Sudden Confusion

Jim Thompson

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 9:54:26 PM3/25/12

to

brent

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 10:24:20 PM3/25/12

to

On Mar 25, 9:54 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 |

>
> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I think the answer is both. But in reality, the mandate for
individuals to purchase health care is designed to fail, leaving a
single payer system to clean up after the failed mandate.

Jim Thompson

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 11:34:51 PM3/25/12

to

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:24:20 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bule...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 9:54 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> Sudden Confusion...
>>
>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>
>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson

[snip]

>
>I think the answer is both. But in reality, the mandate for
>individuals to purchase health care is designed to fail, leaving a
>single payer system to clean up after the failed mandate.

Certainly any business will decide NOT to provide a health-care
benefit?

| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

alie...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:42:28 AM3/26/12

to

On Mar 25, 6:54 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> Sudden Confusion...
>
> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?

I'm guessing "person". Can't have uninsured unemployed...

> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(

Insurance companies will be forced by law to "normalize" their rates
into affordability for all, which I see as the first step to
nationalizing health insurance/health care (USSR/British/Canadian
models come to mind). Insurance companies will bump up all other rates
to make up for the shortfall, followed by nationalization of all forms
of insurance. Wait til that bubble bursts.

Mark L. Fergerson

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 7:45:27 AM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> Sudden Confusion...
>
> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(

Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
fascist?

Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
paying for the health care system.

If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
to everybody).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 7:44:38 AM3/26/12

to

I suspect the bubble of irrational anxieties now being blown up about
healthcare costs by right wing nitwits will burst long before anything
will change in the real world.

In Europe the insurance companies that cover health care costs don't
seem to have much to do with insurance companies covering other risks.
The US may choose to go a different way - which would be insane, but
that obviously wouldn't stop them, since no sane country would have
got itself stuck with a health care system that cost half as much
again per head as the closest competitors and didn't provide better
health care for those that it insured while the competition provides
universal health care.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Robert Macy

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 10:15:26 AM3/26/12

to

I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
money, but not give it out."

I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
insurance.

At least the veterinarian prices are still low, since pet insurance
hasn't taken hold too much yet.

Nico Coesel

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 10:37:11 AM3/26/12

to

Robert Macy <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 26, 4:45=A0am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 3:54=A0am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>>
>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> > Sudden Confusion...
>>
>> > Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>> > EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>
>> > Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>>
>> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
>> fascist?
>>
>> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
>> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
>> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
>> paying for the health care system.
>>
>> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
>> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
>> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
>> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
>> to everybody).
>>
>> --
>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
>I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
>private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
>money, but not give it out."

Exactly.

>I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
>out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
>insurance.

The lack of government control is the real reason. Over here the
prices that doctors may charge are fixed and so are the insurance
premiums. The government controls what healthcare should cost so it is
affordable for everyone.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 11:13:42 AM3/26/12

to

No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.

>> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
>> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
>> insurance.
>
> The lack of government control is the real reason. Over here the
> prices that doctors may charge are fixed and so are the insurance
> premiums. The government controls what healthcare should cost so it is
> affordable for everyone.
>

Yeah, like for the Canadians who then come to the US for treatment
because some of them might otherwise die on the long waiting list.
That's why many Canadians quietly maintain a "safety net" health
insurances south of the border, like this one:

http://www.mycare.ca/mayoclinic/

There's reasons for that ... Old saying up there: Access to a waiting
list is not access to good health care.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

George Herold

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 11:17:10 AM3/26/12

to

Agreed, we, as patients, need to have more 'skin in the game'.
(I'm not sure how to do that.)
And then of course there are drug costs....
Explain to me again why drug companies get to advertise on TV and
radio.

George H.

>
> At least the veterinarian prices are still low, since pet insurance

> hasn't taken hold too much yet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

amdx

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 11:36:25 AM3/26/12

to

I agree that "health care costs have skyrocketed

out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance"

However, I also know that all that extra money in the system has
given healthcare workers easy access to a myriad of technology
they wouldn't without it. This means that we as users of the system
have easy access.
I'm very happy with my Health Savings Account (HSA). I can
put a tax deductible $7,150 into it every year and use it for
medical expenses. (Obamacare has started reducing what HSA money can be
spent on) When I opened the HSA I raised my deductible from $2,500 to
$10,000 and that lowered my insurance premium 56%, from $9,900 to 4,300.
That $5,600 went into my HSA.
The most important part is the HSA is my money and I spend it very
carefully. You know what happens when people spend other peoples money!
Mikek

amdx

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 11:41:51 AM3/26/12

to

Yes, let government do it,
They have unlimited money to pay out.
Mikek

John Larkin

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 12:02:29 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

We use the Kaiser health plan, which is a genuine HMO, not insurance.
For a fixed fee, they do everything. The doctors are all salaried. If
I have a serious problem, I can generally get in there the same day.

Last time I saw my doctor, she checked and decided that I should have
tetanus and shingles shots. Got them right down the hall, no waiting.
She once wanted me to get a chest x-ray, sent me down to radiology,
and they did it immediately. She types in prescriptions on her
computer, and on my way out, the pharmacy has them ready in a bag.

Once I went in for a checkup and pointed out an itchy spot on my face.
She called in a dermatologist. He said it was a precancerous
keratitus, got a spray can of LN2, and zapped it on the spot.

Kaiser is Physician-owned. The Obamacare law made physician-owned
health plans illegal. That was a sellout to the insurance industry.

I bet Obama will make a mint after he retires, giving speeches at
insurance conventions.

--

John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

PeterD

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 12:09:31 PM3/26/12

to

On 3/26/2012 7:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> Sudden Confusion...
>>
>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>
>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> fascist?

Yes, and not out of touch. Obama is a fascist socialist.

>
> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen

It has done major economic damage to most European countries. Britain's
socialized medical system, (and remember Britain is a smaller country)
is one of the world's largest employers. Europe is feeling the pinch
now, and in a serious way.

> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> paying for the health care system.

Greece's problems were massive debt due to poor economic planning and
management. They spent money they didn't have, and never could have
raised. Just like in the US.

>
> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> to everybody).

People in the US "Want the very best, regardless of cost..." and that's
foolish.

But the answer to Jim's original post is 'yes'. The problem is that it
is not economically viable, that way too many were exempted from the
rule that they must pay (entire states, and peoples...) was/is totally
corrupt and unrealistic.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
I'm never going to grow up.

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 12:25:56 PM3/26/12

to

Same here, we have Kaiser. They are very efficient. But definitely not
their billing department. They made numerous errors, always in their
favor, and it took a great dose of persistence on my side to get charges
reversed. Only to have them pop up again, and me calling again. A
frustrating waste of time, and nearly every time your are transferred
you have to spell out all your ID. Again. Transparency is an issue
there, too. They have a "sample list" of charges for precedures and some
of ours weren't on there. So I asked whether I can have a complete list.
The answer was "No" ...

Another downside is that you must buy at the company store. No
out-of-company procedures allowed except in emergencies. They do,
however, electronically transfer a prescription to a local drug store
with the understanding that you'll then have to pay out of pocket. This
is nice because I don't want to drive an hour just to save $25, like
after a tick bite or a somewhat gone out of control poison oak rash.

> Once I went in for a checkup and pointed out an itchy spot on my face.
> She called in a dermatologist. He said it was a precancerous
> keratitus, got a spray can of LN2, and zapped it on the spot.
>
> Kaiser is Physician-owned. The Obamacare law made physician-owned
> health plans illegal. That was a sellout to the insurance industry.
>
> I bet Obama will make a mint after he retires, giving speeches at
> insurance conventions.
>

When I asked whether our plans will continue after Obamacare kicks in
the Kaiser representative said "No clue, nobody knows that". This is
just great. So here I have a well-oiled self-employment going and there
is a serious chance that the bureacrats throw a major wrench in there.

Why can't the elections be tomorrow? :-)

amdx

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 12:52:22 PM3/26/12

to

In my previous post I gave one way to put more 'skin in the game'

Health Savings accounts.

"The most important part is the HSA is my money and I spend it very
carefully. You know what happens when people spend other peoples money!"
Mikek

Charlie E.

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 2:41:10 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:25:56 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

We had Kaiser at one time, but were glad to drop it. The biggest
reason was going to the dermatologist. I have a lot of skin tags and
small moles that I would like to remove, but these were all considered
as not covered by Kaiser, and they charged big bucks to remove them. I
know basically have a major medical plan, and just pay for such things
out of pocket. I am saving over half of what Kaiser would have cost!

Charlie

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:09:06 PM3/26/12

to

Hmm, interesting. I assume it's a plan that only covers catastrophic
stuff. Got a link? Or some info I could find it with? If Obamacare
causes our existing plan to implode I'll need an alternative.

I have no problem paying out of pocket for regular medical care. Neither
would a high deductible be an issue. We have an HSA for all that.

Beauvine

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:18:38 PM3/26/12

to

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:7vivm7lfl4re344mi...@4ax.com:

> Sudden Confusion...
>
> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson

The mandate idea came from the Republicans, and was added to appease them,
since they kept hollering that Obama is a "socialist" (since he wanted a
public option). According to Mussolini (who, one would think, was an
expert on the matter), fascism is corporatism. The Republican-authored
mandate is not a public option and, in fact, directly benefits insurance
corporations, and therefore is corporatist in nature.

The evidence indicates that your usage of the term "fascist" is incorrect.

Jim Thompson

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:21:20 PM3/26/12

to

The evidence would indicate that your head is fat.

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:31:55 PM3/26/12

to

And, no surprise there, HSAs have in part already been dismantled by
Obamacare :-(

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:34:02 PM3/26/12

to

<drool>

Which health plan is that? We also went to max deductible but it's still
north of $7k for two.

> That $5,600 went into my HSA.
> The most important part is the HSA is my money and I spend it very
> carefully. You know what happens when people spend other peoples money!

They think it's "free" ...

Beauvine

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:34:32 PM3/26/12

to

Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in news:a30764db-af5d-468d-8739-
7eb45b...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

>
> I suspect the bubble of irrational anxieties now being blown up about
> healthcare costs by right wing nitwits will burst long before anything
> will change in the real world.

Either that, or they'll resort to "second-amendment solutions" against
their imagined bogeymen, end up shooting a lot of ordinary folks, and
fulfill their own fantsies by causing martial law to be declared.

> In Europe the insurance companies that cover health care costs don't
> seem to have much to do with insurance companies covering other risks.

The same seems to be true in Australia, from what I've heard. They have a
good basic public system, and people have to option of purchasing
additional coverage.

> The US may choose to go a different way - which would be insane, but
> that obviously wouldn't stop them, since no sane country would have
> got itself stuck with a health care system that cost half as much
> again per head as the closest competitors and didn't provide better
> health care for those that it insured while the competition provides
> universal health care.

Ah, but under the universal plans, the "executives" running the plans
cannot get themselves into an incestuous board=of-directors swap-meet-and-
circle jerk where they all vote for one another to receive multi-million-
dollar salaries plus multi-million-dollar perqs (including "golden
parachutes"). And after all, Bill, that is the essence of the current
massged "definition" of Capitalism: a handful of people being able to
manipulate the system so as to make a killing, ins this case, literally,
since those big bonuses are paid only for finding ways to ooze their way
*out* of the contract and thereby avoid paying money out.

After all, paying it out would mean that more went to the contractees
rather than to the contractors, and *that* would be <GASP!> *socialism*,
n'est-ce pas?

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>

Beauvine

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:48:28 PM3/26/12

to

Robert Macy <robert...@gmail.com> wrote in news:aeb5d607-5b1a-4e03-
8e09-fec...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

>
> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> money, but not give it out."

Exactly. By law, a corporation is *required* to earn profitrs for its
investors. But the law puts no cap on either the profits, cites no profit-
to-payout ratio, and is silent regarding executive salaries, and allows
CEOs to be part of one another's Boards of Directors - wherein they keep
voting for one another to receive larger salaries.

As long as human life is treated as nothing more than just another
leverageable commodity, like pork bellies or orange juice, then health-care
costs will continue to outstrip the ability of the majority of people to
pay those costs; additionally, that majority will only widen, not shirnk.

> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> insurance.

Exactly. You've probably seent he statistic that 30% of a physician's
overhead is directly due to the time and cost of dealing with insurance
companies. That's why many physicians will charge far less if a patient is
paying cash - especially since they need to overcharge the insurance
companies just to cover their actual costs, since the ICs only pay about
80% of the physician's actual costs.

I remember when physicians were paid in cash, or payment schedules were set
up, and insurance was only for whatwas called "Major Medical", i.e.,
hospitalization due to a car accident or severe illness or so on. Then
Nixon shoved the whole HMO thing down our throats - and so many people have
grown up with that system that now, there is sort of a "divine right of
insurance companies" (as opposed to kings) that seems to have taken hold.

> At least the veterinarian prices are still low, since pet insurance
> hasn't taken hold too much yet.

Give it a couple years. When there is a profit to be had, someone will
find a way to insinuate a scheme into the system.

Robert Baer

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 4:58:15 PM3/26/12

to

Jim Thompson wrote:
> Sudden Confusion...
>
> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Heven forbid; it is an UN-FUNDED *MANDATE* just like all of the wild
BS that comes from clueless politicians.

Beauvine

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 3:58:28 PM3/26/12

to

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in news:qbg1n752sdt2oq8sq...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:18:38 -0500, Beauvine <me@dowmuffin> wrote:
>

[snip]

>>
>>The evidence indicates that your usage of the term "fascist" is
>>incorrect.
>
> The evidence would indicate that your head is fat.
>
> ...Jim Thompson

What erudition, what eloquence, what logic!

Emphasis being on "what".

Back to lurking...

amdx

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 4:24:46 PM3/26/12

to

BCBS of Florida, family of 4, no pregnancy, no chronic health concerns.
I'm sure there are some other limitations, but before the HSA I went
shopping and EVERY agent said the same thing, "just get BCBS" I already
had that, that's when I went to the high deductible and the HSA.
Another great benefit is the insurance company plays interference and
sets the price for each procedure/charge. When I had an MRI, I did my
own shopping and did even better than the insurance company. When I
mentioned it to my doctor he said it was because we have a glut of MRI
machines in the area. (about $380) And I got it the same day I shopped.
Did my price checking in the morning and had the MRI at 8pm.
Mikek

>> That $5,600 went into my HSA.
>> The most important part is the HSA is my money and I spend it very
>> carefully.

>>You know what happens when people spend other peoples money!

> They think it's "free" ...

Bingo!!

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 5:22:58 PM3/26/12

to

BCBS meaning Blue Cross and Blue Shield? Then it won't work, they turned
us down after dragging their feet for weeks. I was non-plussed. Of
course they never gave any real reason. We are both healthy but part of
our health history was only available in another language and I guess
that threw them a curve. Maybe they haven't heard that there are
countries at the other ends of the oceans and sometimes people even live
there :-)

[...]

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 6:06:09 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 9:21 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:18:38 -0500, Beauvine <me@dowmuffin> wrote:

> >Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in

> >news:7vivm7lfl4re344mi...@4ax.com:
>
> >> Sudden Confusion...
>
> >> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> >> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
>
> >The mandate idea came from the Republicans, and was added to appease them,
> >since they kept hollering that Obama is a "socialist" (since he wanted a
> >public option). According to Mussolini (who, one would think, was an
> >expert on the matter), fascism is corporatism. The Republican-authored
> >mandate is not a public option and, in fact, directly benefits insurance
> >corporations, and therefore is corporatist in nature.
>
> >The evidence indicates that your usage of the term "fascist" is incorrect.
>
> The evidence would indicate that your head is fat.

Far from it.But Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is silly enough
to think he can make the claim. He doesn't realise that confirming
that you don't know what you are talking about is a tactical error.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

amdx

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 6:14:51 PM3/26/12

to

Bummer, I might try again for $2,000 a year. Before you know 5 years
will have passed and that would be $10,000.
Tell them about google translator ;-)
I might add, when I posted "no pregnancy" I meant no pregnancy benefit.
Mikek

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 6:23:56 PM3/26/12

to

Yeah, but in less than two years these plans might implode anyhow. It
seems that Obama's talk about "You can keep your health plan if you like
it" was a bad joke. At least from what I've heard from my HMO.

> Tell them about google translator ;-)

Even the car insurers didn't accept my life-long no-claims history
because it was from two foreign countries. So despite decades of driving
experience without accidents or even tickets I had to pay the full
teenage driver rates for about three years. That was painful.

> I might add, when I posted "no pregnancy" I meant no pregnancy benefit.

:-)

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 6:31:44 PM3/26/12

to

amdx wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 4:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> amdx wrote:

[...]

>>> BCBS of Florida, family of 4, no pregnancy, no chronic health
>>> concerns.
>>> I'm sure there are some other limitations, but before the HSA I went
>>> shopping and EVERY agent said the same thing, "just get BCBS" I already
>>> had that, that's when I went to the high deductible and the HSA.
>>
>>
>> BCBS meaning Blue Cross and Blue Shield? Then it won't work, they turned
>> us down after dragging their feet for weeks. I was non-plussed. Of
>> course they never gave any real reason. We are both healthy but part of
>> our health history was only available in another language and I guess
>> that threw them a curve. Maybe they haven't heard that there are
>> countries at the other ends of the oceans and sometimes people even live
>> there :-)
>>
>> [...]
>
> Bummer, I might try again for $2,000 a year. Before you know 5 years
> will have passed and that would be $10,000.
> Tell them about google translator ;-)
> I might add, when I posted "no pregnancy" I meant no pregnancy benefit.
> Mikek

All these plans are confusing. Which one do you have? I assume it's
something like these:

http://www.blueshieldcaplans.com/compare20080704_3.aspx?marketcode=00031765MC&dial=8003819990&sessionid=o4gikkipe1ga4v45dyz4se55&cpao=&cpca=&cpag=&kw=

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 6:02:10 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 6:09 pm, PeterD <pet...@hipson.net> wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 7:45 AM,BillSlomanwrote:

>
> > On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
> > Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> Sudden Confusion...
>
> >> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> >> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> > Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> > fascist?
>
> Yes, and not out of touch. Obama is a fascist socialist.

Make up your mind - he can't be both, and in fact he's neither.

> > Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> > country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
>
> It has done major economic damage to most European countries.

You really are a deluded twit.

> Britain's
> socialized medical system, (and remember Britain is a smaller country)
> is one of the world's largest employers.

So what? the UK spends about 9% of its GDP on health care, and you
spend 15%. If the spending were doing major economic damage in the UK
(it isn't) you'd be an utter basket case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

> Europe is feeling the pinch now, and in a serious way.

Rubbish.

> > as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> > paying for the health care system.
>
> Greece's problems were massive debt due to poor economic planning and
> management. They spent money they didn't have, and never could have
> raised. Just like in the US.
>
> > If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> > to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> > spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> > French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> > to everybody).
>
> People in the US "Want the very best, regardless of cost..." and that's
> foolish.

It doesn't look so foolish when you are making a choice between your
money or your life. Being dea with loads of money is never a
satisfactory outcome.

> But the answer to Jim's original post is 'yes'. The problem is that it
> is not economically viable, that way too many were exempted from the
> rule that they must pay (entire states, and peoples...) was/is totally
> corrupt and unrealistic.

So you are even further out of touch with reality than Jim? It seems
scarcely possible, but your comments about the UK National Health
Service - which does remarkably well and is remarkably cheap for the
performance it delivers - do mark you out as singularly ill-informed.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

miso

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 6:43:01 PM3/26/12

to

On 3/26/2012 4:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> Sudden Confusion...
>>
>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>
>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> fascist?

> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Seriously, calling Obama a fascist is one of the most moronic things
Thompson has ever written, and he has written some mighty stupid stuff
over the years.

Jamie

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 7:57:09 PM3/26/12

to

The fooled, always learn the hard way.

Jamie

Charlie E.

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 8:05:06 PM3/26/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:09:06 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Charlie E. wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:25:56 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>

<snip>

>> We had Kaiser at one time, but were glad to drop it. The biggest
>> reason was going to the dermatologist. I have a lot of skin tags and
>> small moles that I would like to remove, but these were all considered
>> as not covered by Kaiser, and they charged big bucks to remove them. I
>> know basically have a major medical plan, and just pay for such things
>> out of pocket. I am saving over half of what Kaiser would have cost!
>>
>
>Hmm, interesting. I assume it's a plan that only covers catastrophic
>stuff. Got a link? Or some info I could find it with? If Obamacare
>causes our existing plan to implode I'll need an alternative.
>
>I have no problem paying out of pocket for regular medical care. Neither
>would a high deductible be an issue. We have an HSA for all that.

I just presently have Aetna, but it doesn't include an HSA. That ADDS
costs to the policy!

Charlie

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 8:26:15 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 7:15 am, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 4:45 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>
> > Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > > Sudden Confusion...
>
> > > Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> > > EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> > > Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> > Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> > fascist?
>

> > Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> > country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen

> > as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> > paying for the health care system.
>

> > If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> > to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> > spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> > French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> > to everybody).
>

> > --
> > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> money, but not give it out."
>
> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> insurance.

For-profit companies have steadily been buying up the non-profit Blue
Crosses and Blue Shields formed decades ago. Obviously these companies
saw money to be made in providing (or not) health care.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 8:27:03 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 7:37 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Mar 26, 4:45=A0am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> On Mar 26, 3:54=A0am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>
> >> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> > Sudden Confusion...
>
> >> > Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >> > EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> >> > Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> >> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> >> fascist?
>
> >> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> >> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
> >> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> >> paying for the health care system.
>
> >> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> >> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> >> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> >> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> >> to everybody).
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> >I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> >private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> >money, but not give it out."
>

> Exactly.

>
> >I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> >out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> >insurance.
>

> The lack of government control is the real reason. Over here the
> prices that doctors may charge are fixed and so are the insurance
> premiums. The government controls what healthcare should cost so it is
> affordable for everyone.

In many countries, doctors are either paid less, work longer hours, or
both.

Joerg

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 8:34:21 PM3/26/12

to

That is strange. Normally the HSA has nothing to do with the plan per
se, it's only that the plan must be such that is qualifies you to run an
HSA alongside it. For example, we have Kaiser but our HSA plan is
administered by a credit union that has nothing to do with Kaiser.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 9:12:10 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 9:02 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[about his good experience with Kaiser]

>
> Kaiser is Physician-owned. The Obamacare law made physician-owned
> health plans illegal. That was a sellout to the insurance industry.

There are four errors in the preceding paragraph. The Aff'd'ble care
act made future physician-owned hospitals (1), not health care plans,
ineligible for Medicare reimbursement(2), not illegal. This was a
sellout to the for-profit hospital inndustry, not the insurance
industry. (3) Kaiser hospitals are owned by the non-profit Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, not by physicians.(4) Physicians own the
complementary Permanente Medical Group, which the Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan contracts with.

>
> I bet Obama will make a mint after he retires, giving speeches at
> insurance conventions.

The idea that Obama will be lionized by the health insurance industry
certainly conflicts with the idea that universal health care will
bankrupt the health insurance industry, leaving single-payer to pick
up the pieces.

amdx

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 9:21:14 PM3/26/12

to

I started to write the same thing, and then I went to check on the
minimum deductible you must have to qualify for an HSA. (family $2,400)
I found that here;
http://www.buckconsultants.com/portals/0/publications/FYI/2011/FYI-05-20-11-2012-HSA-HDHP-Limits-Released.pdf
But there are some other qualifiers like,
HDHP Maximum Out-Of-Pocket Amount
So that is something the insurance company must do, and that may add
to costs.
Mikek

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 9:26:50 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 9:09 am, PeterD <pet...@hipson.net> wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 7:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

> > Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> Sudden Confusion...
>
> >> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> >> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> > Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> > fascist?
>

> Yes, and not out of touch. Obama is a fascist socialist.
>
>
>

> > Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> > country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
>

> It has done major economic damage to most European countries. Britain's

> socialized medical system, (and remember Britain is a smaller country)

> is one of the world's largest employers. Europe is feeling the pinch

> now, and in a serious way.

The Brits pay half what we do, per capita, for health care. If Brits
paid half what we do for rent, for energy, for food, etc., we would
consider that to be a point in its favor.

Of fifteen comparable developed countries, we pay 50% more per capita
than the next most expensive country, Switzerland -- the land of
pharmaceuticals by the way.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm

>
> > as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> > paying for the health care system.
>

> Greece's problems were massive debt due to poor economic planning and
> management. They spent money they didn't have, and never could have
> raised. Just like in the US.

Greece's government spending accounts for 50% of GDP, right in the
middle of all European countries. (Averaged from 2001-2007, Sweden
spent the most at 55% of GDP, with Ireland -- yes Ireland -- the
lowest at 34%.) The problem was taxing too little (39.4% of GDP) --
just like in the US as you point out.

>
> > If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> > to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> > spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> > French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> > to everybody).
>

> People in the US "Want the very best, regardless of cost..." and that's
> foolish.

"The very best" is seldom necessary.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 8:51:20 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 8:13 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Nico Coesel wrote:
> > Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >> On Mar 26, 4:45=A0am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 26, 3:54=A0am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>
> >>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >>>> Sudden Confusion...
> >>>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >>>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
> >>>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
> >>> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> >>> fascist?
>

> >>> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> >>> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen

> >>> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> >>> paying for the health care system.
>

> >>> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> >>> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> >>> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> >>> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> >>> to everybody).
>

> >>> --
> >>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> >> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> >> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> >> money, but not give it out."
>
> > Exactly.
>

> No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
> be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
> live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
> premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
> slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.

The total cost of eliminating all settlements for those maimed by our
health care system, as well as "defensive" medicine practiced to
eliminate claims, has been reliably estimated at 2% of what American
spend on health care. While I am sure that there is waste in this
amount, a 2% savings is negligible in a system that costs 125% to 200%
of what other country's citizens must pay.

>
> >> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> >> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> >> insurance.
>
> > The lack of government control is the real reason. Over here the
> > prices that doctors may charge are fixed and so are the insurance
> > premiums. The government controls what healthcare should cost so it is
> > affordable for everyone.
>

> Yeah, like for the Canadians who then come to the US for treatment
> because some of them might otherwise die on the long waiting list.
> That's why many Canadians quietly maintain a "safety net" health
> insurances south of the border, like this one:
>
> http://www.mycare.ca/mayoclinic/
>
> There's reasons for that ... Old saying up there: Access to a waiting
> list is not access to good health care.

Those old people should be dead by now, right? Victims of inadequate
health care. Yet there are proportionately more old Canadians than
Americans.

But you can legitimately wonder why Canadians would want to go to the
Mayo Clinic. Why did the President of Yemen come to New York for
medical treatment last month? Because he was on a waiting list in
Yemen? Why did the Shah of Iran come to the US back in the 70s, or the
Saudi Crown Prince last week? Because some US hospitals and physicians
are among the best in the world. The Mayo Clinic, in particular, is
world-renowned. But what does having the Mayo Clinic say about the US
health care system?

Ask yourself, when an American gets sick, does he start packing his
bags for Rochester, Minn? Nuh-uh. Only if he is pretty goddam sick,
and his local doctors are stumped. Even if your disease is not serious
enough for the Mayo Clinic, your local hospital is likely to prove
inadequate to successfully perform a bone-marrow transplant or a heart
transplant. You would go to a place that performs them in high
volumes, to maximize the probability of success. It may be in a nearby
big city, or in a different state, or even halfway across the country.

Now, consider Canada. Canada has something like one-tenth the
population of the US, stretched along a narrow band within 100 miles
of the US border. Their hospitals are simply not going to have as much
experience with unusual cases. Nor do they have the volume of folks
who need unusual treatments that we do here. Thus it makes sense for
them to send their unusual cases across the border, because it will
never make sense for them -- even under a fee for service system -- to
perform the difficult procedures or hire the subtle diagnosticians,
because such skills will never be sufficiently utilized to stay sharp.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 9:33:22 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:25:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>

> >>>>> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> >>>>> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> >>>>> insurance.
> >>>> The lack of government control is the real reason. Over here the
> >>>> prices that doctors may charge are fixed and so are the insurance
> >>>> premiums. The government controls what healthcare should cost so it is
> >>>> affordable for everyone.
>
> >>> Yeah, like for the Canadians who then come to the US for treatment
> >>> because some of them might otherwise die on the long waiting list.
> >>> That's why many Canadians quietly maintain a "safety net" health
> >>> insurances south of the border, like this one:
>
> >>>http://www.mycare.ca/mayoclinic/
>
> >>> There's reasons for that ... Old saying up there: Access to a waiting
> >>> list is not access to good health care.
>

> >> We use the Kaiser health plan, which is a genuine HMO, not insurance.
> >> For a fixed fee, they do everything. The doctors are all salaried. If
> >> I have a serious problem, I can generally get in there the same day.
>
> >> Last time I saw my doctor, she checked and decided that I should have
> >> tetanus and shingles shots. Got them right down the hall, no waiting.
> >> She once wanted me to get a chest x-ray, sent me down to radiology,
> >> and they did it immediately. She types in prescriptions on her
> >> computer, and on my way out, the pharmacy has them ready in a bag.
>
> >Same here, we have Kaiser. They are very efficient. But definitely not
> >their billing department. They made numerous errors, always in their
> >favor, and it took a great dose of persistence on my side to get charges
> >reversed. Only to have them pop up again, and me calling again. A
> >frustrating waste of time, and nearly every time your are transferred
> >you have to spell out all your ID. Again. Transparency is an issue
> >there, too. They have a "sample list" of charges for precedures and some
> >of ours weren't on there. So I asked whether I can have a complete list.
> >The answer was "No" ...
>
> >Another downside is that you must buy at the company store. No
> >out-of-company procedures allowed except in emergencies. They do,
> >however, electronically transfer a prescription to a local drug store
> >with the understanding that you'll then have to pay out of pocket. This
> >is nice because I don't want to drive an hour just to save $25, like
> >after a tick bite or a somewhat gone out of control poison oak rash.
>
> >> Once I went in for a checkup and pointed out an itchy spot on my face.
> >> She called in a dermatologist. He said it was a precancerous
> >> keratitus, got a spray can of LN2, and zapped it on the spot.

>
> >> Kaiser is Physician-owned. The Obamacare law made physician-owned
> >> health plans illegal. That was a sellout to the insurance industry.
>

> >> I bet Obama will make a mint after he retires, giving speeches at
> >> insurance conventions.
>

> >When I asked whether our plans will continue after Obamacare kicks in
> >the Kaiser representative said "No clue, nobody knows that". This is
> >just great. So here I have a well-oiled self-employment going and there
> >is a serious chance that the bureacrats throw a major wrench in there.
>
> >Why can't the elections be tomorrow? :-)

>
> We had Kaiser at one time, but were glad to drop it. The biggest
> reason was going to the dermatologist. I have a lot of skin tags and
> small moles that I would like to remove, but these were all considered
> as not covered by Kaiser, and they charged big bucks to remove them. I
> know basically have a major medical plan, and just pay for such things
> out of pocket. I am saving over half of what Kaiser would have cost!

Is this considered cosmetic surgery?

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 8:24:19 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 12:42 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 6:54 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > Sudden Confusion...
>
> > Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> > EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>

> I'm guessing "person". Can't have uninsured unemployed...

>
> > Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>

> Insurance companies will be forced by law to "normalize" their rates
> into affordability for all, which I see as the first step to
> nationalizing health insurance/health care (USSR/British/Canadian
> models come to mind). Insurance companies will bump up all other rates
> to make up for the shortfall, followed by nationalization of all forms
> of insurance. Wait til that bubble bursts.

Monolingual Americans assume only nationalized models exist. But, the
Dutch and Israelis manage to have universal health insurance with a
multiplicity of providers. Germany has a two-tier system depending on
one's income -- high income folks are free to buy insurance on the
private market.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 9:32:30 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 9:52 am, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 10:17 AM, George Herold wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 26, 10:15 am, Robert Macy<robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 26, 4:45 am, Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>
> >>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >>>> Sudden Confusion...
>
> >>>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >>>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>

> >>>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>

> >>> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> >>> fascist?
>
> >>> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> >>> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
> >>> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> >>> paying for the health care system.
>
> >>> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> >>> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> >>> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> >>> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> >>> to everybody).
>
> >>> --
> >>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> >> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> >> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> >> money, but not give it out."
>

> >> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> >> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> >> insurance.

> > Agreed, we, as patients, need to have more 'skin in the game'.
> > (I'm not sure how to do that.)
>
> In my previous post I gave one way to put more 'skin in the game'
>
> Health Savings accounts.
>

> "The most important part is the HSA is my money and I spend it very
> carefully. You know what happens when people spend other peoples money!"

When I looked into HSAs, whatever I didn't spend became somebody
else's money. Has this changed?

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 9:31:34 PM3/26/12

to

On Mar 26, 9:25 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Nico Coesel wrote:

> >>> Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mar 26, 4:45=A0am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 26, 3:54=A0am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>
> >>>>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sudden Confusion...
> >>>>>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >>>>>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
> >>>>>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
> >>>>> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> >>>>> fascist?
>
> >>>>> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> >>>>> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
> >>>>> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> >>>>> paying for the health care system.
>
> >>>>> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> >>>>> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> >>>>> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> >>>>> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> >>>>> to everybody).
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> >>>> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> >>>> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> >>>> money, but not give it out."

> >>> Exactly.
>
> >> No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
> >> be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
> >> live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
> >> premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
> >> slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.
>

> >>>> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> >>>> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> >>>> insurance.

What are you talking about billing? Other than copays, which are
collected up front.

>
> Another downside is that you must buy at the company store. No
> out-of-company procedures allowed except in emergencies. They do,
> however, electronically transfer a prescription to a local drug store
> with the understanding that you'll then have to pay out of pocket. This
> is nice because I don't want to drive an hour just to save $25, like
> after a tick bite or a somewhat gone out of control poison oak rash.

Kaiser can control its own costs. It cannot control other entities'
costs. Safeway is far closer to me than Costco(where I am also a
member), but I cannot demand that Costco reimburse me for my Safeway
purchases.

Gib Bogle

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 5:11:15 AM3/27/12

to

On 26/03/2012 2:54 p.m., Jim Thompson wrote:
> Sudden Confusion...
>
> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>

> ...Jim Thompson

Seek help.

Gib Bogle

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 5:18:45 AM3/27/12

to

On 27/03/2012 5:09 a.m., PeterD wrote:

> On 3/26/2012 7:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>> Sudden Confusion...
>>>
>>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>>
>>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>>

>> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
>> fascist?
>

> Yes, and not out of touch. Obama is a fascist socialist.

And a Muslim Nazi.

What's really funny about this is that Obama adopted a Republican plan -
one originally implemented by that other fascist socialist, Romney.
What do you nitwits think about that, eh? And what do you think about
the upcoming election being a contest between two fascist socialists?
Too funny.

Gib Bogle

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 5:19:46 AM3/27/12

to

On 27/03/2012 8:18 a.m., Beauvine wrote:
> Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in

> news:7vivm7lfl4re344mi...@4ax.com:

>
>> Sudden Confusion...
>>
>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>
>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>>

>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> The mandate idea came from the Republicans, and was added to appease them,
> since they kept hollering that Obama is a "socialist" (since he wanted a
> public option). According to Mussolini (who, one would think, was an
> expert on the matter), fascism is corporatism. The Republican-authored
> mandate is not a public option and, in fact, directly benefits insurance
> corporations, and therefore is corporatist in nature.
>
> The evidence indicates that your usage of the term "fascist" is incorrect.

Incorrect? It's duckwitted.

Charlie E.

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 9:50:36 AM3/27/12

to

Basically, yes!

amdx

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 10:02:13 AM3/27/12

to

Hi Joerg,
I started trying figure out what plan I had, and after a few clicks on
different plans I got very concerned that I may not have a compatible plan.
So I called BCBS and after get a new password with a bit of hassle, I
found I do have a compatible plan. Whew! could have been 3 years of IRS
problems.
So I ask the agent what plan number I have and she could not tell me.
They have dozens of plan numbers, but apparently mine doesn't have a number.
The best she could give is it is in the BlueOptions category.
The details are:

IN Network Out of Network
Deductible $10,000 $20,000
Coinsurance 0% 40%
Out Of Pocket $10,000 $25,000

Sorry I can't give you a better lead. The plans could be different in
California, and I'd bet they are.
Mikek

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 10:12:05 AM3/27/12

to

On Mar 27, 1:57 am, Jamie

We hope you won't elect the Tea Party, but if you did they would be a
bunch of you here that would get a painful and expensive education.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Joerg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 11:07:58 AM3/27/12

to

That's also on the IRS web site.

> But there are some other qualifiers like,
> HDHP Maximum Out-Of-Pocket Amount
> So that is something the insurance company must do, and that may add to
> costs.

They only have to make sure the co-pays and deductibles fall within the
IRS limits. That's not so hard to do when writing a plan. Why should it
add cost?

Joerg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 11:16:48 AM3/27/12

to

Always make sure it says "HSA-eligible" or something on the plan
documents. You've got to be able to stand your ground if that ever comes
into question, and then you have it in writing. If on the web print it
out, or at least store a screen print with the date on there.

> So I ask the agent what plan number I have and she could not tell me.
> They have dozens of plan numbers, but apparently mine doesn't have a
> number.

No surprise there. Even Kaiser cannot get it licked to transfer a once
entered member number to the next agent if they must transfer you (which
they nearly always have to). Sometimes I wonder who runs IT stuff these
days.

> The best she could give is it is in the BlueOptions category.
> The details are:
>
> IN Network Out of Network
> Deductible $10,000 $20,000
> Coinsurance 0% 40%
> Out Of Pocket $10,000 $25,000
>
> Sorry I can't give you a better lead. The plans could be different in
> California, and I'd bet they are.

Yes, looks they they are different. Thanks for sharing the information.

What really irks me: They used to have the pricing on the web. Now they
seem to want a filed application before one can even find out what it'll
cost. Pathetic.

Joerg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 11:43:38 AM3/27/12

to

That's only a small part. After a trip to the ER you have your bill that
you paid your $180 or whatever. But afterwards bill flow into your
mailbox. More copays and deductibles for this, that and the other thing.

>> Another downside is that you must buy at the company store. No
>> out-of-company procedures allowed except in emergencies. They do,
>> however, electronically transfer a prescription to a local drug store
>> with the understanding that you'll then have to pay out of pocket. This
>> is nice because I don't want to drive an hour just to save $25, like
>> after a tick bite or a somewhat gone out of control poison oak rash.
>
> Kaiser can control its own costs. It cannot control other entities'
> costs. Safeway is far closer to me than Costco(where I am also a
> member), but I cannot demand that Costco reimburse me for my Safeway
> purchases.

Of course not. But I would expect them to _know_ their _own_ costs. For
example, one guy said a sigmoidoscopy which you should have after a
certain age is free because it's preventative. Next Kaiser agent says
it's probably not free on my plan. The third says that's never a charge,
no copay. Then comes a letter ... 260 bucks copay, with payment sub
attached. So I called. Got another two conflicting answers, filed a
grievance. Several months later some of the costs were reversed. Others
weren't where they clearly said it would. Sorry, but that's not what I'd
call transparency.

I have numerous stories like that here, including the paperwork (bills).

Joerg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 1:07:54 PM3/27/12

to

That 2% number is incorrect. It is way higher. Not only must docs pay
and then of course bill exorbitant malpractice premiums but the real
issue is over-use of resources to avoid lawsuits. We visit sick people
and the elderly, mostly as volunteers. Ever wondered why there is a
flurry of nurses constantly tapping away on keyboards behind counters
while nobody has time to bring a bed pan? Then tons of excess
procedures, excess medication, and so on.

I work in the medical device industry and one doc told me this straight
into my face: "I have to buy the most expensive and luxurious ultrasound
machine there is. Oc course a cheaper one is just fine but this is to
avoid lawsuits, to show I provided the best". That makes me sick.

We need tort law reform, not just in med. And in the current political
climate were aren't going to get it for obvious reasons.

>>>> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
>>>> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
>>>> insurance.
>>> The lack of government control is the real reason. Over here the
>>> prices that doctors may charge are fixed and so are the insurance
>>> premiums. The government controls what healthcare should cost so it is
>>> affordable for everyone.
>> Yeah, like for the Canadians who then come to the US for treatment
>> because some of them might otherwise die on the long waiting list.
>> That's why many Canadians quietly maintain a "safety net" health
>> insurances south of the border, like this one:
>>
>> http://www.mycare.ca/mayoclinic/
>>
>> There's reasons for that ... Old saying up there: Access to a waiting
>> list is not access to good health care.
>
> Those old people should be dead by now, right? Victims of inadequate
> health care. Yet there are proportionately more old Canadians than
> Americans.
>

Canadians have a healthier lifestyle than we do. The core reason for
higher life expectancy is not health care, it's this:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2011001/article/11411-eng.htm

The issue is when you do get seriously sick, like with cancer, the
picture completely changes:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/

Now you might question this publication but they cite facts that have
been thoroughly established by the medical profession.

> But you can legitimately wonder why Canadians would want to go to the
> Mayo Clinic. Why did the President of Yemen come to New York for
> medical treatment last month? Because he was on a waiting list in
> Yemen? Why did the Shah of Iran come to the US back in the 70s, or the
> Saudi Crown Prince last week? Because some US hospitals and physicians
> are among the best in the world. The Mayo Clinic, in particular, is
> world-renowned.

Exactamente.

> ... But what does having the Mayo Clinic say about the US
> health care system?
>

It says that we have access to such clinics while in other countries
only the upper class has that access. The people with enough money.

> Ask yourself, when an American gets sick, does he start packing his

> bags for Rochester, Minn? Nuh-uh. ...

Many Canadians do. As evidenced by the fact that many take out the
US-side insurance plan. They come all the way down to here, mostly in
winter if the ailment can wait, because Rochester ain't much "balmier"
in its weather than places such as Regina. You can easily spot them,
like when they ask "aboot the appointment time" :-)

> ... Only if he is pretty goddam sick,

> and his local doctors are stumped. Even if your disease is not serious
> enough for the Mayo Clinic, your local hospital is likely to prove
> inadequate to successfully perform a bone-marrow transplant or a heart
> transplant. You would go to a place that performs them in high
> volumes, to maximize the probability of success. It may be in a nearby
> big city, or in a different state, or even halfway across the country.
>

In Canada you often travel onto a waiting list when that happens.

> Now, consider Canada. Canada has something like one-tenth the
> population of the US, stretched along a narrow band within 100 miles
> of the US border. Their hospitals are simply not going to have as much
> experience with unusual cases. Nor do they have the volume of folks
> who need unusual treatments that we do here. Thus it makes sense for
> them to send their unusual cases across the border, because it will
> never make sense for them -- even under a fee for service system -- to
> perform the difficult procedures or hire the subtle diagnosticians,
> because such skills will never be sufficiently utilized to stay sharp.
>

I work in the medical device industry, mostly on the design of
higher-end stuff. Devices docs only need when things are looking rather
bleak. Since we must closely work with clinical staff it becomes evident
rather quickly where the bulk of the machines go. The number of high-end
machines per 100,000 citizens is strikingly different between Canada and
the US. And this is not over-treatment because of malprctice, because
the stuff I work on is usually used on cases where you simply don't have
a choice. My impression is that the Canadian system does not have the
budget to provide this level of care.

It can hardly become any more clear than in the link below, this takes
the cake:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/danny-williams-canadian-o_n_446481.html

Joerg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 1:18:14 PM3/27/12

to

That is not true. Never was. You probably confuse this with flexible
spending accounts (FSA) at work. Those are or at least used to be "use
it or lose it", so I never had one as an employee. Because as a healthy
person I did not see a point in being forced to pay for some medical
stuff I don't need by Dec-31 or "donate" all my saved money to an
insurance company. Whoever invented such a nonsensical product must has
smoked something strange.

Has this changed?

Except for a (IMHO a bit steep) $24/year fee for each of our HSA
accounts all the money has always rolled over into the next year. As it
should.

Joerg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 1:22:20 PM3/27/12

to

Not quite. I lived in Germany for decades. Most people can opt to move
to private insurance and some government employees have to. But it's
still a nationalized system in that the law says you must have insurance
and employers must provide health coverage. Unless something has changed
in the last 15 years employers are obligated to pay 50% of the premiums.

Jamie

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 7:06:25 PM3/27/12

to

Bill Sloman wrote:

> On Mar 27, 1:57 am, Jamie
> <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>miso wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/26/2012 4:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>>>>Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Sudden Confusion...
>>
>>>>>Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>>>>>EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>
>>>>>Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>>
>>>>Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
>>>>fascist?
>>>>--
>>>>Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>>
>>>Seriously, calling Obama a fascist is one of the most moronic things
>>>Thompson has ever written, and he has written some mighty stupid stuff
>>>over the years.
>>
>> The fooled, always learn the hard way.
>
>
> We hope you won't elect the Tea Party, but if you did they would be a
> bunch of you here that would get a painful and expensive education.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I am sure you know to much about that subject!

Jamie

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 6:03:49 PM3/27/12

to

On Mar 27, 7:07 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 8:13 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Nico Coesel wrote:
> >>> Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> On Mar 26, 4:45=A0am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 26, 3:54=A0am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
> >>>>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sudden Confusion...
> >>>>>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >>>>>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
> >>>>>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
> >>>>> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> >>>>> fascist?
> >>>>> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> >>>>> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
> >>>>> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> >>>>> paying for the health care system.
> >>>>> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> >>>>> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> >>>>> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> >>>>> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> >>>>> to everybody).
> >>>>> --

> >>>>>BillSloman, Nijmegen

> >>>> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> >>>> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> >>>> money, but not give it out."
> >>> Exactly.
> >> No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
> >> be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
> >> live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
> >> premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
> >> slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.
>
> > The total cost of eliminating all settlements for those maimed by our
> > health care system, as well as "defensive" medicine practiced to
> > eliminate claims, has been reliably estimated at 2% of what American
> > spend on health care. While I am sure that there is waste in this
> > amount, a 2% savings is negligible in a system that costs 125% to 200%
> > of what other country's citizens must pay.
>
> That 2% number is incorrect. It is way higher. Not only must docs pay

> and then of coursebillexorbitant malpractice premiums but the real

> http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-canc...

>
> Now you might question this publication but they cite facts that have
> been thoroughly established by the medical profession.

But it does seem to compare apples and pears. Skin cancer is the most
common cancer, and rarely kills anybody. It's almost twice as common
in the US as in Europe., which does help make the US cancer survival
rates look better.

In fact US cancer survival rates for specific cancers do tend to be
marginally better than they are in Europe - this is one area where
expensive test-for-everything medicine does pay off, because detecting
some cancers early does lead to better survival rates. For nasty stuff
like small-cell carcinoma of the lung (which is what smokers get)
early detection doesn't help much but for quite a few cancers it can
make a real difference.

> the US. And this is not over-treatment because of malpractice, because

> the stuff I work on is usually used on cases where you simply don't have
> a choice. My impression is that the Canadian system does not have the
> budget to provide this level of care.
>
> It can hardly become any more clear than in the link below, this takes
> the cake:
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/danny-williams-canadian-o_n_...

He wanted heart valve replacement surgery via catheter, rather than
via open heart surgery. I've had my aortic valve replaced by open
heart surgery and it's a big operation and you spend months
convalescing afterwards. The advantage is that the surgeon can pick
out every last bit of the calcified tissue that was stopping the
original aortic valve from working, so the chances of post-operative
complications are a lot less. For very elderly patients, for whom open
heart surgery would be life threatening, doing the valve replacement
via a catheter is - overall - safer than open-heart surgery, but Danny
Williams wasn't in that group, or anywhere near it.

You can get the operation in Canada, but nobody was irresponsible
enough to offer it to him. The US offers a a wider choice of surgeon.

That wasn't about what what technically available but rather about how
willing surgeons were to go along with a patient who wanted an easier,
but more dangerous procedure.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 6:11:09 PM3/27/12

to

On Mar 28, 1:06 am, Jamie

<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 1:57 am, Jamie
> > <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >>miso wrote:
>
> >>>On 3/26/2012 4:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> >>>>On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
> >>>>Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Sudden Confusion...
>
> >>>>>Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> >>>>>EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> >>>>>Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> >>>>Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> >>>>fascist?
>

> >>>Seriously, calling Obama a fascist is one of the most moronic things
> >>>Thompson has ever written, and he has written some mighty stupid stuff
> >>>over the years.
>
> >> The fooled, always learn the hard way.
>
> > We hope you won't elect the Tea Party, but if you did they would be a
> > bunch of you here that would get a painful and expensive education.
>

> I am sure you know to much about that subject!

People who know the difference between "to" and "too" have been trying
to educate me. The more I learn, the more I get to wonder about the
short term viability of the US.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Joerg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 6:44:34 PM3/27/12

to

Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:07 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> spamtrap1888 wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 8:13 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Nico Coesel wrote:
>>>>> Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> common cancer, and rarely kills anybody. ...

Tell that to the widow of a former neighbor.

> ... It's almost twice as common

> in the US as in Europe., which does help make the US cancer survival
> rates look better.
>
> In fact US cancer survival rates for specific cancers do tend to be
> marginally better than they are in Europe - this is one area where
> expensive test-for-everything medicine does pay off, because detecting
> some cancers early does lead to better survival rates. For nasty stuff
> like small-cell carcinoma of the lung (which is what smokers get)
> early detection doesn't help much but for quite a few cancers it can
> make a real difference.
>

According to the European Journal of Cancer the 5-year colon cancer
survival rate in Europe is 43%. In the US it is 62%, and that data is
from the same European journal, not an American source. I'd say this is
rather significant and colon cancer is one of the major killers in
today's society.

It is similar for breast cancer and prostate cancer.

How do we get there? If I am only a couple weeks late sending in my
yearly stool sample they start pestering me with emails and phone calls
until I do. Then the sigmoidoscopy. Ok, it's a bit uncomfortable but
considering the benefits I am certainly not complaining. Until a few
years ago when it was already routine screening here it seems the
Canadians were still "discussing" it:

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/3/206.full

It is not at all irresponsible. In the US, the patient has a say in his
treatment. In Canada, less so.

> That wasn't about what what technically available but rather about how
> willing surgeons were to go along with a patient who wanted an easier,
> but more dangerous procedure.
>

There is a huge difference between the availability of cutting edge
procedures in the US and Canada. I work in medical devices and know
where the bulk of the sales happens. If you have one machine for 100,000
people in one country and 10 machines in another then it's pretty clear
who has the better options. And none of this is for cosmetic or elective
stuff but mostly for things where people are hanging on for dear life.

amdx

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 7:26:26 PM3/27/12

to

On 3/26/2012 10:41 AM, amdx wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 9:37 AM, Nico Coesel wrote:
>> Robert Macy<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 4:45=A0am, Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 26, 3:54=A0am, Jim

>>>> Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>>>>
>>>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sudden Confusion...
>>>>
>>>>> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
>>>>> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>>>>
>>>>> Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>>>>
>>>> Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
>>>> fascist?
>>>>

>>>> Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
>>>> country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
>>>> as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
>>>> paying for the health care system.
>>>>
>>>> If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
>>>> to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
>>>> spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
>>>> French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
>>>> to everybody).
>>>>
>>>> --

>>>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

>>>
>>> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
>>> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
>>> money, but not give it out."
>>
>> Exactly.
>

> Yes, let government do it,
> They have unlimited money to pay out.
> Mikek

I hope this was understood as sarcasm!
All the government has is taxpayers money, and the noose around the
golden goose's neck is getting tighter and tighter. Quack, Qua .
Mikek
being strangled.

Jamie

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 9:47:38 PM3/27/12

to

Did you have difficulties understanding me?

Do I need to use the generic sign language, you so much deserve?

I can start with the more pleasant style of the language and if you
still have problems hearing that, I can also turn it up for you, and
if you are so ignorant as to not comprehend the meaning of that? Read
below.

As one of my old, gone to the other side, italian engineer friend
used to say,
"Up your Ass
with a piece of Glass"

Jamie

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 8:52:28 PM3/27/12

to

On Mar 28, 12:44 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote:

http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/Skincancerfactsandfigures.htm

The Australian figures are around 434,000 people are treated for one
or more non-melanoma skin cancers. In 2007, 448 people died of the
disease. Regular skin cancer vary rarely kills.

Melanoma is a skin cancer, but it is usually referred to as melanoma.
In Australia
more than 10,300 people per year are treated for melanoma, with 1279
people dying in 2007.

It's not all that high a death rate as cancers go, but a lot higher
than the death rate for basal cell skin cancer which is much more
common. One of my acquaintances died of a melanoma in her forties,
which was a tragedy, but that doesn't vitiate my point either.

> > ... It's almost twice as common
> > in the US as in Europe., which does help make the US cancer survival
> > rates look better.
>
> > In fact US cancer survival rates for specific cancers do tend to be
> > marginally better than they are in Europe - this is one area where
> > expensive test-for-everything medicine does pay off, because detecting
> > some cancers early does lead to better survival rates. For nasty stuff
> > like small-cell carcinoma of the lung (which is what smokers get)
> > early detection doesn't help much but for quite a few cancers it can
> > make a real difference.
>
> According to the European Journal of Cancer the 5-year colon cancer
> survival rate in Europe is 43%. In the US it is 62%, and that data is
> from the same European journal, not an American source. I'd say this is
> rather significant and colon cancer is one of the major killers in
> today's society.

US figures for lung cancer are 62.5 per 100,000, breast cancer 62 per
100,000 (actually 124 per 100,000 women) and colon cancer is 47.5 per
100,000.

Most colon cancer and many breast cancers can be cured if detected
early, and energetic screening detects enough early cancers to more
than pay for itself. These are prime examples cancers where "area
where expensive test-for-everything medicine does pay off". It's
harder to make the case that US gets better outcomes for cancer
treatment if you control for development stage at detection

> It is similar for breast cancer and prostate cancer.

The US gets good figures for prostate cancer because they detect it
earlier, so they've got more prostate cancer under surveillance at any
one time. It's rarely worth doing anything about it so it is a cheap
win for expensive test-for-everything medicine. Our oncology professor
friend doesn't actually think that it is worth doing PSA tests for
prostate cancer - and once declared on TV in Australia that he'd sue
if anybody measured his PSA levels, because it wasn't worth acting on
a positive result.

> How do we get there? If I am only a couple weeks late sending in my
> yearly stool sample they start pestering me with emails and phone calls
> until I do. Then the sigmoidoscopy. Ok, it's a bit uncomfortable but
> considering the benefits I am certainly not complaining. Until a few
> years ago when it was already routine screening here it seems the
> Canadians were still "discussing" it:
>
> http://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/3/206.full

I'm not even getting FOB testing in the Netherlands. I'll probably get
it when we move to Australia. One of my second cousins in Australia
had some kind of colon alert, and both my brothers were persuaded to
get precautionary sigmoidoscopy along with a large swathe of near
relatives, None of the relatives had a problem, so I didn't bother. My
youngest brother is a general practitioner, and very well informed on
this kind of stuff, and hasn't bothering to propagandise me on the
subject.

Colon cancer incidence in Australia does seem to be higher than it is
in the US, but Australians live longer than US residents by about
three and a half years, and cancer rates climb rapidly with age.

<snip>

> >> It can hardly become any more clear than in the link below, this takes
> >> the cake:
>
> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/danny-williams-canadian-o_n_...
>
> > He wanted heart valve replacement surgery via catheter, rather than
> > via open heart surgery. I've had my aortic valve replaced by open
> > heart surgery and it's a big operation and you spend months
> > convalescing afterwards. The advantage is that the surgeon can pick
> > out every last bit of the calcified tissue that was stopping the
> > original aortic valve from working, so the chances of post-operative
> > complications are a lot less. For very elderly patients, for whom open
> > heart surgery would be life threatening, doing the valve replacement
> > via a catheter is - overall - safer than open-heart surgery, but Danny
> > Williams wasn't in that group, or anywhere near it.
>
> > You can get the operation in Canada, but nobody was irresponsible
> > enough to offer it to him. The US offers a a wider choice of surgeon.
>
> It is not at all irresponsible. In the US, the patient has a say in his
> treatment. In Canada, less so.

It's an interesting question. The patient was almost certainly under-
estimating the risks of the surgery via the catheter.

> > That wasn't about what what technically available but rather about how
> > willing surgeons were to go along with a patient who wanted an easier,
> > but more dangerous procedure.
>
> There is a huge difference between the availability of cutting edge
> procedures in the US and Canada. I work in medical devices and know
> where the bulk of the sales happens. If you have one machine for 100,000
> people in one country and 10 machines in another then it's pretty clear
> who has the better options. And none of this is for cosmetic or elective
> stuff but mostly for things where people are hanging on for dear life.

When I worked for EMI Central Research, they were selling X-ray body
scanners to individual physicians in the US for a couple of million
dollars a machine. The representatives comments were along the lines
that body scan images were comprehensible to everybody, including
lawyers, and thus easy to sell. It was less clear that they were
informative enough to justify subjecting the patient to 4% of a lethal
dose of X-rays. this was back in 1979.

Having more machines available than you actually need isn't actually
all that helpful. Paying for all those extra machines may be part of
what makes US medicine half-as-much again more expensive than the next
most extravagant country - Switzerland.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 9:01:09 PM3/27/12

to

On Mar 28, 3:47 am, Jamie

> Did you have difficulties understanding me?

Not at all. You are depressingly transparent. You don't have anything
useful to say, but that's another question.

<snipped Jamie being as charming and informative as ever>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Toni Steffen

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 11:19:09 AM3/28/12

to

HSA's roll over every year, FSA's are the "use it or lose it"
proposition. An HSA educational website is at www.HSAconsumer.com
HSA's are the solution to health care and inject the consumer into the
only industry in the world, where price transparency is lacking. HSA
plans lower your premiums, lower your out of pocket risk, and provide
a tax free savings vehicle to plan now or for your future.

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 11:32:13 AM3/28/12

to

On Mar 25, 9:54 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> Sudden Confusion...
>
> Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?

Both.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 11:50:05 AM3/28/12

to

On Mar 26, 10:15 am, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 4:45 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

>
> > Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > > Sudden Confusion...
>
> > > Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> > > EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>

> > > Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> > Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> > fascist?
>
> > Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> > country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
> > as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> > paying for the health care system.
>
> > If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> > to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> > spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> > French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> > to everybody).
>
> > --
> > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> money, but not give it out."
>
> I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> insurance.

Without question. "Insurance" has created a grocery store where
nothing has price tags.

The shopper has a membership card paid by her employer. She shows her
card at the door, strolls in. She doesn't know or care what the
prices are. Neither does her physician. She fills up her cart
figuring "Why not? I've paid for it."

The physician doesn't care--whatever she prescribes is paid for
by . . . someone.

The insurance company doesn't care--they just raise rates. In many
cases regulatory limits on profit margins mean the insurer's easiest
way to increase earnings is to *increase* expenses. (i.e., 15%* of
$200 million is more than 15% of $150 million)

*(15% is mandated under Obamacare)

So, there aren't any of the normal pressures on price control. And,
then, everyone wonders what happened.

Congress built incentives greatly in favor of such systems (30% tax
savings, plus they outlawed interstate commerce in insurance),
cramming people into that model.

> At least the veterinarian prices are still low, since pet insurance
> hasn't taken hold too much yet.

Excellent observation.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 11:57:01 AM3/28/12

to

> Agreed, we, as patients, need to have more 'skin in the game'.
> (I'm not sure how to do that.)

> And then of course there are drug costs....
> Explain to me again why drug companies get to advertise on TV and
> radio.

That <buy more expensive drug X> advertising wouldn't work if both
a) physicians explained "that costs a lot more, and isn't any
better",
and
b) patients cared. (Presently, the patient doesn't see the true cost--
their trivial co-pay doesn't change much--so they're really neither
affected, nor interested in such picayune details.)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 12:14:24 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 26, 12:02 pm, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

> >There's reasons for that ... Old saying up there: Access to a waiting
> >list is not access to good health care.
>

> We use the Kaiser health plan, which is a genuine HMO, not insurance.
> For a fixed fee, they do everything. The doctors are all salaried. If
> I have a serious problem, I can generally get in there the same day.
>
> Last time I saw my doctor, she checked and decided that I should have
> tetanus and shingles shots. Got them right down the hall, no waiting.
> She once wanted me to get a chest x-ray, sent me down to radiology,
> and they did it immediately. She types in prescriptions on her
> computer, and on my way out, the pharmacy has them ready in a bag.
>

> Once I went in for a checkup and pointed out an itchy spot on my face.
> She called in a dermatologist. He said it was a precancerous
> keratitus, got a spray can of LN2, and zapped it on the spot.
>
> Kaiser is Physician-owned. The Obamacare law made physician-owned
> health plans illegal. That was a sellout to the insurance industry.

Kaiser's a great outfit. Obamacare banned new physician-owned
hospitals, limiting Kaiser's competition. They liked that
apparently. They supported O-care.

Despite being grandfathered, though, it's not clear they'll survive
it. The Catholic outfits that supported O-care (because Catholics
want care for everyone) did so with Obama's direct, face-to-face
assurance that they wouldn't have to pay for abortion or
contraception--and it's even written directly in (sect. 1303)--but
that hasn't worked out so well for them.

I'd support O-care if it were better. It isn't. It's Solyndra.

(p.s. Solyndra's website is still there, but with the Obama-visit
pictures curiously gone, down the memory hole.)

> I bet Obama will make a mint after he retires, giving speeches at
> insurance conventions.

Yes. A disappoint-mint.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

spamtrap1888

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 12:26:12 PM3/28/12

to

So people seek health care for recreation, and physicians are
complicit? Physicians lack the integrity, confidence, and
professionalism to tell healthy people just to go back home?

>
> The physician doesn't care--whatever she prescribes is paid for
> by . . . someone.

Prescribing medication in the absence of illness is malpractice and
grounds for discipline, but in Arthur-world, no physician worries
about his license.

>
> The insurance company doesn't care--they just raise rates. In many
> cases regulatory limits on profit margins mean the insurer's easiest
> way to increase earnings is to *increase* expenses. (i.e., 15%* of
> $200 million is more than 15% of $150 million)
>
> *(15% is mandated under Obamacare)

What is the percentage of insurers' overhead now?

>
> So, there aren't any of the normal pressures on price control. And,
> then, everyone wonders what happened.
>
> Congress built incentives greatly in favor of such systems (30% tax
> savings, plus they outlawed interstate commerce in insurance),
> cramming people into that model.

We tried shopping around for a discounted price on chemo, but
Genentech's pricing pretty much set the floor.

>
> > At least the veterinarian prices are still low, since pet insurance
> > hasn't taken hold too much yet.
>

This shows the fat and waste in the human medical care system. If MDs
were only content to live like vets, think of the savings.

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 1:17:13 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 28, 12:26 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:50 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 10:15 am, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> > > private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> > > money, but not give it out."
>
> > > I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> > > out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> > > insurance.
>
> > Without question. "Insurance" has created a grocery store where
> > nothing has price tags.
>
> > The shopper has a membership card paid by her employer. She shows her
> > card at the door, strolls in. She doesn't know or care what the
> > prices are. Neither does her physician. She fills up her cart
> > figuring "Why not? I've paid for it."
>
> So people seek health care for recreation, and physicians are
> complicit? Physicians lack the integrity, confidence, and
> professionalism to tell healthy people just to go back home?

I went to someone for a bellyache. He Rx'd $7,000 of invasive tests.
I, having knowledge of the medicine of the thing, questioned him.
"What does that cost?" He didn't know. Neither did his office, nor
the hospital that would've done the tests.

So, I having no confidence in any of them, fixed it myself.

Later the hospital called to schedule the tests I'd never agreed to.
They wanted to schedule my "procedure."
"For what?," I asked.
"The one your doctor ordered," replied the Borg.

Skipping a few phone calls ahead to where they had some vague notion
of what they were proposing, I then asked "How much?"

"No one ever asked that," the hospital lady said, "I'll have to call
my supervisor."

The supervisor called back. She didn't know either.

I'll skip the rest of the lengthy, inefficient, time-wasting story.

If I were a more usual patient $7,000 would've been wasted without a
2nd thought, to rule out conditions I plainly didn't have.

All those idiots are getting paid Obama-wages for negative value-
added. That increases costs dramatically.

The doctor didn't care about cost. He said "Don't worry, your
insurance will pay for it."

After four visits--which he created the need for--I fired him.

The problem was chronic dehydration--I don't get thirsty, and I'd
forgotten to drink.

On the one hand we've got what Obamacare would subsidize and
facilitate growing larger, and the other, an educated consumer making
educated choices.

> > The physician doesn't care--whatever she prescribes is paid for
> > by . . . someone.
>
> Prescribing medication in the absence of illness is malpractice and
> grounds for discipline, but in Arthur-world, no physician worries
> about his license.

No, a physician doesn't care about cost. I was once prescribed a $200
version of an antibiotic, where the generic was $5. I mentioned that
to the doctor--he said "Oh."

That's the norm. That dramatically increases cost.

Physicians could control that, or at least explain it to their
patients. But, they don't concern themselves with it, since their
patients don't care, and the patients don't care because it's all the
same to them too--insurance "pays."

> > The insurance company doesn't care--they just raise rates. In many
> > cases regulatory limits on profit margins mean the insurer's easiest
> > way to increase earnings is to *increase* expenses. (i.e., 15%* of
> > $200 million is more than 15% of $150 million)
>
> > *(15% is mandated under Obamacare)
>
> What is the percentage of insurers' overhead now?
>
>
>
> > So, there aren't any of the normal pressures on price control. And,
> > then, everyone wonders what happened.
>
> > Congress built incentives greatly in favor of such systems (30% tax
> > savings, plus they outlawed interstate commerce in insurance),
> > cramming people into that model.
>
> We tried shopping around for a discounted price on chemo, but
> Genentech's pricing pretty much set the floor.

That those drugs *exist* at all is because our out-dated capitalist
system made them.

European cancer survival rates are far worse than ours. Under their
system, you or someone you know needing that drug might be dead. And
without our system, they wouldn't have the drugs we've made to choose
from. They depend on us.

> > > At least the veterinarian prices are still low, since pet insurance
> > > hasn't taken hold too much yet.
>
> This shows the fat and waste in the human medical care system. If MDs
> were only content to live like vets, think of the savings.

That wouldn't even dent it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 1:28:22 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 28, 12:26 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 8:50 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > The insurance company doesn't care--they just raise rates. In many
> > cases regulatory limits on profit margins mean the insurer's easiest
> > way to increase earnings is to *increase* expenses. (i.e., 15%* of
> > $200 million is more than 15% of $150 million)
>
> > *(15% is mandated under Obamacare)
>
> What is the percentage of insurers' overhead now?

If it's excessive, why aren't there more efficient, more progressive
insurance companies out there doing it for less? They'd make a
bundle.

Answer that, and you've answered the bigger question.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 1:47:11 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 28, 11:32 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:54 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > Sudden Confusion...
>
> > Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> > EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> Both.

For clarification, see Orwellian-titled subsections...

H. R. 3590
Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 1501. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
Sec. 1502. Reporting of health insurance coverage.
PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
Sec. 1511. Automatic enrollment for employees of large employers.
Sec. 1512. Employer requirement to inform employees of coverage
options.
Sec. 1513. Shared responsibility for employers.
Sec. 1514. Reporting of employer health insurance coverage.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 5:32:36 PM3/28/12

to

Liar. It has been proposed by a Democratic president, and couldn't
possibly be right.

> It isn't. It's Solyndra.

A fairly ludicrous comparison. It does create the attractive image of
Chinese-trained doctors immigrating to the US en masse and providing
private health care so cheaply that they bankrupt the existing medical
system and the insurance companies that pay for them, but the AMA has
lobbied for too long and too effectively for any outsider to be able
to break in, no matter how much better and cheaper their product was -
and while Chinese medicine is bound to be cheaper than US medicine
(which is ridiculously over-priced) it's not going to be any better.

> (p.s. Solyndra's website is still there, but with the Obama-visit
> pictures curiously gone, down the memory hole.)
>
> > I bet Obama will make a mint after he retires, giving speeches at
> > insurance conventions.
>
> Yes. A disappoint-mint.

The US presidential system turns ex-presidents into stars. No matter
how un-impressive they are. They have their pictures in the paper and
on TV frequently enough to make them totally recognisable, which seems
to be all that it takes.

It's a stupid system, and most countries separate the figure head
function from the political leader job, but the US Constitution was a
beta-test version the whole democratic idea, and does contain a
considerable number of bugs.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 5:42:13 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 28, 5:57 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:17 am, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 10:15 am, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Mar 26, 4:45 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 3:54 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>
> > > > Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sudden Confusion...
>
> > > > > Does the Obama Health Care directive require every PERSON or every
> > > > > EMPLOYER to pay for the insurance?
>
> > > > > Either way, the fascist will have successfully destroyed the US :-(
>
> > > > Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a
> > > > fascist?
>
> > > > Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any
> > > > country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen
> > > > as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not
> > > > paying for the health care system.
>
> > > > If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have
> > > > to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system
> > > > spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the
> > > > French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and
> > > > to everybody).
>
> > > > --

> > > >BillSloman, Nijmegen

>
> > > I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a
> > > private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in
> > > money, but not give it out."
>
> > > I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed
> > > out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health
> > > insurance.
>
> > Agreed, we, as patients, need to have more 'skin in the game'.
> > (I'm not sure how to do that.)
> > And then of course there are drug costs....
> > Explain to me again why drug companies get to advertise on TV and
> > radio.
>
> That <buy more expensive drug X> advertising wouldn't work if both
> a) physicians explained "that costs a lot more, and isn't any
> better",

All the drug companies want is for patients to ask their doctors for
that particular drug. Even if the doctors go to the trouble of
explaining that a cheap generic is just as good, and the patients
believe them, it was still another potential sale.

> and
> b) patients cared. (Presently, the patient doesn't see the true cost--
> their trivial co-pay doesn't change much--so they're really neither
> affected, nor interested in such picayune details.)

It's not so much that the patients don't see the true cost, as that
they expect their doctors to know whether a particular well-advertised
drug is worth the extra money. The patients can't really be expected
to know if there is a cheaper generic equivalent that works as well
(or close enough to as well to make no practical difference).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 6:25:43 PM3/28/12

to

American medicine was ridiculously expensive long before Barack Obama
became president. Back in 1978, we were explaining it in terms of
malpractice insurance - half what the patient paid to US doctors was
handed straight over to the insurance company that was covering them
against the risk of being sued for malpractice, and most of the
expensive extra tests were prescribed by the insurance company to make
it easier for them to defend the doctor if an unhappy patient did sue.

This did mean that the insurance companies that were covering the
payments to the doctors were turning over twice as much money as they
would have done without medical malpractice insurance, and taking
their cut for that.

It's all very cute, if extremely stupid.

<snip>

> > > The physician doesn't care--whatever she prescribes is paid for
> > > by . . . someone.
>
> > Prescribing medication in the absence of illness is malpractice and
> > grounds for discipline, but in Arthur-world, no physician worries
> > about his license.
>
> No, a physician doesn't care about cost. I was once prescribed a $200
> version of an antibiotic, where the generic was $5. I mentioned that
> to the doctor--he said "Oh."
>
> That's the norm.

One hopes not. But a clever doctor would probably contrive to avoid
having James Arthur as a patient.

> That dramatically increases cost.
>
> Physicians could control that, or at least explain it to their
> patients. But, they don't concern themselves with it, since their
> patients don't care, and the patients don't care because it's all the
> same to them too--insurance "pays."

Good doctors care. My little brother is a full bottle on the various
medications I take, and he knows the prices.

<snip>

> > We tried shopping around for a discounted price on chemo, but
> > Genentech's pricing pretty much set the floor.
>
> That those drugs *exist* at all is because our out-dated capitalist
> system made them.

For some diseases. The out-dated capitalist system is oddly reluctant
to develop drugs to treat diseases that only poor people get.
Bill and Melinda Gates are putting some out-dated capitalist money
into developing treatments for diseases of the poor, but this seems to
be yet another area where the invisible hand of the free market in not
so much invisible as inactive.

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

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/neglected-diseases.aspx

> European cancer survival rates are far worse than ours.

Largely because non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common form of
cancer, rarely kill anybody, and are nearly twice as common in the US
as they are in Europe. As usual, James Arthur is hoping that his
audience is innumerate.

> Under their
> system, you or someone you know needing that drug might be dead.

Under the US system, if they haven't got medical insurance, they will
be dead. European health insurers do reject some cancer-treatment
drugs as costing too much per quality-of-life-adjusted year of life,
but that's mostly very expensive palliative drugs that only offer an
extra month or two.

> And
> without our system, they wouldn't have the drugs we've made to choose
> from. They depend on us.

Rubbish.

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

Six of the top ten are American, but the other four are all European.
The business is international, and we all depend on one another.
Our Australian oncology professor friend has now given up being a
professor, but remains a member of the international committee that
supervises breast cancer drug trials, and spends a lot of his time
travelling around the world going from one trial centre to the next,
in Europe and North America. It's an international system - admittedly
with a substantial American component - but Europe doesn't "depend" on
the US, any more than the US depends on Europe.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 6:35:33 PM3/28/12

to

George Orwell didn't write that badly, and while he did invent the
term "NewSpeak", (in "1984") it was precisely to describe the
impoverished and restricted kind of language that you use here to
paint your blinkered view of the world, rather than the tedious
bureaucratese that you've posted here.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 6:28:03 PM3/28/12

to

It's not an easy market to break into?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 6:43:33 PM3/28/12

to

To say I'm a liar, then you must speak from actual knowledge of the
merits.

So, please, explain the individual mandate, and why every sensible
person in the US wouldn't just wait for illness to purchase Obamacare,
then cancel once well.

Financially, why shouldn't employers dump all their employees into the
state-run Medicaid-style exchanges? It sure saves them a bundle, in
cost and administration.

Since the penalties don't nearly pay the cost of care, who then does?

Please explain why outlawing the establishment or expansion of
physician-owned hospitals such as Kaiser-Permanente as of Feb. 1, 2010
under sect. 6001(a)(3) is in the public interest.

How does any of this save money?

I have the bill, fully marked with my extensive notes, so I'd
appreciate references to the pertinent sections.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 7:04:06 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 28, 6:25 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:17 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > European cancer survival rates are far worse than ours.
>
> Largely because non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common form of
> cancer, rarely kill anybody, and are nearly twice as common in the US
> as they are in Europe.

> As usual, James Arthur is hoping that his
> audience is innumerate.

No, just assuming they're not stupid.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/590475
"This trend emerges from 1 of the latest analyses carried out by the
EUROCARE (European Cancer Registry-Based Study of Cancer Patients'
Survival and Care)-4 Working Group[...]"

"For all cancers combined, 5-year survival estimates for 2000 to 2002
were much higher for the American patients [...]. The figures were
66.3% vs 47.3% for men and 62.9% vs 55.8% for women." [...]

The paper makes adjustments to those figures, then comments:

"When cancer was considered by specific site, nearly all of the sites
showed a higher average survival rate in the United States than in
Europe, the authors comment."

The US has better results overall, and for 100% of the most likely
killers.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 8:31:00 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 29, 12:43 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

No, from actual knowledge of the assessor, whose political
partisanship runs very deep - possiblily deeper than you appreciate.

> So, please, explain the individual mandate, and why every sensible
> person in the US wouldn't just wait for illness to purchase Obamacare,
> then cancel once well.

Because we aren't talking abut a sensible person, but about you -
someone who is insensible of rational considerations, and blindly
driven by ideology.

> Financially, why shouldn't employers dump all their employees into the
> state-run Medicaid-style exchanges? It sure saves them a bundle, in
> cost and administration.
>
> Since the penalties don't nearly pay the cost of care, who then does?
>
> Please explain why outlawing the establishment or expansion of
> physician-owned hospitals such as Kaiser-Permanente as of Feb. 1, 2010
> under sect. 6001(a)(3) is in the public interest.

Why should I waste my time trying to preach to the incorrigibly
ignorant?

> How does any of this save money?

Since it was all designed to keep the health insurance companies more
or less on-side, that wasn't a practical short term aim. In the long
term, it does make health insurance a government regulated activity,
as it is pretty much everywhere else, and that does have a way of
reducing the cost per head without compromising the quality of
healthcare. Check out the French and German systems sometime,
preferably when you are feeling more numerate than usual, and more
than usually sensitive to the small statistical frauds that are
slipped into the usual US-Europe comparisons.

Like the UK's type 1 diabetes killing more people than the type 2
adult-onset-in-fatties diabetes that predominates in the US, which you
managed to miss a year or so ago.

> I have the bill, fully marked with my extensive notes, so I'd
> appreciate references to the pertinent sections.

Unfortunately, it is being held by somebody who reads from a
spectacularly restricted point of view, and can be relied on to be
blind to anything in the bill that a more objective observer might
count as an improvement - such as getting health insurance cover for a
bunch of US citizens who weren't covered before.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 28, 2012, 9:03:13 PM3/28/12

to

On Mar 29, 1:04 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Mar 28, 6:25 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 7:17 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > European cancer survival rates are far worse than ours.
>
> > Largely because non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common form of
> > cancer, rarely kill anybody, and are nearly twice as common in the US
> > as they are in Europe.
> > As usual, James Arthur is hoping that his
> > audience is innumerate.
>
> No, just assuming they're not stupid.

Quoting stuff that doesn't actually support your argument reflects a
rather different assumption.

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/590475
> "This trend emerges from 1 of the latest analyses carried out by the
> EUROCARE (European Cancer Registry-Based Study of Cancer Patients'
> Survival and Care)-4 Working Group[...]"
>
> "For all cancers combined, 5-year survival estimates for 2000 to 2002
> were much higher for the American patients [...]. The figures were
> 66.3% vs 47.3% for men and 62.9% vs 55.8% for women." [...]
>
> The paper makes adjustments to those figures, then comments:
>
> "When cancer was considered by specific site, nearly all of the sites
> showed a higher average survival rate in the United States than in
> Europe, the authors comment."

But also

"However, the huge difference for men was largely due to the lower
incidence of rapidly fatal cancers (mainly lung and stomach), and the
exceptionally high incidence and survival for prostate cancers in the
United States were largely attributable to overdiagnosis, Dr. Berrino
and colleagues state."

Doing the PSA test for prostate cancers finds a lot of incipient
cancers which are almost always left untreated, because the patient is
almost certainly going to die of something else before the prostate
cancer takes off. It's a waste of time - over-diagnosis - but does
make your statistics look good.

As I said earlier in this thread, anti-malpractice test-for-everything
medicine does pay off in the early detection of cancer, which helps
the survival rates, so the US does do better (but not spectacularly
better) in this area. It's questionable if the advantage - such as it
is - is worth what it costs.

Note also '"It is also important to stress than in both Europe and the
United States, there are large survival differences between the rich
and the poor," Dr. Berrino and colleagues note.'

> The US has better results overall, and for 100% of the most likely
> killers.

But not much better, and most of that can be attributed to extravagant
expenditure on testing, motivated by "defensive medicine" to protect
the doctors and their insurers against being sued for malpractice.

US medicine hasn't got any magic bullets.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 29, 2012, 1:47:38 AM3/29/12

to

You forgot to include something in your quote:
"After excluding prostate cancer, the difference between the United
States and Europe for men is halved (46.9% vs 38.1%), although the
survival rate remains better in the United States."

There, that's better.

We have better survival rates across virtually the entire spectrum of
cancer types, and better overall rates too. Between 9% and 19%
better, depending.

> As I said earlier in this thread, anti-malpractice test-for-everything
> medicine does pay off in the early detection of cancer, which helps
> the survival rates, so the US does do better (but not spectacularly
> better) in this area. It's questionable if the advantage - such as it
> is - is worth what it costs.
>
> Note also '"It is also important to stress than in both Europe and the
> United States, there are large survival differences between the rich
> and the poor," Dr. Berrino and colleagues note.'
>
> > The US has better results overall, and for 100% of the most likely
> > killers.
>
> But not much better, and most of that can be attributed to extravagant
> expenditure on testing, motivated by "defensive medicine" to protect
> the doctors and their insurers against being sued for malpractice.

Right. 9% of 1.6 million cases projected in 2012(*). An extra
hundred thousand or two not-dead people a year think it's pretty
neat. It's not as cheap as letting them die, but we like it.

(*) http://news.yahoo.com/deaths-cancer-us-continue-fall-212250837.html

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 29, 2012, 1:55:25 AM3/29/12

to

To summarize, you don't know anything about it, yet feel qualified to
lecture someone who's studied it about their bias.

Thanks.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Bill Sloman

unread,

Mar 29, 2012, 5:55:47 PM3/29/12

to

On Mar 29, 7:47 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

All those not-dead people, and yet - on average - you still die a few
years earlier than your European counterparts.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

The US is at position 50 on the list with 78.49 years. France is at
14, with 81.46 years, the Netherlands at 21, with 80.91 years, and
Germany at 28 with 80.19 years.

This does help your cancer statistics, of course - cancer becomes more
frequent as you get older and our extra two or three years gives us
more chance to get cancer at an age when we are more likely to die
from it, and we then die more rapidly than younger people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1559/

There's no evidence that we save money by letting them die earlier,
and there's quite a lot of evidence that your less-than-universal
health care contributes to your lower expectation of life.

> (*)http://news.yahoo.com/deaths-cancer-us-continue-fall-212250837.html

This is a curious result. In most countries, the three big killers are
heart disease, circulatory disease and cancer. We've developed better
treatments for heart and circulatory disease in recent decades, so the
general pattern is the people live a bit longer and are thus more
likely to develop cancer and eventually die of it.

If the US cancer death rate is dropping, something else is killing
people before they get a chance to get cancer

http://www.livescience.com/2464-life-expectancy-peaked.html

presumably obesity ... so being a nation of fatties makes you cancer
doctors look better than their European counterparts who have to treat
older patients who are more likely to die anyway.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Przemek Klosowski

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 1:19:49 AM4/2/12

to

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg wrote:

> No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
> be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
> live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
> premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
> slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.

The tort lawsuits are there because people sue for entirely rational
reasons: since they have no guarantee of continuity of care (preexisting
condition, vagaries of insurance coverage), suing for a lot of money is
the only way to guarantee long-term care.

If there was a comprehensive guarantee of medical care, there would be no
incentive to sue. People would sue less, and laws to limit lawsuit would
be much easier to pass.

Bill Sloman

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 4:58:16 AM4/2/12

to

Not really. Some 40% of the money collected in malpractice suits stays
with the lawyers, and they do not want to lose that income.The
insurance companies who sell malpractice insurance also have an
interest in maintaining a market for their product.

A considerable number of ambulance-chasers of various sorts would have
to find other work if tort reform ever got to the statute book, and
they have every reason to lobby against any such reform. The US
political system is a forum where well-funded lobbyists seem to be
unusually effective (when the US is compared with other advanced
industrial countries).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Joerg

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 10:34:25 AM4/2/12

to

The reason is different: Lawyers can advertise and work on
"contingency". That is illegal in most countries and should be here as
well. Almost every night during the evening news there are lawyers
touting that if you own this or that call us. Because they smell loot,
they often get to keep 30-40%. It has nothing to do with medical per se
or with long term care.

If someone wins millions for some elective cosmetic surgery that they
say has gone sub-optimal, that's extortion of a system to me.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

spamtrap1888

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 4:26:18 PM4/2/12

to

On Mar 28, 10:28 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:26 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 8:50 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > The insurance company doesn't care--they just raise rates. In many
> > > cases regulatory limits on profit margins mean the insurer's easiest
> > > way to increase earnings is to *increase* expenses. (i.e., 15%* of
> > > $200 million is more than 15% of $150 million)
>
> > > *(15% is mandated under Obamacare)
>
> > What is the percentage of insurers' overhead now?
>
> If it's excessive, why aren't there more efficient, more progressive
> insurance companies out there doing it for less? They'd make a
> bundle.

They'd lose a lot on each patient but make it up on volume?

>
> Answer that, and you've answered the bigger question.
>

The cost of insurance over and above the payout includes their profit.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 4:43:39 PM4/2/12

to

Then we'd go back to the "no pre-existing conditions" days. Once you
dropped the policy, you'd never get another, and the taxpayer would
end up funding your care.

>
> Financially, why shouldn't employers dump all their employees into the
> state-run Medicaid-style exchanges? It sure saves them a bundle, in
> cost and administration.

Will the care be worse or better? If worse, then more desirable
employees would get a better deal.

> Since the penalties don't nearly pay the cost of care, who then does?
>
> Please explain why outlawing the establishment or expansion of
> physician-owned hospitals such as Kaiser-Permanente as of Feb. 1, 2010
> under sect. 6001(a)(3) is in the public interest.

KAISER PERMANENTE IS NOT A PHYSICIAN-OWNED HOSPITAL!

Oddly enough, physician-owned hospitals are owned by one or more
physicians. They tend to provide limited, high-profit services. They
cherry-pick business from existing full-service -- either non-profit
or for-profit -- hospitals in their area, leaving these others to
perform the costly services.

>
> How does any of this save money?
>

Who will bail out the hospitals who lost their high margin business?
You and me, buddy.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 4:52:27 PM4/2/12

to

On Apr 2, 1:58 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:19 am, Przemek Klosowski <prze...@tux.dot.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg wrote:
> > > No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
> > > be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
> > > live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
> > > premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
> > > slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.
>
> > The tort lawsuits are there because people sue for entirely rational
> > reasons: since they have no guarantee of continuity of care (preexisting
> > condition, vagaries of insurance coverage), suing for a lot of money is
> > the only way to guarantee long-term care.
>
> > If there was a comprehensive guarantee of medical care, there would be no
> > incentive to sue. People would sue less, and laws to limit lawsuit would
> > be much easier to pass.
>
> Not really. Some 40% of the money collected in malpractice suits stays
> with the lawyers, and they do not want to lose that income.

If American health care providers could simply manage not to seriously
injure their patients, in such a manner that a jury award is almost a
slam-dunk, then the lawyers' business would go away. Plaintiff's
lawyers are entrepreneurs who won't invest in a lawsuit unless a
payout is probable. OTOH, defendants' lawyers get paid by the hour,
win or lose.

> The
> insurance companies who sell malpractice insurance also have an
> interest in maintaining a market for their product.

Let the government take over the malpractice insurance business.

>
> A considerable number of ambulance-chasers of various sorts would have
> to find other work if tort reform ever got to the statute book, and
> they have every reason to lobby against any such reform.

"Tort reform" so far has meant limiting compensation for injuries
caused by health care providers. Especially onerous are damages done
to young people who must live most of a lifetime with some physician
or hospital-caused disability.

> The US
> political system is a forum where well-funded lobbyists seem to be
> unusually effective (when the US is compared with other advanced
> industrial countries).

The poor are in a bad place to wine and dine their leaders.

spamtrap1888

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 4:57:15 PM4/2/12

to

On Apr 2, 7:34 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>
> >> No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
> >> be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
> >> live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
> >> premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
> >> slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.
>
> > The tort lawsuits are there because people sue for entirely rational
> > reasons: since they have no guarantee of continuity of care (preexisting
> > condition, vagaries of insurance coverage), suing for a lot of money is
> > the only way to guarantee long-term care.
>
> > If there was a comprehensive guarantee of medical care, there would be no
> > incentive to sue. People would sue less, and laws to limit lawsuit would
> > be much easier to pass.
>
> The reason is different: Lawyers can advertise and work on
> "contingency". That is illegal in most countries and should be here as
> well.

Who pays for the damages caused by doctors and hospitals in those
other countries?

> Almost every night during the evening news there are lawyers
> touting that if you own this or that call us. Because they smell loot,
> they often get to keep 30-40%. It has nothing to do with medical per se
> or with long term care.

They work strictly on commission. If they don't win, they don't see a
dime for their efforts. Is this not the American way? So, to be
profitable, the injury produced by the health care providers must be
severe, and their responsibility crystal-clear.

>
> If someone wins millions for some elective cosmetic surgery that they
> say has gone sub-optimal, that's extortion of a system to me.

So plastic surgeons should be free to hack up their patients?

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 7:02:53 PM4/2/12

to

On Apr 2, 4:26 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 10:28 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 12:26 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 8:50 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > The insurance company doesn't care--they just raise rates. In many
> > > > cases regulatory limits on profit margins mean the insurer's easiest
> > > > way to increase earnings is to *increase* expenses. (i.e., 15%* of
> > > > $200 million is more than 15% of $150 million)
>
> > > > *(15% is mandated under Obamacare)
>
> > > What is the percentage of insurers' overhead now?
>
> > If it's excessive, why aren't there more efficient, more progressive
> > insurance companies out there doing it for less? They'd make a
> > bundle.
>
> They'd lose a lot on each patient but make it up on volume?

Right. The real answer is that they exist, that marginal improvements
are realized, but somehow they haven't spread. Congress proscribes
offerings across state borders, limiting interstate commerce--maybe
that's it. Ironically, promotion of interstate commerce is Congress'
chief constitutional rationale for their unAffordable Care Act.

> > Answer that, and you've answered the bigger question.
>
> The cost of insurance over and above the payout includes their profit.

Obviously. And their expenses too.

Paying middlemen to rent offices, do useless paperwork, and then pay
your doctor will always cost more than simply paying the doctor
yourself.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 7:24:18 PM4/2/12

to

On Apr 2, 4:43 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 3:43 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > So, please, explain the individual mandate, and why every sensible
> > person in the US wouldn't just wait for illness to purchase Obamacare,
> > then cancel once well.
>
> Then we'd go back to the "no pre-existing conditions" days. Once you
> dropped the policy, you'd never get another, and the taxpayer would
> end up funding your care.

That, however, is not what Obamacare says. Obamacare says you can't
be denied, and that you pay a trivial penalty for not having
insurance.

> > Financially, why shouldn't employers dump all their employees into the
> > state-run Medicaid-style exchanges? It sure saves them a bundle, in
> > cost and administration.
>
> Will the care be worse or better? If worse, then more desirable
> employees would get a better deal.
>
> > Since the penalties don't nearly pay the cost of care, who then does?
>
> > Please explain why outlawing the establishment or expansion of
> > physician-owned hospitals such as Kaiser-Permanente as of Feb. 1, 2010
> > under sect. 6001(a)(3) is in the public interest.
>
> KAISER PERMANENTE IS NOT A PHYSICIAN-OWNED HOSPITAL!

<shrug> It's a shell game, but essentially no different. Why
shouldn't physicians be allowed to pool together and invest in
hospitals?

> Oddly enough, physician-owned hospitals are owned by one or more
> physicians. They tend to provide limited, high-profit services. They
> cherry-pick business from existing full-service -- either non-profit
> or for-profit -- hospitals in their area, leaving these others to
> perform the costly services.

So? Businesses always try for more, and, if margins are excessive,
competition trims them back. Unless you regulate away all the
competition, that is.

> > How does any of this save money?
>
> Who will bail out the hospitals who lost their high margin business?
> You and me, buddy.

Not me. If Obamacare stands, you'll pay for me, and everyone else.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 7:27:02 PM4/2/12

to

On Apr 2, 4:52 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Tort reform" so far has meant limiting compensation for injuries
> caused by health care providers.

Incorrect. Tort reform limits punitive damages, not actual damages.

> Especially onerous are damages done
> to young people who must live most of a lifetime with some physician
> or hospital-caused disability.

Those are actual damages. Not limited.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Joerg

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 7:33:23 PM4/2/12

to

spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:34 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:42 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>>>> No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will
>>>> be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I
>>>> live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice
>>>> premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets
>>>> slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.
>>> The tort lawsuits are there because people sue for entirely rational
>>> reasons: since they have no guarantee of continuity of care (preexisting
>>> condition, vagaries of insurance coverage), suing for a lot of money is
>>> the only way to guarantee long-term care.
>>> If there was a comprehensive guarantee of medical care, there would be no
>>> incentive to sue. People would sue less, and laws to limit lawsuit would
>>> be much easier to pass.
>> The reason is different: Lawyers can advertise and work on
>> "contingency". That is illegal in most countries and should be here as
>> well.
>
> Who pays for the damages caused by doctors and hospitals in those
> other countries?
>

Liability insurance. But, huge difference:

a. They do not pay exorbitant sums of money such as tens of millions for
one case.

b. The lawyers are not allowed to siphon off 30-40% for themselves.

>> Almost every night during the evening news there are lawyers
>> touting that if you own this or that call us. Because they smell loot,
>> they often get to keep 30-40%. It has nothing to do with medical per se
>> or with long term care.
>
> They work strictly on commission. If they don't win, they don't see a
> dime for their efforts. Is this not the American way? So, to be
> profitable, the injury produced by the health care providers must be
> severe, and their responsibility crystal-clear.
>

We all know that it has resulted in a massive number of ambulance
chasers. The American way is the way of fairness, not the milking of the
fellow citizen.

>> If someone wins millions for some elective cosmetic surgery that they
>> say has gone sub-optimal, that's extortion of a system to me.
>
> So plastic surgeons should be free to hack up their patients?

No, but the awards should be reasonable.

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 7:32:48 PM4/2/12

to

On Apr 2, 4:58 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:19 am, Przemek Klosowski <prze...@tux.dot.org> wrote:

> > If there was a comprehensive guarantee of medical care, there would be no
> > incentive to sue. People would sue less, and laws to limit lawsuit would
> > be much easier to pass.
>
> Not really. Some 40% of the money collected in malpractice suits stays
> with the lawyers, and they do not want to lose that income.The
> insurance companies who sell malpractice insurance also have an
> interest in maintaining a market for their product.

Yes, well-stated.

> A considerable number of ambulance-chasers of various sorts would have
> to find other work if tort reform ever got to the statute book, and
> they have every reason to lobby against any such reform. The US
> political system is a forum where well-funded lobbyists seem to be
> unusually effective (when the US is compared with other advanced
> industrial countries).

Also true. The Trial Lawyers Assn. is an active and effective
opponent of tort reform, and huge contributors to Democrat campaigns.
When they speak, Democrats tremble.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2009/08/why-democrats-wont-cross-trial-lawyers/92536

--
Cheers,
James Arthur