US Dentristy and Optometry
Dave O'Neill
experience on my trip to Seattle this week, I had toothache in the days
running up to flying so I booked an emergency appointment with my dentist in
the UK, waiting the typical half hour after the appointment time. She
x-rayed the area, poked around and decided that I needed to have a filling
changed. Great, I thought, anything to get rid of the pain.
Fast forward 3 days and I'm on the Space Needle looking out at Puget Sound
realising that the pain is back and worse this time. So I find a dentist
next to my hotel the next morning. They fit me in that afternoon, take some
x-rays and come straight back with the problem - the only thing the dentist
can do to stop me from screaming all night is a root canal, which he did
over the next hour and a half. No pain, lots of advice and a list of things
to call my UK dentist. The US denstist couldn't understand how she could
miss the massive infection nor the obvious cavity under the old filling.
What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
dentist.
Even looking at the two temporary fillings which are next to each other, one
is perfectly smooth and formed, the UK one looks like the kind of repair job
I do on the seal around the bath tub.
As it stands I still need to have the crown and other bits sorted but it was
a really good experience.
On the downer side, on the Sunday to escape the pain I took a heady cocktail
of alcohol, pain killers and a nytol - that worked just fine only I woke up
to find I'd slept with my glasses on and broken them :-( - trying to get
some emergency contact lenses with a UK pebscription proved a non-starter so
I was stuck with the old standby of super glueing the titanium frame back
together.
It sort of worked.
So one positive, one negative healthcare experience. I started to get
slightly paranoid yesterday about hospitals.
--
Dave O'Neill
Atomicrazor - New Stuff Right there right now!
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
--
Dave O'Neill
Atomicrazor - New Stuff Right there right now!
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
Mary Kay Kare
> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
> dentist.
A root canal for $180? Wow is my dentist overcharging me! Or you
really lucked out.
MKK
--
"Words are the hands of the mind"
Graydon Saunders on rec. arts.sf.fandom
Dave O'Neill
"Mary Kay Kare" <mar...@kare.ws> wrote in message
news:1fir461.cygzvu1mptv68N%mar...@kare.ws...
> Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>
> > What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
> > emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the
total
> > of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
> > dentist.
>
> A root canal for $180? Wow is my dentist overcharging me! Or you
> really lucked out.
That's just the initial clean out and root removal, not the crown - now that
is going to cost me. I'm just wondering if its worth waiting until I go
back to the US or just risk it over here.
Medical tourism could become big ;-)
Beth Friedman
<1fir461.cygzvu1mptv68N%mar...@kare.ws>, wrote:
>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>
>> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>> dentist.
>
>A root canal for $180? Wow is my dentist overcharging me! Or you
>really lucked out.
Lucked out, I think. I'm pretty sure I remember paying more than that
about 15 years ago.
Depending on what "palliative" means in this context, though, it might
not be quite the same procedure.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
David Bilek
>I know this has been a long running bug bear here but I had bad dental
>experience on my trip to Seattle this week, I had toothache in the days
>running up to flying so I booked an emergency appointment with my dentist in
>the UK, waiting the typical half hour after the appointment time. She
>x-rayed the area, poked around and decided that I needed to have a filling
>changed. Great, I thought, anything to get rid of the pain.
>
>Fast forward 3 days and I'm on the Space Needle looking out at Puget Sound
>realising that the pain is back and worse this time. So I find a dentist
>next to my hotel the next morning. They fit me in that afternoon, take some
>x-rays and come straight back with the problem - the only thing the dentist
>can do to stop me from screaming all night is a root canal, which he did
>over the next hour and a half. No pain, lots of advice and a list of things
>to call my UK dentist. The US denstist couldn't understand how she could
>miss the massive infection nor the obvious cavity under the old filling.
>
>What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>dentist.
>
>Even looking at the two temporary fillings which are next to each other, one
>is perfectly smooth and formed, the UK one looks like the kind of repair job
>I do on the seal around the bath tub.
>
>As it stands I still need to have the crown and other bits sorted but it was
>a really good experience.
>
Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
would be better under a universal health care system. But you also
shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of all
possible systems.
It's a trade off.
-David
Dave O'Neill
"Beth Friedman" <b...@wavefront.com> wrote in message
news:p86kouovlvg7jm1l6...@4ax.com...
The problem was the massive infection in the root, so he took out the pulp
and refilled - it still needs pins and a crown which will be expensive.
At least it doesn't hurt, but for 2 hours of dentistry and 4/5 x-rays I
think $180 was pretty good value.
Priscilla H Ballou
>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>> dentist.
>A root canal for $180? Wow is my dentist overcharging me! Or you
>really lucked out.
Admittedly I go to a fancy shmansy "Limited to Endodontics" place for my
big bad root canals, but I've been paying close to $1000. Maybe I should
fly to Seattle for my dental care?
Priscilla
--
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
- Albert Einstein
Lis Carey
A crown cost me $995 last summer. Two visist, one to take the impressions, etc.,
the other to put the crown in. I have a tiny mouth, not easy to work in, but the
job was done right, the first time, and I've had no trouble. My dentist charges
the same for either a gold crown or an amalgam one, on the grounds that while
gold is more expensive, it's also eaiser to work with.
I offer this experience for what use it may be to you.
Lis Carey
Julia Jones
<mar...@kare.ws> writes
>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>
>> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>> dentist.
>
>A root canal for $180? Wow is my dentist overcharging me! Or you
>really lucked out.
>
For comparison purposes:
The first root canal and crown I had was done by a National Health
dentist about 6 years ago. No more than 150 quid in total, gold crown.
I'm having ongoing work done by a US dentist. So far they have done the
root canal on one tooth twice, removed the wisdom tooth behind it, and
have not got around to doing the crown because it still hurts and they
can't work out why. The root canal will be done again as soon as I've
recovered from my Worldcon dose of con crud.
$738 for the root canal (three roots), 65% of which will be covered by
insurance. They have not made any attempt so far to charge me for
redoing it...
It's going to be around $900 for the crown, again 65% covered by the
insurance. Gold with porcelain sheath.
Those are the insurance contract prices, so presumably they're not
overcharging.
Anyone from the UK thinking of having dental work done during a trip to
the US - get a quote first.
--
Julia Jones
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org
address.
Avram Grumer
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
> trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
> would be better under a universal health care system. But you also
> shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of all
> possible systems.
>
> It's a trade off.
The people I've heard talking about moving the US over to some kind of
national health care system seem to be interested in the Canadian model,
not the UK model.
--
Avram Grumer / "There will never be
av...@grumer.org / a technology that beats
www.PigsAndFishes.org / having lunch..."
www.livejournal.com/users/agrumer/ -- Jakob Nielsen
David Bilek
>In article <f37kouou94kg34o6k...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
>> trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
>> would be better under a universal health care system. But you also
>> shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of all
>> possible systems.
>>
>> It's a trade off.
>
>The people I've heard talking about moving the US over to some kind of
>national health care system seem to be interested in the Canadian model,
>not the UK model.
They perhaps have never lived in Canada. I have, and it ain't no
picnic there either.
-David
Avram Grumer
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <f37kouou94kg34o6k...@4ax.com>,
> > David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
> >> trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
> >> would be better under a universal health care system. But you
> >> also shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of
> >> all possible systems.
> >>
> >> It's a trade off.
> >
> >The people I've heard talking about moving the US over to some kind
> >of national health care system seem to be interested in the Canadian
> >model, not the UK model.
>
> They perhaps have never lived in Canada. I have, and it ain't no
> picnic there either.
Is medical care a picnic anywhere? Not in the US, I can vouch.
David Bilek
>In article <5v2louc2931r6numn...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <f37kouou94kg34o6k...@4ax.com>,
>> > David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
>> >> trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
>> >> would be better under a universal health care system. But you
>> >> also shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of
>> >> all possible systems.
>> >>
>> >> It's a trade off.
>> >
>> >The people I've heard talking about moving the US over to some kind
>> >of national health care system seem to be interested in the Canadian
>> >model, not the UK model.
>>
>> They perhaps have never lived in Canada. I have, and it ain't no
>> picnic there either.
>
>Is medical care a picnic anywhere? Not in the US, I can vouch.
That's kind of my point, yes. The grass is always greener.
-David
Joel Rosenberg
Well, fwiw, studies have shown that Canadian doctors and patients, on
average, think more highly of Canadian medical treatment than American
doctors and patients think of American medical treatment. That
doesn't, of course, prove that the Canadian system is better -- it could
be worse, but Americans have higher expectations -- but it is
suggestive.
--
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/29/international/middleeast/29SAUD.html
A striking sign of the Saudis' eagerness to reach out to the United
States has been a ... scramble ... to find a gesture of solidarity
with the American people on the anniversary of the attacks. The royal
family has considered presenting the racehorse that won the Kentucky
Derby and Preakness Stakes this year as a gift to the victims'
families, according to one adviser to the family.
-- the New YorkTimes.
Yes, the Saudis seek to assuage the anger of the victims families...
...by presenting them with a used horse.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <avram-1D9EBD....@reader2.panix.com>,
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>>In article <f37kouou94kg34o6k...@4ax.com>,
>> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
>>> trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
>>> would be better under a universal health care system. But you also
>>> shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of all
>>> possible systems.
>>>
>>> It's a trade off.
>>
>>The people I've heard talking about moving the US over to some kind of
>>national health care system seem to be interested in the Canadian model,
>>not the UK model.
>
> They really want to make it illegal for independent doctors to work outside
> of the government system? Scary.
>
> --
> pciszek at TheWorld dot com | "Mundus Vult Decipi"
> | ("The world wants to be deceived")
> | --James Branch Cabell
If they did, it wouldn't be the Canadian system.
--
Christine Hanson will never be three, and I feel sad about that. But I
did not know her, love her, cherish her; I do not feel her loss, her
absence in my life. I have no reason to hold hands in a "healing
circle" for her. All I can do for Christine Hanson is insist that the
terrorist movement which killed her is hunted down and prevented from
deliberately targeting any more two-year olds. We honour Christine
Hanson's memory by righting the great wrong done to her, not by ersatz
grief-mongering.
-- Mark Steyn
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Alan Braggins
> >>The people I've heard talking about moving the US over to some kind of
> >>national health care system seem to be interested in the Canadian model,
> >>not the UK model.
> >
> > They really want to make it illegal for independent doctors to work outside
> > of the government system? Scary.
>
(And nor would it be the UK system.)
Dave O'Neill
"Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4uhegka...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
Was it propoganda that this was proposed under the initial Bill Clinton
proposals?
A universal system with some restrictions plus private care for anybody who
wants it seems the best compromise to me.
Joel Rosenberg
> "Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:4uhegka...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> writes:
>> > >>The people I've heard talking about moving the US over to some kind of
>> > >>national health care system seem to be interested in the Canadian
> model,
>> > >>not the UK model.
>> > >
>> > > They really want to make it illegal for independent doctors to work
> outside
>> > > of the government system? Scary.
>> >
>> > If they did, it wouldn't be the Canadian system.
>>
>> (And nor would it be the UK system.)
>
> Was it propoganda that this was proposed under the initial Bill Clinton
> proposals?
The Clinton almost-proposal was complex, and sort of something like
that, but it didn't forbid independent doctors working outside of the
government system. Basically, it proposed replacing the multitude of
HMOs with a few government-organized HMOs, and making coverage
universal, rather than for the employed.
--
But what would happen to [Osama's] cool armor if he
could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has
done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be
brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has
destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works
is love.
-- Alice Walker
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
James Nicoll
Julia Jones <julia...@jajones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm having ongoing work done by a US dentist. So far they have done the
>root canal on one tooth twice, removed the wisdom tooth behind it, and
>have not got around to doing the crown because it still hurts and they
>can't work out why. The root canal will be done again as soon as I've
>recovered from my Worldcon dose of con crud.
Wait a second. My root canals involved all of the pulp being
removed from the tooth at the same time.I hope I am misreading this and
there aren't dentists who deliberately only do partials. Are there? Because
a friend had a partial, through dentist incompetence, and it's had serious
health side effects as the material...well, you don't want to know.
--
"Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
depth."
"Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."
James Nicoll
Paul Ciszek <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
snip
>
>I have heard that in Canada, a doctor is not allowed to charge more than
>what the national health insurance pays, even if s/he is willing to forgo
>all national health insurance money and just work on rich patients in
>exchange for cash. I have heard that if a Canadian has the money, and wants
>to be treated *now* instead of later, and is willing to pay extra for that,
>they have to go to the US. If this is not the case, please enlighten me.
Here's some research material.
And the relevent laws should be spelled out in the Health Care
Act. Note that each province has a different system, with their own wee
cool bits and annoyances (1).
Do note that west of Ontario there are only four major
cities and for a lot of the people in the middle wastelands the
nearest hospital of the sort you need a city to support will be
south of the border.
We get Americans coming up here for treatment, although
for some reason even the politicians who are among them don't like to
mention this (2). Paul Tsongas is one example of such a politician. Well,
was one example. Now he's a statesman and not a day too soon.
James Nicoll
1: Eg: the total fuckwittery of Ontario charging foreign grad students
for OHIP but not allowing them to use it. Foreign grad students are a
valuable resource, not to be driven off by short sighted stupid policies.
2: Many of them come up legally but at one point there were as many as
a million American freeloaders using fake OHIP cards to steal services
up here.
Dave O'Neill
"Paul Ciszek" <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:H2qsv...@world.std.com...
> In article <4uhegka...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
systems
> are as follows below; please ammend my ignorance:
>
> UK: The government pays for most medical stuff, without a need-based
> requirement.
The NHS pretty much covers you for anything which you could need ever - but,
and here's the catch, if the condition is not life threatening you'd better
be prepared to wait, you may also find that for various reasons you might
not get certain types of treatment beyond certain ages - eg. they are
unlikely to give a kidney transplant to an over 65 if there is a younger
potential recipient.
Also, depending on where you life you are unlikely to get the latest drugs
nor experimental procedures.
Visits to a GP or emergency room are free of charge although if you are in
an accident you will need to pay for an ambulance. All treatement is free.
If you can find an NHS dentist you can get subsidised but not free dental
treatment, the vast majority of dentists are now private.
For most things it can be pretty good, my father had cancer of the
osesophegus and went from diagnosis to surgery in about 2 weeks, most of
that time was taken up in tests, biopsies and scans. He survived 5 years
after the treatment which given the life style he led was pretty remarkable.
If you have the money, you can pay for better or quicker
> care if you like, and there are in fact doctors who more or less
> specialize in wealthy patients and operate independently of the
National
> Health.
Most of the senior NHS doctors are also private consultants who are
available to work for anyone once they have met their contractual NHS
obligations. There have been some moves to limit this recently by making it
harder for younger consultants to do private work for a period of 7 years
after they qualify - the government argument being if the NHS paid for the
training, it ought to get first call on the consultant's skills.
If you want to queue jump and have money then you'll have no trouble finding
a specialist. This applies to pretty much any condition. Hence many people
have private medical cover. I've used it for having my wisdom teeth out but
that's about it.
I can't speak for other systems.
Dave O'Neill
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:amfdc1$656$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <BmkrtFJ+...@jajones.demon.co.uk>,
> Julia Jones <julia...@jajones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I'm having ongoing work done by a US dentist. So far they have done the
> >root canal on one tooth twice, removed the wisdom tooth behind it, and
> >have not got around to doing the crown because it still hurts and they
> >can't work out why. The root canal will be done again as soon as I've
> >recovered from my Worldcon dose of con crud.
>
> Wait a second. My root canals involved all of the pulp being
> removed from the tooth at the same time.I hope I am misreading this and
> there aren't dentists who deliberately only do partials. Are there?
Because
> a friend had a partial, through dentist incompetence, and it's had serious
> health side effects as the material...well, you don't want to know.
I have a colleague who's dentist missed one of the canals and caused him
huge problems later.
I understand that it can be hard to get all the pulp out sometimes.
All in all its not something I want to ever have to do again in my life.
Adina Adler
> In message <1fir461.cygzvu1mptv68N%mar...@kare.ws>, Mary Kay Kare
> <mar...@kare.ws> writes
> >Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
> >> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
> >> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
> >> dentist.
> >
> >A root canal for $180? Wow is my dentist overcharging me! Or you
> >really lucked out.
> >
> <delurk>
>
> For comparison purposes:
> The first root canal and crown I had was done by a National Health
> dentist about 6 years ago. No more than 150 quid in total, gold crown.
>
> I'm having ongoing work done by a US dentist. So far they have done
> the root canal on one tooth twice, removed the wisdom tooth behind it,
> and have not got around to doing the crown because it still hurts and
> they can't work out why. The root canal will be done again as soon as
> I've recovered from my Worldcon dose of con crud.
This happened to me; well, they didn't redo the root canal, but I was
experiencing severe pain after three roots had been removed. It turned
out that that tooth had a fourth root (unusual, but not unheard of),
and it was kind of faint on the x-ray, but definitely there. I had to
go through a painful set of tests to prove to my endodontist that I
really did have sensation in that tooth, but eventually he believed
me, and looked at the x-ray again, and said, "Hmm, I guess that is
another root." Once he removed that last root, all the pain vanished.
I don't remember the cost. It was very high, and I had no dental
insurance because my company didn't offer it (this was about 18 years
ago, when dental insurance wasn't as wide-spread in the US as it is
now), but I didn't really have much choice.
--
Adina
Mary Kay Kare
> I have a colleague who's dentist missed one of the canals and caused him
> huge problems later.
>
> I understand that it can be hard to get all the pulp out sometimes.
>
> All in all its not something I want to ever have to do again in my life.
I'll never forget the time, at a BARASFF gathering, I mentioned I was a
little tired as my supposed filling had turned into a root canal midway
through. Everyone was shocked and sympathetic. I said, "Oh, as root
canals go it wasn't bad really." And they all moved away from me on the
Group W bench. I mean they looked at me oddly. Turns out none of them
had ever had a root canal, while I've had so many I've lost count. At
least half a dozen. I really know way too much about some forms of
dentistry.
Julia Jones
<jdni...@panix.com> writes
>In article <BmkrtFJ+...@jajones.demon.co.uk>,
>Julia Jones <julia...@jajones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I'm having ongoing work done by a US dentist. So far they have done the
>>root canal on one tooth twice, removed the wisdom tooth behind it, and
>>have not got around to doing the crown because it still hurts and they
>>can't work out why. The root canal will be done again as soon as I've
>>recovered from my Worldcon dose of con crud.
>
> Wait a second. My root canals involved all of the pulp being
>removed from the tooth at the same time.I hope I am misreading this and
>there aren't dentists who deliberately only do partials. Are there? Because
>a friend had a partial, through dentist incompetence, and it's had serious
>health side effects as the material...well, you don't want to know.
>
infection in there."
Which I suspects translates into they were too conservative the first
time in removing the pulp, partly because the canals were unusually
narrow and it was difficult to tell whether they'd found the end. They
had a lot of trouble finding the third root, and the muttering during
the second go suggests it was unusually long - they may not have gone
deep enough the first time. I probably won't get a straight story out of
them, given the enthusiasm for suing dentists even when it was a
reasonable clinical judgement rather than negligence
They're sending me to a specialist for the next go. Neither the general
practice who did the initial work nor the guy who did the wisdom tooth
extraction can find any reason on the X-rays why the tooth isn't
healing, which has got them seriously worried now.
And just to make my week complete, the insurance is refusing to pay for
the general anaesthesia for the wisdom tooth extraction, claiming that
there was no clinical need for it. I would not have agreed to a general
had I not accepted the surgeon's judgement that it was necessary - a
general carries a small but important risk of never waking up.
Chris Malme
news:f37kouou94kg34o6k...@4ax.com:
> Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
> trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
> would be better under a universal health care system. But you also
> shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of all
> possible systems.
Note that under the UK NHS system, dentistry is a bit of an anomoly.
Theoretically, you can get free NHS treatment for anyone under 18 or
in full time education, for senior citizens, and for people on income
support. Anyone else has to pay 80% of the cost themselves, although
there is a fixed pricelist for most treatments.
However, the major problem (at least in many areas) is finding a
dentist willing to take on NHS patients. Being entitled to treatment
is one thing - if no-one in a radius of 25 miles will take anything
but private patients, it's all a bit moot.
What really irritates me are the dentists who will accept new NHS
patients if they are charge exempt (i.e. child, senior or income
support), but not otherwise. In other words, they are cherry-picking
- happy to bill the NHS for people who otherwise couldn't afford
treatment at all, but if you can afford it, then you are a private
patient, and have to pay whatever they want to charge.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk
Mark Atwood
> >> > >
> >> > > They really want to make it illegal for independent doctors to work
> > outside
> >> > > of the government system? Scary.
> >> >
> >> > If they did, it wouldn't be the Canadian system.
> >>
> >> (And nor would it be the UK system.)
> >
> > Was it propoganda that this was proposed under the initial Bill Clinton
> > proposals?
>
> The Clinton almost-proposal was complex, and sort of something like
> that, but it didn't forbid independent doctors working outside of the
> government system.
But it forbad doctors and clinics from working inside and outside
"the system".
IOW, the very very expensive and exclusive clinics and private doctors
used by the ultra-wealthy would remain untouched, but if you were upper
middle class and below, your only choice was the government system.
You weren't forbidden to buy private health care. It's just that the
doctors were forbidden to sell it to you on an "out of pocket basis".
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Julia Jones
<mins...@filklore.com> writes
>David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote in
>news:f37kouou94kg34o6k...@4ax.com:
>
>> Yes, this is exactly what I've always said. Health care is a
>> trade-off. Don't believe the people who wail about how everything
>> would be better under a universal health care system. But you also
>> shouldn't listen to people who claim the US has the best of all
>> possible systems.
>
>Note that under the UK NHS system, dentistry is a bit of an anomoly.
>
>Theoretically, you can get free NHS treatment for anyone under 18 or
>in full time education, for senior citizens, and for people on income
>support. Anyone else has to pay 80% of the cost themselves, although
>there is a fixed pricelist for most treatments.
>
pay in any one year. It was about a thousand quid the last time I
looked, which was some years ago. Which sounds like a lot of money, but
when I get to having to paid that amount of money to a US dentist, my
insurance cuts out altogether and I have to pay the full amount, rather
than not having to pay any more at all.
Of course, the first time in my life when this might become an important
point, I'm living in the country where I have to start paying the full
amount.
Dave O'Neill
"Mark Atwood" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:m3admci...@khem.blackfedora.com...
They're trying here (UK) to restrict the amount of "out of the system" work
a consultant does in his/her first few years after qualifying, the rational
being that the system that paid for the training ought to get first dibs on
their skills. I think the BMI are negotiating the amount of time this
equals at the moment.
Still, it seems to be a good gig once you're on it. I know a couple of
Consultants and they aren't exactly complaining about their lot, even
staying within the NHS is worth a lot.
--
Dave O'Neill
Atomicrazor - New Stuff Right there right now!
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
Joel Rosenberg
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> writes:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > They really want to make it illegal for independent doctors to work
>> > outside
>> >> > > of the government system? Scary.
>> >> >
>> >> > If they did, it wouldn't be the Canadian system.
>> >>
>> >> (And nor would it be the UK system.)
>> >
>> > Was it propoganda that this was proposed under the initial Bill Clinton
>> > proposals?
>>
>> The Clinton almost-proposal was complex, and sort of something like
>> that, but it didn't forbid independent doctors working outside of the
>> government system.
>
> But it forbad doctors and clinics from working inside and outside
> "the system".
Well, it would have. Whether that's a bug or a feature is a matter of
honest disagreement.
--
Years ago, airlines used to offer "smoking" and "non-smoking"
flights. It would be interesting to see what would happen if airlines
began offering "armed" and "unarmed flights." Which planes do you
think that would-be hijackers would prefer to take?
-- Dave Kopel
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Kip Williams
> "James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:amfdc1$656$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>>health side effects as the material...well, you don't want to know.
>
> I have a colleague who's dentist missed one of the canals and caused him
> huge problems later.
>
> I understand that it can be hard to get all the pulp out sometimes.
>
> All in all its not something I want to ever have to do again in my life.
It's the scraping that kills me. I don't mind the drilling so much,
but I hate pulp friction.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
Beaver: "Oh, he didn't cheat a whole lot, just enough to win."
Gilbert: "That's all you got to cheat, just enough to win." ("Leave
it to Beaver")
Kip Williams
> I'll never forget the time, at a BARASFF gathering, I mentioned I was a
> little tired as my supposed filling had turned into a root canal midway
> through. Everyone was shocked and sympathetic. I said, "Oh, as root
> canals go it wasn't bad really." And they all moved away from me on the
> Group W bench. I mean they looked at me oddly. Turns out none of them
> had ever had a root canal, while I've had so many I've lost count. At
> least half a dozen. I really know way too much about some forms of
> dentistry.
Seester.
Vicki Rosenzweig
18:12:11 GMT:
>
>"Mary Kay Kare" <mar...@kare.ws> wrote in message
>news:1fir461.cygzvu1mptv68N%mar...@kare.ws...
>> Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>> > emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the
>total
>> > of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>> > dentist.
>>
>> A root canal for $180? Wow is my dentist overcharging me! Or you
>> really lucked out.
>
>That's just the initial clean out and root removal, not the crown - now that
>is going to cost me. I'm just wondering if its worth waiting until I go
>back to the US or just risk it over here.
>
>Medical tourism could become big ;-)
The medical tourists mostly head *from* the US to just over the Mexican
border, where there are lots of dentists who charge significantly less
than you'd pay here.
Personally, I get my dental work done in Manhattan.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Marilee J. Layman
This is why I still have wisdom teeth. I can't have a general again
unless the alternative is certain death, and my wisdom teeth (which
are starting to come apart) are too deep to have other kinds of
anesthesia.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Mike Van Pelt
Paul Ciszek <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>They really want to make it illegal for independent doctors to
>work outside of the government system? Scary.
Yep. The health care plan produced by Hillary's health care
task force back in 1993 or so provided for a five year prison
term for anyone doing anything outside the system related to
health care. Doctors *AND* patients, IIRC.
--
Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told | Mike Van Pelt
that "everybody else is doing it" was a really stupid | m...@calweb.com
reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason | KE6BVH
for picking a particular software package? -- Barry Gehm
Mike Van Pelt
Paul Ciszek <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>Now that I am a diabetic, I find myself favoring socialized
>medicine more than I used to. I cannot help but feel that the
>idea of minimal, crummy health care for *everybody* suplemented
>by out-of-pocket *good* heath care for those who can afford it
>would have to be better than what we have in the US.
In spite of my political leanings, somewhere in the boundary
between conservative and libertarian, the idea of some kind of
public "basic health care" plan does have some attraction for me.
The problem is, these things tend to have exponential escallators
on them. It isn't "fair" that Freddy the Freeloader doesn't
get the sort of medical care that William Gates III does, so
that has to be "fixed", either by bankrupting the system
trying to provide billionaire-level service free to everyone,
or by (a la HillaryCare) forcing everyone under penalty of
law to get service stamped out with the same cookie-cutter.
Mary Kay Kare
> Mary Kay Kare wrote:
> > I'll never forget the time, at a BARASFF gathering, I mentioned I was a
> > little tired as my supposed filling had turned into a root canal midway
> > through. Everyone was shocked and sympathetic. I said, "Oh, as root
> > canals go it wasn't bad really." And they all moved away from me on the
> > Group W bench. I mean they looked at me oddly. Turns out none of them
> > had ever had a root canal, while I've had so many I've lost count. At
> > least half a dozen. I really know way too much about some forms of
> > dentistry.
>
> Seester.
Heh. I had my last work done on the current go round this morning.
Unfortunately I hadn't either eaten enough or had eaten too recently. I
had to rip the nitrous mask off my face and run to the bathroom. And
I've been queasy and headachy all day. Thank god I'm released for at
least 6 months though.
Mike Scott
> The problem is, these things tend to have exponential escallators
> on them. It isn't "fair" that Freddy the Freeloader doesn't
> get the sort of medical care that William Gates III does, so
> that has to be "fixed", either by bankrupting the system
> trying to provide billionaire-level service free to everyone,
> or by (a la HillaryCare) forcing everyone under penalty of
> law to get service stamped out with the same cookie-cutter.
Forcing everyone into the government system isn't necessarily about
reducing the high-end levels of care available. It may be a lot more
about reducing the costs of labour and other inputs into the health
care system by removing competition and giving them a single potential
customer and a single low price, which they can take or leave.
--
Mike Scott
Mark Atwood
>
> Forcing everyone into the government system isn't necessarily about
> reducing the high-end levels of care available.
No, it's just a pleasent side effect, from some people's points of view.
> It may be a lot more about reducing the costs of labour and other
> inputs into the health care system by removing competition and
> giving them a single potential customer and a single low price,
> which they can take or leave.
I've *seen* CAian health care, and I can compare it to USian health
care. Likewise, I have seen what ON.CA charges foreign students, and
can compare that to the COBRA rate from my own HMO.
I get *much* better care, for noticably less money.
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>Yep. The health care plan produced by Hillary's health care
>task force back in 1993 or so provided for a five year prison
>term for anyone doing anything outside the system related to
>health care. Doctors *AND* patients, IIRC.
That sounds like an exceptional claim; can you provide evidence for
it?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Mike Van Pelt
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 21 Sep 2002 01:23:04 GMT, m...@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt)
>wrote:
>>Yep. The health care plan produced by Hillary's health care
>>task force back in 1993 or so provided for a five year prison
>>term for anyone doing anything outside the system related to
>>health care. Doctors *AND* patients, IIRC.
>
>That sounds like an exceptional claim; can you provide evidence
>for it?
I don't keep newspaper clippings from 9 years ago. Alas, 1993
was prior to a lot of major newspaper articles getting indexed
on the web.
However, a bit of googling found this:
FINES AND JAIL TERMS FOR PHYSICIANS: What is today considered
normal patient advocacy would have become a federal crime under
the Clinton Plan. For example, if a doctor tried to get an early
date for surgery for a sick patient in his health plan, and took
"anything of value," he would have been subject to stiff fines
and a 15-year jail term. (G. Arnett, Washington Post, 12/19/93)
Mike Scott
> FINES AND JAIL TERMS FOR PHYSICIANS: What is today considered
> normal patient advocacy would have become a federal crime under
> the Clinton Plan. For example, if a doctor tried to get an early
> date for surgery for a sick patient in his health plan, and took
> "anything of value," he would have been subject to stiff fines
> and a 15-year jail term. (G. Arnett, Washington Post, 12/19/93)
That's not "doing anything outside the system related to health care;
that's straightforward corruption, accepting bribes to give a patient
preferential treatment.
--
Mike Scott
Priscilla H Ballou
>In article <kf8pougn49o0rujvb...@4ax.com>,
>Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>>On 21 Sep 2002 01:23:04 GMT, m...@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt)
>>wrote:
>>>Yep. The health care plan produced by Hillary's health care
>>>task force back in 1993 or so provided for a five year prison
>>>term for anyone doing anything outside the system related to
>>>health care. Doctors *AND* patients, IIRC.
>>
>>That sounds like an exceptional claim; can you provide evidence
>>for it?
>I don't keep newspaper clippings from 9 years ago. Alas, 1993
>was prior to a lot of major newspaper articles getting indexed
>on the web.
>However, a bit of googling found this:
>FINES AND JAIL TERMS FOR PHYSICIANS: What is today considered
>normal patient advocacy would have become a federal crime under
>the Clinton Plan. For example, if a doctor tried to get an early
>date for surgery for a sick patient in his health plan, and took
>"anything of value," he would have been subject to stiff fines
>and a 15-year jail term. (G. Arnett, Washington Post, 12/19/93)
Doctors normally charge extra for getting a sick patient into early
surgery? I've never heard of that.
Priscilla
--
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
- Albert Einstein
Joel Rosenberg
They don't now, as far as I know, but if you have a longer queue --
see Canada -- for nonemergency surgery, you do have to deal with the
problem of folks wanting to jump the queue. And if you expand the
user base -- all those uninsured folks, who don't get nonemergency
surgery now -- without expanding the resources to match, you will get
a longer queue.
My Canadian relatives have reported finding the longish waits
irritating, but no worse than that. (My late uncle Ian's surgery that
put electrodes in his brain to control his Parkinson's was probably
the worst case they had to deal with -- it was put off repeatedly,
over a period of several months. But it finally was done, and made
his last couple of years much more pleasant, as the shaking basically
became a nonproblem.)
--
But what would happen to [Osama's] cool armor if he
could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has
done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be
brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has
destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works
is love.
-- Alice Walker
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Alan Braggins
> Note that under the UK NHS system, dentistry is a bit of an anomoly.
>
> Theoretically, you can get free NHS treatment for anyone under 18 or
> in full time education, for senior citizens, and for people on income
> support. Anyone else has to pay 80% of the cost themselves
I'm fairly sure pregnant women are also exempt.
Dave O'Neill
"Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4u8z1so...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
They are.
Dave O'Neill
"Chris Malme" <mins...@filklore.com> wrote in message
news:xns928faaa8...@filklore.com...
Having now found an NHS dentist you hit the other issue, being, if you want
"good" dental care, ie. anything other than rock bottom, then its private.
I need a crown, the work is subsidised by the NHS but only if I want a metal
crown. I'd rather not and therefore it's going to cost. Admitidly at Ł350
for the treatment and crown it seems rather like too good value.
Priscilla H Ballou
>Having now found an NHS dentist you hit the other issue, being, if you want
>"good" dental care, ie. anything other than rock bottom, then its private.
>I need a crown, the work is subsidised by the NHS but only if I want a metal
>crown. I'd rather not and therefore it's going to cost. Admitidly at
[350 pounds]
>for the treatment and crown it seems rather like too good value.
You might find that you want a metal crown even if you think you don't. I
got a new-fangled acrylic or whatever crown a few years ago that was
supposed to be as strong as gold. Within a year the strength of my clench
had cracked it. They replaced it with a stronger non-metal one, and
within a year it was in pieces, too. I now have a gold one, and it's just
fine.
Dave O'Neill
"Priscilla H Ballou" <p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:H2wJ3...@world.std.com...
> Dave O'Neill <da...@nospamatomicrazor.com> quoth:
>
> >Having now found an NHS dentist you hit the other issue, being, if you
want
> >"good" dental care, ie. anything other than rock bottom, then its
private.
>
> >I need a crown, the work is subsidised by the NHS but only if I want a
metal
> >crown. I'd rather not and therefore it's going to cost. Admitidly at
> [350 pounds]
> >for the treatment and crown it seems rather like too good value.
>
> You might find that you want a metal crown even if you think you don't. I
> got a new-fangled acrylic or whatever crown a few years ago that was
> supposed to be as strong as gold. Within a year the strength of my clench
> had cracked it. They replaced it with a stronger non-metal one, and
> within a year it was in pieces, too. I now have a gold one, and it's just
> fine.
I'll bear that in mind, but I'll risk the "super strong" plastic I think.
Although what does piss me off is all this expensive dental work has been
caused by about 7 fillings I had put in in my teens by some butcher of a
dentist who claimed a lot of money for some slip shod work. Unfortunately
that were more innocent times and the fact I went from never having had need
of a filling to 6 in 1 year didn't raise any alarm bells with anyone.
Oh well, for normal fillings I must say I do like the plastic stuff.
Omega
<ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
That's right. The period of pregnancy and one year after the birth. I
got a lot of non-urgent remedial work like ageing fillings replaces
under that rule. My dentist is firmly of the opinion that you should
take any chance you get to get something for free after all she gets
paid anyway.
--
Omega
"The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and
switchblades."
Alice Cooper
Marilee J. Layman
<p...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>Dave O'Neill <da...@nospamatomicrazor.com> quoth:
>
>>Having now found an NHS dentist you hit the other issue, being, if you want
>>"good" dental care, ie. anything other than rock bottom, then its private.
>
>>I need a crown, the work is subsidised by the NHS but only if I want a metal
>>crown. I'd rather not and therefore it's going to cost. Admitidly at
>[350 pounds]
>>for the treatment and crown it seems rather like too good value.
>
>You might find that you want a metal crown even if you think you don't. I
>got a new-fangled acrylic or whatever crown a few years ago that was
>supposed to be as strong as gold. Within a year the strength of my clench
>had cracked it. They replaced it with a stronger non-metal one, and
>within a year it was in pieces, too. I now have a gold one, and it's just
>fine.
Both of my crowns look like regular teeth and while one came off and
had to be re-stuck, neither has broken.
Priscilla H Ballou
The final gold one didn't look gold, but that's what it was underneath.
I also have a very strong clench.
Priscilla, hmmm, part terrier?
Lis Carey
My dentist recommended gold on the grounds that, while amalgam crowns will usually
do just fine, he's had to replace significantly more of them than gold crowns.
Since it's a back tooth, there was also no particular cosmetic reason to avoid
gold. It would have been a harder choice if it had been a more visible tooth.
Lis Carey
Chris Malme
Well, I may look like I am pregnant, but I don't think I am going to
convince them, somehow.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk
Keith F. Lynch
> anybody who wants it seems the best compromise to me.
Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
David Bilek
>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>> A universal system with some restrictions plus private care for
>> anybody who wants it seems the best compromise to me.
>
>Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
>paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
How is that a universal system?
-David
Keith F. Lynch
> A universal system with some restrictions plus private care for
> anybody who wants it seems the best compromise to me.
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
> paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> How is that a universal system?
Note that I put "universal" in quotes.
However, it is universal in the sense that anyone can join. Nobody
can be excluded or kicked out for any reason, not even pre-existing
conditions or inability to pay.
But any system which everyone is *compelled* to join is not a good
compromise, it's a form of slavery.
David Bilek
>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>> A universal system with some restrictions plus private care for
>> anybody who wants it seems the best compromise to me.
>
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
>> paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
>
>David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> How is that a universal system?
>
>Note that I put "universal" in quotes.
>
>However, it is universal in the sense that anyone can join. Nobody
>can be excluded or kicked out for any reason, not even pre-existing
>conditions or inability to pay.
>
>But any system which everyone is *compelled* to join is not a good
>compromise, it's a form of slavery.
How would such a system survive, given that healthy people would stay
away in droves and sick people would join up instantly?
There are *very very* few extremely sick people who could afford to
pay their medical costs. Do you know how much $$$ being treated for,
say, cancer costs? The *only* way to have such people treated is for
the costs to be defrayed by many healthy people paying into the system
and not taking money out.
Seriously, in your ideal system, how would someone who gets cancer
receive treatment given that it might cost $200,000? Remember that
healthy people almost certainly aren't paying money into the system.
So far as I can tell, what you advocate would mean that sick people
are mostly left to die.
-David
Dave O'Neill
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:amr2eb$i54$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
> > A universal system with some restrictions plus private care for
> > anybody who wants it seems the best compromise to me.
>
> Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
> paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
Then as David says, it stops being a universal care system.
This bugs me, I'm involved in a similar argument on talk.polics.libertarian
where the prevailing wisdom is people will volenteer the right amount to pay
for services. They don't and they won't be it healthcare, roads, military
or whatever - people have a bad handle on what things cost. I can see a
small relatively issolated community working just fine on a volentary tax
basis where people club together to get things done, I just can't even begin
to describe how that doesn't work on a national basis in any modern country.
--
Dave O'Neill
Atomicrazor - New Stuff Right there right now!
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
Colette Reap
>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>> A universal system with some restrictions plus private care for
>> anybody who wants it seems the best compromise to me.
>
>Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
>paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
There speaks someone who (as far as I can gather) is young(ish), fit
and has a regular income. I wonder if you will still feel the same in
30 or 40 years time?
--
Colette
* "2004: Discworld" * http://www.dwcon.org/ *
* August 20th-23rd, 2004 * Email: in...@dwcon.org *
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
> dentist.
I have had a very bad experience with dentistry in the UK too - and I
carry around a dead and dark tooth right smack in the front of my mouth
as a result. The amalgam used killed the root.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
James Nicoll
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@despammed.com> wrote:
>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>
>> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>> dentist.
>
>I have had a very bad experience with dentistry in the UK too - and I
>carry around a dead and dark tooth right smack in the front of my mouth
>as a result. The amalgam used killed the root.
>
(Which I think was part of the old view that young humans do not feel
pain) but did think temporary fillings were better than real ones. More
trade that way, I guess.
I have a friend who is a dental hygenist and if I recall correctly
the two nations that most consistantly produced very very bad dentists were
Soviet Russia (crap tech, applied in slipshod manner) and Japan (exquisite
technology applied in a slipshod manner). The specific worst was the guy
whose gums were so (description deleted for the weak of stomach) that he
died after they were cleaned and everyone in the office had to be watched
in case he had spread some horrible disease, but a close second was the
German fellow whose dentist had him scrubbing vigourously with a wire
tooth brush. He had worn his own teeth down like a paleolithic farmer's.
His dentist, who supplied him with the special wire toothbrushes, was his
ex-wife.
--
"Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
depth."
"Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <1fj2dnv.1l0j7hc4yuid0N%ada...@despammed.com>,
> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>>> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>>> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>>> dentist.
>>
>>I have had a very bad experience with dentistry in the UK too - and I
>>carry around a dead and dark tooth right smack in the front of my mouth
>>as a result. The amalgam used killed the root.
>>
> My British dentist didn't believe in painkillers for children
Neither did my American dentist. He was a much-decorated, and
seriously wounded, WWII vet, who was still in daily pain some years
later, and I believe honestly felt that pain was ennobling. (Why it
was ennobling for children's dentistry but not adults' was a question
I once tried to raise, but . . . )
--
So you know what, Saddam? Go ahead. Yep, you heard us
right. That was the green light, just like the one you
thought you got from that Glaspie woman, only this time we
mean it. Take Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia too. It would take
you what, three days? Go ahead and butcher the Al Sabahs and
the whole Saudi royal family. Have at it. Any dissent? We
know you know how to handle it, just don't tell us about the
details. Let Noam Chomsky worry about it.
-- Claire Berlinksi, A
Modest Proposal
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3881
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Jack Heneghan
wrote:
But once you opt out, you can't opt back in. At that point it becomes
like an insurance plan. Start paying now to cover yourself 30-40 years
down the road when you really need it. I think most people would opt
in at the beginning and stay with it.
Jack
James Nicoll
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>> In article <1fj2dnv.1l0j7hc4yuid0N%ada...@despammed.com>,
>> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>>>> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>>>> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>>>> dentist.
>>>
>>>I have had a very bad experience with dentistry in the UK too - and I
>>>carry around a dead and dark tooth right smack in the front of my mouth
>>>as a result. The amalgam used killed the root.
>>>
>> My British dentist didn't believe in painkillers for children
>
>Neither did my American dentist. He was a much-decorated, and
>seriously wounded, WWII vet, who was still in daily pain some years
>later, and I believe honestly felt that pain was ennobling. (Why it
>was ennobling for children's dentistry but not adults' was a question
>I once tried to raise, but . . . )
Because adults could say 'Fuck you, I am finding a dentist who
doesn't think the guy in _Little Shop of Horrors_ is a role model'?
My dentist will sometimes not use painkillers but only on
my root canaled teeth, which very startlingly do not feel pain any
longer.
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <m2d6r2f...@joelr.ellegon.com>,
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>>
>>> In article <1fj2dnv.1l0j7hc4yuid0N%ada...@despammed.com>,
>>> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>>Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What the f*** is it over here? I mean the prices are the same. An
>>>>> emergency appointment in the UK is around $80, same as the UK and the total
>>>>> of $180 for the paliative root canal was probably cheaper than my own
>>>>> dentist.
>>>>
>>>>I have had a very bad experience with dentistry in the UK too - and I
>>>>carry around a dead and dark tooth right smack in the front of my mouth
>>>>as a result. The amalgam used killed the root.
>>>>
>>> My British dentist didn't believe in painkillers for children
>>
>>Neither did my American dentist. He was a much-decorated, and
>>seriously wounded, WWII vet, who was still in daily pain some years
>>later, and I believe honestly felt that pain was ennobling. (Why it
>>was ennobling for children's dentistry but not adults' was a question
>>I once tried to raise, but . . . )
>
> Because adults could say 'Fuck you, I am finding a dentist who
> doesn't think the guy in _Little Shop of Horrors_ is a role model'?
I think that was part of it, yes.
What makes it scarier, in retrospect, is the sense I had that he never
for a moment enjoyed inflicting pain, and I don't believe that he
tried to inflict more than was necessary to do the job without
anesthesia -- he'd explain when he switched to a high-speed drill, for
example, that doing so would make it hurt less, and for less time,
than when he had to use a low-speed one.
All in all, it was pretty horrible, though.
--
Bin Laden is particularly dangerous because he is a roving
bandit. His whereabouts are mysterious and subject to change. Give
someone like him a government, and two things would happen. His regime
would be forced to become at least somewhat accountable to his
supporters. He would have to deliver the goods, or an opposition would
brew against him.
-- Michael Hechter
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Ailsa Ek
> >How would such a system survive, given that healthy people would stay
> >away in droves and sick people would join up instantly?
> >
[snip]
> >
> But once you opt out, you can't opt back in. At that point it becomes
> like an insurance plan. Start paying now to cover yourself 30-40 years
> down the road when you really need it. I think most people would opt
> in at the beginning and stay with it.
>
Are there really people who go thirty or forty years without getting
strep throat, tendonitis, etc.? And that's not even counting the need
for pediatric care, gynecological care, etc. This whole "healthy people
never need to go to the doctor, and young people are always healthy"
thing just seems like another planet to me.
--
What can you do with your days but work and hope, Ailsa C. Ek
Let your dreams bind your work to your play? ail...@mac.com
What can you do with every moment of your life Sharon, MA
But love 'til you love it away? - Bob Franke http://pages.ivillage.com/ailsaek
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <n2o3puchcvi34nbo0...@4ax.com>,
> ja...@stardel.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:03:04 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >How would such a system survive, given that healthy people would stay
>> >away in droves and sick people would join up instantly?
>> >
> [snip]
>> >
>> But once you opt out, you can't opt back in. At that point it becomes
>> like an insurance plan. Start paying now to cover yourself 30-40 years
>> down the road when you really need it. I think most people would opt
>> in at the beginning and stay with it.
>>
> Are there really people who go thirty or forty years without getting
> strep throat, tendonitis, etc.?
Probably not. But, by and large, even if untreated by a physician,
much of those things will go away, to some extent, or can be suffered
with. (I'm not recommending that. That said, self-help has done a
lot more for my carpal tunnel syndrome than the doctors were able to,
for obvious reasons.)
> And that's not even counting the need
> for pediatric care, gynecological care, etc. This whole "healthy people
> never need to go to the doctor, and young people are always healthy"
> thing just seems like another planet to me.
I think, in that context "young people" refers to folks too old for
pediatric care, and while I think I know enough to think that women
who don't have routine GYN exams are being very foolish, young women
can, probably, get away with it much of the time.
--
The NEA says the lessons to be learned from the terrorist attacks are:
"Appreciating and getting along with people of diverse backgrounds
and cultures, the importance of anger management and global
awareness." Let's see. Some seriously angry people murder almost
3,000 people in America and Americans need to work on managing their
anger?
-- George F. Will
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Kevin J. Maroney
>Are there really people who go thirty or forty years without getting
>strep throat, tendonitis, etc.? And that's not even counting the need
>for pediatric care, gynecological care, etc. This whole "healthy people
>never need to go to the doctor, and young people are always healthy"
>thing just seems like another planet to me.
I have gone seven years without a *major* medical undertaking. If I
had been able to invest the money I spent on health insurance
(counting my employer's contribution), I would definitely be well
ahead of the game. However, even one hospitalization would have made
it a much tighter race.
Of course, the whole *point* of health insurance is that most people
spend more on insurance than they take out in benefits. The average
person is better off uninsured, or else the insurance rates are too
low.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kris Hasson-Jones
>
> In article <n2o3puchcvi34nbo0...@4ax.com>,
> ja...@stardel.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:03:04 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
> > wrote:
[universal health care with an opt-out provision]
> > But once you opt out, you can't opt back in. At that
> > point it becomes like an insurance plan. Start paying
> > now to cover yourself 30-40 years down the road when
> > you really need it. I think most people would opt
> > in at the beginning and stay with it.
> >
> Are there really people who go thirty or forty years
> without getting strep throat, tendonitis, etc.? And
> that's not even counting the need for pediatric care,
> gynecological care, etc.
Or preventive stuff.
> This whole "healthy people never need to go to the
> doctor, and young people are always healthy"
> thing just seems like another planet to me.
Leaving out completely the possibility of injury through accident.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Joshua Hesse
:in case he had spread some horrible disease, but a close second was the
:German fellow whose dentist had him scrubbing vigourously with a wire
:tooth brush. He had worn his own teeth down like a paleolithic farmer's.
:His dentist, who supplied him with the special wire toothbrushes, was his
:ex-wife.
^^^^^^^
Revenge is a dentistry best served with wire toothbrushes?
In any case, the guy sounds like twelve short of a sixpack...
-Josh
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
"You scream at them at the top of your lungs and then hit them over the head
with an immense wooden mallet? You're weird, sir." -Dave Brown on girls.
James Nicoll
Joshua Hesse <0009...@bigred.unl.edu> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> :in case he had spread some horrible disease, but a close second was the
> :German fellow whose dentist had him scrubbing vigourously with a wire
> :tooth brush. He had worn his own teeth down like a paleolithic farmer's.
> :His dentist, who supplied him with the special wire toothbrushes, was his
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> :ex-wife.
> ^^^^^^^
>
>Revenge is a dentistry best served with wire toothbrushes?
>
>In any case, the guy sounds like twelve short of a sixpack...
Oh, yes and utterly convinced that a mere Canadian hygenist
had to be wrong when they criticized the opinion of a German dentist.
It was very funny but then it wasn't my teeth.
Omega
<jo...@ellegon.com> writes
speed drill because it was too scary. It took me years to get over my
fear of dentists.
Mark Jones
I, on the other hand, patronized a dentist for years in part because he
had a _low_-speed drill. I was far more frightened of getting a
novacaine injection (based on several very bad experiences with
injections in other circumstances) than of a little discomfort. On the
occasions when he filled cavities, he did it without anaesthetic at my
request. The low-speed drill was much less nerve-wracking and unpleasant.
>
> All in all, it was pretty horrible, though.
>
--
Mark Jones
"This is a matter of opinion--I disagree."
"Are you kidding? This is USENET! Two men enter, one man leaves!"
--from a usenet discussion
Janice Gelb
>
> I have gone seven years without a *major* medical undertaking. If I
> had been able to invest the money I spent on health insurance
> (counting my employer's contribution), I would definitely be well
> ahead of the game. However, even one hospitalization would have made
> it a much tighter race.
>
> Of course, the whole *point* of health insurance is that most people
> spend more on insurance than they take out in benefits. The average
> person is better off uninsured, or else the insurance rates are too
> low.
>
The other point is that if you *do* have a catastrophic illness,
the amount you pay in benefits will pale next to the amount the
insurance company has to pay out. Those are the odds you play.
I sometimes go into a panic thinking of my brother, who has
no health insurance and is having a lot of trouble finding
some now that I've insisted. (He was cured *knock wood* of
Hodgkins disease over 30 years ago. The medical profession
considers you cured after 20 with no more likelihood of
recurrence than someone who never had an occurrence. Most
insurance companies, though, seem to consider this a
pre-existing condition.) When I think about what would
happen if he Ghu forbid had a heart attack or stroke or
something that required a long hospital stay, I start
freaking out. I would much rather pay a health insurance
premium every month, thank you very much.
--
***********************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janic...@marvin.eng.sun.com | this message is the return address.
http://www.smofbabe.net
9/11: "The day when America's mind reeled, its spine stiffened,
and its heart broke" -- Anna Quindlen in Newsweek
David Dyer-Bennet
> Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
> > A universal system with some restrictions plus private care for
> > anybody who wants it seems the best compromise to me.
>
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
> > paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
>
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > How is that a universal system?
>
> Note that I put "universal" in quotes.
>
> However, it is universal in the sense that anyone can join. Nobody
> can be excluded or kicked out for any reason, not even pre-existing
> conditions or inability to pay.
>
> But any system which everyone is *compelled* to join is not a good
> compromise, it's a form of slavery.
It's unfair and uneconomic to allow people to join with pre-existing
conditions, except at the beginning. If that's allowed, people will
opt out (not pay) until they need it, and then join. This ruins the
whole idea of sharing the risk around.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <n2o3puchcvi34nbo0...@4ax.com>,
> ja...@stardel.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:03:04 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >How would such a system survive, given that healthy people would stay
> > >away in droves and sick people would join up instantly?
> > >
> [snip]
> > >
> > But once you opt out, you can't opt back in. At that point it becomes
> > like an insurance plan. Start paying now to cover yourself 30-40 years
> > down the road when you really need it. I think most people would opt
> > in at the beginning and stay with it.
> >
> Are there really people who go thirty or forty years without getting
> strep throat, tendonitis, etc.? And that's not even counting the need
> for pediatric care, gynecological care, etc. This whole "healthy people
> never need to go to the doctor, and young people are always healthy"
> thing just seems like another planet to me.
Well, guys aren't in the habit of geting gynecological care.
I think I've seen a doctor three times in the last 30 years, and only
one of them actually did anything that mattered (antibiotics for strep
throat).
David Bilek
>
>I think I've seen a doctor three times in the last 30 years, and only
>one of them actually did anything that mattered (antibiotics for strep
>throat).
Most people should be getting a physical waaaaay more often than that.
As my doctor said, if you're in your 20's the benefit of a yearly
physical is extremely minimal and might not be worth the cost. But in
your 40's and beyond, you should be getting screened for all kinds of
things.
Prostate cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, you name it.
Someone without insurance might not be able to afford it, of course
But someone over 40, with insurance, should absolutely be getting
physical exams.
-David
Mike Scott
> I think I've seen a doctor three times in the last 30 years, and only
> one of them actually did anything that mattered (antibiotics for strep
> throat).
Once in the past decade for me, which again was for antibiotics that I
needed for an infected cyst.
--
Mike Scott
Keith F. Lynch
> Someone without insurance might not be able to afford it, of course
> But someone over 40, with insurance, should absolutely be getting
> physical exams.
And of course nobody can afford physical exams unless they have
insurance, in which case, by pooling their money and giving some
to an insurance company, everyone can afford one. Right.
Are you sure your name isn't Hillary?
Keith F. Lynch
> Of course, the whole *point* of health insurance is that most people
> spend more on insurance than they take out in benefits. The average
> person is better off uninsured, or else the insurance rates are
> too low.
Yes, if the person's utility function is flat. Which it isn't
necessarily. But your argument at least shows that being uninsured by
choice (as I am) isn't necessarily an irrational choice. And as such,
it is not a choice that should be taken away.
Janice Gelb <janic...@sun.com> wrote:
> The other point is that if you *do* have a catastrophic illness,
> the amount you pay in benefits will pale next to the amount the
> insurance company has to pay out. Those are the odds you play.
Right. That, at least to me, is the whole point of insurance.
You get fire insurance in case your house burns down, not in case
a lightbulb burns out or a dinner is overcooked. You get medical
insurance in case you get cancer or get run over by a bus, not
in case you need new glasses or a routine physical.
> I sometimes go into a panic thinking of my brother, who has no
> health insurance and is having a lot of trouble finding some now
> that I've insisted. (He was cured *knock wood* of Hodgkins disease
> over 30 years ago. The medical profession considers you cured after
> 20 with no more likelihood of recurrence than someone who never had
> an occurrence. Most insurance companies, though, seem to consider
> this a pre-existing condition.)
Perhaps he can get insurance which excludes Hodgkins disease?
If a recurrence is vanishingly unlikely, this should suffice.
My brother also has no health insurance. I have not been insisting
he remedy this.
> When I think about what would happen if he Ghu forbid had a heart
> attack or stroke or something that required a long hospital stay,
> I start freaking out.
It would be very bad. But then so would a heart attack or stroke
*with* health insurance. You can't buy your way out of a serious
medical condition. I wish you could. It would be nice if wealthy
people were immortal. Even nicer if the rest of us were too, of
course. Maybe someday.
Keith F. Lynch
> Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
> paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
> There speaks someone who (as far as I can gather) is young(ish), ...
Most people wouldn't guess it by looking at me, but I'm closer to 70
than to 20.
> I wonder if you will still feel the same in 30 or 40 years time?
I will, if I'm still alive to feel anything. I will always oppose
forcing people to join an insurance scheme, even if my personal
circumstances were such that I would benefit from the coercion.
Just as I was against bank robbery even before I had a bank account.
And just as I'm against car theft even though I don't have a car.
Keith F. Lynch
> Yes, if you also allow people to opt out of the "universal" care,
> paying nothing into the system, and receiving no benefits from it.
Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
> Then as David says, it stops being a universal care system.
Yes, that's why I put the word in quotes. Similarly, if slavery is
outlawed, there could never be a universal labor scheme. But why
should there be any such thing?
> This bugs me, I'm involved in a similar argument on
> talk.polics.libertarian where the prevailing wisdom is people will
> volenteer the right amount to pay for services.
Who is suggesting that? I for one have never suggested that people
should pay doctors whatever they feel like. If a patient and a doctor
can't arrange a mutually suitable price for services, then the patient
does without services from that doctor.
> I can see a small relatively issolated community working just fine
> on a volentary tax basis where people club together to get things
> done, I just can't even begin to describe how that doesn't work on
> a national basis in any modern country.
No kidding. That sounds more like communism than like anything a
libertarian would come up with.
Keith F. Lynch
> How would such a system survive, given that healthy people would
> stay away in droves and sick people would join up instantly?
Perhaps it wouldn't. But then, why should it? Any system which can
only work by forcing people to join should not exist.
> Seriously, in your ideal system, how would someone who gets cancer
> receive treatment given that it might cost $200,000?
Someone who is concerned about that, and doesn't have $200,000, would
get medical insurance. The rest of us will simply take our chances.
You have no right to take that choice away from us. You have no right
to tell me that you value my life so much that you will force me to
be insured against the small chance that I will get a condition which
is curable with more money than I can raise, but lethal without such
money. Not when my being forced to pay for such unwanted insurance
might mean I can no longer afford books, conventions, net access,
or other things which make my life worth living in the first place.
If you value my life so highly, YOU pay for it. Don't force ME to.
Otherwise, just stay out of it, and mind your own business.
> Remember that healthy people almost certainly aren't paying money
> into the system.
Wouldn't you? If you think the majority favor such a system, and
that the majority aren't currently suffering from an unaffordable
condition, then why wouldn't they voluntarily pay into it? If people
like me who want to opt out are in a tiny minority, then how can our
absense doom this system? And if we're NOT in a tiny minority, but
are actually the majority, then who are you to impose your will on
the rest of us? Don't you support majority rule?
> So far as I can tell, what you advocate would mean that sick people
> are mostly left to die.
Most people who are *that* sick DO die, unfortunately. Most
conditions which cost $200,000 to treat will kill you with or without
treatment. Maybe the $200,000 will buy you a few months. If your
time is that valuable, fine. You're welcome to spend all of your
discretionary income on the best medical insurance money can buy. But
don't try to dictate to me what my time is worth. I'll decide that
for myself, thank you.
Mike Van Pelt
Janice Gelb <janic...@sun.com> wrote:
>The other point is that if you *do* have a catastrophic illness,
>the amount you pay in benefits will pale next to the amount the
>insurance company has to pay out. Those are the odds you play.
Yep.
Between Ginny and myself (complete rotator cuff tear for her,
kidney cancer for me) we may well have been the ones who
pushed Lifeguard over the edge.
Even if it hadn't "paid off" for us (not that "paying off" is at
all a desirable thing in this case!) I think it would be worth it
to have one less thing to worry about.
--
Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told | Mike Van Pelt
that "everybody else is doing it" was a really stupid | m...@calweb.com
reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason | KE6BVH
for picking a particular software package? -- Barry Gehm
Ailsa Ek
> Janice Gelb <janic...@sun.com> wrote:
> > The other point is that if you *do* have a catastrophic illness,
> > the amount you pay in benefits will pale next to the amount the
> > insurance company has to pay out. Those are the odds you play.
>
> Right. That, at least to me, is the whole point of insurance.
> You get fire insurance in case your house burns down, not in case
> a lightbulb burns out or a dinner is overcooked. You get medical
> insurance in case you get cancer or get run over by a bus, not
> in case you need new glasses or a routine physical.
>
how much David would have cost us by now if we hadn't had insurance.
C-section, a week in NICU, open heart surgery, thyroid function tests,
and that's not counting the usual Well Baby stuff and a few emergency
room runs.
And I find insurance covering a decent chunk of my glasses to be a nice
benefit.
Ailsa Ek
<jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> Ailsa Ek <ail...@mac.com> writes:
>
> > Are there really people who go thirty or forty years without getting
> > strep throat, tendonitis, etc.?
>
> Probably not. But, by and large, even if untreated by a physician,
> much of those things will go away, to some extent, or can be suffered
> with. (I'm not recommending that. That said, self-help has done a
> lot more for my carpal tunnel syndrome than the doctors were able to,
> for obvious reasons.)
>
suffer through them. Granted, everyone's cost/benefit analysis is
different, but I like knowing if there's something wrong, I can go to
the doctor and get it seen to. I lived without health insurance for me
& Kathy for five or six years. It was awful, and I can't see chosing to
go back to it.
Ailsa Ek
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > So far as I can tell, what you advocate would mean that sick people
> > are mostly left to die.
>
> Most people who are *that* sick DO die, unfortunately. Most
> conditions which cost $200,000 to treat will kill you with or without
> treatment. Maybe the $200,000 will buy you a few months. If your
> time is that valuable, fine. You're welcome to spend all of your
> discretionary income on the best medical insurance money can buy. But
> don't try to dictate to me what my time is worth. I'll decide that
> for myself, thank you.
Anybody have a rough idea how much open-heart surgery and follow up care
costs these days?
Kris Hasson-Jones
posted the following for all the world to see:
>Most
>conditions which cost $200,000 to treat will kill you with or without
>treatment. Maybe the $200,000 will buy you a few months. If your
>time is that valuable, fine. You're welcome to spend all of your
>discretionary income on the best medical insurance money can buy. But
>don't try to dictate to me what my time is worth. I'll decide that
>for myself, thank you.
You are completely out of touch with the cost of medical care for
chronic, non-disabling illnesses. And also the cost for catastrophic
but fixable stuff, like car accidents.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Mark Atwood
>
> Our system of criminal justice--any system of criminal justice--can work
> only by forcing those who do not wish to obey the law--who wish to murder,
> rape, steal, etc.--to suffer the consequences whether they believe in laws
> or not. Would you like to make all laws optional?
The fact that some portions of the social system require coercion by
threat of violence to a standard, does not mean that all parts should,
or that coercion is okay.
The standard and bar for whether coercion is necessary should be very
high. Higher than just "we want". Especially when the people you want
to coerce are merely saying "we wish to be left alone".
And you haven't met that bar.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Jim Battista
news:m3ptv1w...@khem.blackfedora.com:
> The fact that some portions of the social system require coercion
> by threat of violence to a standard, does not mean that all parts
> should, or that coercion is okay.
>
> The standard and bar for whether coercion is necessary should be
> very high. Higher than just "we want". Especially when the
> people you want to coerce are merely saying "we wish to be left
> alone".
"Empirically, the alternative is mass suffering."
That high enough?
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
Mark Atwood
> >
> > The standard and bar for whether coercion is necessary should be
> > very high. Higher than just "we want". Especially when the
> > people you want to coerce are merely saying "we wish to be left
> > alone".
>
> "Empirically, the alternative is mass suffering."
Mandatory universal enrollment and funding of nationalized medical insurance?
I can be convienced that it might be a good idea, but there are better
ideas, and you overstating the case is not conviencing.
Marilee J. Layman
>In article <n2o3puchcvi34nbo0...@4ax.com>,
>ja...@stardel.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:03:04 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >How would such a system survive, given that healthy people would stay
>> >away in droves and sick people would join up instantly?
>> >
>[snip]
>> >
>> But once you opt out, you can't opt back in. At that point it becomes
>> like an insurance plan. Start paying now to cover yourself 30-40 years
>> down the road when you really need it. I think most people would opt
>> in at the beginning and stay with it.
>>
>Are there really people who go thirty or forty years without getting
>strep throat, tendonitis, etc.? And that's not even counting the need
>for pediatric care, gynecological care, etc. This whole "healthy people
>never need to go to the doctor, and young people are always healthy"
>thing just seems like another planet to me.
My brother was 43 when he fell and smacked his head on a stepping
stone. He was unconscious (still doesn't remember what happened) and
had surgery to put a plate in his temple to replace the bone. Up
until then, he had never had more than the standard childhood
illnesses and occasional sniffles, and had never missed a day of
school or work for illness.
I'm pretty sure I got his share of being sick.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Lis Carey
> Janice Gelb <janic...@sun.com> wrote:
> > The other point is that if you *do* have a catastrophic illness,
> > the amount you pay in benefits will pale next to the amount the
> > insurance company has to pay out. Those are the odds you play.
>
> Right. That, at least to me, is the whole point of insurance.
> You get fire insurance in case your house burns down, not in case
> a lightbulb burns out or a dinner is overcooked. You get medical
> insurance in case you get cancer or get run over by a bus, not
> in case you need new glasses or a routine physical.
My new glasses, a year and a half ago, cost $500, of which nearly the whole
cost was the lenses; I do not have a simple prescription and I cannot do much
more than walk across a familiar room without my glasses on. I don't remember
what the eye exam cost. The exam was covered; my employer's plan got me a 20%
discount on the glasses.
No coverage at all would have set up a major obstacle between me and the new
glasses which I very much needed.
> > I sometimes go into a panic thinking of my brother, who has no
> > health insurance and is having a lot of trouble finding some now
> > that I've insisted. (He was cured *knock wood* of Hodgkins disease
> > over 30 years ago. The medical profession considers you cured after
> > 20 with no more likelihood of recurrence than someone who never had
> > an occurrence. Most insurance companies, though, seem to consider
> > this a pre-existing condition.)
>
> Perhaps he can get insurance which excludes Hodgkins disease?
> If a recurrence is vanishingly unlikely, this should suffice.
Or at least, it would be better than nothing.
> My brother also has no health insurance. I have not been insisting
> he remedy this.
Possibly because Janice thinks more about the question of what happens if
things go wrong.
> > When I think about what would happen if he Ghu forbid had a heart
> > attack or stroke or something that required a long hospital stay,
> > I start freaking out.
>
> It would be very bad. But then so would a heart attack or stroke
> *with* health insurance. You can't buy your way out of a serious
> medical condition. I wish you could. It would be nice if wealthy
> people were immortal. Even nicer if the rest of us were too, of
> course. Maybe someday.
Excuse me, but are you seriously arguing that the ability to pay for medical
treatment does not make any significant difference in the life of someone who
gets a major illness?
I'm reading Usenet in the middle of a work day because I'm home recuperating
from surgery. I had a hysterectomy last Friday. Because I have health
insurance, the surgery will cost me $500. Paying that will be tight, but
doable. Without the insurance, the hospitalization alone would have cost me
$650 a night. I was in the hospital three nights. That amount would not
include the surgery itself, or the anesthesia, or the pain medication
following the surgery. Also, I'm now out of work for six weeks while I
recover from the surgery. My employer provides short-term disability
insurance, which pays 2/3 of my salary for the covered period, and my
employer also pays me the remaining 1/3 of my salary that's not covered by
the insurance. Consequently, I can afford to stay home and recover from major
abdominal surgery.
Without the insurance, I would either not have the surgery, with the
debilitating health effects following from that, or I would go back to work
too soon and with thousands of dollars in medical bills hanging over me, at
serious risk of bankruptcy and possible loss of my house. Maybe you think
there's no significant difference between either of these two choices, and
having the surgery with decent insurance coverage. I disagree.
Lis Carey
Niall McAuley
> Excuse me, but are you seriously arguing that the ability to pay
> for medical treatment does not make any significant difference in
> the life of someone who gets a major illness?
That's not how I read Keith. I think he's saying that he'll trade
the outside chance of a serious illness soemday for the cash he
saves on premiums today.
Of course Keith always plans ahead, and he knows everyone gets
seriously ill eventually. He hasn't said so, but I gather his
plan is to die in pain and poverty when his cash runs out.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Beth Friedman
<ailsaek-E526A1...@netnews.attbi.com>, wrote:
>Are there really people who go thirty or forty years without getting
>strep throat, tendonitis, etc.? And that's not even counting the need
>for pediatric care, gynecological care, etc. This whole "healthy people
>never need to go to the doctor, and young people are always healthy"
>thing just seems like another planet to me.
As it happens, I'm one of those people -- I tend to be disgustingly
healthy. Not counting regular checkups and eye-related stuff, I've
been to the doctor maybe five times in the last 25 years, and never
for anything major. I'm still an enthusiastic advocate of health
insurance, mind you, but I'd be way ahead (looking backward only) if
I'd self-insured, especially for the 18 months that I paid for COBRA
coverage.
On the other hand, given family history, there's a decent chance I
have osteoporosis and polycythemia in my future.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Beth Friedman
<amtm0b$49m$1...@panix1.panix.com>, wrote:
>Most people who are *that* sick DO die, unfortunately. Most
>conditions which cost $200,000 to treat will kill you with or without
>treatment.
I don't know what the percentage is, but there are a hell of a lot of
conditions that cost $200,000 or more to treat that won't kill you if
you get proper treatment. Just about anything that requires a
extended hospital stay can run up to that easily, especially with
today's much more effective but also more extensive tests.
Do you really want a system where some random mugger shoots you, your
unconscious body is brought to the ER, and since they can't find any
ID or proof of insurance and it's estimated that treatment will cost
$300,000, they just provide palliative care until you die?
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Janice Gelb
>> attack or stroke or something that required a long hospital stay,
>> I start freaking out.
>
>It would be very bad. But then so would a heart attack or stroke
>*with* health insurance. You can't buy your way out of a serious
>medical condition. I wish you could. It would be nice if wealthy
>people were immortal. Even nicer if the rest of us were too, of
>course. Maybe someday.
>
Well, actually in the context I was talking about freaking out
about how I'd pay for it, not the emotional reaction. But of
course there would be that, too.
---
Mike Scott
> The fact that some portions of the social system require coercion by
> threat of violence to a standard, does not mean that all parts should,
> or that coercion is okay.
Fortunately, universal health care is not a part of the social system
that requires coercion by threat of violence in order to
function. Coercion by threat of being fined works perfectly
well. There will eventually be some threat of violence if you use
violence to resist payment of the fine, but that's a separate issue --
it's a threat of violence for opposing the rule of law by force, not
for failing to contribute your share towards a universal health care
system, which (I repeat) will never incur a threat of violence.
--
Mike Scott
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>I don't know what the percentage is, but there are a hell of a lot of
>conditions that cost $200,000 or more to treat that won't kill you if
>you get proper treatment.
I am fairly sure that my father has run up over $200,000 in the last
fifteen years for medical treatment of a minor, treatable, progressive
health problem. If he had not had treatment, I believe he would now be
dead from it; with treatment, he's healthy, but the problem will
almost certainly recur and need more treatment in the future.
And that's not counting the unrelated pulmonary circulation problem he
had in the late 1980s, a problem which kills about 1/3rd of the people
who leave it untreated but which has caused him no lasting problems
because of quick and thorough and expensive treatment.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.