all about HMOs
healthwire
Q: I just joined a new HMO. How difficult will it be to choose the
doctor I want?
A. Just slightly more difficult than choosing your parents. Your insurer
will provide you with a book listing all the doctors who were
participating in the plan at the time the information was gathered. These
doctors basically fall into two categories: those who are no longer
accepting new patients, and those who will see you but are no longer part
of the plan. But don't worry -- the remaining doctor who is still in the
plan and accepting new patients has an office just a half day's drive
away.
Q: What does HMO stand for?
A: This is actually a variation of the phrase, "Hey, Moe." Its roots go
back to a concept pioneered by Doctor Moe Howard of Three Stooges fame,
who discovered that a patient could be made to forget about the pain in
his foot if he was poked hard enough in the eyes. Modern practice replaces
the physical finger poke with hi-tech equivalents such as voice mail and
referral slips, but the result remains the same.
Q: Do all diagnostic procedures require pre-certification?
A: No. Only those you need.
Q: What are preexisting conditions?
A: This is a phrase used by the grammatically challenged when they want to
talk about existing conditions. Unfortunately, we appear to be pre-stuck
with it.
Q: Well, can I get coverage for my preexisting conditions?
A: Certainly, as long as they don't require any treatment.
Q: What happens if I want to try alternative forms of medicine?
A: You'll need to find alternative forms of payment.
Q: My pharmacy plan only covers generic drugs, but I need the name brand.
I tried the generic medication, but it gave me a stomach ache. What should
do?
A: Poke yourself in the eye.
Q: I have an 80/20 plan with a $200 deductible and a $2,000 yearly cap.
My insurer reimbursed the doctor for my out-patient surgery, but I'd
already paid my bill. What should I do?
A: You have two choices. Your doctor can sign the reimbursement check over
to you, or you can ask him to invest the money for you in one of those
great offers that only doctors and dentists hear about, like windmill
farms or frog hatcheries.
Q: What should I do if I get sick while traveling?
A: Try sitting in a different part of the bus.
Q: No, I mean what if I'm away from home and I get sick?
A: You really shouldn't do that. You'll have a hard time seeing your
primary care physician. It's best to wait until you return, and then get
sick.
Q: I think I need to see a specialist, but my doctor insists he can handle
my problem. Can a general practitioner really perform a heart transplant
right in his office?
A: Hard to say, but considering that all you're out is the $10 co-payment,
there's no harm giving him a shot at it.
Healthwire is a FREE subscriber-only newsletter. If you were forwarded
this tidbit and would like to sign up, it's as simple as sending an
e-mail.
To subscribe, send an email to:
healthwire...@yahoogroups.com
See previous news at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/healthwire
-----------------------------------------
jason
Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing sacred?
"healthwire" <n...@spam.edu> wrote in message
news:a7ibjb$s50$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
Rich Andrews
news:Zgan8.2927$5m3....@news1.mts.net:
> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in
> place. Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing
> sacred?
It is not about anything but refusal to accept shoddy, govt. run, health
care as is so vividly demonstrated in the UK and Canada. Take for example
Copaxone. The UK health system officials said it would not cover it as it
costs about $1200.00 per month. Nice huh?
Then there is the tax rate. Income tax here is at roughly 30-35% for most
people. Income tax in canada is at 50%.
I have more money in my pocket after taxes than my equivalent in Canada,
which is a good thing.
I have met a few people that have left Canada to become American citizens.
Their primary reasons for leaving were taxes and the health care system.
Why must everything have to make money? Well, if companies didn't make
money, they would not be in business too long.
As far as the Govt. is concerned, all they know how to do is collect and
spend money. Hmmm...collect and spend other peoples money. Sounds like a
really fun job! Sort of like being Santa, all year long!
r
P.S. The original posting was a parody and a pretty funny one at that.
--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
The Real Bev
>
> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in place.
> Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing sacred?
No, nothing is sacred here. The people who believe that certain activities
are sacred drive airplanes into buildings, and we don't like that.
--
Cheers,
Bev
===========================================================
"You should be glad that bridge fell down -- I was planning
to build thirteen more to the same design."
-- Attributed to I.K. Brunel, addressing the
Directors of the Great Western Railway
dlkereluk
"Rich Andrews" <r...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91DAE4BED580D...@209.249.90.101...
> "jason" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:Zgan8.2927$5m3....@news1.mts.net:
>
> > I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in
> > place. Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing
> > sacred?
>
> It is not about anything but refusal to accept shoddy, govt. run, health
> care as is so vividly demonstrated in the UK and Canada. Take for example
> Copaxone. The UK health system officials said it would not cover it as it
> costs about $1200.00 per month. Nice huh?
>
> Then there is the tax rate. Income tax here is at roughly 30-35% for most
> people. Income tax in canada is at 50%.
>
> I have more money in my pocket after taxes than my equivalent in Canada,
> which is a good thing.
>
> I have met a few people that have left Canada to become American citizens.
> Their primary reasons for leaving were taxes and the health care system.
I'm staying here because of the health care system. If I lived in the US,
I'd be dead because I couldn't afford the health insurance premiums nor the
meds.
Now, run off, have a nice day, and go fuck yourself.
Darren.
Bear
"dlkereluk" <dlke...@saskNOTtel.net> wrote in message > I'm staying here
because of the health care system. If I lived in the US,
> I'd be dead because I couldn't afford the health insurance premiums nor
the
> meds.
Well good. The wait for cancer treatment in the UK averages 8 months. That's
if you can get it, as all the radiologists/onocologists seem to be bailing.
Treatment for cancer here is less than four weeks. Where I live they run
tests on Monday, so you get results by Friday. I doubt you could afford
insurance or meds because you can't do anything that anyone would pay you
for. Just a Socialist Sponge.
Bear
Rich Andrews
news:u9qlsl5...@corp.supernews.com:
I see, so you are one of those that live off welfare and don't do squat to
support yourself. Yup, stay up there, we don't want you. We have enough
welfare recipients of our own.
r
PS. Premium health care for a family costs about $300.00 per month
provided you have a reasonable job. Meds are 10-35 dollars per script
depending. Dr. visits are 15-35 per occurance.
PPS I was going to tell you to pull your head out of your ass but
nevermind. Keep it up there.
Rich Andrews
news:3C9D575A...@myrealbox.com:
> jason wrote:
>>
>> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in
>> place. Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing
>> sacred?
>
> No, nothing is sacred here. The people who believe that certain
> activities are sacred drive airplanes into buildings, and we don't
> like that.
>
High five Bev!
*SMACK*
r
<affinity>
Rich Andrews wrote:
Care to address your asinine rational to ALL receivers of welfare and
disability pensions?
> PS. Premium health care for a family costs about $300.00 per month
> provided you have a reasonable job. Meds are 10-35 dollars per script
> depending. Dr. visits are 15-35 per occurance.
>
> PPS I was going to tell you to pull your head out of your ass but
> nevermind. Keep it up there.
That's a hell of a lot of money to someone who is unable to work. Heaven
forbid cutting into the mammoth (nuclear capable) arms budget to meet basic
health and educational standards. Who needs a well informed and healthy
populace when you have a barking fucking monkey for a president.
Dumb and dumber.
Bear
"<affinity>" <lu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> That's a hell of a lot of money to someone who is unable to work.
>Heaven
> forbid cutting into the mammoth (nuclear capable) arms budget to meet
basic
> health and educational standards. Who needs a well informed and healthy
> populace
bad you can't get decent dental care.
Bear
<affinity>
Bear wrote:
In Australia? We HAVE subsidized dental care here.
The Real Bev
Yeah, but can you explain your last episode?
--
Cheers,
Bev
=================================================================
"The federal government has taken too much tax money from the
people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty
with the Constitution." -- Ronald Reagan
Rich Andrews
> Rich Andrews wrote:
>>
>> The Real Bev <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
>> news:3C9D575A...@myrealbox.com:
>>
>> > jason wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in
>> >> place. Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing
>> >> sacred?
>> >
>> > No, nothing is sacred here. The people who believe that certain
>> > activities are sacred drive airplanes into buildings, and we don't
>> > like that.
>>
>> High five Bev!
>>
>> *SMACK*
>>
>> r
>>
>> --
>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
>> numbered...My life is my own."
>>
>> "I am not a number. I am a free man."
>> No. 6
>
> Yeah, but can you explain your last episode?
>
yes, but i am afraid that you would not understand it so i won't even try.
Julian9EHP
[ . . . ]
At least this is funny spam.
Kurt Ullman
According to US Gov't figures, the percentage of American people
actually IN HMOs topped out at about 30% in 1999.. including the Medicare and
Medicaid ones. Even in the West, where it had the most penetration, HMOs only
had 41% of the insured enrolled.
So, HMOs were never the force their detractors suggested they were.
To avoid the inevitable "citations please?": I give you my citation.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/tables/2001/01hus133.pdf
----------------------------------
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Me
"jason" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Zgan8.2927$5m3....@news1.mts.net...
> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in place.
> Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing sacred?
Yes, the dollar is sacred. This is why we have the expression, "the almighty
dollar" here in the states. There's another expression here, "money talks,
bullshit walks." Sad, but true.
Me
"Pat Meadows" <p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote in message
news:8pnr9ucmva6a0fnns...@4ax.com...
>
> Within the last three years, we've seen relatives go through
> first-rate immediate treatment for serious medical problems
> - treatment as good as can be found in the USA, probably
> better I want to repeat that: immediate treatment.
Although I live in the states, I have family who live in the UK,
just north of London. They are very happy with the medical
care system there and they have lived in the states long enough
to make a comparison.
Rich Andrews
> The Real Bev <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:3C9D6863...@myrealbox.com:
>
>> Rich Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>> The Real Bev <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
>>> news:3C9D575A...@myrealbox.com:
>>>
>>> > jason wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in
>>> >> place. Why must everything have to make money down there? Is
>>> >> nothing sacred?
>>> >
>>> > No, nothing is sacred here. The people who believe that certain
>>> > activities are sacred drive airplanes into buildings, and we don't
>>> > like that.
>>>
>>> High five Bev!
>>>
>>> *SMACK*
>>>
>>> r
>>>
>>> --
>>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed,
>>> or numbered...My life is my own."
>>>
>>> "I am not a number. I am a free man."
>>> No. 6
>>
>> Yeah, but can you explain your last episode?
>>
>
> yes, but i am afraid that you would not understand it so i won't even
> try.
>
in all fairness, I am just stating the source of the quote Bev. The last
episode in some ways is just as foggy for me as it is for you.
Bear
>
> experience of a close friend or relative?
>
> We know the UK's medical system from my husband's personal
> experiences and the experience of our close friends and his
> relatives.
>
> This was certainly not the experience of anyone we knew.
> Nothing even remotely close to it.
>
> Within the last three years, we've seen relatives go through
> first-rate immediate treatment for serious medical problems
> - treatment as good as can be found in the USA, probably
> better I want to repeat that: immediate treatment.
>
called the emergency room. They nave to treat you. Unfortunately, border
states are going broke treating all comers.
Bear
Bear
>
> My English husband isn't ignorant enough to make such a dumb
> prejudiced statement, and his teeth are fine!
>
Whatever Pat. I notice you didn't take any offense at this guy's nasty
little swear words.
Bear
fred & michele
> > I'm staying here because of the health care system. If I lived in the
> > US, I'd be dead because I couldn't afford the health insurance
> > premiums nor the meds.
> > Now, run off, have a nice day, and go fuck yourself.
> >
> > Darren.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I see, so you are one of those that live off welfare and don't do squat to
> support yourself. Yup, stay up there, we don't want you. We have enough
> welfare recipients of our own.
>
> r
>
> PS. Premium health care for a family costs about $300.00 per month
> provided you have a reasonable job. Meds are 10-35 dollars per script
> depending. Dr. visits are 15-35 per occurance.
>
Don't know where you live, Rich, but we pay $600/month just for the premiums
for me & 2 kids (hubby's is covered by his company). And that's not even
for any kind of decent service (shit, to actually hear a live voice when I
call their customer service # might be a nice change!!).
The annoying thing is that while we are forced to pay outrageous doctor &
hospital charges, sky-high insurance premiums, or else go without needed
health care, we know several people who refuse to work (yes, REFUSE, nothing
wrong with them at all, no reason under the sky above that they can't work)
who have had extensive medical treatment & never paid dime one for it.
Everything from ER visits following drinking binges or bar brawls to routine
examinations & medications. They don't pay, they don't care about their
credit, they rent their housing, they're driving nice leased cars, so
there's nothing the providers can do about them thumbing their noses at the
cost of the care they received. If I was to do the same thing, the
providers can take what I've worked hard for or at least try their darndest
to. At the alcohol/drug detox where I used to work, the patients received
all their meds free -- as much treatment as they wanted free -- ER visits,
guess what? Free again. Psychiatric counseling free also. Responsible
working people who didn't go out of their way to destroy their health don't
get that, why should others?
I think basic health care, both preventative & curative should be affordable
& available to everyone. Robbing one group of consumers to make up for the
free ride given another group isn't fair & makes it difficult for those
making the effort in life. This isn't applicable to truly disabled people
or those who simply make very little money -- it's about people who can
shoulder responsibility for their health doing so. That actually leaves
more available to those who really do need our help, instead of trying to
spread that help so damn thin.
Michele
Coyotedave
>
>I see, so you are one of those that live off welfare and don't do squat to
>support yourself. Yup, stay up there, we don't want you. We have enough
>welfare recipients of our own.
>
>r
>
>PS. Premium health care for a family costs about $300.00 per month
>provided you have a reasonable job. Meds are 10-35 dollars per script
>depending. Dr. visits are 15-35 per occurance.
We'll you are lucky. Here in California, if I want to stay out of welfare (
Medi-cal). I'm in a quandary. To get good health coverage from an HMO, like
Kaiser-Permanente, I'm looking at 164.00 a month for single coverage. Thats up
quite a bit from when I last was in enrolled in Kaiser in the 80's, when I think
I was paying 40.00 a month.
An thats if your approved for coverage. I'm fairly healthy for my age 39, I
don't drink or smoke, but I have a history of Asthma, and some other,
investigated and minor health problems, and the result is that recently I've
been turned down for coverage under some of these other non-HMO Health plans. So
now I'm only offered these HIGH risk programs ( Who isn't a high health risk at
39?)..where the rates are doubled or tripled. Kaiser coverage is only 350.00 a
month for single coverage under this plan.
Do you have this health plan for your family you are talking about?
>
>PPS I was going to tell you to pull your head out of your ass but
>nevermind. Keep it up there.
>
>--
I agree there maybe isn't a free McDonalds meal in America, but this country
might be a little better when they start putting God and people first in policy
decision rather than profits and The Flag.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....Its impoosible to achieve what we want.....when terrorist run free.
George W.Bush
Coyotedave
>investigated and minor health problems, and the result is that recently I've
>been turned down for coverage under some of these other non-HMO Health plans. So
Oh that should be "Un-investigated" and minor health probelms.....
Quasinerd
jason wrote:
>
> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in place.
> Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing sacred?
>
> >
> > Q: I just joined a new HMO. How difficult will it be to choose the
> > doctor I want?
> >
> > A. Just slightly more difficult than choosing your parents...
The Real Bev
>
> Rich Andrews <r...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > The Real Bev <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Rich Andrews wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Real Bev <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > jason wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in
> >>> >> place. Why must everything have to make money down there? Is
> >>> >> nothing sacred?
> >>> >
> >>> > No, nothing is sacred here. The people who believe that certain
> >>> > activities are sacred drive airplanes into buildings, and we don't
> >>> > like that.
> >>>
> >>> High five Bev!
> >>>
> >>> *SMACK*
> >>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed,
> >>> or numbered...My life is my own."
> >>>
> >>> "I am not a number. I am a free man."
> >>> No. 6
> >>
> >> Yeah, but can you explain your last episode?
> >
> > yes, but i am afraid that you would not understand it so i won't even
> > try.
> >
> in all fairness, I am just stating the source of the quote Bev. The last
> episode in some ways is just as foggy for me as it is for you.
Whew! For a while I thought that if you told me you'd have to kill me!
One of the best was when he was telling the children the spy story. Where did
the children come from?
--
Cheers,
Bev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It only takes 2 men to tile a bathroom
if you slice them thinly enough.
The Real Bev
>
> "jason" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote
> > I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in place.
> > Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing sacred?
>
> Yes, the dollar is sacred. This is why we have the expression, "the almighty
> dollar" here in the states. There's another expression here, "money talks,
> bullshit walks." Sad, but true.
OK, so what would YOU choose to be almighty? Religion? Sex? Art? Come on,
here's your opportunity to remake civilization the way it should be, give it a
shot!
fred & michele
"The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3C9E2937...@myrealbox.com...
> OK, so what would YOU choose to be almighty? Religion? Sex? Art? Come
on,
> here's your opportunity to remake civilization the way it should be, give
it a
> shot!
It can't be religion -- too many conflicts. Sex? Naaah, conflicts &
problems that would keep Jerry Springer busy for years. Art *would* fit the
pattern of genius/prophet usually not being appreciated until after their
death -- but there'd be too many people debating what it all meant & that
puts us back with religion being the almighty.
Money is no worse than other things we often deem important or worthy of
adulation, & it's easier for most people to understand than art or religion.
Michele
Lindsey Walley
money now and plan for my future, so that I am able to pay my medical
expenses as I age. I've been self employed as a social worker for the past
several years, and health insurance is extremely expensive when I have no
employer to cover the overhead. However, I recognize that good health care
costs money, so I consider the costs of health care to be right up there
with costs of owning a home and driving a car.....they're not free, and I
don't think that my health is less important than either of the other
two....same with child care. I don't complain about any of those costs,
because I believe that's where my money should be going. Now it irritates
the heck out of me that I have to pay for OTHER people's health care, when
they're sitting around expecting something for nothing.....
Peace~
Lindsey
"Pat Meadows" <p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote in message
news:7fnr9ug1v1luabnnf...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:35:23 -0600, "dlkereluk"
> <dlke...@saskNOTtel.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I'm staying here because of the health care system. If I lived in the US,
> >I'd be dead because I couldn't afford the health insurance premiums nor
the
> >meds.
> >Now, run off, have a nice day, and go fuck yourself.
> >
>
> Thanks, Darren. Saved me the trouble. :) I know better
> than to play with trolls but one gets tempted sometimes...
>
> BTW, I'm a Yank, married to a Brit, we're living in the USA.
> We know from first-hand experience how BOTH health care
> systems work.
>
> We both would FAR prefer the British National Health Care
> system. By far.
>
> Incidentally, we're paying $323/month for my husband's
> medical insurance. We're paying $50/month for my Medicare
> (the US's socialized medicine - only for the disabled or
> those over 65, and it doesn't cover medications). Our
> co-pays and my medications cost us around $400/month.
>
> So we're putting out about $770 for medical expenses every
> month. We're spending our savings to do it, but we have no
> other valid choice at the moment.
>
> Pat
>
> --
> Pat Meadows
> Software development and computer consulting
> http://www.wellsborocomputing.com
>
jun...@fakeemail.com
>
> It seems to me that the problem is, perhaps, in the preparation.....I save
> money now and plan for my future, so that I am able to pay my medical
> expenses as I age.
Are you sure? If you get, say, breast cancer,colon cancer,leukemia,
etc., are you sure you'll be able to continue working and paying for
your medical expenses? How about if you have a severe stroke, or
Alzheimers? Do you think you'll have saved enough money to pay for
around-the-clock attendants ($10-$20/hr) or even enough to pay $50,000
per year for a nursing home? What if your child gets sick and you need
to spend your time bringing him/her back and forth to the hospital for
chemo or radiation therapy? Just wondering.
mike wilcox
Socialized medicine is the only way to go, that way everyone pays a little
instead of a few paying a lot. As it is now the US pays more per capita for
health care than any of the countries that have government controlled systems.
One serious illness without coverage or your HMO refusing to pay for treatment
and you could lose everything.
The British and Canadian systems might have some problems, but they are largely
a result of across the board budget cuts made do deal with deficits caused by
the last recession. At least they care about the welfare of all their citizens
and don't have over 40 million people running about with no medical coverage at
all.
Mike Wilcox
Arri London
>
> It seems to me that the problem is, perhaps, in the preparation.....I save
> money now and plan for my future, so that I am able to pay my medical
> expenses as I age. I've been self employed as a social worker for the past
> several years, and health insurance is extremely expensive when I have no
> employer to cover the overhead. However, I recognize that good health care
> costs money, so I consider the costs of health care to be right up there
> with costs of owning a home and driving a car.....they're not free, and I
> don't think that my health is less important than either of the other
> two....same with child care. I don't complain about any of those costs,
> because I believe that's where my money should be going. Now it irritates
> the heck out of me that I have to pay for OTHER people's health care, when
> they're sitting around expecting something for nothing.....
>
> Peace~
> Lindsey
Unless you are extremely wealthy, it is unlikely you will
ever be able to pay for all your medical expenses as you
age.
A single bout of surgery and aftercare can easily run to
USD100,000. Will you have that sort of cash repeatedly?
Paying for insurance and copayments is only the smallest
fraction of the actual cost.
Kurt Ullman
>It seems to me that the problem is, perhaps, in the preparation.....I save
>money now and plan for my future, so that I am able to pay my medical
>expenses as I age. I've been self employed as a social worker for the past
>several years, and health insurance is extremely expensive when I have no
>employer to cover the overhead.
Just a slight nit if I might pick at it. Health insurance is extrememly
expensive to YOU w/o an employer. Of course it is obvious that the insurance
is also extremely expensive to the EMPLOYER when they are paying for it.
Nothing personal, but I just wanted to make sure that was said(g).
------------------
Remember that anecdote is not the singular of data.
Kurt Ullman
<appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Socialized medicine is the only way to go, that way everyone pays a little
>instead of a few paying a lot. As it is now the US pays more per capita for
>health care than any of the countries that have government controlled systems.
Of course, this means we have less problems with long queues. Such as
1900+ on the waiting list in Alberta for hip or knee replacements (average
wait time around 6 months or so) or MRIs where you have waits of at least TWO
days for urgent and many as much as 6 months or more for non-urgent. It was
taking a week and a half for open heart surgery if you were an urgent
in-patient (priority two), and over two months for SCHEDULED open hearts. The
report studiously ignored the priority one but it also did not define it.
>The British and Canadian systems might have some problems, but they are largely
>a result of across the board budget cuts made do deal with deficits caused by
>the last recession. At least they care about the welfare of all their citizens
>and don't have over 40 million people running about with no medical coverage at
>all.
Not really. They are largely due to the fact that the highly subsidized
(ie hidden costs) are having a completely obvious impact on demand, as are the
aging of the population, etc. They are both having many of the same problems
the US is having, only they hide them better which means they can be ignored
longer until they finally break out.
mike wilcox
In Canada the waiting lists for operations are a result of budget cuts and not
single payer system. These cuts also included training programs for new health care
workers resulting in a shortage of technicians at all levels. Since the 1990's
provincial governments have been forced to rationalize the care provided across the
country in order to meet ever increasing budget restrictions. These service
restrictions originated with the Federal Government which In 1993-94 recklessly
slashed transfers to the provinces including payments for Canadian health and social
transfers (CHST) by 35%. Regions were forced to cover the costs themselves through
increased tax collection or through service reductions. Reports on funding in Canada
shows that overall provincial/territorial health expenditures have risen
substantially while federal contributions for health and social programs have
dropped from approx 27% in 1977/78 to 13% in 1999/2000. For a full comparison warts
and all between the two systems (US & Canadian) here's a link
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html
Mike Wilcox
Rich Andrews
news:3C9E8554...@sympatico.ca:
Hmmm...and I thought the Canadian health system was bad. It is much worse
than I thought.
r
Dennis P. Harris
"Me" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes, the dollar is sacred. This is why we have the expression, "the almighty
> dollar" here in the states. There's another expression here, "money talks,
> bullshit walks." Sad, but true.
>
unfortunately, there are indeed far too many greedy assholes
running things in the US, including the ripoff artists that run
the so called "insurance" rackets. they corrupt our politicians
with brib^H^H^H^H"campaign contributions" and free junkets to
"charity golf tournaments" at tropical resorts in order to
prevent the passage of universal health care similar to the very
successful canadian system.
they continously spread lies about the canadian system and label
it "socialism". they refuse to admit that health care should be
a RIGHT not a privilege. they are greedy bastards and they kill
people every day by refusing or delaying care for the 40 million
americans that can't afford so-called health insurance.
it's too bad that some people equate the US with the almighty
dollar. this constant greed and selfishness is NOT what this
country was founded on. we have the right to pursue happiness,
not the right to get rich from the misfortunes of others.
Matthew Russotto
jason <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in place.
>Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing sacred?
Why must everything make money? Because they've got to eat.
Sure, things are sacred. We have many churches containing many sacred
items. They make money too.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Dmitry is free, but the DMCA survives. DMCA delenda est!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Steve Harris
>> I have met a few people that have left Canada to become American
citizens.
>> Their primary reasons for leaving were taxes and the health care system.
>
>I'm staying here because of the health care system. If I lived in the US,
>I'd be dead because I couldn't afford the health insurance premiums nor the
>meds.
>Now, run off, have a nice day, and go fuck yourself.
Would those be the meds for your Tourette's syndrome? They can be
expensive. I'll bet Canada only pays for stuff like Haldol, though.
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Steve Harris
>I never could understand that bizarre HMO thing you yanks have in place.
>Why must everything have to make money down there? Is nothing sacred?
Profit is a completely separate issue from whether or not public money
should pay for it. Does Canada have state-owned farms on which you grow the
food for your poor? To be distributed in state-owned grocery stores? Why
not? Is nothing sacred up there?
Profits and money in general is simply crystalized information about
efficiency. Even when you decide that you're going to pay for some good or
service for some people by taxes, it's generally best to buy it (if you can)
from somebody who already provides it in the market, as a business. The
reason is that if they already do that, you know they're good at it. Profit
is a chief source of economic feedback, and without a feedback loop, things
tend to go to hell, due to entropy. That's a general law of the world.
Call it sacred if you like.
Me
on,
> here's your opportunity to remake civilization the way it should be, give
it a
> shot!
Perhaps some day, personal integrity, trust, and honor will return to
the top of the list of what's most important in the United States. Sad to
say that now, it seems as if those qualities are secondary to making a
buck these days.
The Real Bev
It's dirty work, but somebody has to do it; you can't collect taxes from the
unemployed.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
you're a madman." --Futurama
fred & michele
a living doing what we believe in & helping other people. Making money
doesn't necesarily have to have negative connotations. Money is simply a
tool that represents what we want. You can't eat it, it won't keep you
warm, it won't give you love. As long as people realize that, it's usally
not a problem.
Michele
"Me" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AGSn8.55780$7b.59...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Steve Harris
fred & michele wrote in message ...
>Personal integrity, trust, & honor can co-exist with money. Many of us
make
>a living doing what we believe in & helping other people. Making money
>doesn't necesarily have to have negative connotations. Money is simply a
>tool that represents what we want. You can't eat it, it won't keep you
>warm, it won't give you love. As long as people realize that, it's usally
>not a problem.
>
>Michele
So long as you're engaged in honorable trade (defined by whether or not both
parties continue to be happy long after the trade; usually signaled by
"money back guarantees") making money is more than just a morally neutral
thing, or something that merely doesn't have "negative connotations."
Rather, it's a GOOD thing. Every single buck the rich businessman who
trades in such a fashion has, is a testament to the fact that he's already
done the world good, simply by virtue of making money. Each dollar he has
made represents the fact that he's given somebody something that they'd
rather have THAN the dollar, and thus are better off, and happier, for that
act.
This is not something that is taught in high school civics, but it should
be. Too many people who run business feel guilty about it. But If they're
doing honest trades and have repeat customers, they don't need to feel
anything but pride. Any extra charity they do is gravy-- they ALREADY have
contributed to the community simply by existing and providing a service.
Quite literally, they gave at the office.
Steve Harris
(in JC Booster Mode).
Marvin L. Zinn
> As long as people realize that,
>
>
Marvin L. Zinn
Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:26 EST
Windows 2000 build 2195
Using Virtual Access
Marvin L. Zinn
> It's dirty work, but somebody has to do it; you can't collect taxes from the
> unemployed.
>
others?
Marvin L. Zinn
Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:25 EST
Don Klipstein
>Marvin L. Zinn <marvi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3CA0075E...@myrealbox.com>, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> It's dirty work, but somebody has to do it; you can't collect taxes
>>>from the unemployed.
>>>
>> Oh yeah? What about sales taxes and property taxes and probably a few
>>others?
>
>unemployment compensation.
Yes, unemployment compensation is now taxable income even though it is
from premiums paid from already-taxed paycheck dollars. Guess which
President signed that into law - and the taxation of unemployment
compensation was even RETROACTIVE? Applied to unemployment compensation
received prior to when the legislation was signed! Can anyone name
a retroactive tax increase or a retroactive new tax prior to this one?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Kurt Ullman
Klipstein) wrote:
> Yes, unemployment compensation is now taxable income even though it is
>from premiums paid from already-taxed paycheck dollars. Guess which
>President signed that into law - and the taxation of unemployment
>compensation was even RETROACTIVE? Applied to unemployment compensation
>received prior to when the legislation was signed! Can anyone name
>a retroactive tax increase or a retroactive new tax prior to this one?
>
Clinton's '93 marginal tax increases. There have been a number of times where taxes have
been eliminated or decreased then reinstated retroactively. Gerald Ford
changed the minimum tax retroactively in the TRA of '76. The IRS in '93
finally got around to issuing rules on a subject and then made them
retroactive to '84.
http://www.heritage.org/library/lecture/hl613.html for a minor listing.
There have also been a number in the states with CA seeming to lead the
way with at least three of differing kinds since the mid 80s.
----------
Is the definition of the syndrome of false pregnancy laboring
under a misconception?
--Howard Berkowitz in abtc Feb 2002
The Real Bev
>
> In article <3CA0075E...@myrealbox.com>, The Real Bev wrote:
> > It's dirty work, but somebody has to do it; you can't collect taxes from the
> > unemployed.
> >
> Oh yeah? What about sales taxes and property taxes and probably a few
> others?
Oh for heaven's sake, everybody knows that the unemployed don't pay sales tax
because they steal whatever they need and don't pay property taxes because
they're homeless.
--
Cheers,
Bev
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Marvin L. Zinn
> Oh for heaven's sake, everybody knows that the unemployed don't pay sales tax
> because they steal whatever they need and don't pay property taxes because
> they're homeless.
>
guess. <g>
Marvin L. Zinn
Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:45 EST
Lech K. Lesiak
> PS. Premium health care for a family costs about $300.00 per month
> provided you have a reasonable job.
And if you qualify for coverage. People are often rejected for
pre-existing conditions. In addition, there are caps to coverage, unlike
in the public system in Canada.
The US system works well for those who don't need medical treatment very
often.
Cheers,
Lech
Lech K. Lesiak
> It is not about anything but refusal to accept shoddy, govt. run, health
> care as is so vividly demonstrated in the UK and Canada.
I can't speak for the UK, but survey after survey shows that Canadians are
pretty happy with the health care system here. I'm 58 and have been using
it for some decades. I have no horror stories to report. If Canadians
were unhappy with the quality of care they would be advocating radical
change. They are not. Even in Alberta, with the most right-wing populace
of any province, the provincial government has to tiptoe carefully around
its continuing attempts to turn health care over to investor-owned
interests.
> I have met a few people that have left Canada to become American citizens.
> Their primary reasons for leaving were taxes and the health care system.
I have met lots of these people. They tend to be ideologues and have a
tendency to skew the data so that it fits their unsupported beliefs. E.g.
when they compare tax rates between Canada and the US they include all
level of taxation in Canada, but ignore important ones in the US, such as
municipal ones. Reasonable comparison between the two systems shows that
there is a lot of overlap. Taxes in Alberta are lower than in many US
states, and yet Alberta is where a so many of these nuts seem to reside.
Cheers,
Lech
Lech K. Lesiak
> That's a hell of a lot of money to someone who is unable to work. Heaven
> forbid cutting into the mammoth (nuclear capable) arms budget to meet basic
> health and educational standards. Who needs a well informed and healthy
The US wouldn't need to cut anything if they just reformed how health care
is handled. The US spends more PUBLIC money per capita on health care
than is expended in Canada IN TOTAL. If the US adopted a single payor
system it would save money, and cover the 45 million people who don't
curently have coverage.
The data is widely available - look it up.
Cheers,
Lech
Lech K. Lesiak
> No, nothing is sacred here. The people who believe that certain activities
> are sacred drive airplanes into buildings, and we don't like that.
They also believe that owning firearms in a modern society is a sacred
right.
Cheers,
Lech
Dennis
<lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
>They also believe that owning firearms in a modern society is a sacred
>right.
Also an enjoyable hobby, a good investment and pretty good insurance.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
Bear
> which carry good medical insurance as an employment benefit
> - these jobs are diminishing with 'outsourcing'.
> 'Outsourcing' really means 'hiring other people to do the
> same work for lower wages and (usually) no benefits'.
>
Unless you're working for yourself, there aren't any "secure" jobs. While no
one can fire you, you can lose it all tomorrow. As an employer, you can't
afford to pay wages and benefits for people that aren't doing anything.
Outsourcing is a way to keep costs lower and run more efficiently, which is
important in a free-market economy.
Bear
Sue Hokana
>
> Not really. It works well for those who don't need medical
> treatment, period.
>
> One bad car accident would equal 'not often'....
>
> It also works well for those people who have secure jobs
> which carry good medical insurance as an employment benefit
> - these jobs are diminishing with 'outsourcing'.
> 'Outsourcing' really means 'hiring other people to do the
> same work for lower wages and (usually) no benefits'.
>
Even under the best of circumstances it doesn't particularly work that
well but we still count ourselves very lucky compared to other folks.
My husband has a "secure" state job (but CA's $17+ billion deficit may
change that) and this year our medical insurance was precarious again
because we live in a rural area -- they found a solution at the very
last minute during contract negotiations. For the past five years the
insurance companies have been shrinking their service areas which means
more commuting -- not a big deal for us given our excellent health and
the fact that both of us are health professionals who practice what we
preach. But our elderly neighbors were experiencing the same problem
and they do not always have good transportation or eyesight to drive,
esp. for long distances in unfamiliar territory.
Then I've noticed that the insurance companies contract with the very
worst providers -- those who are desperate for patients because their
reputations are tarnished. This year I had to change providers again,
driving 45 min to get there and couldn't believe the poor quality of
care. They didn't ask if I wanted to see the PA instead of the doctor
(that was who my appmt was with) and the PA didn't even bother taking a
history even though it was my first time to that office. He just wrote
out the prescription refills, asked about any medication allergies,
looked at my bp and that was about it. When I mentioned some ocassional
dizziness and lethargy with low blood pressure he said "Well, we don't
treat it in the U.S. -- you'll have to go to Europe for that". End of
discussion -- out the door after 4 or 5 minutes and I bet they charged
for an extended visit. Overall, it's certainly better than nothing but
I hate to see what the system will look like when I'm elderly, though!
Sue
The Real Bev
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:19:28 -0700, "Lech K. Lesiak"
> <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >They also believe that owning firearms in a modern society is a sacred
> >right.
>
> Also an enjoyable hobby, a good investment and pretty good insurance.
You forgot to mention the bit about defending ourselves from a rapacious
government. Clinton is just really lucky he never showed up at my front door.
--
Cheers,
Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
--Revolution Books, New York, New York
jun...@fakeemail.com
And insurance against our right-wing government becoming a police state.
Bear
<jun...@fakeemail.com> wrote in message
> Lech K. Lesiak wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, The Real Bev wrote:
> >
> > > No, nothing is sacred here. The people who believe that certain
activities
> > > are sacred drive airplanes into buildings, and we don't like that.
> >
> > They also believe that owning firearms in a modern society is a sacred
> > right.
>
>
Bear
CBI
"Lech K. Lesiak" <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.102032...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
But then rich Canadians would have to travel all the way to Mexico when they
wanted to buy decent healthcare with their own money.
--
CBI, MD
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
-Andre Gide
mike wilcox
You guys are being brainwashed by your government and the insurance industry,
the vast majority of Canadians are very happy with their health care. Personally
I've never had to wait for any treatment and can see my doctor whenever I want
or need to and not worry about losing coverage because an HMO suddenly considers
me a high risk.
Mike Wilcox
Kurt Ullman
<appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>You guys are being brainwashed by your government and the insurance industry,
>the vast majority of Canadians are very happy with their health care.
Survey's show that consistently that 80% of all Americans are happy with
their health insurance. Under your scenario, then the American system MUST be
just as good as the Canadian.
> Personally
>I've never had to wait for any treatment and can see my doctor whenever I want
>or need to and not worry about losing coverage because an HMO suddenly
> considers
>me a high risk.
>
So, since you have had no problems, Nobody has had any problems?
Actually if you look at the surveys, this is what drives things in both
countries. In the US, they show that when asked about health insurance in
general, they say there is a problem. When you ask about THEIR insurance, most
are satisfied or very satisfied. Sorta like Congress.
BTW: HMOs can't cancel your coverage just because you are a high
risk. They have to cancel the entire group or (more likely) the employer
cancels the entire group.
Of course HMOs are largely a good villian. According to the Stat
Abstract of the US, they have NEVER had more than 20% of the total insured
population and that has been dropping over the last couple of years.
mike wilcox
> In article <3CA3EE91...@sympatico.ca>, mike wilcox
> <appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >You guys are being brainwashed by your government and the insurance industry,
> >the vast majority of Canadians are very happy with their health care.
> Survey's show that consistently that 80% of all Americans are happy with
> their health insurance. Under your scenario, then the American system MUST be
> just as good as the Canadian.
Not my point at all, the point being that anytime someone brings up the idea of
publicly supported medical care for all in the USA these tired old false statements
are brought out.
1.There huge waiting lists for treatment in other countries that have socialized
medicine.
2.If people don't pay for it they will flood doctor's offices every time they have
a cold.
3.It would bankrupt the country, we can't afford it.
>
>
> > Personally
> >I've never had to wait for any treatment and can see my doctor whenever I want
> >or need to and not worry about losing coverage because an HMO suddenly
> > considers
> >me a high risk.
> >
> So, since you have had no problems, Nobody has had any problems?
> Actually if you look at the surveys, this is what drives things in both
> countries. In the US, they show that when asked about health insurance in
> general, they say there is a problem. When you ask about THEIR insurance, most
> are satisfied or very satisfied. Sorta like Congress.
Of course some people have problems, I haven't and neither have anyone in my circle
of friends or immediate family who have needed care. There is always room for
improvement, right now we have a commission going cross country asking Canadians
for input on how to improve the system and what they want changed.
>
> BTW: HMOs can't cancel your coverage just because you are a high
> risk. They have to cancel the entire group or (more likely) the employer
> cancels the entire group.
I should have said Insurance companies. Can your employer's HMO refuse you coverage
when you first become employed because of a pre-existing condition you may have?
> Mike Wilcox
Kurt Ullman
<appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>1.There huge waiting lists for treatment in other countries that have
> socialized
>medicine.
There are.. lists. I pointed out Albertas, for instance.
>2.If people don't pay for it they will flood doctor's offices every time they
> have
>a cold.
Even here we see the difference in usage based on co-pay, etc. You
think they suddenly repeal every law about what happens to demand when you
subsidize something.
>3.It would bankrupt the country, we can't afford it.
One of the reasons (admittedly only one) that the Can $ is always
so much weaker and that taxes are so much higher???
>> BTW: HMOs can't cancel your coverage just because you are a high
>> risk. They have to cancel the entire group or (more likely) the employer
>> cancels the entire group.
>
>I should have said Insurance companies. Can your employer's HMO refuse you
> coverage
>when you first become employed because of a pre-existing condition you may
> have?
>
Not if you go from one group to another. If you go from group to
individual they can or vice versa.
sam
>law (called HIPAA - Health Insurance Portability...something
>or other).
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
http://www.hcfa.gov/hipaa/hipaahm.htm
We are currently preparing for this (I work for a state rehab
facility). The staff hate it, it's a pain for the IT folks (myself),
but it will protect the client in the long run.
We have a confidentiality form everyone must sign....and it's
enforceable. We had someone violate it, and they were immediately
terminated. Luckly I keep backups of our email for 90 days.
jun...@fakeemail.com
My understanding is that you cannot be denied coverage going from group
to individual policy BUT they can charge you an arm and a leg for the
individual policy, which often has the same effect as denying coverage.
jun...@fakeemail.com
>
> "It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen
> to have access to the public health system. This means that the
> average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public
> health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most
> comprehensive private health insurance plan."
>
> http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/8903lemi.html
Who thinks health insurance for a family of 4 costs less than $5000/year
in the USA? It doesn't. My PPO health insurance through BC/BS costs
about $6000/year. My employer pays most of that--I pay $160/month.
Health insurance is not cheaper in the USA, it's just that many
employers subsidize it.
Bear
"krh" <ken970...@eudora.com> wrote in message
> "The National Health Program which became the law of England in July
> 1948 is modeled on the Soviet system created by Lenin.
>
> In less than two years, there were more than half a million people on
> the waiting lists for hospitalization, while some forty
> thousand hospital beds were out of service because of a nurse
> shortage. The hospital shortage in Britain has become so
> acute that many mentally deficient and helpless, aged people are
> unable to secure institutional care. The only effective
> means of easing the shortage is to deny hospital admission to the old
> and chronically ill who cannot be discharged once they are admitted."
>
> In industrial centers, some British doctors have as many as 4,000
> registered patients each. Such doctors can give each patient only
> three minutes per call-three minutes overall, for consultation,
> diagnosis, prescription, filling out official forms, and maintaining
> proper records for governmental inspectors."
>
> "But the primary reasons for the inevitable failure of socialized
> medicine can be found in the patients themselves. When people are
> forced to pay for something, whether they want it or not, they are
> inclined to use as much of it as they can in order to get their
> money's worth."
>
> It looks like you're living in a sheltered area where all is rosy.
>
>
> >3.It would bankrupt the country, we can't afford it.
> >
>
> Europe as an ideal, noting that America was the "only
> industrialized country without a national health care system." Now,
> however, the European welfare states are slashing benefits in
> the face of rising health care costs."
> "As Canada's national government slashes spending on medical care in
> order to reduce the deficit, local provinces are reducing medical
> staff. In Ontario, pregnant women are being sent to Detroit because
> no obstetricians are available. Specialists of all kinds are in short
> supply. Patients have to wait eight weeks for an MRI, ten weeks for
> referral to a specialist, and four months for heart bypass surgery."
>
> So, since you have never had any problems, others must not have had
> any either? If so, where is all the data coming from that contradicts
> your experience? Apparently you really believe they're all lies.
>
There is plenty of data that backs up all the problems of socialized
medicine in Britain and Canada.
http://www.thelancet.com
Just type in NHS service and stand back. Registration is free.
Bear
Dennis P. Harris
Pat Meadows <p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
> AND: depending on which state you live in, if you need to
> apply for insurance as an individual (not through
> employment), you may be refused coverage because of
> pre-existing conditions.
>
yep, if you're self employed you're screwed. really screwed.
=================================================================
"Passing a tax cut that gives 42.5 percent of the cut to the
wealthiest 1 percent of the citizens is, in fact, class warfare."
--- Molly Ivins
Dennis P. Harris
misc.consumers.frugal-living, krh <ken970...@eudora.com>
wrote:
> The fact is that
> many sources repeat these alleged <false> statements, but you alone
> know the truth?
It's more like the fact is that many sources ARE PAID to repeat
these false statements, including their lobbyists, spin meisters,
and puppets in Congress.
========================================================
Dennis Harris NO_SPAM_FO...@gci.net
"The biggest difference between lobbyists and
politicians is that the lobbyists are accountable to
the people that put them where they are" --- Will Durst
Kurt Ullman
<ken970...@eudora.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:29:54 -0500, mike wilcox
><appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Kurt Ullman wrote:
>.....
>>
>>Not my point at all, the point being that anytime someone brings up the idea
> of
>>publicly supported medical care for all in the USA these tired old false
> statements
>>are brought out.
>
>Where do you think we get these <false> statements? The fact is that
>many sources repeat these alleged <false> statements, but you alone
>opinion and it's nothing more than that. You may not be having the
>problems but I find it odd that there are so many sources which repeat
>these <false> claims.
>>
Errr. watch the attributions, please I did NOT write this. I am on your
side (g).
Arri London
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:29:54 -0500, mike wilcox
> <appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Kurt Ullman wrote:
> ....
> >
> >publicly supported medical care for all in the USA these tired old false statements
> >are brought out.
>
> Where do you think we get these <false> statements? The fact is that
> many sources repeat these alleged <false> statements, but you alone
> know the truth? Is that right? Or, could it be you just have an
> opinion and it's nothing more than that. You may not be having the
> problems but I find it odd that there are so many sources which repeat
> these <false> claims.
> >
> >medicine.
>
> ANALYST SAYS"
>
> "The waiting lists for treatment in both countries, even for serious
> conditions, are notoriously long,..."
>
>
> http://www.heritage.org/news/2000/nr092900.html
>
> >2.If people don't pay for it they will flood doctor's offices every time they have
> >a cold.
>
> changed to a PPO type with a co-pay of $5.00/visit. Predictably, the
> doctors offices were flooded with patients for everything and
> anything. So, within 6 months, they increased the co-pay to $15/visit
> which dramatically cut down on office visits. No doubt socialized
> medicine programs have controls alleviating the problem with flooding
> doctors offices and hospitals.
>
>
The NHS has many outlets for dealing with minor ailments and
seeing a doctor for them is generally unnecessary: there are
clinics run by nurse practitioners for chronic problems such
as diabetes and asthma, well-baby clinics for infants and
toddlers, certain basic screenings are conducted by nurses
or technicians (but the results are looked at and
interpreted by doctors), initial histories with blood
pressure etc are done by nurses etc etc.
A GP might have a large number of patients enrolled, but
would never see all of them in a year's time by any means.
Things that can be done by trained ancillary personnel are
not done by a doctor other than in unusual cases.
The medical practice where I go here in the US is tied to an
HMO, although they allow uninsured people who pay their own
way. The very few times I've seen a doctor the visit was all
of five minutes, as the doc must do a certain number of
patients per day in order to make the quota. Sitting in the
waiting room, it was easy to see that everyone got the same
brief treatment. I was refused a flu vaccination by the
medical practice, even though I was going to pay for it.
That was reserved for HMO members only, even though at the
time there was no shortage of vaccine.
I found it amusing and annoying how long my mother had to
wait for her second hip operation (the first one having been
badly done by the same HMO). Once the new orthopod said she
needed it (about six months after the first effort), the HMO
took three months to authorise the surgery. That was the
go-ahead to set a date: three months after authorisation was
given.
With all the talk of NHS waiting lists, personally no one I
know including myself, was ever refused or delayed in
getting treatment of *any* sort.
Kurt Ullman
<p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
>We have also been refused treatment here in the USA because
>our insurance company refused to pay for it: prescriptions,
>mostly, but occasionally other treatments. MANY
>prescriptions our doctors prescribed for us have been
>refused by our last two insurance companies. All the
>expensive ones, actually.
But there were always options that they paid for right? There are a
number of studies that show governmental plans are much slower than US to
adopt new medications and have much smaller formularies. So, in these places
you don't get turned down because they just aren't available to begin with.
What happens is that the US gets to play guinea pig for the rest of the
world and we get to work out which meds really are different and THEN
they are (or not) adopted by others.
>
>No doubt there are horror stories on both sides. There are
>bound to be horror stories in ANY system. Plus underfunding
>any system will produce problems. They aren't systemic
>problems, they're funding problems.
You can't get any more systemic than funding. What do you
think drives the systems? Good feelings and thoughts?
>
>I definitely believe there is a concerted propaganda effort
>orchestrated by right-wing political entities in the USA,
>and that lots of deliberate misinformation is circulated
>about the UK's and Canada's health systems.
>
Okay, YARWC (Yet another right wing conspiracy...)
>I've seen the *same lies* a bit too often for it to be
>accidental: one of them is that all people over 50 in the
>UK who require dialysis are refused it, and just die. My
>mother-in-law in the UK (aged 72) was put on dialysis
>without the slighest question, and transported to the
>dialysis center. They even schedule the same people on the
>same days, so they can become friends and chat. So this
>one, I know to be untrue from experience of a famil member.
First of all, there is (even according to BBC reports) major
differences in treatment for all kinds of diseases according to NHS region,
and yes it did include dialysis. Search the BBC site on kidney dialysis and
find it.
Secondly:" This attitude contrasts with British National Health
Service guidelines that explicitly refuse specific health care services to
persons because of advanced age.[6] Klein R, Day P, Redmayne S. Managing
Scarcity: Priority Setting and Rationing in the
National Health Service. Buckingham, England: Open University Press;
1996.
Go to google, feed in "National Health Service" and rationing and find
all sorts of things the NHS doesn't cover. The latest hooha seems to be over
the new-generation psych medications.
The point being that all systems ration and the only consideration is
how well they hide it. The US does this more openly and so catches more hell.
Arri London
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:36:54 -0700, Arri London
> <bio...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >With all the talk of NHS waiting lists, personally no one I
> >know including myself, was ever refused or delayed in
> >getting treatment of *any* sort.
>
>
> Since then, his family (all still in the UK, of course) has
> had several major medical problems (including the birth of a
> very, very premature baby, and one long hospitalization
> followed by death).
>
> Before my husband emigrated to the USA, he had lived in
> England or Wales all his life - over 40 years. During the
> course of the 40+ years he spent in the UK, he had probably
> more than his share of medical problems and - of course -
> observed friends and family with medical problems.
>
> He also personally knows no one who was refused or delayed
> in getting treatment on the NHS.
>
> OTOH, I needed to see a rheumatologist here in the USA. I
> had to wait four (4) months for an appointment with a
> rheumatologist. Meanwhile, I was in considerable pain.
>
> My husband recently saw a cardiologist here in the USA. He
> had to wait two (2) months for the cardiologist's
> appointment.
>
> We have also been refused treatment here in the USA because
> our insurance company refused to pay for it: prescriptions,
> mostly, but occasionally other treatments. MANY
> prescriptions our doctors prescribed for us have been
> refused by our last two insurance companies. All the
> expensive ones, actually.
>
> bound to be horror stories in ANY system. Plus underfunding
> any system will produce problems. They aren't systemic
> problems, they're funding problems.
>
> orchestrated by right-wing political entities in the USA,
> and that lots of deliberate misinformation is circulated
> about the UK's and Canada's health systems.
>
> accidental: one of them is that all people over 50 in the
> UK who require dialysis are refused it, and just die. My
> mother-in-law in the UK (aged 72) was put on dialysis
> without the slighest question, and transported to the
> dialysis center. They even schedule the same people on the
> same days, so they can become friends and chat. So this
> one, I know to be untrue from experience of a famil member.
>
>
> --
> Pat Meadows
Same here.
A friend of mine in the UK is over 50 and has been on home
dialysis for a year now. His kidneys still work a little so
he isn't a candidate for a transplant right now, but he is
on the list in case they fail suddenly. His sister, a work
colleague of mine, has the same genetic condition and is
given MRI every six months to monitor things, along with the
usual visits to the consultants. That's hardly inadequate
care.
My elderly neighbour in London is 75 or 76 and gets every
bit of medical attention required for her severe asthma and
chronic heart condition. Her nebuliser is free and she
exchanges it once a year for a newly-serviced one. All the
old people around there get home visits from the district
nurses, nutritionists, chiropodists etc. Given that my old
neighbourhood is one of the *poorest* in Britain, that too
is hardly inadequate care.
There have been high-profile cases where treatment was
initially refused, but the decisions were *always* reversed.
The news agencies only seem to pick up the refusal and never
follow up when the patient is treated a few days later. The
refusals are shameful, but the managers are no different
than their HMO counterparts in seeing a 'case' rather than a
person.
Chloe
news:rtkp8.1986$ml2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <jjhbau8nddmlmj3a0...@4ax.com>, Pat Meadows
> <p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
>
> >We have also been refused treatment here in the USA because
> >our insurance company refused to pay for it: prescriptions,
> >mostly, but occasionally other treatments. MANY
> >prescriptions our doctors prescribed for us have been
> >refused by our last two insurance companies. All the
> >expensive ones, actually.
I've been pretty lucky in that my insurance hasn't refused outright to pay
for any of my medications. However, I have what I understand is a common
problem in that the anti-inflammatories I need for my arthritis tend to
raise my blood pressure--which already is high enough to require medication
on its own. The combination my doctor finally arrived at after considerable
trial and error is one where all three meds are viewed as nonformulary--IOW
I pay $30 a month for each prescription. Yes, the insurance does cover
certain blood pressure and anti-inflammatory medications with a lower
deductible, but not the ones that work best in my individual case.
It's pretty annoying given that I'm paying $250 a month for this coverage,
but OTOH I realize I'm a lot better off than many people.
Dennis
wrote:
>I definitely believe there is a concerted propaganda effort
>orchestrated by right-wing political entities in the USA,
>and that lots of deliberate misinformation is circulated
>about the UK's and Canada's health systems.
Ah yes -- the "vast right wing conspiracy". Hillary's got you
checking under your bed, too, I see.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Chloe
> >I've been pretty lucky in that my insurance hasn't refused outright to
pay
> >for any of my medications.
>
> Celebrex as they are a new class of drug - our (two) former
> insurance companies refused to pay for either of them.
Celebrex is one of the drugs I pay the $30 copay for, my doctor having had
to prescribe it to replace the Feldene they did cover because the Feldene
was raising my blood pressure. Bummer.
I Love My Soldier
<p...@meadows.pair.com> writes:
>Well. ours have. There are no substitutes for Vioxx or
>Celebrex as they are a new class of drug - our (two) former
>insurance companies refused to pay for either of them.
Have you heard any recent news about Vioxx? I'm not sure of the whole story,
but I think it's about to be recalled. My dad was on it and when he went to
the doc Thursday, the doc told him to stop taking it immediately due to side
effects and problems it can cause. I was only half listening to that part of
the conversation (he wasn't speaking to me, LOL), so I didn't catch all the
details.
Bear
> >know including myself, was ever refused or delayed in
> >getting treatment of *any* sort.
>
>
> Since then, his family (all still in the UK, of course) has
> had several major medical problems (including the birth of a
> very, very premature baby, and one long hospitalization
> followed by death).
>
> Before my husband emigrated to the USA, he had lived in
> England or Wales all his life - over 40 years. During the
> course of the 40+ years he spent in the UK, he had probably
> more than his share of medical problems and - of course -
> observed friends and family with medical problems.
>
> He also personally knows no one who was refused or delayed
> in getting treatment on the NHS.
>
> OTOH, I needed to see a rheumatologist here in the USA. I
> had to wait four (4) months for an appointment with a
> rheumatologist. Meanwhile, I was in considerable pain.
>
> My husband recently saw a cardiologist here in the USA. He
> had to wait two (2) months for the cardiologist's
> appointment.
>
> our insurance company refused to pay for it: prescriptions,
> mostly, but occasionally other treatments. MANY
> prescriptions our doctors prescribed for us have been
> refused by our last two insurance companies. All the
> expensive ones, actually.
>
> bound to be horror stories in ANY system. Plus underfunding
> any system will produce problems. They aren't systemic
> problems, they're funding problems.
>
> orchestrated by right-wing political entities in the USA,
> and that lots of deliberate misinformation is circulated
> about the UK's and Canada's health systems.
>
> accidental: one of them is that all people over 50 in the
> UK who require dialysis are refused it, and just die. My
> mother-in-law in the UK (aged 72) was put on dialysis
> without the slighest question, and transported to the
> dialysis center. They even schedule the same people on the
> same days, so they can become friends and chat. So this
> one, I know to be untrue from experience of a famil member.
>
meds free and see all the specialists you wanted right away.
Bear
Bear
"Pat Meadows" <p...@meadows.pair.com> wrote in message .
> >Health insurance is not cheaper in the USA, it's just that many
> >employers subsidize it.
Well, it's called benefits.
> My husband is presently self-employed (employee of his own
> one-person corporation). He is in the computer business and
> things have been slow getting started: largely because so
> much programming is now being outsourced to countries such
> as India, Russia, China, etc. where programmers will work
> for a couple of dollars an hour. So our income is low at
> the moment.
Yeah, we've been all through that. You asked this group to brainstorm for
ideas and then you hacked us off at the knees after any suggestions.
> We are paying $323/month for health insurance for ONE
> PERSON. We also pay $50/month for Medicare Part B for the
> second person.
Actually that's not too bad.
> The result is that we are paying from $600 - $800 every
> month for medical costs. This is from $7200 to $9600 per
> year for medical costs.
>
> At present, our income is about $11,000/year. After we pay
> the $9600/year that our medical costs run to, we have a
> grand total of $1,400 year with which to pay our mortgage,
> utilities, food, gas for the car, car insurance, life
> insurance, clothing - everything else.
>
> We're spending our savings. We worked hard and lived
> frugally in order to HAVE these savings. But they're not
> limitless.
>
> All philosophy aside, political considerations aside, here's
> the truth about one household's medical expenses in the USA
> today.
>
> People yap about how high taxes are in the UK (although my
> husband - who is English - didn't find them much higher than
> in the USA).
Right, if you aren't making much you don't have to pay a whole lot of
taxes.....
> I'd be delighted to pay higher taxes if it would relieve us
> of the burden of some of these medical costs. Income taxes
> hurt ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE INCOME. Medical costs hurt *whether
> or not you have income*.
>
Well, they hurt a lot less if you have a lot of income.
> If we're fortunate enough that our income increases, I'll be
> more than happy to pay income taxes on it.
>
Again, you choose to live here. You could go to Britain and get it all for
free. Think of all the money you'd save!!
Bear
jun...@fakeemail.com
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:02:13 -0500, jun...@fakeemail.com
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >My understanding is that you cannot be denied coverage going from group
> >to individual policy BUT they can charge you an arm and a leg for the
> >individual policy, which often has the same effect as denying coverage.
>
> state.
>
> The situation is exceedingly complex and the laws vary by
> state. (I keep saying this....sorry...but it's true.)
>
> I don't want to discuss it because - unless you discuss each
> state separately - you're bound to be giving some people
> wrong information. In this case, wrong information can be
> terribly, terribly harmful.
>
> For the laws of each state and a discussion of them, see:
>
> http://www.healthinsuranceinfo.net
>
> Pat
>
> --
> Pat Meadows
> Software development and computer consulting
> http://www.wellsborocomputing.com
I am talking about what I beleive is federal law-the Health Insurance
Portability Act. See:
http://www.hcfa.gov/medicaid//hipaa/online/230001.asp
jun...@fakeemail.com
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:18:18 GMT, Pat Meadows <p...@meadows.pair.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I definitely believe there is a concerted propaganda effort
> >orchestrated by right-wing political entities in the USA,
> >and that lots of deliberate misinformation is circulated
> >about the UK's and Canada's health systems.
>
> Ah yes -- the "vast right wing conspiracy". Hillary's got you
> checking under your bed, too, I see.
>
> Dennis (evil)
> --
The AMA and insurance companies are definitely anti-national health care
and have lobbied hard against it. Call it a conspiracy if you wish.
jun...@fakeemail.com
>
>
> Further, in the U.S., there are programs designed to help people in
> need, but the news media being more interested in inflaming the
> public instead of helping them don't report it.
>
> "Can't Afford Your Prescription Medication? Free Prescription
> Medicine is Available to those who Qualify."
>
> http://www.themedicineprogram.com/
>
> Use a search engine with key words free medicine to review other
> potential sites. But, Caveat Emptor applies especially when it looks
> too good to be true. But, some are legitimate
>
> krh
Yes, there are some programs to help people without health insurance
coverage (about 30% of the US population, I believe) but they vary
greatly from state to state. I can tell you with certainty that there
is no program in my state that pays for health care for adults, unless
the adult is either 1. very poor and pregnant or 2.very poor and totally
disabled.
jun...@fakeemail.com
>
> Not all people are covered by COBRAs, only those whose
> employers have more than 20 employees. My husband - for
> instance - was not covered by this when he left his last
> permanent job - they had two employees.
>
> See: http://www.hcfa.gov/medicaid//hipaa/online/230241.asp
>
> The situation is complex and varies by state as I said.
>
> Pat
>
> --
> Pat Meadows
> Software development and computer consulting
> http://www.wellsborocomputing.com
Yes, but....there are certain rights guaranteed by HIPAA, that states
can't abridge (I believe). I should have said that you have to be HIPAA
eligible in order for those rights to apply.
Kurt Ullman
>krh wrote:
>Yes, there are some programs to help people without health insurance
>coverage (about 30% of the US population, I believe) but they vary
>greatly from state to state.
Worst I have seen is 30% and counts everyone who has been w/o insurance
for a month or more. Same if w/o insurance for 30 days or 364. If you look at
6+ months, the numbers are much smaller.
Lech K. Lesiak
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:23:49 -0700, "Lech K. Lesiak"
> <lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The US system works well for those who don't need medical treatment very
> >often.
> >
> Not really. It works well for those who don't need medical
> treatment, period.
I stand corrected.
Cheers,
Lech
BG Emmons
reading the bulk of the thread. OE6 had a time getting this thread in
order, but it did the best it could. Anyway I read this thread, and
wish I had not. I had planned on a note thanking this group for their
frugal ideas that have recently been shared (get books at library,
homemade bread/yogurt, efficient lighting, etc). In lieu of that I
decided to comment on this thread.
With some exceptions, it seems very clear that there is a harsh division
between the haves and the have nots: those with money and those without,
those with jobs and those without, those with good health and those
without.
It seems that if you have money and job (or husband/father does) why
should you care about the others; from reading this thread it would seem
that those folks don't. They have it, I expect often because someone
else provided it to them, and they are flaunting it. I assume that the
bulk of these folks won't be going to church tomorrow, or if they do
they will pray a little extra.
Also noted that the quality of the arguments varied widely. Each side
had a some who used reason,added a few facts, and were mannerly. Some
were just mean. There was one 'mean old man' who told a nice lady to
leave the US, he did this twice. Is he really a member of this group?
Since most of the thread was just opinion liberally thrown around with
unneeded venom, I feel free to offer my opinion: we in the US should
figure out how to take care of our people that need medical care, and
the need for medical care should not finically disable those needing the
care.
My situation: retired, x-employer pays about 72% of my health insurance
(with small deductible & small co-pay, this insurance pay medical,
hospital, & prescriptions). This insurance does not pay hardly anything
on dental; however, one of my many sons is a dentist, so we don't even
have a cost there. I am mentioning my situation so that it is clear
that I am one of the apparent few of the haves that support health care
for everyone.
In this group it is hard to tell when you have been 'plonked,' so I may
not be on anyone's read list. But if you do read this, please note that
I wish you health & happiness (even the mean old man)
George Emmons
<jun...@fakeemail.com> wrote in message
news:3CA62F...@fakeemail.com...
jun...@fakeemail.com
I have great health insurance coverage, but I also have chronic
illnesses (as does my husband) AND I work as a medical case manager. I
am totally PRO single-payor national health care. I have more horror
stories than anyone would care to hear. We are all just one major
illness or accident away from financial devastation, it's just that some
people don't realize it.
catlady
> IF we spend all our savings, THEN we will be eligible for
> Medicaid and so on. We prefer not to spend all our savings.
So you prefer that other people spend *their* savings (in the form of higher
taxes) to provide your benefits, while you keep your money.
jun...@fakeemail.com
Do you also think tax money should not be spent for roads, schools,
national parks,etc.?
Chloe
news:tyup8.27550$To6.7...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
<snip>
> Since most of the thread was just opinion liberally thrown around with
> unneeded venom, I feel free to offer my opinion: we in the US should
> figure out how to take care of our people that need medical care, and
> the need for medical care should not finically disable those needing the
> care.
Some people care about others' welfare, some don't. Of the people who do
care, opinions differ widely as to how to solve the problem, especially when
the problem is one as complex as the health care mess. I don't think what's
said on this newsgroup differs all that much from the opinions of the public
at large. If you've reached retirement age you must know by now that some
people just aren't very agreeable to interact with.
I've found it useful to killfile entire threads when the topic doesn't
interest me or is one that attracts a lot of pointless argument. You could
always try this to see if it makes your reading and posting experience here
more pleasant.
I doubt that people often--if ever--change their minds on a subject as a
result of a Usenet argument, but sometimes it's interesting to see what
people are saying, even if it doesn't always exhibit the best of human
nature.
BG Emmons
Who is paying the employer's contribution for you? Do you think the
employer is doing so or is he passing it on? Answer: The general
public is paying this via higher prices or taxes (for those working for
Governments Agencies). Are you a free loader?
"catlady" <lovemycats*meow*@postmark.net> wrote in message
news:a8737s$7gv$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
Dennis
Not my word -- I was only quoting Hillary Clinton (and her loyal
devotees).
mike wilcox
> But, back to socialized medicine. One has to be amazed at all the
> lies and falsehoods being posted on the internet:
>
> "The National Health Program which became the law of England in July
> 1948 is modeled on the Soviet system created by Lenin.
>
> In less than two years, there were more than half a million people on
> the waiting lists for hospitalization, while some forty
> thousand hospital beds were out of service because of a nurse
> shortage. The hospital shortage in Britain has become so
> acute that many mentally deficient and helpless, aged people are
> unable to secure institutional care. The only effective
> means of easing the shortage is to deny hospital admission to the old
> and chronically ill who cannot be discharged once they are admitted."
>
> In industrial centers, some British doctors have as many as 4,000
> registered patients each. Such doctors can give each patient only
> three minutes per call-three minutes overall, for consultation,
> diagnosis, prescription, filling out official forms, and maintaining
> proper records for governmental inspectors."
>
> "But the primary reasons for the inevitable failure of socialized
> medicine can be found in the patients themselves. When people are
> forced to pay for something, whether they want it or not, they are
> inclined to use as much of it as they can in order to get their
> money's worth."
>
> http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/smoot.htm
>
> It looks like you're living in a sheltered area where all is rosy.
>
> >3.It would bankrupt the country, we can't afford it.
> >
>
> "For many years advocates of government-run health care pointed to
> Europe as an ideal, noting that America was the "only
> industrialized country without a national health care system." Now,
> however, the European welfare states are slashing benefits in
> the face of rising health care costs."
>
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-23-96.html
>
> "It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen
> to have access to the public health system. This means that the
> average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public
> health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most
> comprehensive private health insurance plan."
>
> http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/8903lemi.html
>
> "As Canada's national government slashes spending on medical care in
> order to reduce the deficit, local provinces are reducing medical
> staff. In Ontario, pregnant women are being sent to Detroit because
> no obstetricians are available. Specialists of all kinds are in short
> supply. Patients have to wait eight weeks for an MRI, ten weeks for
> referral to a specialist, and four months for heart bypass surgery."
>
> http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/loveddeath.shtml
>
> Are all these sources lies or are you living ignoring the handwriting
> on the wall?
>
> >> > Personally
> >> >I've never had to wait for any treatment and can see my doctor whenever I want
> >> >or need to and not worry about losing coverage because an HMO suddenly
> >> > considers
> >> >me a high risk.
>
> So, since you have never had any problems, others must not have had
> any either? If so, where is all the data coming from that contradicts
> your experience? Apparently you really believe they're all lies.
>
>
> ....
> krh
First you ask me where are all these tired old myths are, then post links to them, I did post a link to
factual information about both systems further back in the thread if you are really interested.. All it
really takes is to use a little common sense, do you honestly think if our system is so bad we would just
sit back and watch our children and loved ones die and do nothing about it? If the one payer system was in
such bad shape there would be riots in the street and it would be front page International news. Strange
the only place it is news is in publications of right wing special interest groups such as the Cato
institute, the Freeman and Liberty Haven etc.
Secondly the area I live in is rural and considered one of the less well served areas, and yet people in my
circle of friends & family have received treatment for cancer, heart disease, lupus and cataracts in a
timely manner. My children were born in the local hospital three miles away from home, plus we have access
to our GP through the week and a local walk in clinic all week and weekends. If your system works well for
you I'm glad and wish you good health and happiness.
Mike Wilcox
Kurt Ullman
>Do you also think tax money should not be spent for roads, schools,
>national parks,etc.?
>
With the exception of road (ie use) taxes, yep. Schools if the
parents get to decide where their children and their money goes.
Kurt Ullman
>For the folks that belong to Employers Sponsored Group Health Plans:
>Who is paying the employer's contribution for you? Do you think the
>employer is doing so or is he passing it on? Answer: The general
>public is paying this via higher prices or taxes (for those working for
>Governments Agencies). Are you a free loader?
equation as part of what the job is worth to the employer. It is passed along
just like the costs of other raw materials. I am no more freeloading when I
sell my services as when I sell steel or anything else. Slept through Econ
101, did ya??? (grin)
sam
>For the folks that belong to Employers Sponsored Group Health Plans:
>Who is paying the employer's contribution for you? Do you think the
>employer is doing so or is he passing it on? Answer: The general
>public is paying this via higher prices or taxes (for those working for
>Governments Agencies). Are you a free loader?
My employer, the state, pays all of my coverage. The only thing I pay
for is my daughter.
So YOU, the TAXPAYER are paying to make sure me and my daughter get
the medical care we deserve.
I'm not a freeloader, I just know a good deal when I see it. :D
For some reason your post reminds me of a troll......
BG Emmons
the folks (like catlady) take a somewhat different view on who is paying
for their health care, and perhaps have some compassion for people who
do not have an employer helping with their health costs.
"sam" <cas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anfeaukomupg2rbnk...@4ax.com...
BG Emmons
really is a program to redistribute money from those now working to
those who worked in the past, rather than a retirement system.
Also a slightly different view of your contributions plus the
contributions of your employer: neither of you directly paid (e.g. you
never had your hands on your SS contributions & had there not been a SS
Program I doubt that your salary would have been higher), the general
public paid by increased cost for goods and services or via increases in
taxes.
One more view: Just send back 1/2 of your SS benefits, as you only paid
for !/2. <BG>
"krh" <ken970...@eudora.com> wrote in message
news:i2beau89615m5dmd7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:11:41 GMT, Pat Meadows <p...@meadows.pair.com>
> wrote:
>
> ....
> >
> >But you, of course, do not. Therefore, I expect that should
> >you become disabled - and after you turn 65 - you will not
> >accept Social Security benefits, but will send them back to
> >the government, right?
> ....
> >
> >Pat
>
> Only an idiot would return money to the government that was
> confiscated from the employee in the first place. Indeed, 7.53% is
> deducted from ones paycheck and the employer adds another 7.53% that
> is subsequently deposited in the employees SS account equates to an
> equivalent reduction in hourly wages. So, 15.06% of the workers real
> wages goes to fund his Social Security account. Over ones working
> career, that adds up. During my career, it exceeded $80,000 plus just
> for my contribution. When the employers part is added, it exceeded
> $160,000. Mind now that this confiscated money which actually belonged
> to the employee. It was not employers or the Governments money to
> start with. Todays workers will easily exceed the $200,000 mark when
> the employers contribution is included.
>
> Over that same period, add the time value of money using just a simple
> 5% and one will quickly find that the employee would become a
> multi-millionaire at age 65 after working 45 years contributing into
> the system. However, instead of becoming millionaires, recipients
> find that the Pyramid scam pay's them an amount that doesn't exceed
> the standard of living. This, of course, occurs because politicians
> have used this pool of readily available money to fund just about
> every social problem than has come across their desks. And, it's all
> spent before they get it too having only a paper note telling us the
> Government spent the money but on the backs of future workers will
> return the money with interest. Sure! Naturally, these same
> politicians set up their own retirement system years ago (when the
> public was sleeping and they still are) where they indeed become
> multimillionaires in retirement. Smart fellows, those Congress
> critters.
>
> But, I say to anyone who even remotely believes SS is a government
> handout, they are full of that stinky stuff! If anything, SS short
> changes the <investors/taxpayers> contributions.
>
> krh
sam
>the folks (like catlady) take a somewhat different view on who is paying
>for their health care, and perhaps have some compassion for people who
>do not have an employer helping with their health costs.
Cool, I was hoping it wasn't a troll. :)
Healthcare IS outrageous. I had to pay all of my premiums when I was
working for a small firm, and we did everything we could to keep our
costs down - until someone was hired who took his kids to the ER for
*everything*. I'm sorry, but a 16 yr old with a 101.5 degree temp
doesn't need an ER visit. Our rates went up ~40% the next year (I
bailed then).
People can help limit their spendings, too. Instead of taking their
kids to the doc for their flu shots, they can go to their local health
department - they don't charge for kids at ours, and most seniors are
free if you meet some income rules, and even then a flu shot is only
$5.00.