Passport is no longer valid ID to buy booze?
jcdill
Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
for purchasing alcohol. Apparently the alcohol board says a passport is
not good enough because it doesn't list height and weight. So what
happens when a visitor from out of the country wants to buy a drink in
SF and presents their passport as ID?
Why do we even HAVE an alcohol board anymore? Clearly they are very out
of touch with what citizens want done today. First they harass bars in
SF that infuse vodka, now they harass a grocery store who accepts a
passport as ID when someone wants to buy a bottle of 2BC.
jc
Todd Michel McComb
jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid
>US Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered
>valid for purchasing alcohol.
I'll try to act surprised. I've seen passports rejected many times.
Didn't I recently post about that here?
That's not to say I don't think it's incredibly stupid....
Steve Pope
>The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
>Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
>for purchasing alcohol. Apparently the alcohol board says a passport is
>not good enough because it doesn't list height and weight. So what
>happens when a visitor from out of the country wants to buy a drink in
>SF and presents their passport as ID?
>Why do we even HAVE an alcohol board anymore? Clearly they are very out
>of touch with what citizens want done today.
The ABC has gone gonzo. They are trying to shutdown long-established
music venues in San Francisco (and presumably elsewhere) and they
have initiated a War Against Infusions.
I am not sure why this is, whether the Nimby's, or MADD, or the
religious right has gained control of them. All I can say is,
the state of California needs all the revenue it can get so
do NOT supress alcohol sales for no reason...
Steve
spamtrap1888
> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
> for purchasing alcohol. Apparently the alcohol board says a passport is
> not good enough because it doesn't list height and weight. So what
> happens when a visitor from out of the country wants to buy a drink in
> SF and presents their passport as ID?
>
Trader Joe's has it completely ack-basswards. Starting in January, US
and foreign country passports BECAME valid ID, as did military IDs.
Before now, military IDs were not considered good enough because they
lacked a physical description. Here's a good explanation of the new,
changed law.
http://www.pillsburylaw.com/index.cfm?pageid=34&itemid=39509
The ABC points out however that it is the retailer's responsibility
not to serve the underaged. Checking the ID is only an affirmative
defense. So, if you're presented a passport from Outer Slobbovia,
Fredonia, or the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, you shouldn't accept it.
> Why do we even HAVE an alcohol board anymore? Clearly they are very out
> of touch with what citizens want done today. First they harass bars in
> SF that infuse vodka, now they harass a grocery store who accepts a
> passport as ID when someone wants to buy a bottle of 2BC.
The ABC must enforce the law, and in so doing, they must interpret the
statutes that exist. If the law is stupid, work to get it changed.
Only "Rectifiers" can flavor distilled spirits and wine upon which
excise tax has been paid, and "Rectifiers" cannot sell at retail.
07 RECTIFIER - This type of license is frequently referred to as a
"distilled spirits rectifier's license", which
is incorrect since the license also permits the rectification of wine.
This licensee is authorized to cut, blend,
rectify, mix, flavor and color distilled spirits and wine upon which
excise tax has been paid and, whether
rectified by the licensee or another person, to package, label, export
and sell the products to persons holding
licenses authorizing the sale of distilled spirits (Sections 23016 and
23368). This licensee may sell distilled
spirits and wine without the need for any other license, but he/she
may not sell wine to a person who does
not hold a license that also authorizes the sale of distilled spirits.
A rectifier may also elect to function as a
distilled spirits wholesaler, but when doing so, he/she must comply
with all of the provisions applicable to a
distilled spirits wholesaler (Section 23371).
SMS
> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
> for purchasing alcohol.
Store policy, not the law.
The law states:
25660. (a) Bona fide evidence of majority and identity of the
person is a document issued by a federal, state, county, or municipal
government, or subdivision or agency thereof, including, but not
limited to, a motor vehicle operator's license, an identification
card issued to a member of the Armed Forces that contains the name,
date of birth, description, and picture of the person, or a valid
passport issued by the United States or by a foreign government.
"http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=25001-26000&file=25657-25666.5"
Julian Macassey
I work with lots of foreigners, usually just visiting for
a week or two. They have trouble with passports as ID because
most retail staff have never seen one. They have no idea what to
look for when handed a little booklet.
More than once I have had to explain to a retail clerk
that the customer in front of me has better ID than they have if
all they have is a State driving licence and all passports have a
picture and date of birth, besides profession, place of birth
etc.
I will ask one of my local TJs managers about passports
next time I'm in.
In these days of "Real ID", you would think the faceless
beurocrats of the State Booze Board would welcome passports.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by
men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. - Louis D. Brandeis
Ciccio
> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
> for purchasing alcohol. Apparently the alcohol board says a passport is
> not good enough because it doesn't list height and weight.
So, this is how urban legends are started...
Ciccio
SMS
"Some people say..." (a key phrase on Fox News when they want to give a
statement with no validity some semblance of validity).
"Apparently the alcohol board says..."
Steve Pope
I have no doubt that an individual from ABC might has said
something like this. They are literally a loose cannon.
Steve
Steve Pope
>"Some people say..." (a key phrase on Fox News when they want to give a
>statement with no validity some semblance of validity).
I prefer "there is a belief that..."
S.
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>I have no doubt that an individual from ABC might has said something
>like this. They are literally a loose cannon.
Now that I'd like to see.
Ciccio
> I have no doubt that an individual from ABC might has said
> something like this. They are literally a loose cannon.
Yeah, maybe some clerk at the ABC who knows about as much about it as
the clerk at TJ's. I highly doubt that an ABC investigator stated
such. They are very well versed on the laws relating to the sale of
alcohol beverages, albeit they are Draconian in enforcing those laws.
Ciccio
Pete Fraser
>So, this is how urban legends are started...
"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> replied:
> I have no doubt that an individual from ABC might has said
> something like this. They are literally a loose cannon.
So are you suggesting that Ciccio's long-term,
ultra-secret small business venture is really the ABC?
Ciccio
> I am not sure why this is, whether the Nimby's, or MADD, or the
> religious right has gained control of them. All I can say is,
> the state of California needs all the revenue it can get so
> do NOT supress alcohol sales for no reason...
Ditto for tobacco...
Ciccio
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>>I have no doubt that an individual from ABC might has said something
>>like this. They are literally a loose cannon.
>Now that I'd like to see.
Possibly too obscure, I was riffing on people using "literally"
when they mean "figuratively".
Doesn't make sense? Go back to work, ignore me, etc.
S.
Julian Macassey
And while you are at it, legalise all drugs and tax them.
Yes all of them.
Before anyone screatches about death look at the death
figures for tobacco and booze first.
Ciccio
> And while you are at it, legalise all drugs and tax them.
> Yes all of them.
>
I agree. ALL of them...especially the typical prescription drugs, no
prescriptions should be LEGALLY REQUIRED for any drugs.
Ciccio
Ciccio
>
> > I have no doubt that an individual from ABC might has said
> > something like this. They are literally a loose cannon.
>
> So are you suggesting that Ciccio's long-term,
> ultra-secret small business venture is really the ABC?
That seems to be a non sequitur. Not to mention that being a small
business owner is antithetical to being a civil servant.
Ciccio
Todd Michel McComb
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Not to mention that being a small business owner is antithetical
>to being a civil servant.
I will remember this statement for a long time.
spamtrap1888
> Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
> >>I have no doubt that an individual from ABC might has said something
> >>like this. They are literally a loose cannon.
> >Now that I'd like to see.
>
> Possibly too obscure, I was riffing on people using "literally"
> when they mean "figuratively".
>
> Doesn't make sense? Go back to work, ignore me, etc.
People like to use "literally" in a figurative sense.
Go figure.
Ciccio
> In article <ce54369a-c046-49be-9824-d7ef94f03...@a4g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Not to mention that being a small business owner is antithetical
> >to being a civil servant.
>
> I will remember this statement for a long time.
Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
week for somebody else.
Ciccio
Todd Michel McComb
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
>hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
>week for somebody else.
Boring.
Steve Pope
>Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
>>hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
>>week for somebody else.
>Boring.
It's boring when Ciccio and I agree on something? I think it's
vaguely fascinating.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
I don't think your involvement really has an impact here. But,
hey, go for it.
Keith Keller
I think it's a sign of the Apocalypse. I'm on the lookout for the
Horsemen now.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
JC Dill
> On 22/03/10 10:07 PM, jcdill wrote:
>> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
>> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
>> for purchasing alcohol.
>
> Store policy, not the law.
OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
*used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
But now they DO honor passports as ID. She didn't know why the clerk
told me otherwise. She said that if I had this problem again, to
immediately ask to speak to a supervisor.
jc
Golden California Girls
It has been said that Fox News is Fair and Balanced.
It has been said by members of the John Birch Society that Fox News is a liberal
mouthpiece.
See how these statements convey the same information. ;)
Golden California Girls
> I think it's a sign of the Apocalypse. I'm on the lookout for the
> Horsemen now.
I believe Joe Biden made a comment about their passing the Whitehouse today ...
spamtrap1888
> SMS wrote:
> > On 22/03/10 10:07 PM, jcdill wrote:
> >> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
> >> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
> >> for purchasing alcohol.
>
> > Store policy, not the law.
>
> OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
> *used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
> photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
> have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
> recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
Before the 40s, at least, from my box of family memorabilia.
But my first couple drivers licences lacked photos. Height, weight,
eye and hair color were all that described me.
> But now they DO honor passports as ID. She didn't know why the clerk
> told me otherwise. She said that if I had this problem again, to
> immediately ask to speak to a supervisor.
>
I'm guessing the clerk vaguely remembered being trained that the law
had changed, and decided it had become stricter. That is the safest
way for her to act, of course.
Steve Pope
>OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
>*used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
>photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
>have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
>recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
Not I. My passport from the mid-1960's had a photo on it.
If it was ever true, it was longer ago than before Trader Joe's
existed.
Steve
Ciccio
> In article <fefe2df4-eb1c-4e85-9bbe-5a7af2021...@a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
> >hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
> >week for somebody else.
>
> Boring.
Oh well, then you should find another business , or go be an employee.
Ciccio
Pete Fraser
news:829o77x...@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us...
> I think it's a sign of the Apocalypse. I'm on the lookout for the
> Horsemen now.
I thought it was a lone motorcyclist.
obFood. Took a trip to Concord farmers' market
today for my first taste of rawdaddy.
I had the "Forest and Earth" followed by a lemon cheescake.
My friend had the Spicy Thai and Pilgrims' Cream.
All were very tasty.
SMS
My daughter was telling me that one of her teachers was in Lucky and the
cleark wouldn't sell the customer in front of him alcohol because the
customer had their child with them and the clerk claimed that it was
illegal to sell an adult alcohol if they were with a child. Of course
there is no such law, and a manager took care of the problem, but the
real reason for the refusal was that alcohol consumption was against the
clerk's religion so he made up this ridiculous story (I heard this
second-hand and I can't vouch for the validity of the story). Perhaps
something similar was happening at Trader Joe's. If a pharmacist can
refuse to supply certain medications to customers for religious reasons
then perhaps a grocery checker can refuse to sell alcohol.
I sincerely doubt that Trader Joe's ever had a store policy that deemed
passports unacceptable since, as you state, passports have had photos on
them since before the chain even existed.
JC Dill
> On 23/03/10 7:27 PM, JC Dill wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> On 22/03/10 10:07 PM, jcdill wrote:
>>>> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
>>>> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
>>>> for purchasing alcohol.
>>>
>>> Store policy, not the law.
>>
>> OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
>> *used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
>> photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
>> have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
>> recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
>>
>> But now they DO honor passports as ID. She didn't know why the clerk
>> told me otherwise. She said that if I had this problem again, to
>> immediately ask to speak to a supervisor.
>
> My daughter was telling me that one of her teachers was in Lucky and the
> cleark wouldn't sell the customer in front of him alcohol because the
> customer had their child with them and the clerk claimed that it was
> illegal to sell an adult alcohol if they were with a child. Of course
> there is no such law, and a manager took care of the problem,
In my case, the clerk wasn't refusing to sell to me, he told me in case
someone else refused to sell to me in the future. If the clerk had
actually refused, I would have immediately called for a supervisor or
manager to sort things out.
but the
> real reason for the refusal was that alcohol consumption was against the
> clerk's religion so he made up this ridiculous story (I heard this
> second-hand and I can't vouch for the validity of the story). Perhaps
> something similar was happening at Trader Joe's. If a pharmacist can
> refuse to supply certain medications to customers for religious reasons
> then perhaps a grocery checker can refuse to sell alcohol.
>
> I sincerely doubt that Trader Joe's ever had a store policy that deemed
> passports unacceptable since, as you state, passports have had photos on
> them since before the chain even existed.
This is where it gets really weird. The supervisor I spoke with on the
phone today claimed that this WAS their policy when the store first
opened, because supposedly "at that time" passports didn't have photos
on them. But as we know, TJs hasn't been around all that long, and it's
been ages (since 1918 according to one source on the interwebs, see
below) since current, valid US passports were issued without photos.
http://blakeandrews.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-history-of-us-passport.html
I'm going to speak with the manager in person the next time I shop at
TJs, and try to get to the bottom of this story.
jc
Todd Michel McComb
JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm going to speak with the manager in person the next time I shop at
>TJs, and try to get to the bottom of this story.
It has to do with clerks not being familiar with what passports
look like, and so not being able to evaluate them. I have seen
this so many times.... That's always what it's been about.
Tim May
It makes perfect sense, figuratively.
To say "This is literally bullshit" is not to say it actually, is,
really, physically, literally bullshit, but to say "This is so bad it
might as well be actual bullshit."
Though I'm not a fan of errors of the eggcorn ("take it for granite")
type, this is, literally, a tempest in a teapot.
--
Tim May
Tim May
You didn't get the telegram.
Under ObamaCare, under the new California taxes, under the new Soak the
Rich taxes, small business owners will soon be working 100 hours a week
to pay for all of the "free health care" and "needle exchanges" and
suchlike the politicians (of both parties, fundamentally) have decreed.
The good news is that several entrepreneurs I've known since my Silicon
Valley days are moving more and more of their operations offshore.
This will help the unemployment rate. That is, help it go in the
direction that will cause the eventual demise of tens of millions of
Democrats and other untermenschen scum.
Ironically for the Dems, the "minorities" are going first (except for
the "cucharachas," who seem to have good survival skills).
Obama is helping to liquidate the negro. True irony.
--
Tim May
Tim May
> On Mar 23, 7:27 pm, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> On 22/03/10 10:07 PM, jcdill wrote:
>>>> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
>>>> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
>>>> for purchasing alcohol.
>>
>>> Store policy, not the law.
>>
>> OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
>> *used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
>> photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
>> have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
>> recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
>
> Before the 40s, at least, from my box of family memorabilia.
>
> But my first couple drivers licences lacked photos. Height, weight,
> eye and hair color were all that described me.
Just so. I've seen passports of the Rosenbergs, Lindbergh, etc.
Anyone who bought some kind of jive about "passports didnt [used to]
have photos on them" is way too polite. The store clerk, the droid, was
obviously giving a bogus answer.
Almost no retail store extant today has any policies--indeed, probably
no consistent corporate ownership--since the days before photos were on
passports.
Trader Joe's did not exist in the U.S. in the period when passports did
not have photos on them. Hell, even the Nazis in German had photos on
Jew passports, and Trader Joe's is German--owned.
"They said the policy against having electrical devices on board the
vehicles dated back to before electricity."
>
>> But now they DO honor passports as ID. She didn't know why the clerk
>> told me otherwise. She said that if I had this problem again, to
>> immediately ask to speak to a supervisor.
>>
>
> I'm guessing the clerk vaguely remembered being trained that the law
> had changed, and decided it had become stricter. That is the safest
> way for her to act, of course.
More likely, the original clerk did not recognize what a passport even
is, as she hadn't ever seen one, and she just rejected it.
Then whoever the next clerk was, upon being challenged to explain, used
the typical "bullshit and extemporize and explain that the customer is
always right" crap to claim that TJ's policy had somehow changed.
Make up your own example. I can think of several. ("But, sir, when we
said you were not allowed to buy that quark cheese, we felt your baryon
number was already too high. Upon checking with Geneva, you are allowed
to buy up to 2 pounds of that kind of cheese. Have a nice day!")
--
Tim May
Julian Macassey
> SMS wrote:
>> On 22/03/10 10:07 PM, jcdill wrote:
>>> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
>>> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
>>> for purchasing alcohol.
>>
>> Store policy, not the law.
>
> OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
> *used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
> photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
> have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
> recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
All passports have had photos in them since before WWII.
In other words about 40 years before there was a Trader Joe's.
Julian Macassey
<spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
> JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
>>*used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
>>photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
>>have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
>>recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
>
> Not I. My passport from the mid-1960's had a photo on it.
A US passport? Really? I distcinctly remember looking at
a US passport in the min 1960s. It has a picture in it.
Why did I look at it? Because the owner had visited so
many countries he ran out odf visa pages and a Consulate had
pasted in a concertina page to hold the extra. A practice no
longer practiced.
I got my first passport when I was five. That had a
picture in it.
spamtrap1888
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:43:04 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
>
> > JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
> >>*used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
> >>photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
> >>have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
> >>recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
>
> > Not I. My passport from the mid-1960's had a photo on it.
>
> A US passport? Really? I distcinctly remember looking at
> a US passport in the min 1960s. It has a picture in it.
>
> Why did I look at it? Because the owner had visited so
> many countries he ran out odf visa pages and a Consulate had
> pasted in a concertina page to hold the extra. A practice no
> longer practiced.
>
> I got my first passport when I was five. That had a
> picture in it.
>
Which vaguely reminds me: There was a time in the US when children
were included in their parents' passports. Was there a family
passport? Or how did this work?
Dan Abel
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 23/03/10 7:27 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> > OK, I just called and spoke to a "shift supervisor" and she says it
> > *used* to be store policy, because (ages ago) passports didn't have
> > photos on them. This doesn't make much sense to me because passports
> > have had photos on them for as long as I can remember. Does anyone here
> > recall when US passports didn't have a photo?
It seems like the story shifted from "passports" to "US passports".
I'll bet that some third world countries, especially those just formed
in the last two weeks, didn't have pictures on passports at times.
> My daughter was telling me that one of her teachers was in Lucky and the
> cleark wouldn't sell the customer in front of him alcohol because the
> customer had their child with them and the clerk claimed that it was
> illegal to sell an adult alcohol if they were with a child. Of course
> there is no such law, and a manager took care of the problem, but the
> real reason for the refusal was that alcohol consumption was against the
> clerk's religion so he made up this ridiculous story (I heard this
> second-hand and I can't vouch for the validity of the story). Perhaps
> something similar was happening at Trader Joe's. If a pharmacist can
> refuse to supply certain medications to customers for religious reasons
> then perhaps a grocery checker can refuse to sell alcohol.
Some years back, I was refused. I had been drinking beer, and ran out.
I needed to go to the bank, and it was a nice day, so I walked (which I
almost always do). There is a convenience store right on the way back,
so I stopped to get a six pack of beer. The clerk refused to sell it to
me. I was quite surprised. He didn't ask for id. I had been carded
about 20 years before then, which surprised me quite a bit, since back
then they only carded people who didn't look 21, and I was 35! So I
asked him why. He said that he smelled alcohol on my breath, and it was
illegal to sell alcohol to someone who had already had some. I thought
to myself that that would make it really hard on bars and restaurants,
one drink and you're done! But I didn't want to argue, especially since
there were several stores within a few blocks, and I was happy to have
the walk. And yes, he had an accent and appeared to be from the Middle
East, as did the other clerk.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Ciccio
> I got my first passport when I was five. That had a
> picture in it.
In the 60's, Market St in SF was replete with places that had signs
with big block letters stating...PASSPORT PHOTOS.
Ciccio
Ciccio
> Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>
> >>Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
> >>hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
> >>week for somebody else.
> >Boring.
>
> It's boring when Ciccio and I agree on something? I think it's
> vaguely fascinating.
It's only natural that couple of old meridionali like us to bust balls
one each other.
On this issue, however, I can speak from first hand experience. I must
confess that I was once a civil servant. I can tell you that civil
service is the most anti-American institution. It's worse than
communism. At least, with communism it's "from each according to his
abilities." In civil service everybody gets paid the same regardless
of their abilities, efforts, production, etc. Indeed, civil servants
who work "too hard" are often penalized.
It's nowhere near being a small business owner...Indeed, it's
antithetical.
Ciccio
Steve Pope
>To say "This is literally bullshit" is not to say it actually, is,
>really, physically, literally bullshit, but to say "This is so bad it
>might as well be actual bullshit."
Thanks for the explanation.
(Still seems like a dilution of the literal meaning of "literal".)
S.
Steve Pope
>On 2010-03-23 18:57:49 -0700, Ciccio said:
>> Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
>> hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
>> week for somebody else.
>You didn't get the telegram.
>Under ObamaCare, under the new California taxes, under the new Soak the
>Rich taxes, small business owners will soon be working 100 hours a week
>to pay for all of the "free health care" and "needle exchanges" and
>suchlike the politicians (of both parties, fundamentally) have decreed.
With respect to Ciccio's statement, which is that under the current system
there is wealth transfer from those in the private sector (particularly
small businesses) to those in the public sector:
(1) It is a true statement, but
(2) Under health reform (as definied in the reconciliation bill) it will
be somewhat less true, i.e. there will be less total wealth transfer
in this direction.
That does not mean everyone in the private sector will benefit
under this bill, but on average they will. The total amount of
unjust wealth transfer will be smaller than it is currently.
So, small business owners should (generally) welcome the reform,
although they still are pulling more than their own weight.
Steve
Steve Pope
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:43:04 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
>> My passport from the mid-1960's had a photo on it.
>
>A US passport? Really? I distcinctly remember looking at
>a US passport in the min 1960s. It has a picture in it.
I think that's what I just said.
Steve
Tony Lima
Reading comprehension has really gone downhill. - Tony
Ciccio
> That does not mean everyone in the private sector will benefit
> under this bill, but on average they will. The total amount of
> unjust wealth transfer will be smaller than it is currently.
>
> So, small business owners should (generally) welcome the reform,
> although they still are pulling more than their own weight.
If the current law were to remain unchanged, for me the benefit is
much more straight forward. I pay full boat for top drawer medical/
dental plans for my employees, the premiums make them "Cadillac
Plans." The excise tax for those doesn't start for 8 years. In 4
years, however, small businesses get 30-50% of the cost of the health
insurance premiums as a tax *CREDIT*. That would mean thousands of
dollars in less income tax I, and most small business owners, would
pay.
What much of the media is overlooking, is that even though the vote
was completely partisan, the bill/law has many provisions from the
Republicans. So, there are some silver linings around the cloud. There
is a ways to go still, so we'll see...
Ciccio
Dan Abel
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >On 2010-03-23 18:57:49 -0700, Ciccio said:
>
> >> Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
> >> hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
> >> week for somebody else.
> So, small business owners should (generally) welcome the reform,
> although they still are pulling more than their own weight.
The simple truth of the matter is that small business owners are less
productive, so they have to work 80 hours a week to get as much done as
a civil servant can get done in only 40.
:-)
Ciccio
> The simple truth of the matter is that small business owners are less
> productive, so they have to work 80 hours a week to get as much done as
> a civil servant can get done in only 40.
>
> :-)
Oh OK, there's the smiley. You had me going there for a second, I
though you were being serious.
Ciccio
gaurawalla
> Which vaguely reminds me: There was a time in the US when children
> were included in their parents' passports. Was there a family
> passport? Or how did this work?
Yes, there was a family passport. It included one or both of the
parents and the children. The photo was a group photo. One of the
parents was the passport holder, who could travel alone. The others
could not travel without the holder. As I remember, it expired after
5 years or when one of the minors reached 18.
It's only advantage was cost - 1 passport, 1 photo.
Golden California Girls
Brother you can say that again. A friend who did his job well, got sent to a
shrink because he showed up the rest. Shrink, known for finding everyone crazy
who got referred, wrote back that he was the most normal person they had ever
tested and asked to be sent the person who wanted him tested. Why you ask? One
year at the Port of .... he personally accounted for 50% of the dollar value of
goods seized. Hard to hide that on a printout in the Washington DC office of
the big cheese.
Dan Abel
<96436c5e-2ce6-457a...@t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On this issue, however, I can speak from first hand experience. I must
> confess that I was once a civil servant. I can tell you that civil
> service is the most anti-American institution.
The only thing in the US more anti-American than civil service, is
military service. They lose even more freedoms, work 24X7 and get paid
poorly. And they are doing all that to preserve the freedoms for the
rest of us. Thank God for their dedication. They are true heroes.
Julian Macassey
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which vaguely reminds me: There was a time in the US when children
> were included in their parents' passports. Was there a family
> passport? Or how did this work?
When children were accompanied by their parents, their
names were in the passport. Children travelling alone, required a
passport.
Tim May
> Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-23 18:57:49 -0700, Ciccio said:
>
>>> Well, here's another one for you... Small business owners work 80
>>> hours a week for themselves, so they don't have to work 40 hours a
>>> week for somebody else.
>
>> You didn't get the telegram.
>
>> Under ObamaCare, under the new California taxes, under the new Soak the
>> Rich taxes, small business owners will soon be working 100 hours a week
>> to pay for all of the "free health care" and "needle exchanges" and
>> suchlike the politicians (of both parties, fundamentally) have decreed.
>
> With respect to Ciccio's statement, which is that under the current system
> there is wealth transfer from those in the private sector (particularly
> small businesses) to those in the public sector:
>
> (1) It is a true statement, but
>
> (2) Under health reform (as definied in the reconciliation bill) it will
> be somewhat less true, i.e. there will be less total wealth transfer
> in this direction.
Nope.
Caterpillar, not exactly a Right Wing Corporation, has an obligation to
its shareholders--defined by laws--to make a reasonably accurate (not
perfect, but not lies) estimate of the implications for earnings.
"Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M"
>
> That does not mean everyone in the private sector will benefit
> under this bill, but on average they will. The total amount of
> unjust wealth transfer will be smaller than it is currently.
Nope. Merely adding the uninsured (who are uninsured for usually good
reasons, because they have pre-existing conditions) will increase the
wealth transfer.
>
> So, small business owners should (generally) welcome the reform,
> although they still are pulling more than their own weight.
I agree that many small business owners will welcome this new
socialized medicine system. Because many of them will find it much
cheaper to drop their existing business plans and advise their
employees to seek insurance in the "exchanges."
(By the way, little mentioned is the "high risk pool." I don't have
time to explain it tonight, but mark my words for recall around 2015:
it is the de facto "public option." In the same way that
nominally-private companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are
actually 80% owned by the U.S. Government, the HRP will become a
similar GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise). I'll bet that 80% of the
currently uninsured and perhaps 50% of the presently insured end up
being assigned to the HRP. Insurance companies that are NOT the HRP are
strongly incentivized to dump as many as they can, and certainly not
take on new risky applicants, and to do this over the time between now
and 2014. It's likely the HRP will become the dominant insurer by
several years from now. Sort of like the way the state of Florida is
the only real issuer of homeowner's insurance._
--
Tim May
Ciccio
> (By the way, little mentioned is the "high risk pool." I don't have
It's been done for auto insurance for over 60 years.
Ciccio
Steve Pope
>On 2010-03-24 10:15:30 -0700, Steve Pope said:
>> With respect to Ciccio's statement, which is that under the current system
>> there is wealth transfer from those in the private sector (particularly
>> small businesses) to those in the public sector:
>> (1) It is a true statement, but
>>
>> (2) Under health reform (as definied in the reconciliation bill) it will
>> be somewhat less true, i.e. there will be less total wealth transfer
>> in this direction.
>Nope.
>Caterpillar, not exactly a Right Wing Corporation, has an obligation to
>its shareholders--defined by laws--to make a reasonably accurate (not
>perfect, but not lies) estimate of the implications for earnings.
>
>"Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M"
Yes, but Caterpillar is not an individual. If you look at aggregate
wealth transfer among different demographics of individuals, before and
after the Bill, my statement above is true. Particularly
withing the middle class.
>> That does not mean everyone in the private sector will benefit
>> under this bill, but on average they will. The total amount of
>> unjust wealth transfer will be smaller than it is currently.
>Nope. Merely adding the uninsured (who are uninsured for usually good
>reasons, because they have pre-existing conditions) will increase the
>wealth transfer.
Let me attempt to explain why I say wealth transfer will decrease.
The typical uninsured and uninsurable under the present system
are age range 50 to 65, has been paying for other people's health care
all their working life, and are now getting nothing back. So the
wealth transfer in that system, on a lifetime total, has been away from
this demographic and to the health-entitled, many of whom are
similar age and household income.
But under the Bill, this demographic will get something back
through the affordability credits, therefore the aggregate
wealth transfer, on a lifetime-total basis, is lessened.
This is a huge demographic, the 50 to 65 year olds, as it
is the original baby boom.
The real effect of the bill is on the middle class. The poor
will still be poor, the rich still be rich (but I haver identified
a scenario where a well-off person might pay 6.7% marginal Medicare
tax...). The real effect of the bill is blunting wealth transfer
within the middle class, which has traditionally been from the
health-unentitled to the health-entitled. This is a really big deal,
because all developments up until this point have only served to
augment wealth flow to the traditionally health-entitled.
The Bill is a classic example of levelling.
Steve
Tim May
Yes, of course, we all know this. ("Assigned risk" is one name used.)
I mean that the role of HRPs for Obamacare is not getting much mention.
I think more people will be put in this group than most seem to be
aware of. And since this is taxpayer-funded directly (through the taxes
collected for Obamacare), this will likely become the de facto "public
option."
>
--
Tim May
Steve Pope
> I mean that the role of HRPs for Obamacare is not getting
> much mention. I think more people will be put in this group
> than most seem to be aware of. And since this is taxpayer-funded
> directly (through the taxes collected for Obamacare), this will
> likely become the de facto "public option."
Generally among liberals talking among themselves, the
hope (which I share) is that *some* aspect of healthcare reform will
expand into an all-encompassing socialized medicine system and
take over.
Of course, they hardly ever say this in public. If it weren't
for informants like me, wingers would have to trust their
general paranoia about liberals to figure these things out.
Steve
sf
> I mean that the role of HRPs for Obamacare is not getting much mention.
> I think more people will be put in this group than most seem to be
> aware of. And since this is taxpayer-funded directly (through the taxes
> collected for Obamacare), this will likely become the de facto "public
> option."
Then we need to hurry and amend the real public option to health
reform ASAP. Get a move on it!
--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
Ian B MacLure
news:slrnhqhn9e...@adeed.tele.com:
[snip]
> More than once I have had to explain to a retail clerk
> that the customer in front of me has better ID than they have if
> all they have is a State driving licence and all passports have a
> picture and date of birth, besides profession, place of birth
> etc.
<Timmay>
And unlike the clerk in some instances the holder of the
passport can cross into the US from Mexico without getting
wet.
</Timmay>
IBM
SMS
<snip>
> Of course, they hardly ever say this in public. If it weren't
> for informants like me, wingers would have to trust their
> general paranoia about liberals to figure these things out.
It's not just liberals that realize this eventuality, it's the insurance
companies themselves. With or without health care reform the rates the
private insurance companies are charging both private individuals and
companies are going up at such a high rate that it can't be sustained
for much longer. It's crippling businesses as well as individuals. The
executives at the private insurance companies are preparing for their
eventual demise, but in the mean time they are sucking up as much money
as they can.
The Tea Baggers are too dense to be able to look at the big picture, so
they're able to be controlled and riled up by the right-wing talk show
hosts into their bizarre claims of socialism, communism, etc (right now
27 democracies have single-payer health care and it works very well). Of
course we all know who was bankrolling the opposition to the health care
bill, and why.
Peter Lawrence
> On 26/03/10 8:17 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Of course, they hardly ever say this in public. If it weren't
>> for informants like me, wingers would have to trust their
>> general paranoia about liberals to figure these things out.
>
> It's not just liberals that realize this eventuality, it's the insurance
> companies themselves. With or without health care reform the rates the
> private insurance companies are charging both private individuals and
> companies are going up at such a high rate that it can't be sustained
> for much longer. It's crippling businesses as well as individuals. The
> executives at the private insurance companies are preparing for their
> eventual demise, but in the mean time they are sucking up as much money
> as they can.
That's because the problem with healthcare isn't really the insurance
companies but the fact the American's pay more for the healthcare services
they receive than other high-cost-of-living nations like Japan, France, and
Germany. American's pay more for office visits, surgery, hospital stays,
prescriptions drugs, medical equipment, you name it. Obama's healthcare
"reform" did little to reign in those cost except by rationing the care.
- Peter
SMS
> That's because the problem with healthcare isn't really the insurance
> companies but the fact the American's pay more for the healthcare
> services they receive than other high-cost-of-living nations like Japan,
> France, and Germany. American's pay more for office visits, surgery,
> hospital stays, prescriptions drugs, medical equipment, you name it.
> Obama's healthcare "reform" did little to reign in those cost except by
> rationing the care.
It's _because_ of the system of insurance that costs are higher and we
pay more. Countries with single-payer systems usually have lower costs
despite longer hospital stays, better nurse/patient ratios, and longer
life expectancies.
It'll be a long process in the U.S. due to our political system, but
eventually we'll have no choice but to drive costs down by eliminating
private insurance companies. There's just not going to be any way to
continue spending the way we do, with the insurance companies siphoning
off so much of the money.
Once the tea baggers are directly affected, even they will be forced to
acknowledge reality.
Peter Lawrence
> On 26/03/10 10:30 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> That's because the problem with healthcare isn't really the insurance
>> companies but the fact the American's pay more for the healthcare
>> services they receive than other high-cost-of-living nations like Japan,
>> France, and Germany. American's pay more for office visits, surgery,
>> hospital stays, prescriptions drugs, medical equipment, you name it.
>> Obama's healthcare "reform" did little to reign in those cost except by
>> rationing the care.
>
> It's _because_ of the system of insurance that costs are higher and we
> pay more.
No it's not. It's because doctors, hospitals, drug companies charge more
for their services here in the U.S. than elsewhere is why our costs are
going through the roof.
> Countries with single-payer systems usually have lower costs
> despite longer hospital stays, better nurse/patient ratios, and longer
> life expectancies.
>
> It'll be a long process in the U.S. due to our political system, but
> eventually we'll have no choice but to drive costs down by eliminating
> private insurance companies. There's just not going to be any way to
> continue spending the way we do, with the insurance companies siphoning
> off so much of the money.
Except that neither Japan, Germany, nor France use a single-payer system.
Single-payer healthcare systems like the ones in Canada and Great Britain stink.
The hybrid healthcare systems of Japan, Germany, and France provide better
healthcare at very reasonable and affordable costs to everyone.
If the United States had adopted Japan's system of healthcare, I would have
been a very happy camper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
- Peter
JC Dill
> On 3/26/10 11:00 PM, SMS wrote:
>> On 26/03/10 10:30 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> That's because the problem with healthcare isn't really the insurance
>>> companies but the fact the American's pay more for the healthcare
>>> services they receive than other high-cost-of-living nations like Japan,
>>> France, and Germany. American's pay more for office visits, surgery,
>>> hospital stays, prescriptions drugs, medical equipment, you name it.
>>> Obama's healthcare "reform" did little to reign in those cost except by
>>> rationing the care.
>>
>> It's _because_ of the system of insurance that costs are higher and we
>> pay more.
>
> No it's not. It's because doctors, hospitals, drug companies charge
> more for their services here in the U.S. than elsewhere is why our costs
> are going through the roof.
Yes, they do. But they get away with this in the US because of how the
insurance system puts so many layers of bureaucracy between the health
care provider and the patient.
>> Countries with single-payer systems usually have lower costs
>> despite longer hospital stays, better nurse/patient ratios, and longer
>> life expectancies.
>>
>> It'll be a long process in the U.S. due to our political system, but
>> eventually we'll have no choice but to drive costs down by eliminating
>> private insurance companies. There's just not going to be any way to
>> continue spending the way we do, with the insurance companies siphoning
>> off so much of the money.
>
> Except that neither Japan, Germany, nor France use a single-payer system.
>
> Single-payer healthcare systems like the ones in Canada and Great
> Britain stink.
Yet they have lower infant mortality, and longer life expectancy than in
the US, at a lower cost to the nation as a whole.
The fact is, OUR health care system stinks. We pay too much, get too
little, and many people are not covered and only get care in emergencies
which is a huge burden on emergency rooms and makes it harder for people
who DO pay for good health care to GET good care in an emergency.
Despite what the McExperts on TV claim, our health care system is NOT
the best in the world. We just never hear about how many people leave
their country of origin to get health care somewhere else - we ONLY hear
about the ones who come to the US for health care. But that's the
*exception* - not the rule.
> The hybrid healthcare systems of Japan, Germany, and France provide
> better healthcare at very reasonable and affordable costs to everyone.
>
> If the United States had adopted Japan's system of healthcare, I would
> have been a very happy camper.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
"For profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals."
In order to propose something like this in the US, you need an effective
way to fight the tea-bagger claims that you are "privatizing health
care" and leading this country into socialism.
Here's the thing - we NEED a form of socialized health care. It's the
only way to rein in costs.
The right-wing-nuts have been riled into a frothing mob by Beck, Rush,
FAUX etc. to loudly protest anything they can label as "socialism".
It's the new n-word. They can't scream about how terrified they are
that we have an n-word president, but they can find something different
to scream about and claim it's all the n-word's fault. Look at
half-term-Palin, and how she's using incredibly violent euphemisms ("in
the crosshairs" "set our sights on") now. It's only a matter of time
before one of her fans picks up a gun and does what she's not-so-subtly
suggesting.
jc
SMS
> On 3/26/10 11:00 PM, SMS wrote:
>> On 26/03/10 10:30 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> That's because the problem with healthcare isn't really the insurance
>>> companies but the fact the American's pay more for the healthcare
>>> services they receive than other high-cost-of-living nations like Japan,
>>> France, and Germany. American's pay more for office visits, surgery,
>>> hospital stays, prescriptions drugs, medical equipment, you name it.
>>> Obama's healthcare "reform" did little to reign in those cost except by
>>> rationing the care.
>>
>> It's _because_ of the system of insurance that costs are higher and we
>> pay more.
>
> No it's not. It's because doctors, hospitals, drug companies charge more
> for their services here in the U.S. than elsewhere is why our costs are
> going through the roof.
It's because of how our insurance is structured that these entities are
_able_ to charge more.
Actually the three largest items that we pay significantly more for in
the U.S. are pharmaceuticals, doctor's salaries, and the administrative
overhead of insurance companies.
Two of those we could fix quickly, though we went the other way under
Bush on pharmaceutical cost with him banning the re-import of drugs. The
insurance company overhead is easy to fix. Doctor's salaries are dicey.
One reason they are higher is because in the U.S., unlike the rest of
the world, doctor's run up large debts for their education.
Rajappa Iyer
> If the United States had adopted Japan's system of healthcare, I would
> have been a very happy camper.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
Did you even read that article?
More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three
times by Japanese hospitals before getting treatment in 2007,
according to the government survey for that year. In some of the
more publicized cases an elderly man was turned away by 14
hospitals before dying 90 minutes after being finally
admitted.[5] In another case a pregnant woman complaining of a
severe headache was refused admission to seven Tokyo
hospitals. She later died of an undiagnosed brain hemorrhage
after giving birth.[6]
I guess no sacrifice is too much for the Gods of free market.
Steve Pope
>Peter Lawrence wrote:
>> On 3/26/10 11:00 PM, SMS wrote:
>>> On 26/03/10 10:30 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
>>>> That's because the problem with healthcare isn't really the insurance
>>>> companies but the fact the American's pay more for the healthcare
>>>> services they receive than other high-cost-of-living nations like Japan,
>>>> France, and Germany. American's pay more for office visits, surgery,
>>>> hospital stays, prescriptions drugs, medical equipment, you name it.
>>>> Obama's healthcare "reform" did little to reign in those cost except by
>>>> rationing the care.
This round of healthcare reform was not really intended to contain
costs. It was intended as a restructuring, the cost containment must
be implemented later. The theory is that with the levelling of
economic responsibility for the healthcare spend, more voters
will be eventually interested in economizing and reducing the total
spend. The pre-reform system did not have this incentive.
>>> It's _because_ of the system of insurance that costs are higher and we
>>> pay more.
Nope
>> No it's not.
Agree. Insurance industry profits only represent 4% of the
total spend -- 4% that could be eliminated, but this does
not account for 40% to 50% of the total spend that is unnecessary.
>> It's because doctors, hospitals, drug companies charge
>> more for their services here in the U.S. than elsewhere is why our costs
>> are going through the roof.
>Yes, they do. But they get away with this in the US because of how the
>insurance system puts so many layers of bureaucracy between the health
>care provider and the patient.
Most people who study the cost overrun have come up with three main
reasons the spending is so high:
(1) A too complex payment system (pretty much what you wrote
immediately above)
(2) The cost of researching, developing, and marketing new treatments
(including, but not limited to pharmaceuticals) has been enormous --
this is the primary reason the healthcare spend has doubled (in
terms of fraction of the economy) in the past few decades, and
why we're spending 50% to 100% more than other developed countries.
Often, the new treatments are of dubious, or even negative value (e.g.
all the cholesterol/NSAID/diabetes drugs that had to be pulled
because they caused heart damage; or the non-science-based tests
that lead to costly treatments that do not improve outcome, e.g. PSA
tests, which they do not do in Europe).
(3) A weak to non-existent sense of economy among those with
extravagent health benefits paid for by someone else. These consumers
often want as many tests and treatments as possible, regardless of
cost or ultimate medical value.
(3) and (1) can be dealt with through reform. (2) is more difficult
because it would require a taming of gonzo capitalism in the
medical industry, something hard to achieve in a country so
utterly opposed to limiting entrepreneurs, researchers, and
corporations in any way.
In my view the 2010 healthcare act does not achieve any cost
control on its own, but improves (at least slightly) the ability to
clamp down on costs in the future -- since more people are paying
an equitable fraction of the total tab, there will be more voters
willing to reduce costs.
Steve
JC Dill
>>>> It's _because_ of the system of insurance that costs are higher and we
>>>> pay more.
>
> Nope
>
>>> No it's not.
>
> Agree. Insurance industry profits only represent 4% of the
> total spend -- 4% that could be eliminated, but this does
> not account for 40% to 50% of the total spend that is unnecessary.
The *system* of insurance creates a disconnect between paying for care
and receiving care. This disconnect results in waste. I said nothing
about insurance industry profits - they are not the root cause.
We have a system where doctors prescribe expensive drugs when generics
often do just as well. Big Pharma runs massive advertising campaigns
(which are paid for out of our health care dollars) to convince
consumers that they shouldn't let their doctors prescribe less expensive
generic drugs.
Every time you see an ad on TV for some health care service, remember
that YOU pay for that ad out of your health care premiums.
Every time you read about record profits for some Big Pharma company,
remember that they make those profits from the money you pay in your
health care premiums.
>>> It's because doctors, hospitals, drug companies charge
>>> more for their services here in the U.S. than elsewhere is why our costs
>>> are going through the roof.
>
>> Yes, they do. But they get away with this in the US because of how the
>> insurance system puts so many layers of bureaucracy between the health
>> care provider and the patient.
>
> Most people who study the cost overrun have come up with three main
> reasons the spending is so high:
>
> (1) A too complex payment system (pretty much what you wrote
> immediately above)
>
> (2) The cost of researching, developing, and marketing new treatments
> (including, but not limited to pharmaceuticals) has been enormous --
> this is the primary reason the healthcare spend has doubled (in
> terms of fraction of the economy) in the past few decades, and
> why we're spending 50% to 100% more than other developed countries.
These costs should be paid by patients around the world. Instead, US
residents pay a disproportionate share of these costs, as the products
are sold for more here, and sold for less in other countries (e.g.
Canada, Mexico, the EU, etc....)
> Often, the new treatments are of dubious, or even negative value (e.g.
> all the cholesterol/NSAID/diabetes drugs that had to be pulled
> because they caused heart damage; or the non-science-based tests
> that lead to costly treatments that do not improve outcome, e.g. PSA
> tests, which they do not do in Europe).
Which are marketed using OUR health care dollars.
> (3) A weak to non-existent sense of economy among those with
> extravagent health benefits paid for by someone else. These consumers
> often want as many tests and treatments as possible, regardless of
> cost or ultimate medical value.
Because there is a huge disconnect between paying health care premiums
and paying for the actual cost of the treatment.
> (3) and (1) can be dealt with through reform. (2) is more difficult
> because it would require a taming of gonzo capitalism in the
> medical industry, something hard to achieve in a country so
> utterly opposed to limiting entrepreneurs, researchers, and
> corporations in any way.
It's extremely easy to fix - let us buy medications from outside the
country. If US residents can buy drugs at Canadian prices, it levels
the playing field.
> In my view the 2010 healthcare act does not achieve any cost
> control on its own, but improves (at least slightly) the ability to
> clamp down on costs in the future -- since more people are paying
> an equitable fraction of the total tab, there will be more voters
> willing to reduce costs.
Agreed. This is the *start* of health care reform.
jc
Golden California Girls
> On 3/26/10 11:00 PM, SMS wrote:
>> On 26/03/10 10:30 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> That's because the problem with healthcare isn't really the insurance
>>> companies but the fact the American's pay more for the healthcare
>>> services they receive than other high-cost-of-living nations like Japan,
>>> France, and Germany. American's pay more for office visits, surgery,
>>> hospital stays, prescriptions drugs, medical equipment, you name it.
>>> Obama's healthcare "reform" did little to reign in those cost except by
>>> rationing the care.
>>
>> It's _because_ of the system of insurance that costs are higher and we
>> pay more.
>
> No it's not. It's because doctors, hospitals, drug companies charge
> more for their services here in the U.S. than elsewhere is why our costs
> are going through the roof.
No it is because of Medicare. Before Medicare you got a bill from your doctor,
and you sent it to your insurance company, they cut a check a couple days later
and the Doctor had it in the bank before your follow up visit. After Medicare
you doctor had to hire two clerks to read the procedure number for each bandage
and turn one of his treatment rooms into a library full of procedure number
books. Then he sends a bill to your insurance company who refuses to pay
because of a typo and the back and forth takes a year, all the while the
insurance company earns interest on the money and the bank is breathing down the
doctors back because the loan payment is late. Part two, Medicare pays per
procedure. Now your Doctor got wise to this so for Medicare patients he ordered
dozens of unnecessary procedures simply to get more $$. When the lawyers got
wind of a few Docs doing this they suddenly starting asking why didn't you order
this or that test in their malpractice business. As the lawyers get paid a % of
what they win, they loved that Doctors could have ordered a pregnancy test for a
man. Suddenly juries gave out outrageous sums because the lawyer could make the
Doc look like an idiot for not ordering a pregnancy test for a man. Insurance
companies only make money so they jacked up the malpractice rate in an attempt
to stay ahead of the lawyers. Now what do you think will happen to the cost of
health care with the government running it all. America has a different court
system than the other countries with socialized medicine. Remember that.
Peter Lawrence
> Peter Lawrence<humm...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> If the United States had adopted Japan's system of healthcare, I would
>> have been a very happy camper.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
>
> Did you even read that article?
Yes.
>
> More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three
> times by Japanese hospitals before getting treatment in 2007,
> according to the government survey for that year. In some of the
> more publicized cases an elderly man was turned away by 14
> hospitals before dying 90 minutes after being finally
> admitted.[5] In another case a pregnant woman complaining of a
> severe headache was refused admission to seven Tokyo
> hospitals. She later died of an undiagnosed brain hemorrhage
> after giving birth.[6]
>
> I guess no sacrifice is too much for the Gods of free market.
No system is perfect. Yet Japan's healthcare system is considered to be one
of the best by leading healthcare organizations that have studied the
different forms of universal healthcare offered around the world.
Germany's and France's healthcare systems are also highly regarded. All
three are better than what the U.S. has now, and are better than what is
offered in traditional single-payer healthcare countries like Great Britain
and Canada.
- Peter
Peter Lawrence
Yes, Medicare has also contributed to the escalating cost of medicine in the
U.S. along with the overly generous private insurance coverage provided to
employees (and their families) by many public and private enterprises.
All of this has enabled healthcare providers to up their fees knowing full
well that Medicare and these generous private healthcare insurance policies
from private insurers would pay for the extra costs.
- Peter
Peter Lawrence
I agree that our system stinks here in the U.S. but single-payer healthcare
system like those of Canada and Great Britain also do a crummy job in
providing healthcare to the general population. So why to some people
promote single-payer system as a solution to our healthcare problems when
other countries like Japan, German, and France have developed a better way
to deliver healthcare to their citizens?
>> The hybrid healthcare systems of Japan, Germany, and France provide
>> better healthcare at very reasonable and affordable costs to everyone.
>>
>> If the United States had adopted Japan's system of healthcare, I would
>> have been a very happy camper.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
>
> "For profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals."
>
> In order to propose something like this in the US, you need an effective
> way to fight the tea-bagger claims that you are "privatizing health
> care" and leading this country into socialism.
The irony is that most hospitals in the U.S. were non-profit institutions
until the 1980's when they (or other corporations) realized they could
become profit centers for businesses. So many of our hospitals that were
once non-profit became (or were bought by) for-profit corporations.
Ditto for many insurances companies like Blue Cross and Blue Shield which
were once non-profit organizations.
> Here's the thing - we NEED a form of socialized health care. It's the
> only way to rein in costs.
>
> The right-wing-nuts have been riled into a frothing mob by Beck, Rush,
> FAUX etc. to loudly protest anything they can label as "socialism". It's
> the new n-word. They can't scream about how terrified they are that we
> have an n-word president, but they can find something different to
> scream about and claim it's all the n-word's fault. Look at
> half-term-Palin, and how she's using incredibly violent euphemisms ("in
> the crosshairs" "set our sights on") now. It's only a matter of time
> before one of her fans picks up a gun and does what she's not-so-subtly
> suggesting.
And it doesn't help that many who want more healthcare reform are touting a
single-payer system when it has been shown quite clearly that a traditional
single-payer system is *not* the best way to provide quality healthcare to a
nation. Hybrid systems like those found in Japan, France, and Germany
provide superior healthcare compared to the countries that had adopted a
traditional single-payer system like Great Britain and Canada.
If those who are pushing for more healthcare reform focused on the U.S.
adopting a system for like Japan's, or France's, or Germany's (the three
countries provide quality healthcare in three different yet effective ways),
then the U.S. population at large wouldn't be so hesistant to adopt more
needed healthcare reform measures.
- Peter
Steve Pope
> And it doesn't help that many who want more healthcare reform
> are touting a single-payer system when it has been shown quite
> clearly that a traditional single-payer system is *not* the
> best way to provide quality healthcare to a nation. Hybrid
> systems like those found in Japan, France, and Germany provide
> superior healthcare compared to the countries that had adopted
> a traditional single-payer system like Great Britain and Canada.
When an American health agitator says "single payer", he generally
means a Canada-like system where there are many providers to
select from and one payer, as opposed to a UK system where there is
one provider providing nationwide managed care. Although technically
UK (and probably, France) are "single-payer" that is not what
most U.S. agitators mean.
"Single-payer" has been a buzzword for opposition to managed care
systems. This anti-managed-care, anti-HMO rhetoric that infected
liberal ranks (think Michael Moore) is the reason the reformers
gutted Medicare Advantage (which is simply Medicare delivered by HMO's).
Canada's system, while presently somewhate better than the U.S.'s,
is still seeing uncontrolled cost growth because it is not centrally
managed. UK is considerably better off, with about 2/3 the U.S.
spend level relative to its economy, and better outcomes than the U.S.
Steve
SMS
> Agree. Insurance industry profits only represent 4% of the
> total spend -- 4% that could be eliminated, but this does
> not account for 40% to 50% of the total spend that is unnecessary.
The U.S. spends more than 7x the median for health administration costs.
It's about 11% of the per-capita cost of health care.
There's a good report at
"http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf" that details the
differences between health care costs among a bunch of countries, as
well as explaining why some of the differences are not unreasonable.
Table 4 is a good summary.
Steve Pope
Thanks.
The figure in Table 4, $465 per person for "Administration and
Insurance", is not all insuarnce industry overhead and profit. A lot
of it is overhead within Medicaid and Medicare, and a lot
of that is the cost of determining who is entitled to benefits.
When you have universal healthcare, that entire cost element
goes away because everyone is entitled to benefits.
(This $465 is only 7.6% of the total spend, not 11%, so I don't
immediately see where you got the 11% figure.)
Steve
Rajappa Iyer
> No system is perfect. Yet Japan's healthcare system is considered to
> be one of the best by leading healthcare organizations that have
> studied the different forms of universal healthcare offered around the
> world.
Really? Any references?
> Germany's and France's healthcare systems are also highly regarded.
> All three are better than what the U.S. has now, and are better than
> what is offered in traditional single-payer healthcare countries like
> Great Britain and Canada.
Agreed with the first bit (vs. US), but I'd like to see even one study
support the second bit (vs. UK and Canada).
who
I agree.
> When you have universal healthcare, that entire cost element goes away
> because everyone is entitled to benefits.
That's total nonsense. The logic is lacking.
Everyone is not entitled to every benefit every time they see a doctor.
There will have to be some gatekeeper.
Tell me this, because I haven't been able to find an answer -- anti-trust.
What I remember is that in early December, news agencies reported that the
Senate bill (as it was at the time) didn't do away with anti-trust
exemptions (which were created by the Democrats in the 40's). Harry Reid
told the press "No problem, we'll put it in later."
Did that happen, or are the Democrats lying about being so concerned about
controlling costs?
Steve Pope
>> a lot of that is the cost of determining who is entitled to benefits.
>I agree.
>> When you have universal healthcare, that entire cost element goes away
>> because everyone is entitled to benefits.
>That's total nonsense. The logic is lacking.
>Everyone is not entitled to every benefit every time they see a doctor.
>There will have to be some gatekeeper.
What I was getting at is that the entire bureacracy
surrounding whether someone is eligible for Medicaid *at all*
is unnecessary under full socialized medicine. That is a big
chunk of expense, as there are income tests, asset tests,
special rules if you have a roommate, challenges and hearings, etc.
>Tell me this, because I haven't been able to find an answer -- anti-trust.
>What I remember is that in early December, news agencies reported that the
>Senate bill (as it was at the time) didn't do away with anti-trust
>exemptions (which were created by the Democrats in the 40's). Harry Reid
>told the press "No problem, we'll put it in later."
>Did that happen
Dunno. Look it up.
No politician can predict the final form of a bill ahead of time.
Steve
Wallace
>
> No politician can predict the final form of a bill ahead of time.
of course they can, they do it all the time. But, more often than not, their
prediction turns out to be wrong.
nana...@gmail.com
> The check-out clerk at Trader Joes tonight told me that a Valid US
> Passport (and apparently all passports) is no longer considered valid
> for purchasing alcohol. Apparently the alcohol board says a passport is
> not good enough because it doesn't list height and weight. So what
> happens when a visitor from out of the country wants to buy a drink in
> SF and presents their passport as ID?
>
> Why do we even HAVE an alcohol board anymore? Clearly they are very out
> of touch with what citizens want done today. First they harass bars in
> SF that infuse vodka, now they harass a grocery store who accepts a
> passport as ID when someone wants to buy a bottle of 2BC.
>
> jc
Buy real register Passport ,Visa,Driving License,ID CARDS,marriage certificates,diplomas etc for sell Guaranteed 24 hour passport,citizenship,Id cards,driver license,diplomas,degrees,certificates service available. Tourist and business visa services available to residents of all 50 states and all nationalities Worldwide. are unique producers of Authentic High Quality passports, Real Genuine Data Base Registered and unregistered Passports and other Citizenship documents.I can guarantee you a new Identity starting from a clean new genuine Birth Certificate, ID card, Drivers License,Passports, Social security card with SSN, credit files, and credit cards, school diplomas, school degrees all in an entirely new name issued and registered in the government database system.. We use high quality equipment and materials to produce authentic and counterfeit documents.All secret features of real passports are carefully duplicated for our Registered and unregistered documents.we are unique producer of quality false and Real documents.We offer only original high-quality Registered and unregistered passports, driver´s licenses, ID cards, stamps, Visa, school Diplomas and other products for a number of countries like:USA, Australia, Belgium,Brazil, Canada, Italian,Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa,Spain, United Kingdom.
CONTACT OUR SUPPORTERS
To get the additional information and place the order just call or contact us via email mobile.
Watch video http://youtu.be/i7qBSjVkR-8
SKYPE US ................. fandena.fandena (Bureau Fandena)
Contact; fani...@gmail.com
ORDER ANY UNIVERSAL DOCUMENTS
PASSORTS
ID card
Social security card
Drivers License
Canada Cards
United States Cards
Student Cards
International Cards
Private Cards
Adoption Certificates
Baptism Certificates
Birth Certificates
Death Certificates
Divorce Certificates
Marriage Certificates
Custom Certificates
High School Diplomas
G.E.D. Diplomas
Home School Diplomas
College Degrees
University Degrees
Trade Skill Certificates
Validate SSN Number
US green cards
Counterfeit dollars/euro
Spy Products
Voice Changers
Listening Devices
Invisible Ink
DMV Record Inquiry
Background Check
Investigate Anyone
CONTACT OUR SUPPORTERS
http://www.fanidocs.blogspot.com/
To get the additional information and place the order just call or contact us via email mobile.
Watch video http://youtu.be/i7qBSjVkR-8
SKYPE US ................. fandena.fandena (Bureau Fandena)
Contact; fani...@gmail.com
Registered and unregistered passport of all countries.visas,biometric passport,degrees,drivers license,I.D cards.Training certificates M GCSE, A-levels, High School Diploma Certificates ,GMAT, MCAT, and LSAT Examination Certificates , Novelty Birth, Marriage, and Death Certificates , Novelty Passports and New Identity Packages , Replicated, Real Degrees/Diplomas from most post-secondary institutions from around the world (we have over 3000 templates on file) all designed to look 100% identical to the original.Custom Printing (if we do not already have the template on file - simply email us a copy and we can make any alterations/modifications as per your directions).second, citizenship, identity, identification, documents, diplomatic,nationality, how to, where to, get, obtain, buy, purchase, make,build, a, passport, i.d,British, Honduras, UK, USA, us, u.s.,Canada, Canadian, foreign, visa, Swiss, card, ids, document
BUY REAL DOCUMENTS
our contacts include ex private investigators, consulates, high ranking government personnel's and experienced seasoned experts, we have solid connections with higher personnel's on all areas of real register documents and passport change in these Countries who are linked to the passport agency in each of these countries and with the help of their connections, all our clients demanding any citizenship document or passport from any countries are 100% assured as well as guaranteed of receiving very high quality real genuine registered documents that can never be identified as fake!! Not even an expertise custom official or machine can ever dictate the document as fake since the document is no different from Real government issued! All our Real genuine data base Registered citizenship documents have your personal data registered in the data base system and 100% machine readable. Feel free to get the additional detailed information about our services. Sincerely hope to find a way to cooperate with you. If any of these products interest you, please feel free to contact us. We will give you our
best price upon received of your detailed inquiry.