From: Peter B on

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p57gnFvirU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> 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.
>

Then prove it, based on my parameters.

>> 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.
>

Guess what. insurance has nothing to do with it. SURPRISE!

>> 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
>

Thanks for the link you were using. "WHO" figures. :( Part of our costs
were the Tsunami support, We were the largest of all but not listed on
their graph but it was used as a health stat. WE also have plastic
surgery for cosmetic reasons (Vanity) not available under most "free"
systems.

Even so you said, "cost USians TWICE the percentage of GDP that every
other first and second world country spends" What part of US 14% and
Sweden 11% do you not understand? Why do we have the best? We spend our
money?

>>>> 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.
>

You really don't get it, do you? You did not even understand his
question. Poor reading comprehension?

>>>> 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.
>

You really are a dumb sheet aren't you. I have many friends that not
only do pro bono locally on a case by case basis, but travel at their
own expense to assist those in need in 3rd world countries.

Please, give me a call and I'll see if they can't help remove your head
from your anus.

>>>> 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.

It takes 1/2 to 1 hour to process civilian calls. It takes 1-3hrs to
process the same via medicare, and that is just the Dr's part. Do feel
free to go to a medicare office and see how many work there. How many
supervisors, and how many depts there are. Your ignorance is
outstanding!

>
>>> 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.
>

Few do, true, but then there isn't an overwhelming group of wealthy
people there. Most are poor. Just go outside their cities and see.

Your terminology for them slights them and is racist.

>>>> 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.
>

You fail to see how ridiculous you are. Throwing in your "immense cost
of ads" was a real thigh slapper, you dumb hick.

>>> 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.
>

BS, and only further evidence about your lack of knowledge in this area.
Also your use of the term universal HC is wrong. We are one planet, and
the US is one nation.

>> (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.
>

Then you are poorly, very poorly educated and live in some hick place.

My guess given your profile is that you are lying about your age and are
too dumb to know that others can recognize your naivety.

>>>> (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.
>

Which explains why you know nothing of our system, and most of all do
not know the truth. Stay out of our affairs, especially regarding health
or at least be honest enough to state that you are not American and that
you do not like anything American and wish to see it fail.

>> 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.

No, you haven't, you just don't know any better.

It is pretty sad, you being older than dirt, yet know so little.


From: Rod Speed on
Peter B wrote:
> "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.

Not when the employer does not provide it it isnt.

> They also have the right to continue the insurance policy when they leave to continue coverage.

But since they are no longer working, they may well not be able to afford that.

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

But have not fixed the problem with those who stop working because of their
serious medical problem and who end up with no insurance when that happens.

> Employers are not penalized even where the law demands they purchase insurance. The customer pays all the costs.

But foreign employers dont have to pay their employees insurance
premiums, so they dont have to pass those costs onto the customers
so they can sell at lower prices than american employers can.

> Get it? Raise the tax on a Corporation, you just increased your cost to their products.

No one said anything about raising the tax on a corp.

> Are you young or really that stupid?

Cant you actually lie your way out of a wet paper bag ?

>>> 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.

Your sig is supposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, child.


From: Peter B on

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p56gfFqo1U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> 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.

Sorry bubba, found out you aren't American, don't know anything about it
or world systems. And anything you don't know (which is considerable)
you call a lie.

I learned a long time ago that one cannot argue with someone dumber than
dirt. And the obvious facts are you are too ignorant of any healthcare
plan, costs, etc.

You also claim to be as old as dirt, although I seriously doubt you are
over 16 have it your way. Oh, BTW to be older than my grandparents you
would have to be born pre WWII in which case they did not teach US
History there.

Don't forget to put on your depends.


From: Peter B on

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p5kmjForjU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Peter B wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Not when the employer does not provide it it isnt.
>

Now that is bright, lol....not. Then he pays for it or doesn't have any.
Your point was that if was paid for by the employer, but given that you
are older than dirt I can understand your short term memory loss.

>> They also have the right to continue the insurance policy when they
>> leave to continue coverage.
>
> But since they are no longer working, they may well not be able to
> afford that.
>

That is what savings is all about.

>> Federal and State laws also have changed to cover these issues.
>
> But have not fixed the problem with those who stop working because of
> their
> serious medical problem and who end up with no insurance when that
> happens.
>

Yes, we have.

>> Employers are not penalized even where the law demands they purchase
>> insurance. The customer pays all the costs.
>
> But foreign employers dont have to pay their employees insurance
> premiums, so they dont have to pass those costs onto the customers
> so they can sell at lower prices than american employers can.
>

Nice for them, isn't it? But simple economics you just don't get do you?
Every dime that goes out of the employers pocket is added to the cost of
the product. The employee's wage, their tax liability, tooling, bldgs,
material, etc. It all goes into the price of a product, the product is
then marked up enough to gain profits yet be competitive. So we still
pay for your healthcare.

>> Get it? Raise the tax on a Corporation, you just increased your cost
>> to their products.
>
> No one said anything about raising the tax on a corp.
>
Corp, business, whatever, what's the difference?

>> Are you young or really that stupid?
>
> Cant you actually lie your way out of a wet paper bag ?
>
No, Since I don't make it a practice to lie. Shame that you do.

>>>> 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.
>
> Your sig is supposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
> child.
>

It does, but it is a (space)-- dumbie.


From: Rod Speed on
Peter B wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7p56gfFqo1U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> 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.
>
> Sorry bubba, found out you aren't American, don't know anything about
> it or world systems. And anything you don't know (which is
> considerable) you call a lie.
>
> I learned a long time ago that one cannot argue with someone dumber
> than dirt. And the obvious facts are you are too ignorant of any
> healthcare plan, costs, etc.
>
> You also claim to be as old as dirt, although I seriously doubt you
> are over 16 have it your way. Oh, BTW to be older than my
> grandparents you would have to be born pre WWII

Funny that. Hilarious, actually.

> in which case they did not teach US History there.

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