and what is not, and what treatment is appropriate. And if you
disagree with your doctor, open the phone book and call another. The
government does not restrict you from consulting another doctor, going
to another hospital etc.
James
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Cheapo Groovo <c...@nospam.com> wrote
>>> shimshad...@gmail.com wrote
>>>> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
>>> Gov't decides who gets service
>> Nope, not with a decent universal health care
>> system that just does the payment side.
> True. This is one of the biggest myths. In Canada,
> doctors decide who can have what service.
No they dont.
> There are some services not covered like cosmetic surgery,
No universal health care system covers that, anywhere in the entire world.
Neither does the american insurance system either.
> circumsicion etc.
Quite a few modern first world country medical systems
refuse to do that unless its medically necessary now.
> But if it is a medically necessary service, and a doctor
> agrees to it, it gets done, and the government billed.
> This is a downside in a way. You will find our ERs crowded, often by
> people without an emergency type of complaint. There is no penalty for
> coming to emerg. Thats slows down emerg care for those who really need it.
Not necessarily. A properly organised ER sees those with trivial problems
like the common cold delt with after those with important medical problems.
> But we don't have insurance people making decisions on what
> is covered and what is not, and what treatment is appropriate.
Not all insurance systems work like that either.
Ron Peterson
> Ron Peterson wrote:
> >There is a very high tax on tobacco that should be sufficient to pay
> >for medical costs engendered by smoking. (I know that government
> >organizations hijack that money for other purposes).
> Best part is that smokers subsidize SS. They almost never get back
> what they pay in.
Who made that calculation? SS has a disability component which people
may draw on before normal retirement age.
--
Ron
Rod Speed
Yes, but smokers mostly end up dead well before they would otherwise.
OhioGuy
>insurance has absolutely nothing >to do with keeping you healthy.
I agree. Government mandated health insurance is nothing more than yet
another tool to assert government control over our daily lives. It's also
another level of red tape that I don't want any part of.
gggg...@gmail.com
> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?
gggg...@gmail.com
> What are some of the downsides of universal health care?