Rothmann show his weakness when he strays...
gvk2
and the Middle East.
On the other hand when straying very far from those subjects he knows
something about, he can be as dumb and uninformed as the average guy
walking down Market St.
Example, last night he goes on and on about how almost everyone
should have almost every preventive medical test every single year.
He stated specifically that men should do as he does and get their
prostate examined every year from the age of 20 onward.
He said he saw no reason to not give 25 and 30 year old men annual PSA
tests.
Now, I have read a lot about this subject and I can tell you, there
is no respected urologist I've ever read that would suggest annual PSA
tests for men in their twenties or early 30's...
But Rothmann insisted, saying "why not do them annually"
Beware of that professorial certitude he exudes because much of the
time there is no substance behind it.
Last night was just one glaring example of his minimal knowledge about
such subjects.
Clearly, when Rothmann strays even a minimum distance from his areas
of expertise, he ends up sounding like Joanie Greggains, but with a
deeper voice.
BTW, he's also a big fan of the annual full physical exam for
everyone, even though people like Dr. Edell have said so many times,
that all the studies of annual full physical exams, say they are a
tremendous waste of health care dollars., seldom benefiting patients.
Rothmann probably still changes his oil every 3,000 miles just to be
safe.
Now, other than that, I'm glad he got the time slot, but you just
have to keep any eye on the subject matter and what actual knowledge
he brings to the discussion at hand.
David Kaye
>Now, other than that, I'm glad he got the time slot, but you just
>have to keep any eye on the subject matter and what actual knowledge
>he brings to the discussion at hand.
I couldn't believe it. The other night he had Wendell Wilkie's grandson on
once again. I thought he was finally over that. That's it. I can't listen
anymore. If I'm near a radio I prefer to listen to a rerun of "All Things
Considered" or some music from KALW instead.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
John Higdon
<f7ae26ed-b47b-4fd8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Rothmann is very well informed when discussing U.S. Presidents
> and the Middle East.
>
> On the other hand when straying very far from those subjects he knows
> something about, he can be as dumb and uninformed as the average guy
> walking down Market St.
And when he drones on night after night about The President Of The
United States, this forum is silent. It's boring. It's repetitive. His
Obama Worship is totally predictable.
But notice that when he FINALLY did something current (post 1950) and
different (not the superb handling of _______ by The President Of The
United States Barack Obama), we get a couple of posts.
Personally, I think KGO would rather have the buzz than have the time
slot vanish into oblivion.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
Peter
> Now, I have read a lot about this subject and I can tell you, there
> is no respected urologist I've ever read that would suggest annual PSA
> tests for men in their twenties or early 30's...
> But Rothmann insisted, saying "why not do them annually"
I have a PSA test once a year, but I try to defer to once every other year.
My PSA is usually 0.8, and it has been 0.8 for decades, but it has
recently gone down to 0.6, after initiating FloMax therapy for BPH. An
expected result, I am told.
But, a very low PSA, and especially one which stays low, is a good thing.
Ever so much better than a PSA of 28 and multiple metastises to other organs.
A downside of the PSA test is it is very expensive, when compared to
the usual blood work which an internist will need to confirm the proper
levels of, say, cholesterol, when titrating for the proper dose of
Lipitor.
--
Peter Haas - Monterey Bay, California
+1 831 GArden 6-5482
Should you quote, please quote only the relevant text!
gvk2
>
> I have a PSA test once a year, but I try to defer to once every other year.
>
> My PSA is usually 0.8, and it has been 0.8 for decades,
>
> But, a very low PSA, and especially one which stays low, is a good thing.
>
> Ever so much better than a PSA of 28 and multiple metastises to other organs.
>
There is a lively scientific debate about the value of doing PSA
screening. Good cases can be made for both sides.
Many advise a benchmark reading be done at age 40, then if low,
followed up at a less than annual interval, and perhaps changing to
annually after age 50, and going thru age 75 or 80.
But my point is, that NO ONE in the medical community is suggesting
such test be given to men in their 20's or early 30's unless some
extremely rare events are evident. Then we'd be talking something
like one guy a thousand.
Rothmann was suggesting routine annual prostate exams and PSA testing
essentially from 20 onward. Just absurd and a complete waste of
money.
Then he tried to use a caller as a example because some guy called in
who had stomach troubles and ended up with colon polyps (which weren't
cancer)...
His whole take on healthy practices was just something you'd find
around a water cooler gabfest.
Yet all of it was accompanied with his usual professorial certitude.
I wonder how many of the 15,000 books in his personal library are
about medical issues? 2 or 3 ?
BTW, Joanie Greggains was on Ronn's show this morning and gave one
caller some great advice.
Seriously...
For holding down or losing weight she said just begin by dropping one
"poor choice" food.... in this case soft-drinks.
Then begin doing some cardio... walking.
Doing just those two you'll begin losing.
Great advice for most overweight folks. Very simple.
Not all this silly "weight industry, exercise industry" hype.
I don't always bash Joanie, just when she goes off on the science
tangents such as vaccines.
Have you noticed Greggains and Craft have been very silent of late
since about 40 million Americans have gotten H1N1 vaccines and NO ONE
is getting bad reactions...
Kind of like when the year 2000 rolled around and all the computers in
the world didn't crash.
Ciccio
> And when he drones on night after night about The President Of The
> United States, this forum is silent. It's boring. It's repetitive. His
> Obama Worship is totally predictable.
Worship? He took Obama to task last night for Obama prejudging the
issue of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's guilt. That's hardly genuflecting.
I may not listen to Rothmann as much as you do, but I've never
perceived an extremely favorable bias that he has toward Obama.
Though, many of his positions are consistent with the Democratic
platform. Moreover, on the occasions I have listened to him since he
took over the time slot, I've found his topics to be diverse and
contemporary.
Ciccio
Ciccio
> I couldn't believe it. The other night he had Wendell Wilkie's grandson on
> once again. I thought he was finally over that. That's it. I can't listen
> anymore.
How often does he have him on? You make it sound like it's every month
or so. Generally, he mixes it up pretty good with topics of general
interest, along with an occasional esoteric topic or guest, which
makes it interesting.
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
I turned Rothman off for that topic. The people that make these
suggestions (policies?) have studies to back up their recommendations.
They don't pull this stuff out of their arse. So you can talk about
the studies, look for flaws, etc., but it is hardly fair to criticize
the recommendations by what you "feel."
Dr. Dean Edel doesn't poo poo exercise, but says you are better off
not eating high caloric food in the first place since it takes a lot
of exercise to work off the food.
I'm really bummed I missed Wilke's grandson. Was Madam Chiang Kai Shek
mentioned?
On the other hand, the author that did the book on Barney Frank was
great. He had at least three lines from Barney that cracked me up.
John's doing food addiction, and I'm streaming KPOJ.
John Higdon
<8a53f647-a92a-4f2f...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I may not listen to Rothmann as much as you do, but I've never
> perceived an extremely favorable bias that he has toward Obama.
It goes far beyond "favorable bias". You can hear the glow in his voice
whenever Rothmann talks about the man. It is a reverential tone usually
reserved for preachers discussing the almighty.
> Though, many of his positions are consistent with the Democratic
> platform. Moreover, on the occasions I have listened to him since he
> took over the time slot, I've found his topics to be diverse and
> contemporary.
Then you must actually listen more than I. It seems like every time I
let the radio slip over into the ten o'clock slot, (or hear the
crossover from Gene's show), it is announced that we will be talking
about Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan, and of course, no discussion of those
countries is complete without liberal (no pun intended) mention of The
President Of The United States, Barack Obama.
Even Gene has been sipping the Cool Aid as of late!
Neil
> the world didn't crash.
Yeah, the media overhyped that potential disaster, didn't they? But as
someone who actually wrote quite a bit of code back in the seventies,
I know firsthand that very few apps were programming with the
anticipation that their code would still be around in 1999. (That was,
remember, a quarter century into the future.) In fact, a standard
technique of the time was to identify the end of a data set with a
string of 9's, or a date of 123199. Some operating systems still used
two digit dates in their code. The year 2000 was way in the future,
and the implicit presumption was that it would all be rewritten or
obsoleted long before then.
I had lunch with an old colleague from that 70's era employer sometime
around 1997, and was astounded to discover that my code was still
being run to support their business operations (though the host
computers had been updated since then), and that they were only then
getting around to implementing modern application packages, due to the
fear that everything would catastrophically crash on 01/01/2000.
Had there not been the hype, and had nothing been done, then yes, many
of those legacy computer applications would have stopped working, or
worse, would have started spewing unpredictable results. I'll bet you
wouldn't have wanted to be in mid flight, with your pilot depending on
the original 60's era air traffic control system, at that particular
moment.
Peter
> But my point is, that NO ONE in the medical community is suggesting
> such test be given to men in their 20's or early 30's unless some
> extremely rare events are evident. Then we'd be talking something
> like one guy a thousand.
The first test, of any man, would be a DRE (digital rectal exam). Even
a man in his 20s. Been there, done that! MANY times.
The DRE would (could) suggest the need for a PSA.
The combination of the DRE and the PSA would (could) suggest the need
for a prostate ultrasound or prostate biopsy.
The ultrasound or biopsy would (could) suggest the need for more
aggressive, invasive measures, such as surgery.
Physicians know how to walk down the patient's presentation "decision tree".
They should be allowed to to their work.
Non-professionals, such as Rothmann and Greggains should refrain from
giving medical advise, or for even suggesting the same.
As a man in my 20s (and I am now a man in my 60s), I was required, as a
condition of employment, to submit to a DRE (a pre-employment physical,
possibly now illegal).
As I had done so, earlier, as a part of good preventative medical care,
and with my own primary care physician, it was no big issue for me.
David Kaye
>Yeah, the media overhyped that potential disaster, didn't they? But as
>someone who actually wrote quite a bit of code back in the seventies,
>I know firsthand that very few apps were programming with the
>anticipation that their code would still be around in 1999.
I was working in software at the time and I can attest to this. While our
systems were Windows-based and Windows expresses dates internally as integers
rather than strings, (today is 40138, the number of days that have passed
since 12/31/1899, not "112109") we had no date problems.
However the medical equipment our systems interfaced with did have problems.
In fact, we had to have our software certified by an independent lab to be
sure that we'd have no rollover problems.
As it happened a LOT of Unix systems showed New Years as 01/01/19100. Among
the things that happened were airplane radars going out in Asia, cell phones
that stopped working, and weather instruments reporting gibberish.
Incidentally, this very moment is marked in Windows as 40138.5262731481 (the
decimal indicates the hours and minutes past midnight).
Peter Lawrence
>
> I turned Rothman off for that topic. The people that make these
> suggestions (policies?) have studies to back up their recommendations.
> They don't pull this stuff out of their arse. So you can talk about
> the studies, look for flaws, etc., but it is hardly fair to criticize
> the recommendations by what you "feel."
But a lot of these recommendations are about rationing care, not preventing
disease or eliminating useless tests.
As long as someone can contract a certain disease by a certain age, then
testing for that disease starting at that certain age should not be
considered useless.
I have personally knew someone who died of prostrate cancer in their early
thirties. Just because it's more common for older people to contract
prostrate cancer shouldn't mean that testing for it should start at an
earlier age if one can afford the test.
That's the problem with socialized medicine. By necessity, socialized
medicine *must* ration healthcare to keep it from bankrupting the government.
The obviously (but politically difficult) solution to this dilemma though
would be to make these cancer screening tests more affordable so they could
be used more often by more people at an earlier age. But too many
politically connected entities will do everything in their power to stifle
competition to keep these lifesaving tests from ever becoming more affordable.
> Dr. Dean Edel doesn't poo poo exercise, but says you are better off
> not eating high caloric food in the first place since it takes a lot
> of exercise to work off the food.
Sigh...
It's amazing how many in the medical establishment continue to ignore the
real scientific evidence that it's the consumption of too many carbs
(especially highly refined carbs like sugar and HFCS) that make people obese
and not ones total caloric intake.
It's been shown repeatedly that people on a low-carb diet can consume 3,000
calories a day and not get fat, while others on a mostly carb diet of 1,200
calories of a day can continue to gain weight.
The basic science behind this is that it's the level of insulin in one's
bloodstream that determines if someone creates fat or burns fat in their
body, and it's the consumption of carbs (and carbs alone) the causes the
insulin level in one's bloodstream to rise.
- Peter
David Kaye
>But a lot of these recommendations are about rationing care, not preventing
>disease or eliminating useless tests.
Then you simply do as you've done before and go outside your health plan and
pay cash. There are lots of procedures not covered by present-day health
plans, and other more common ones not covered for people who have pre-existing
conditions. So, the federal plan actually makes things better, not worse.
Ciccio
> It's been shown repeatedly that people on a low-carb diet can consume 3,000
> calories a day and not get fat, while others on a mostly carb diet of 1,200
> calories of a day can continue to gain weight.
And both groups are of similar weight and engaged in similar physical
activity? With a 2.5:1 caloric intake? If so, forget "shown
repeatedly," how about just the names/titles of one or two credible
studies? I don't need links, just the titles of the studies, I'll
Google for them. I've read some studies that found a "slight"
difference, but nothing near that great a difference.
Ciccio
John Higdon
Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
> That's the problem with socialized medicine. By necessity, socialized
> medicine *must* ration healthcare to keep it from bankrupting the government.
>
> The obviously (but politically difficult) solution to this dilemma though
> would be to make these cancer screening tests more affordable so they could
> be used more often by more people at an earlier age. But too many
> politically connected entities will do everything in their power to stifle
> competition to keep these lifesaving tests from ever becoming more affordable.
So, what you're saying is that no matter what system is in place, it
amounts to rationing by price. With socialized medicine, one waits for
treatment; in the US, a certain percentage just does without. I guess
there are advantages both ways.
> It's been shown repeatedly that people on a low-carb diet can consume 3,000
> calories a day and not get fat, while others on a mostly carb diet of 1,200
> calories of a day can continue to gain weight.
Where? Please don't send me to an Atkins-leaning web site.
> The basic science behind this is that it's the level of insulin in one's
> bloodstream that determines if someone creates fat or burns fat in their
> body, and it's the consumption of carbs (and carbs alone) the causes the
> insulin level in one's bloodstream to rise.
That's a good one, I'll admit. Sounds like it's right out of an
infomercial. Got a credible source?
David Kaye
>So, what you're saying is that no matter what system is in place, it
>amounts to rationing by price. With socialized medicine, one waits for
>treatment; in the US, a certain percentage just does without. I guess
>there are advantages both ways.
has a government-backed health plan of one kind or other and most of those
countries have longer life expectancies than we do. We rank 50th.
Here's a Wikipedia entry from the CIA World Factbook:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
David Kaye
Here's the rest of the missing post:
What's funny about this argument is that nearly every other country of the
world...
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> has a government-backed health plan of one kind or other and most of those
> countries have longer life expectancies than we do. We rank 50th.
I'm not sure I understand the objection to a government-backed medical
care system. You may find this shocking, but I probably agree with you
that the care "system" in this country sucks. If you've never been sick
a day in your life, or you have a job with the right company, you can
get medical care without paying what look like house payments.
But have so much as one of a huge long list of conditions (from
allergies on down), and you'll be lucky to even be able to get health
insurance coverage, let alone be able to afford it. And then, when you
actually need medical care, they cancel the policy...before they even
give you the care! Oh...and they keep the premiums, of course.
One of the biggest myths right now (and talkshow hosts are doing
everything they can to perpetuate it) is the notion that if you don't
have anything else, you can go to the emergency room. Emergency rooms
don't provide medical care; they treat emergencies. If you are taken by
ambulance to the ER with a failing sinus heart rhythm, they'll save your
life, but will they install a pacemaker?
Believe me...if they do, they'll send you a bill for about four times
the amount any insurance company would pay...and they'll be happy to
collect on it for the rest of your life if necessary. Emergency room
care is for those who are destitute or who are willing to become such
after treatment.
Medical care has become such a huge, complex service that it is now in
that category of services best handled by government, in my opinion. If
you are rich, you can pay any amount you like, but for the rest of us,
it is like police and fire protection: we settle for the
government-provided services.
David Kaye
>But have so much as one of a huge long list of conditions (from
>allergies on down), and you'll be lucky to even be able to get health
>insurance coverage, let alone be able to afford it.
Or in my case, aside from a leg staph infection I got from a bite on a camping
trip, I'm otherwise in perfect health. The problem comes, however, in that
I'm single, don't work for a large company, and am over 50. Thus, even though
I qualify for most health care plans, the premiums are so high that I am
forced to go without.
>And then, when you
>actually need medical care, they cancel the policy...before they even
>give you the care! Oh...and they keep the premiums, of course.
The program "This American Life" had two shows on the health care situation,
especially on its history. I had thought that HMOs began with Henry Kaiser
and the Kaiser Shipyards.
Actually, they began with a Baylor Hospital in Texas in 1929. As the
Depression began, Baylor discovered that most of the beds in their new
hospital were empty. So, they gave insurance coverage to the healthiest
people they knew: teachers at Baylor University. The system eventually became
Blue Shield, but the underpinnings remained: Cover the healthy and ditch
everybody else.
>Medical care has become such a huge, complex service that it is now in
>that category of services best handled by government, in my opinion.
Every other civilized country of the world has come to this conclusion as
well.
John T
> But have so much as one of a huge long list of conditions (from
> allergies on down), and you'll be lucky to even be able to get health
> insurance coverage, let alone be able to afford it.
Exactly the situation I have been in. For everyday "maintenance"
(colds, flu, minor infections) I'm pretty well covered by my
employer's "Mercy Assistance" program. Works 80/20 percent like many
insurance plans, but it is NOT insurance. The caps, when you encounter
a catastrophic illness, are severe.
> If you are taken by
> ambulance to the ER with a failing sinus heart rhythm, they'll save your
> life, but will they install a pacemaker?
>
> Believe me...if they do, they'll send you a bill for about four times
> the amount any insurance company would pay
I spent most of October in the hospital (21 days, two surgeries) and
the result involves some Big Scary Numbers. I'm applying for Medi-Cal,
but that is its own nightmare almost as bad as the insurance companies.
>...and they'll be happy to
> collect on it for the rest of your life if necessary.
Fortunately, Sutter affiliated hospitals are more flexible in how the
uninsured are billed, and when/if collection is used. That doesn't
mean that I won't be paying for a long while to come, though.
>
> Medical care has become such a huge, complex service that it is now in
> that category of services best handled by government
In watching news coverage of the Town Hall Tantrums..er, Meetings, I
have been amazed at how many Truly Stupid People there are in this
nation. They don't realize, apparently, that the insurance companies
are already rationing their care on a cost basis.
If socialized medicine is so evil, why do the nations that have it
consistently have higher ratings when it comes to the quality of
health care? Why is the U.S. always down well below #25? People in
those nations are often critical of their local systems, but
apparently the care they get is quantifiably better than what we have
here- Unless, like you say, you're rich and can pay any price.
JT
--
leansto...@democrat.com
Dean Edel talks about the merits or lack thereof of low carb diets.
Basically, there is little difference in weight loss. The Dr. Dean
Edel diet book is two words: eat less.
leansto...@democrat.com
You can't test everyone for everything. You have to establish
guidelines. Age is one of them. But what you are really doing here is
chasing an exponential tail of a distribution. While breast cancer
screening finds so many cancers in those over 50, and less in the over
40 population. But why not start screening at 30? Actually, there are
technical reasons that have to do with the opaqueness of the breast
tissue in young women, but you get the point. You need to draw the
line somewhere. If there is a family history or some other reason to
get the screening at an earlier age, then that should be taken into
account.
David Kaye
>Dean Edel talks about the merits or lack thereof of low carb diets.
>Basically, there is little difference in weight loss. The Dr. Dean
>Edel diet book is two words: eat less.
This is extremely hard to do, too. On a typical day I eat 2 small meals and
yet I don't lose weight.
Yesterday I had a taco salad (which, for the most part is various kinds of
lettuce, tomato, onion, taco seasoning, a little cheese, black beans, etc., no
meat) and a small chicken salad sandwich.
Today, so far I've had a turkey sandwich with a side of veggies, an oatmeal
cookie, a bran muffin, and an apple. Later tonight I'll probably have a
banana and a couple handfuls of mixed nuts and raisins.
I do have a weakness for coffee with half and half, though I'll sub whole milk
if it's available.
I just tell people my body is extremely efficient at using food. I'm quite
overweight but all my vital signs are normal.
W B Reese
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:16:48 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:
The level of insulin in my blood is easily controlled by me. I inject
it every day. More or less is my choice.
If there is more, the cells absorb more glucose (sugar) and I get
fatter (gain weight). Also, my blood sugars go down.
If there is less, the cells absorb less glucose (sugar) and I get
thinner (lose weight). Also, my blood sugars go up.
There are two variables left out of those two criterium. If my blood
sugars go too high, I go blind, suffer amputation, and die. If I
control my diet I have the best of both worlds. You can ask any
diabetic.
Warren
W B Reese
<news...@fuzzyfaraway.com> wrote:
> In watching news coverage of the Town Hall Tantrums..er, Meetings, I
>have been amazed at how many Truly Stupid People there are in this
>nation. They don't realize, apparently, that the insurance companies
>are already rationing their care on a cost basis.
>
>If socialized medicine is so evil, why do the nations that have it
>consistently have higher ratings when it comes to the quality of
>health care? Why is the U.S. always down well below #25? People in
>those nations are often critical of their local systems, but
>apparently the care they get is quantifiably better than what we have
>here- Unless, like you say, you're rich and can pay any price.
>
>JT
So True !!!
My wife is 64 and has high blood pressure, we are unable to buy her
health insurance at any price. Please believe me, we tried earnestly.
Last August, she fell off a ladder; what we needed was accident
insurance and it had nothing to do with age 64 or hypertension.
The bill was $40,000 for an artificial elbow. We paid it out of our
retirement money, so now our "golden years" are reduced.
I have a friend who sells insurance. He says we are not a
philanthropic organization, we are in business to make money. We do
that by not insuring old sick people who are likely to run up high
bills.
I went down and changed my party affiliation from Republican to
Democratic. It's amazing how a little $40K bill can make you
reexamine a lifelong philosophy. Right now, I can't imagine voting
for a Republican as long as I live.
Warren
leansto...@democrat.com
Dr. Dean would say you, being efficient, are a highly evolved human
being necessary for the survival of the human race in times of
famine.
Incidentally, the taco shell is deep fried, which has lots of fat.
Otherwise, it should be a good meal provided no sour cream is used.
Also, use black beans instead of refried beans.
leansto...@democrat.com
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:13:34 -0800, John T
>
The thing you should bear in mind is if you had health insurance, the
bill would probably not be $40k. The person without insurance pays the
full "retail" price.
I'm self employed, and thus pay the highest rates for health
insurance, not to mention $40 co-pays.
David Kaye
>Incidentally, the taco shell is deep fried, which has lots of fat.
>Otherwise, it should be a good meal provided no sour cream is used.
>Also, use black beans instead of refried beans.
There was no taco shell. It's basically a meal in a bowl. I ate it at Java
Beach, the cafe at the end of Judah on the Great Highway. There is no sour
cream, and yes, they use black beans. I never eat refritos.
RWW
898f24ee-1ddd-446e...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com,
"leansto...@democrat.com" <leansto...@democrat.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:36�am, W B Reese <zaq1x...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> My wife is 64 and has high blood pressure, we are unable to buy her
>> health insurance at any price. �Please believe me, we tried earnestly.
>>
>> Last August, she fell off a ladder; what we needed was accident
>> insurance and it had nothing to do with age 64 or hypertension.
>>
>> The bill was $40,000 for an artificial elbow. �We paid it out of our
>> retirement money, so now our "golden years" are reduced.
>
> The thing you should bear in mind is if you had health insurance, the
> bill would probably not be $40k. The person without insurance pays the
> full "retail" price.
Anyone with insurance knows that their insurance company has
negotiated rates with their providers.
A $40k elbow replacement is paid as $2685 to the hospital,
And $783 to the surgeon, $359 to the anesthesiologist.
A $38k bill for kidney stone lithotripsy is paid as $490 to the hospital
for the outpatient fees, $800 to the urologist, and $299 to the
Anesthesiologist.
A $58k bill for emergency room minor heart attack is paid as
$1500 to the hospital, and $1200 to the cardiologist for
the angiogram.
If you don't have insurance, you are on the hook for the
full price, and probably lose your house, savings, or credit
rating.
This is a pretty good argument for the public option.
A Tom/Dick/Harry off the street should have the ability
To buy into a group plan that saves them from ruin if they
Have a major health crisis.
The problem is that most of the uninsured don't have the
Money to buy into a "group plan for the restofus".
The key to insurance working for "all comers" (ie anyone,
even with a pre-existing condition) is the law of averages.
You need enough healthy people in the plan to pay for
The unhealthy people.
A good analogy is that some insurance companies were
ruined by insuring too many people in hurricane zones,
while not writing enough policies in safe zones to compensate.
They got greedy and got burned.
John Higdon
wrote:
> If you don't have insurance, you are on the hook for the
> full price, and probably lose your house, savings, or credit
> rating.
Yep. This is the dirty little secret about Emergency Room care in lieu
of a medical plan. Even if you can get extended treatment from an
emergency room admission, you don't just walk away with a "have a nice
day". They want a financial statement, including a complete list of your
assets and their encumbrances. This little fact seems to get lost in the
noise of The Reform Debate.
As you point out, the "full price" is MUCH higher than any insurance
company pays for the same services. As I said before, to get emergency
room treatment, you had better be destitute, or willing to become
destitute because after you receive treatment, you will be.
> The problem is that most of the uninsured don't have the
> Money to buy into a "group plan for the restofus".
I spend between $10K and $15K per year for health care, and consider
myself lucky. I can't imagine that a government plan would be more than
that.
> The key to insurance working for "all comers" (ie anyone,
> even with a pre-existing condition) is the law of averages.
> You need enough healthy people in the plan to pay for
> The unhealthy people.
The only real exposure the insurance companies bear is the "pre-existing
condition" group that have employer provided coverage. I don't know of
any insurance company who will even write up a policy for anyone that
has seen the inside of a hospital in his life.
> A good analogy is that some insurance companies were
> ruined by insuring too many people in hurricane zones,
> while not writing enough policies in safe zones to compensate.
> They got greedy and got burned.
Sounds like credit card companies, mortgage companies, and all the
service providers that don't pay attention to who is signing up.
David Kaye
>I spend between $10K and $15K per year for health care, and consider
>myself lucky. I can't imagine that a government plan would be more than
>that.
If you lived in Vancouver you'd be paying $54 a month. Here's the info from
the Ministry of Health of the province of BC:
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html
What really REALLY gets me is the people who say that the "free market" should
determine our care and that the government should not get involved. But the
"free market" has had 70+ years to get it right and they haven't. Instead
they've been gouging us on the one hand or taking away coverage on the other.
It's obvious that a private system doesn't work. They've had decades to prove
it and haven't given us the kind of simple, low-cost coverage Canada can do.
Ciccio
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
> If you lived in Vancouver you'd be paying $54 a month. Here's the info from
> the Ministry of Health of the province of BC:
And your sales tax would be 12% and your gasoline tax would be about
1.40 per US gallon compared to .64 in Calif. As usual, there's no such
thing as a free lunch.
> What really REALLY gets me is the people who say that the "free market" should
> determine our care and that the government should not get involved. But the
> "free market" has had 70+ years to get it right and they haven't.
But it hasn't because the government doesn't allow the health
insurance companies to conduct interstate business. In the vast
majority of states only two companies write 50%+ of the policies. Get
rid of that bullshit and let the companies compete in a true "free
market." Then if that fails, come back and talk to me about having a
government bureaucracy provide me with health care.
Another alternative that I'd go for instead of the government, is that
if the companies are going to continue to enjoy such extreme
protectionism, that their rates be regulated. Though, I prefer just
opening it and making a "free market."
Ciccio
David Kaye
>And your sales tax would be 12% and your gasoline tax would be about
>1.40 per US gallon compared to .64 in Calif. As usual, there's no such
>thing as a free lunch.
I have no problem with high sales taxes or high gasoline taxes. People buy
way too many things and drive way too much as it is.
>But it hasn't because the government doesn't allow the health
>insurance companies to conduct interstate business.
Kaiser manages to do it somehow. Sure, they're incorporated separately in
different regions, but they still have group buying clout. Likewise Blue
Cross and Blue Shield. They could form a consortium among their plans and
negotiate better rates and not gouge us.
Ciccio
> I have no problem with high sales taxes or high gasoline taxes. People buy
> way too many things
Ah, you haven't been paying attention, people have buying wayyyy less.
Moreover, buying bolsters the economy. Buying with ridiculous credit
terms is what's bad for the economy.
> and drive way too much as it is.
If it were only that simple, good thing they also eat too much,
because increase the fuel tax and the cost of food really increases.
All that said, THEY DO PAY A LOT MORE TAXES for that medical coverage.
You have chosen a lifestyle, why should I be forced to underwrite your
medical coverage? Sure, there are those who are truly incapable of
taking care of themselves and they should be helped.
But capable people who make career or business choices should learn to
live with them. I am really tired of bailing out people who want to
shirk self-responsibility, whether it be on Main St or Wall St Grow
up and take care of yourselves. Sheesh!
> Kaiser manages to do it somehow. Sure, they're incorporated separately in
> different regions, but they still have group buying clout. Likewise Blue
> Cross and Blue Shield. They could form a consortium among their plans and
> negotiate better rates and not gouge us.
Of course, Kaiser, Blue Cross, and Blue Shield do it because a "free
market" doesn't exist for health care insurance. Your proposal would
just spread the problem amongst the states. The government needs to
OPEN IT UP so ALL can compete, not just the behemoths who can invade
states. If I could purchase health insurance from a company in So.
Carolina, I would pay only 1/3 of what I'm paying now. Indeed, it
wouldn't be much more than the BC premium you linked to.
Opening the market up to all competitors needs to be tried before the
government and its usual cluster fuck ways gets involved.
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
So you are saying the Canadians get something for their taxes. Yes, I
agree.
Ciccio
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> So you are saying the Canadians get something for their taxes. Yes, I
> agree.
No, YOU are saying that. What I am saying is that we can achieve the
same thing here, if not better, without raising taxes. That is, by
abolishing protectionism and allowing all competitors access to all
the states' markets.
Ciccio
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> I have no problem with high sales taxes or high gasoline taxes. People buy
> way too many things and drive way too much as it is.
Ah, a supporter of taxation as a social control mechanism! Just what we
need.
David Kaye
>Ah, you haven't been paying attention, people have buying wayyyy less.
>Moreover, buying bolsters the economy. Buying with ridiculous credit
>terms is what's bad for the economy.
All one has to do is look at the free section on Craigslist. As of a few
moments ago people were giving away furniture in very good condition, TVs, a
Nordic exercise machine which must have cost several hundred dollars new, a
microwave oven, bicycles, beds, a sewing machine -- and that's just in the
last 24 hours and in the Bay Area.
Ciccio
> All one has to do is look at the free section on Craigslist. As of a few
> moments ago people were giving away furniture in very good condition, TVs, a
> Nordic exercise machine which must have cost several hundred dollars new, a
> microwave oven, bicycles, beds, a sewing machine -- and that's just in the
> last 24 hours and in the Bay Area.
That's what I said. People are buying way less. Of course, the free
list also replete with stuff like free tub shower doors, free
nonworking washer, etc.
Ciccio
chris319
> that professorial certitude he exudes
It's hard to imagine anyone being more self-righteous than Dr. Bill
and many of the members of this very group.
Rothmann knows a lot of San Francisco nostalgia, but he is basically a
two-subject host (the presidency and the middle East/Pocky-stahn)
doing five shows per week. I no longer listen to him.
David Kaye
>Rothmann knows a lot of San Francisco nostalgia, but he is basically a
>two-subject host (the presidency and the middle East/Pocky-stahn)
>doing five shows per week. I no longer listen to him.
Well, he's trying. He had an author on who wrote a book about a guy who stole
books in order to build his collection. It was actually a way more
interesting hour than how I just portrayed it. And he didn't mention Wendell
Wilkie once.
SMS
> John Rothmann is very well informed when discussing U.S. Presidents
> and the Middle East.
>
> On the other hand when straying very far from those subjects he knows
> something about, he can be as dumb and uninformed as the average guy
> walking down Market St.
No different from when Gene Burns strays. It gets to be so painful I
change the station.
Of course if Wattenburg didn't stray from those subjects he knows
something about he'd have nothing to say at all.
leansto...@democrat.com
It would be a race to the bottom if health insurance could bypass
state commissions. Remember, health insurance actually has to be
health insurance in practice, not just in name.
Any company that wants to provide insurance in California is free to
set up a company here. I don't see any protectionism.
leansto...@democrat.com
That was a good hour of radio. I never heard of certificates
indicating the books were signed first editions. I've been to many a
book signing and never was presented one. BTW, if you've never been to
Book Passages, the crowds there are minimal. You don't have to stand
in line forever to get your book autographed.
Ciccio
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> It would be a race to the bottom if health insurance could bypass
> state commissions.
No problem with the State Commissions. I have a problem that I can't
by insurance from a company based in another state, but I have to buy
it from a California company at four times the premium. Many
industries, e.g., trucking, demonstrate that there can be stats'
rights and robust beneficial competition of interstate commerce.
> Any company that wants to provide insurance in California is free to
> set up a company here. I don't see any protectionism.
There is a difference between having a de jure denial of rights and a
de facto denial of rights. You know, like the old "voting tests."
Blacks had the same right to vote as whites, if they had the same
minimum education and passed the same literacy tests as whites...It's
called a "stacked deck."
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
Trucking is a disaster. They drive half awake these days just to break
even.
You still didn't explain why a company can't come to California and
set up shop. It's a big market. I seriously doubt there is an
identical plan in another state that would be 1/4 the California cost.
Remember, the out of state plan would have to pay fees suitable for
California, not Alabama.
Ciccio
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Trucking is a disaster. They drive half awake these days just to break
> even.
That has nothing to do with price regulations. Many people in many
industries "these days" are enduring financial hardships...or don't
you know?
> You still didn't explain why a company can't come to California and
> set up shop. It's a big market. I seriously doubt there is an
> identical plan in another state that would be 1/4 the California cost.
Then I doubt you've ever researched it or done any comparisons.
> Remember, the out of state plan would have to pay fees suitable for
> California, not Alabama.
Even allowing for that, it would still be much less. Go ahead, double
the premium, it's still 50% cheaper.
Here, even one your liberal think tanks acknowledge the problem and
advocate that greater competetion is drastically needed.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/health_competition_map.html
So, the protectionism is undisputed. Of course, they like Boy Wonder,
want the government to become THE competitor to drive down prices/
premiums.
Talk about unfair competition...Sure, no problem when there's hundreds
of billions of federal dollars backing "a plan" with mandatory
participation. Which, of course, will put a tremendous financial
burden on Americans for generations to come.
The bottom line is health insurance companies are exempt from anti-
trust regulations. Current state laws stack the decks protecting the
beheemoths. Let people purchase health insurance from carriers in any
state and increase the competetion.
More Americans than not, don't see health care as the government's
responsibility. Yet, Boy Wonder and other Democrat politicos want to
shoove it down our throats. Of course, Boy Wonder's approval rating
remains below 50%.
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
> On Nov 26, 1:53 am, "leanstothel...@democrat.com"
>
> <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> > Trucking is a disaster. They drive half awake these days just to break
> > even.
>
> That has nothing to do with price regulations. Many people in many
> industries "these days" are enduring financial hardships...or don't
> you know?
>
> > You still didn't explain why a company can't come to California and
> > set up shop. It's a big market. I seriously doubt there is an
> > identical plan in another state that would be 1/4 the California cost.
>
> Then I doubt you've ever researched it or done any comparisons.
>
> > Remember, the out of state plan would have to pay fees suitable for
> > California, not Alabama.
>
> Even allowing for that, it would still be much less. Go ahead, double
> the premium, it's still 50% cheaper.
>
> Here, even one your liberal think tanks acknowledge the problem and
> advocate that greater competetion is drastically needed.
>
>
> So, the protectionism is undisputed. Of course, they like Boy Wonder,
> want the government to become THE competitor to drive down prices/
> premiums.
>
> Talk about unfair competition...Sure, no problem when there's hundreds
> of billions of federal dollars backing "a plan" with mandatory
> participation. Which, of course, will put a tremendous financial
> burden on Americans for generations to come.
>
> The bottom line is health insurance companies are exempt from anti-
> trust regulations. Current state laws stack the decks protecting the
> beheemoths. Let people purchase health insurance from carriers in any
> state and increase the competetion.
>
> More Americans than not, don't see health care as the government's
> responsibility. Yet, Boy Wonder and other Democrat politicos want to
> shoove it down our throats. Of course, Boy Wonder's approval rating
> remains below 50%.
>
> Ciccio
For the third time, why can't a company set up in California? I see no
barriers. You need cheap, set up in the Central Valley.
Seriously, you have no answer, do you. That is because there is
nothing stopping these companies from setting up in California. Well,
at least you got the 75% discount down to 50%. When you hit 10%, I'd
say maybe.
I assure you these nationwide companies will relocate to states that
encourage criminal behavior by infinite homestead allowances such as
Texas and Florida. I avoid doing any business with those states,
especially Texas where criminal behavior is encouraged. It's the only
state where you can order a notary stamp without being a notary.
John Higdon
<a13090f7-8fd9-4ec7...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Talk about unfair competition...Sure, no problem when there's hundreds
> of billions of federal dollars backing "a plan" with mandatory
> participation. Which, of course, will put a tremendous financial
> burden on Americans for generations to come.
I was looking through my video short films collection and found a TV
spot from 2004 by moveon.org. It shows small children working in a
factory, and about 80% of the way through the spot, a black screen comes
up with the banner: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1
trillion deficit?"
I literally started laughing out loud.