From: Peter B on

"Citizen Jimserac" <jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:867d64c1-527d-429b-9def-2dfc59842a9a(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 4:38 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Peter B wrote
>
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> AZDuffman wrote
> >>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
> >>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
> >>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
> >>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
> >>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
> >>>>> dissapear.
> >>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
> >>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the
> >>>>> person
> >>>>> who actually pays.
> >>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the
> >>>> most
> >>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
> >>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>
> >> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
> >> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>
> >>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
> >>> disability and the state pays for it.
>
> >> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>
> >>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>
> >> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>
> >>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>
> >> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart
> >> bypass etc.
>
> >>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive
> >>>> medical problems.
> >>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>
> >> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>
> >> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>
> >>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
> >>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to
> >>> their private health plans,
>
> >> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone,
> >> just because
> >> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and
> >> working to
> >> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>
> >> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
> >> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>
> >>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
> >>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
> >>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which
> >>> was
> >>> supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to their
> >>> greed.
>
> >> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
> >> percentage
> >> of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.
>
> >>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
> >>> find it denied due to lack of funds.
>
> >> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be
> >> out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.
>
> >> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
> >> universal health care system.
>
> > Exactly correct. The cost of NOT having some sort of government
> > provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far
> > GREATER
> > than allowing the current situation to continue.
>
> Yes, even without considering the uninsured, the current system
> cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other first
> and second world country spends. And the US is worse on every
> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
>
> > What about some epidemic for which there is no vaccination?
>
> First and second world countrys deal with that with involuntary
> isolation when its a deadly very infectious disease.
>
> > In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
> > government run option we must copy exactly what the French
> > or Great Britain or Canada has. We are under no such constraint
> > - in fact, a wise move would be to consult with experts from
> > these systems and find ways of improving it.
>
> I think it would make more sense to just make medicare universal
> instead.
>
> That way most medical practioners wouldnt be able to refuse to treat
> medicare patients, essentially because everyone would be on medicare.
>
> > The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
> > government system say is theoretically correct - governments
> > really do not run big organizations well,
>
> Dunno, medicare does work much better than the
> insurance system for those who qualify for medicare.
>
> And the japanese system works very well indeed controlling the
> prices that can be charged with an overnight stay in a hospital
> only costing quite literally $10 per night if you are happy with
> a shared 4 bed ward and $90 if you prefer a private room etc.
>
> > it is better to have lower taxes and smaller government
> > and many freely competing private enterprise insurers
>
> I'm not convinved, essentially because it costs so much more
> to have immense numbers of paper shuffling monkeys deciding
> what will be paid for and what wont. The medicare system is
> much cheaper to run, essentially because all you have to do is
> decide if the medical service actually was provided or not instead.
>
> And you save the immense cost of all that advertising as well.
>
> The only real downside with replacing the insurance system with
> a universal medicare system right now is that so many of those
> paper shuffling apes in the insurance system would be out of a
> job when the unemployment rate is already twice what it should be.
>
> > (you just know that's not going to happen).
> > But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions
> > of illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
> > complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics
> > to
> > protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion and
> > provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
> > and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
> > benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
> > this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in
> > effect,
> > uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest
> > insurers.
>
> And the only way to end the immense waste of resources in the paper
> shuffling system thats inevitable with any insurance system is a
> decent
> modern universal medicare. Its really only the completely fucked US
> political system thats prevented the US doing what every other modern
> first and second world country has done, a decent modern universal
> health care system funded by taxation.

Agree fully on the points of that last paragraph - it would seem in
the context of our current economic and socio-political situation,
that a Universal Health Care system by the gov would be probably the
only viable option.
It is a cinch we cannot rely on the private sector, their actions so
far are nothing short of a DISGRACE -including stuff like cancelling
the policies of people that get serious cancers, denying coverage for
treatments deemed "experimental" and other inhumane and utterly
contemptuous actions.

Political reforms, such as drastic reform of influence peddling by
lobbyists, recall elections, expansion of the number of Supreme Court
justices, ending redistricting and other voter district-ing tricks and
a complete scrapping and overhaul of the Federal Election Commission
(aka the Repub-Demo Preservation Commission) are obviously
inevitable. Here the danger is that the changes, instead of being
discussed rationally will happen in a sudden paroxysm of socio-
political revolt, the inevitable result of special interests in both
parties attempting to block seriously needed changes at all cost along
with their corporatista benefactors.

Citizen Jimserac
===============================================
Empty commie speak.


From: Rod Speed on
Citizen Jimserac wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> Citizen Jimserac wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Peter B wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
>>>>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
>>>>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!

>>>>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
>>>>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or dissapear.

>>>>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.

>>>>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the
>>>>>>> person who actually pays.

>>>>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the most
>>>>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.

>>>>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,

>>>> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
>>>> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.

>>>>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
>>>>> disability and the state pays for it.

>>>> Still a single payer system at that stage.

>>>>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,

>>>> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.

>>>>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.

>>>> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart bypass etc.

>>>>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive medical problems.

>>>>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.

>>>> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.

>>>> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.

>>>>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
>>>>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to
>>>>> their private health plans,

>>>> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone, just because
>>>> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and working to
>>>> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.

>>>> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
>>>> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.

>>>>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
>>>>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
>>>>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which
>>>>> was supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to
>>>>> their greed.

>>>> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
>>>> percentage of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.

>>>>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
>>>>> find it denied due to lack of funds.

>>>> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be
>>>> out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.

>>>> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
>>>> universal health care system.

>>> Exactly correct. The cost of NOT having some sort of government
>>> provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far
>>> GREATER than allowing the current situation to continue.

>> Yes, even without considering the uninsured, the current system
>> cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other first
>> and second world country spends. And the US is worse on every
>> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.

>>> What about some epidemic for which there is no vaccination?

>> First and second world countrys deal with that with involuntary
>> isolation when its a deadly very infectious disease.

>>> In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
>>> government run option we must copy exactly what the French
>>> or Great Britain or Canada has. We are under no such constraint
>>> - in fact, a wise move would be to consult with experts from
>>> these systems and find ways of improving it.

>> I think it would make more sense to just make medicare universal instead.

>> That way most medical practioners wouldnt be able to refuse to treat
>> medicare patients, essentially because everyone would be on medicare.

>>> The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
>>> government system say is theoretically correct - governments
>>> really do not run big organizations well,

>> Dunno, medicare does work much better than the
>> insurance system for those who qualify for medicare.

>> And the japanese system works very well indeed controlling the
>> prices that can be charged with an overnight stay in a hospital
>> only costing quite literally $10 per night if you are happy with
>> a shared 4 bed ward and $90 if you prefer a private room etc.

>>> it is better to have lower taxes and smaller government
>>> and many freely competing private enterprise insurers

>> I'm not convinved, essentially because it costs so much more
>> to have immense numbers of paper shuffling monkeys deciding
>> what will be paid for and what wont. The medicare system is
>> much cheaper to run, essentially because all you have to do is
>> decide if the medical service actually was provided or not instead.

>> And you save the immense cost of all that advertising as well.

>> The only real downside with replacing the insurance system with
>> a universal medicare system right now is that so many of those
>> paper shuffling apes in the insurance system would be out of a
>> job when the unemployment rate is already twice what it should be.

>>> (you just know that's not going to happen).
>>> But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions
>>> of illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
>>> complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics
>>> to protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion and
>>> provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
>>> and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
>>> benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
>>> this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in effect,
>>> uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest insurers.

>> And the only way to end the immense waste of resources in the paper
>> shuffling system thats inevitable with any insurance system is a
>> decent modern universal medicare. Its really only the completely
>> fucked US political system thats prevented the US doing what every
>> other modern first and second world country has done, a decent
>> modern universal health care system funded by taxation.

> Agree fully on the points of that last paragraph - it would seem
> in the context of our current economic and socio-political situation,
> that a Universal Health Care system by the gov would be probably
> the only viable option.

> It is a cinch we cannot rely on the private sector, their actions
> so far are nothing short of a DISGRACE -including stuff like
> cancelling the policies of people that get serious cancers,

Yes, utterly obscene.

Corse that behavior could just be banned.

The trouble is that with the insurance system with the premiums
being paid for by the employer, many who end up with a serious
cancer would like to stop working and cant afford to do that when
they lose their insurance when they do, so even if that obscenity
was banned, it wouldnt completely fix the problem. Thats another
area where a decent universal medicare system would eliminate
that problem completely and would also fix the current problem
with US employers being financially penalised by having to pay
the health insurance premiums as well.

> denying coverage for treatments deemed "experimental"

That one is much harder. Even universal govt run systems like medicare
have to have some limits on what they will pay for in that regard,
otherwise some will try anything if they are going to die anyway.

> and other inhumane and utterly contemptuous actions.

Indeed.

> Political reforms, such as drastic reform of influence peddling by
> lobbyists, recall elections, expansion of the number of Supreme Court
> justices, ending redistricting and other voter district-ing tricks and
> a complete scrapping and overhaul of the Federal Election Commission
> (aka the Repub-Demo Preservation Commission) are obviously inevitable.

Dunno, it will be interesting to watch if the US political system can do that.

> Here the danger is that the changes, instead of being discussed
> rationally will happen in a sudden paroxysm of socio-political revolt,

I dont expect that will happen. We didnt even see that during the great depression.

> the inevitable result of special interests in both parties
> attempting to block seriously needed changes at all
> cost along with their corporatista benefactors.

Yeah, its always been a major downside with the US political system.


From: Rod Speed on
Peter B wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter B wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major components of our medical-health programs, the
>>>>>> result will eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!

>>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
>>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or dissapear.

>>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.

>>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the person
>>>>> who actually pays.

>>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the most
>>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.

>>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,

>> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
>> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.

> Cutting off a foot is inexpensive.

The problem isnt the surgery, its the immense cost of the repeated
hospital stays that are inevitable before they start doing that etc.

> They start with the toes first, then the front half of the foot, then the whole foot and gradually move up the
> leg/legs. Keeping diabetes in check greatly reduces this all from happening.

Nope, it almost always happens, just delays when it happens.

> That includes taking all meds, weight and diet control.

Doesnt fix the diabetes. They almost all die of the diabetes, and it costs
a hell of a lot to provide all the treatment they need till they do die.

In fact it costs even more than cancer does, essentially because
with modern diabetes treatment, they do live for so long.

>>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on disability and the state pays for it.

>> Still a single payer system at that stage.

> Nope, chopped feet goes on disability in a high percentage of the cases.

Its still a cost to the system. And a much higher cost because its then
not only covering the medical costs but also the living costs as well.

>>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,

>> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.

> What part of paying for medical insurance is not paid and or earned by the customer?

The part thats paid for by the employer.

>>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.

>> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart bypass etc.

> That has pretty much been eliminated by law.

Like hell it has. A very large percentage of bankruptcys are medical.

> In any event it does not change the fact that it cannot be denied.

Irrelevant to the fact that bankruptcy is just a tad
undesirable and that is eliminated completely with
a decent modern universal health care system.

>>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive medical problems.

>>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.

>> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.

>> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.

> Then why all the hubbub about the lack of insurance, eh? The working poor earn their health care in most instances,

No they dont. Those are mostly not covered by their employer paying for that.

> can buy their own "group" insurance plans if they wish,

But cant afford the premiums.

> or ignore it like many young people due refusing to believe it can happen to them.

And it mostly doesnt except with childbirth etc.

> Besides, now you are waffling.

You're lying now.

>>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
>>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to their
>>> private health plans,

>> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone, just because
>> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and working
>> to those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.

> Wrong, they all paid into the same "fund".

Yes, but they arent all drawing on that 'fund'

> There is your so-called single payer system. The fund shifting is as I mentioned above. They take all of it and use if
> for other things.

Like hell they do in the rest of the modern first and second world.

> In other words they put it all into the general fund and dispence it at their will.

Like hell they do in the rest of the modern first and second world.

>> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
>> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.

> Nope.

Yep.

>>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
>>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
>>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which was
>>> supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to their greed.

>> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
>> percentage of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.

> Why are you so oblivious of history? This has been addressed many
> times over many administrations. The house always finds a way around it.

How odd that every other modern first and second world country can do it fine.

> These are the people you vote into office.

Like hell they are.

>>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to find it denied due to lack of funds.

>> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch
>> the ground.

> Really?

Yep, really.

> Then why are all the clowns still in Washington D.C.?

Because they aint been stupid enough to deny treatment due to lack of funds.

> Who are the blind and ignorant people who keep electing them? All selfish people care about is that bad stuff isn't
> happening to them. When the State of California cuts MediCal to the disabled, blind, etc. no one cares except the
> people affected. It is the "caring Democrats" that cut the funds to the helpless, disabled and indigent before they
> cut teachers pay, highway workers, prison guards, and their own help. Yes, they are so caring alright.

Hasnt happened federally.

>> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other universal health care system.

> Then why haven't you read the news on the Internet for the last 5 years? Hmmm? Can you read? Are you civically minded?
> Did you not read of the cut in funding for the UK regarding Prostrate surgery and that over 50% were being denied?

Not because the funds were spent on something other than medical services.

And that is a bare faced lie anyway.

> That many would die prematurely over this?

Another lie. There is considerable dispute about what is
the appropriate treatment for prostate, even in the US system.

> That Swedish Dr,'s are treating all who come over with the
> money for it? Then they cut back on Mammograms and then Breast surgery for women by the same amount.

Another lie.

> Yes, all the cut backs are true, but you chose to believe a lie. It will cost you in the end.

Nope, my single payer system is nothing like the british system.


From: Rod Speed on
Peter B wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7p4vf6FmlaU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 2:11 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter B wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
>>>>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
>>>>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
>>>>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
>>>>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
>>>>>>> dissapear.
>>>>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
>>>>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the
>>>>>>> person who actually pays.
>>>>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
>>>>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>>>>
>>>> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
>>>> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>>>>
>>>>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
>>>>> disability and the state pays for it.
>>>>
>>>> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>>>>
>>>>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>>>>
>>>>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>>>>
>>>> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart
>>>> bypass etc.
>>>>
>>>>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive
>>>>>> medical problems.
>>>>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>>>>
>>>> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>>>>
>>>> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
>>>>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to
>>>>> their private health plans,
>>>>
>>>> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone,
>>>> just because
>>>> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and
>>>> working to
>>>> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>>>>
>>>> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
>>>> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>>>>
>>>>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
>>>>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
>>>>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which
>>>>> was supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to
>>>>> their greed.
>>>>
>>>> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
>>>> percentage
>>>> of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance system.
>>>>
>>>>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
>>>>> find it denied due to lack of funds.
>>>>
>>>> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be
>>>> out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.
>>>>
>>>> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
>>>> universal health care system.
>>>
>>> Exactly correct. The cost of NOT having some sort of government
>>> provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far
>>> GREATER than allowing the current situation to continue.
>>
>> Yes, even without considering the uninsured, the current system
>> cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other first
>> and second world country spends. And the US is worse on every
>> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
>>
> You like believing lies. Americans live the longest when you pull out
> all the illegals, those that die by the hand or exchange of the
> illegal, and war efforts.

That is a bare faced lie when compared with the Japanese.

> Our health and health systems is amongst the very best.

Not with longevity and years in good health it aint
with those who dont have any health insurance.

> Your financials are wrong as well.

You're lying now.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_on_hea_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp

>>> What about some epidemic for which there is no vaccination?

>> First and second world countrys deal with that with involuntary
>> isolation when its a deadly very infectious disease.

> LOL, you didn't even understand his question.

Wrong. That is precisely when involuntary isolation is used,
when there is an epidemic for which there is no vaccination.

>>> In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
>>> government run option we must copy exactly what the French
>>> or Great Britain or Canada has. We are under no such constraint
>>> - in fact, a wise move would be to consult with experts from
>>> these systems and find ways of improving it.

>> I think it would make more sense to just make medicare universal instead.

>> That way most medical practioners wouldnt be able to refuse to treat
>> medicare patients, essentially because everyone would be on medicare.

> Most do not do as you say. Most in fact operate part of the year pro bono.

Another lie.

>>> The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
>>> government system say is theoretically correct - governments
>>> really do not run big organizations well,

>> Dunno, medicare does work much better than the
>> insurance system for those who qualify for medicare.

> Wrong. Totally wrong. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

Its got MUCH lower admin costs than the insurance system, you silly little pathological liar.

>> And the japanese system works very well indeed controlling the
>> prices that can be charged with an overnight stay in a hospital
>> only costing quite literally $10 per night if you are happy with
>> a shared 4 bed ward and $90 if you prefer a private room etc.

> Then why do many come here for medical attention?
> (meaning those that can afford it)

Very few japs do. A few who are dying of an incurable
cancer will try anything when they will be dead anyway.

>>> it is better to have lower taxes and smaller government
>>> and many freely competing private enterprise insurers

>> I'm not convinved, essentially because it costs so much more
>> to have immense numbers of paper shuffling monkeys deciding
>> what will be paid for and what wont. The medicare system is
>> much cheaper to run, essentially because all you have to do is
>> decide if the medical service actually was provided or not instead.

>> And you save the immense cost of all that advertising as well.

> LOL

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

>> The only real downside with replacing the insurance system with
>> a universal medicare system right now is that so many of those
>> paper shuffling apes in the insurance system would be out of a
>> job when the unemployment rate is already twice what it should be.

> No, they would now work for the feds.

Nope, a universal medicare system wouldnt need anything like as many paper
shufflers to ensure that the medical service being paid for was actually provided.

> (You have to be around 16 yrs old or less)

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again.

Bet I'm older than your father and maybe even than your grandfather, thanks.

>>> (you just know that's not going to happen).

>>> But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions
>>> of illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
>>> complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics
>>> to protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion and
>>> provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
>>> and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
>>> benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
>>> this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in effect,
>>> uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest insurers.

>> And the only way to end the immense waste of resources in the paper
>> shuffling system thats inevitable with any insurance system is a decent
>> modern universal medicare. Its really only the completely fucked US
>> political system thats prevented the US doing what every other modern
>> first and second world country has done, a decent modern universal
>> health care system funded by taxation.

> No, and now you are contradicting yourself, paper shuffling with *ANY* insurance system? ROTFL

You're lying, again.

> You are the reason the US political system is F'd.

Tad unlikely given that I dont even get to voter there, fuckwit.

> You and all the ignorant fools who never get involved, never took US History,

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

> never understood nor even bothered to learn about your system and its foundations.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

> You have a gimme attitude and do not understand who or how it will be given to you and what you will lose when you get
> it.

I've had a decent single payer system for DECADES now, fuckwit.


From: Peter B on

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p55btFld3U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Citizen Jimserac wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>> Citizen Jimserac wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Peter B wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>>>> Rachel Uchitel <lilhor...(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> As Obama has hinted, without meaningful cost controls on major
>>>>>>>>> components of our medical-health programs, the result will
>>>>>>>>> eventually be U.S. BANKRUPTCY!
>
>>>>>>>> You need to learn ECON 101. You CANNOT control the cost of
>>>>>>>> something. If you slap a control on it, supply will shrink or
>>>>>>>> dissapear.
>
>>>>>>> How odd that it didnt when Japan did just that.
>
>>>>>>>> The probelm in health care is the "customer" is rarely the
>>>>>>>> person who actually pays.
>
>>>>>>> The real problem is that hardly anyone can afford to treat the
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> expensive medical problems like a heart attack or diabetes etc.
>
>>>>>> Treated diabetes is not that expensive,
>
>>>>> Wrong when the diabetic ends up with foot ulcers etc and there is
>>>>> no alternative to cutting the feet off as the diabetes progresses.
>
>>>>>> runaway or poorly treated diabetes is. At that point they go on
>>>>>> disability and the state pays for it.
>
>>>>> Still a single payer system at that stage.
>
>>>>>> Heart care is covered under most medical plans,
>
>>>>> Irrelevant to the fact that the customer isnt paying for that.
>
>>>>>> emergency surgeries cannot be denied.
>
>>>>> But can very easily result in bankruptcy when you need a heart
>>>>> bypass etc.
>
>>>>>>> So you have to tax everyone to pay for those most expensive
>>>>>>> medical problems.
>
>>>>>> Other than sales tax the ''poor'' pay no taxes.
>
>>>>> Even you should have noticed that not everyone is poor.
>
>>>>> And the working poor pay a lot more than just sales tax anyway.
>
>>>>>> Currently the government when it shifts funds to pay one thing or
>>>>>> another does not affect the average tax payer when it comes to
>>>>>> their private health plans,
>
>>>>> But there is very substantial funds shifting with medicare alone,
>>>>> just because
>>>>> funds are moved from those who are young, fit and healthy and
>>>>> working to
>>>>> those who are entitled to have medicare pay their medical costs.
>
>>>>> The modern universal first and second world health care funding
>>>>> systems in all but the US the same as US medicare in that regard.
>
>>>>>> but let it all fit under the control of the USA government then
>>>>>> watch them spend the monies elsewhere, lie or make up some lame
>>>>>> excuse for it like they have been doing for the SS monies which
>>>>>> was supposed to be in a literal fund of its own but isn't due to
>>>>>> their greed.
>
>>>>> The obvious approach is to fix that, not continue to pay TWICE the
>>>>> percentage of GDP that the rest of the world does on an insurance
>>>>> system.
>
>>>>>> One day the avg citizen will wake up expecting treatment only to
>>>>>> find it denied due to lack of funds.
>
>>>>> No govt will ever be that stupid, essentially because it would be
>>>>> out of office so fast its feet wouldnt even touch the ground.
>
>>>>> And its a lie anyway, has not happened with medicare or any other
>>>>> universal health care system.
>
>>>> Exactly correct. The cost of NOT having some sort of government
>>>> provided health care program for millions of uninsured is far
>>>> GREATER than allowing the current situation to continue.
>
>>> Yes, even without considering the uninsured, the current system
>>> cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other first
>>> and second world country spends. And the US is worse on every
>>> sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
>
>>>> What about some epidemic for which there is no vaccination?
>
>>> First and second world countrys deal with that with involuntary
>>> isolation when its a deadly very infectious disease.
>
>>>> In addition, there is the unstated assumption that if we have a
>>>> government run option we must copy exactly what the French
>>>> or Great Britain or Canada has. We are under no such constraint
>>>> - in fact, a wise move would be to consult with experts from
>>>> these systems and find ways of improving it.
>
>>> I think it would make more sense to just make medicare universal
>>> instead.
>
>>> That way most medical practioners wouldnt be able to refuse to treat
>>> medicare patients, essentially because everyone would be on
>>> medicare.
>
>>>> The utter irony of all this is that everything the opponents of the
>>>> government system say is theoretically correct - governments
>>>> really do not run big organizations well,
>
>>> Dunno, medicare does work much better than the
>>> insurance system for those who qualify for medicare.
>
>>> And the japanese system works very well indeed controlling the
>>> prices that can be charged with an overnight stay in a hospital
>>> only costing quite literally $10 per night if you are happy with
>>> a shared 4 bed ward and $90 if you prefer a private room etc.
>
>>>> it is better to have lower taxes and smaller government
>>>> and many freely competing private enterprise insurers
>
>>> I'm not convinved, essentially because it costs so much more
>>> to have immense numbers of paper shuffling monkeys deciding
>>> what will be paid for and what wont. The medicare system is
>>> much cheaper to run, essentially because all you have to do is
>>> decide if the medical service actually was provided or not instead.
>
>>> And you save the immense cost of all that advertising as well.
>
>>> The only real downside with replacing the insurance system with
>>> a universal medicare system right now is that so many of those
>>> paper shuffling apes in the insurance system would be out of a
>>> job when the unemployment rate is already twice what it should be.
>
>>>> (you just know that's not going to happen).
>>>> But in the context of the current situation, with tens of millions
>>>> of illegal aliens, tens of millions of uninsureds and the willful
>>>> complicity of the health "insurers" in various exclusionary tactics
>>>> to protect their "profits", such as the prior condition exclusion
>>>> and
>>>> provisions in their plan which, after a certain expenditure of time
>>>> and resources, ENDS the coverage of the insured and terminates all
>>>> benefits, there is no alternative but to seek government redress of
>>>> this deliberate avoidance of the health care problem which, in
>>>> effect,
>>>> uses American taxpayers to subsidy the profits of special interest
>>>> insurers.
>
>>> And the only way to end the immense waste of resources in the paper
>>> shuffling system thats inevitable with any insurance system is a
>>> decent modern universal medicare. Its really only the completely
>>> fucked US political system thats prevented the US doing what every
>>> other modern first and second world country has done, a decent
>>> modern universal health care system funded by taxation.
>
>> Agree fully on the points of that last paragraph - it would seem
>> in the context of our current economic and socio-political situation,
>> that a Universal Health Care system by the gov would be probably
>> the only viable option.
>
>> It is a cinch we cannot rely on the private sector, their actions
>> so far are nothing short of a DISGRACE -including stuff like
>> cancelling the policies of people that get serious cancers,
>
> Yes, utterly obscene.
>
> Corse that behavior could just be banned.
>
> The trouble is that with the insurance system with the premiums
> being paid for by the employer, many who end up with a serious
> cancer would like to stop working and cant afford to do that when
> they lose their insurance when they do, so even if that obscenity
> was banned, it wouldnt completely fix the problem. Thats another
> area where a decent universal medicare system would eliminate
> that problem completely and would also fix the current problem
> with US employers being financially penalised by having to pay
> the health insurance premiums as well.
>

The insurance coverage is earned by the employee. They also have the
right to continue the insurance policy when they leave to continue
coverage.

Federal and State laws also have changed to cover these issues.

Employers are not penalized even where the law demands they purchase
insurance. The customer pays all the costs. Get it? Raise the tax on a
Corporation, you just increased your cost to their products.

Are you young or really that stupid?

>> denying coverage for treatments deemed "experimental"
>
> That one is much harder. Even universal govt run systems like medicare
> have to have some limits on what they will pay for in that regard,
> otherwise some will try anything if they are going to die anyway.
>
>> and other inhumane and utterly contemptuous actions.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Political reforms, such as drastic reform of influence peddling by
>> lobbyists, recall elections, expansion of the number of Supreme Court
>> justices, ending redistricting and other voter district-ing tricks
>> and
>> a complete scrapping and overhaul of the Federal Election Commission
>> (aka the Repub-Demo Preservation Commission) are obviously
>> inevitable.
>
> Dunno, it will be interesting to watch if the US political system can
> do that.
>
>> Here the danger is that the changes, instead of being discussed
>> rationally will happen in a sudden paroxysm of socio-political
>> revolt,
>
> I dont expect that will happen. We didnt even see that during the
> great depression.
>
>> the inevitable result of special interests in both parties
>> attempting to block seriously needed changes at all
>> cost along with their corporatista benefactors.
>
> Yeah, its always been a major downside with the US political system.
>

Spoken out of pure ignorance.