Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
I think some countries' voters leant on politicians when this could be effective. These days, whoever's in government is pretty much owned by the big companies - the Clintons had a go at sorting the American health system and didn't succeed.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Patsy's right about the younger you are the better it is to have your tonsils removed. But it's my understanding now that they don't take them out like they used to. I had my taken out because my sister had tonsilitis and they wanted to do it at the same time.
I understand now you have to have three episodes in one year in order to have them removed. I've also noticed that people without tonsils don't get strep throat or at least not as often and those that do. But taking them out would be a preventative measure and that is not something insurance cares for.:-5 The scientists and doctors are trying to determine what the role of tonsils are. My co-worker got tonsill cancer and they only took out one and left the other! Imagine that! Why not take them both?
How hard are the taxes on the lower class people when it comes to national health care? Do people take advantage of the emergency room for small illnesses or are they required to go to a doctor? Must they have a family doctor in order to qualify for health care?
Has anyone heard or concierge doctors? That is becoming a new thing here in the states. It is especially rampant in Florida. You pay a certain amount at the beginning of each year or monthly and you have access to a doctor anytime you need one. They even make house calls. You get access to their home number, cell phone and email. It's very expensive but convienent. I not sure it's a good thing. It leaves the poor outside but you can see the doctor without waiting and spend as much time with him as you like. I think the government will rule against it before it becomes too much to handle.
I understand now you have to have three episodes in one year in order to have them removed. I've also noticed that people without tonsils don't get strep throat or at least not as often and those that do. But taking them out would be a preventative measure and that is not something insurance cares for.:-5 The scientists and doctors are trying to determine what the role of tonsils are. My co-worker got tonsill cancer and they only took out one and left the other! Imagine that! Why not take them both?
How hard are the taxes on the lower class people when it comes to national health care? Do people take advantage of the emergency room for small illnesses or are they required to go to a doctor? Must they have a family doctor in order to qualify for health care?
Has anyone heard or concierge doctors? That is becoming a new thing here in the states. It is especially rampant in Florida. You pay a certain amount at the beginning of each year or monthly and you have access to a doctor anytime you need one. They even make house calls. You get access to their home number, cell phone and email. It's very expensive but convienent. I not sure it's a good thing. It leaves the poor outside but you can see the doctor without waiting and spend as much time with him as you like. I think the government will rule against it before it becomes too much to handle.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Reading back on replies from the US - 99% feel health care needs a major over haul.
Nalleyvalley had thousands in debt with Insurance
Medical debt is th number one reason for filing Bankruptcy in the US
Its a sad reality
Patsy
Nalleyvalley had thousands in debt with Insurance
Medical debt is th number one reason for filing Bankruptcy in the US
Its a sad reality
Patsy
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
911
Since I've had my tonsils removed I haven't had strep or a sore throat.
Emergency rooms - I've rushed my husband to emergency and I sit and look around at a full - over packed waiting room. People with the common cold and yes some seriously ill..
As I spoke to the nurses attending to my husband, I had to mention all the people, she said its like this all the time, theres not much a hospital can do for the average person with the flu, or a tooth ache.
Emergency rooms use to be for the heart attach patient - now its for the very poor and uninsured and the homeless. The nurse said they have some people that just want a bed for the night..
As I state to RED - I don't drive my husband to the emergency room anymore - I call 911. Its a paper game and a long wait - I'm not waiting.
Doctor's making house calls - yes I've seen this and the Doctor limits their number of patients - you have that one to one quality time - your actually a person..
Will the government squash this idea - YES, its a matter of time - no kick backs..
The US is not taking care of our own people - its sad - and its a sad situation that has gotten so out of control.
Health Care will be a priority issue with the next up & coming President..
Patsy
Since I've had my tonsils removed I haven't had strep or a sore throat.
Emergency rooms - I've rushed my husband to emergency and I sit and look around at a full - over packed waiting room. People with the common cold and yes some seriously ill..
As I spoke to the nurses attending to my husband, I had to mention all the people, she said its like this all the time, theres not much a hospital can do for the average person with the flu, or a tooth ache.
Emergency rooms use to be for the heart attach patient - now its for the very poor and uninsured and the homeless. The nurse said they have some people that just want a bed for the night..
As I state to RED - I don't drive my husband to the emergency room anymore - I call 911. Its a paper game and a long wait - I'm not waiting.
Doctor's making house calls - yes I've seen this and the Doctor limits their number of patients - you have that one to one quality time - your actually a person..
Will the government squash this idea - YES, its a matter of time - no kick backs..
The US is not taking care of our own people - its sad - and its a sad situation that has gotten so out of control.
Health Care will be a priority issue with the next up & coming President..
Patsy
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
How many feel that we/all as a society have the fundamental right to Health Care?
How many feel since you have Health Insurance that your covered?
Patsy
How many feel since you have Health Insurance that your covered?
Patsy
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Someone mentioned that waiting for services in those countries where healthcare is affordable and universally applied (at first glance anyway) was a only a little annoying and I don't know about this. When someone is waiting for services whether it be days, weeks, or months it is sometimes comforting to know that everyone is in the same boat, even with the knowledge, perhaps, that those in the upper echelon of financial status do not have to wait for this kind of service.
I don't know if this makes for a better national healthcare policy or if this attitude only decreases, temporarily, the animosity that the majority of the population actually feels exist between the classes. Maybe this way of medical coverage is just enough to quell the governmental angst that in the long run could be used as a catalyst to more efficient and equitable healthcare. This is temporarily making everyone feel like things are okay. In reality maybe the only thing socialized medical policies create are more patient patients? Who knows?
Erin
I don't know if this makes for a better national healthcare policy or if this attitude only decreases, temporarily, the animosity that the majority of the population actually feels exist between the classes. Maybe this way of medical coverage is just enough to quell the governmental angst that in the long run could be used as a catalyst to more efficient and equitable healthcare. This is temporarily making everyone feel like things are okay. In reality maybe the only thing socialized medical policies create are more patient patients? Who knows?
Erin
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Who knows?
Well, for starters, I expect real emergencies are dealt with, usually pretty rapidly everywhere.
Some patients with non life threatening needs, who don't carry private insurance on top of the medicare coverage available to all Australians, may have to wait. For a knee reconstruction, for instance. Do patients become more patient? I can't answer for English people. Aussies are a bolshie lot and have shortish fuses when faced by life's irritations. What we do know here is that after treatment is received, and bills arrive, we won't go bankrupt. If a kid breaks an arm, we won't be hassled by late night debt collector phone calls etc for the rest of our lives..
Well, for starters, I expect real emergencies are dealt with, usually pretty rapidly everywhere.
Some patients with non life threatening needs, who don't carry private insurance on top of the medicare coverage available to all Australians, may have to wait. For a knee reconstruction, for instance. Do patients become more patient? I can't answer for English people. Aussies are a bolshie lot and have shortish fuses when faced by life's irritations. What we do know here is that after treatment is received, and bills arrive, we won't go bankrupt. If a kid breaks an arm, we won't be hassled by late night debt collector phone calls etc for the rest of our lives..
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
There's a documentary on the Health Care Crisis in the US
Documentary " SICKO " by Michael Moore
Patsy
Documentary " SICKO " by Michael Moore
Patsy
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
AussiePam;700025 wrote:
In another thread, an American raised the issue of the "right" to good treatment and the right not to be driven into bankruptcy if a citizen has been unable to afford health insurance, or has a job which doesn't have adequate insurance as part of the package.
Whatever one thinks about "rights", it's my view that in a civilised, western, ultra wealthy country, a citizen has a reasonable expectation of being protected and looked after, in bad times.
AussiePam
Please show me where the US consitution says anything CLOSE to this:
"a citizen has a reasonable expectation of being protected and looked after, in bad times"
If you find it........maybe we can get Congress to vote in this NEW tax you say we need..........
In another thread, an American raised the issue of the "right" to good treatment and the right not to be driven into bankruptcy if a citizen has been unable to afford health insurance, or has a job which doesn't have adequate insurance as part of the package.
Whatever one thinks about "rights", it's my view that in a civilised, western, ultra wealthy country, a citizen has a reasonable expectation of being protected and looked after, in bad times.
AussiePam
Please show me where the US consitution says anything CLOSE to this:
"a citizen has a reasonable expectation of being protected and looked after, in bad times"
If you find it........maybe we can get Congress to vote in this NEW tax you say we need..........
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
BTS;701851 wrote: AussiePam
Please show me where the US consitution says anything CLOSE to this:
"a citizen has a reasonable expectation of being protected and looked after, in bad times"
If you find it........maybe we can get Congress to vote in this NEW tax you say we need..........
I think you'll find she's implying strongly that you're not a "civilised, western, ultra wealthy country". You're western, you're ultra wealthy, so what's missing?
Please show me where the US consitution says anything CLOSE to this:
"a citizen has a reasonable expectation of being protected and looked after, in bad times"
If you find it........maybe we can get Congress to vote in this NEW tax you say we need..........
I think you'll find she's implying strongly that you're not a "civilised, western, ultra wealthy country". You're western, you're ultra wealthy, so what's missing?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
spot;700216 wrote: It's something the thread's not pointed out, I agree - no medical or dental charges at all in the UK for under-18s, either for treatment or for prescriptions. I'm not sure about opticians, I'd need to look that up.
OOHH OOOHHH spot you noticed this:
"no medical or dental charges at all in the UK for under-18s, either for treatment or for prescriptions"
Sounds good ol spot........... BUTTTTT what is the (parents) TAX RATE vs USA's....and at this rate (below)......... is it REALLY FREE?
A pie chart showing the constituents of UK taxation receipts for the tax year 2004-2005.
As I looked at this chart, I thought HMMM 1/4 of my taxes to heathcare that
OOHH OOOHHH spot you noticed this:
"no medical or dental charges at all in the UK for under-18s, either for treatment or for prescriptions"
Sounds good ol spot........... BUTTTTT what is the (parents) TAX RATE vs USA's....and at this rate (below)......... is it REALLY FREE?
A pie chart showing the constituents of UK taxation receipts for the tax year 2004-2005.
As I looked at this chart, I thought HMMM 1/4 of my taxes to heathcare that
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Now you're not even being coherent. mate. I have no idea what point you're trying to convey there.
What I posted in the other thread still stands, though: In the UK the working person pays - roughly - between 38% and 46% of their gross income in taxes. The maximum possible personal payment into the National Health fund from any worker is $140 (£70) a week and that figure includes the worker's State Pension payment as well. That is an absolutely exact statement of taxation paid by the worker.
Is it really free? Obviously it's paid for from taxation. What free means is that nobody using the national health system is charged for using it. There are fixed exceptions to that, such as the $12 per prescription charge from general practitioners and the $30/$150/$400 maximum capped charge for courses of dental work, and there are exempt groups who don't pay those either (the low-paid, those under 18 or over 65, and pregnant women). All that's been discussed in the linked threads.
What part are you refusing to grasp?
What I posted in the other thread still stands, though: In the UK the working person pays - roughly - between 38% and 46% of their gross income in taxes. The maximum possible personal payment into the National Health fund from any worker is $140 (£70) a week and that figure includes the worker's State Pension payment as well. That is an absolutely exact statement of taxation paid by the worker.
Is it really free? Obviously it's paid for from taxation. What free means is that nobody using the national health system is charged for using it. There are fixed exceptions to that, such as the $12 per prescription charge from general practitioners and the $30/$150/$400 maximum capped charge for courses of dental work, and there are exempt groups who don't pay those either (the low-paid, those under 18 or over 65, and pregnant women). All that's been discussed in the linked threads.
What part are you refusing to grasp?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
I just finished reading all the posts here and find the discussion interesting. There's so many different experiences with healthcare even among those living in the same country! Some things have been said that haven't been my experiences with doctors etc, and some have.
I do know that in my state, NM, children are now able to access many well checkups that include immunizations and sick visits through the medicaid system. That's a definite thing for the low income families. But I'm pretty sure even those who fall through the cracks in terms of being too poor to pay for insurance on their own (without employer paying a hefty portion of it) and too rich to qualify for medicaid entirely, also receive these benefits. A lot of healthcare, in my state at least, is available free of charge or low cost if one is willing to do the legwork.
Now quality of the care or having the ability to have a say in what care, doctors you receive, I'm not too sure about this. But I have such different views about what quality, affordable care might look like that doesn't appear to be modeled in any country at this point, that you all would prob think I crazy.
There's so many other ways of doing healthcare, healing, prevention, and reducing the need for sooooooo much 'doctor' advice. There are healthcare practitioners with radical (traditional) ways of diagnosing and treating stuff we have come to believe only a MD is able to provide. For example, take childbirth. In my opinion no woman who is low risk should ever even see an obstetrician sp? She and baby can be healthfully and adequately served by a midwife (midhusband too but noone has named them that yet
) I think hospitals are disgusting to born a baby, sorry, just my little ol' humble opinion.
Anyway, I think doctors are great if you break your leg or need antibiotics or meds to treat something not treatable through alternative methods, or for aggressive procedures when a life is at stake (in an acute situation, perhaps that could have been treated at an earlier stage using less invasive measure), but for the most part I want this western medicine mentality out of and off my body! Again my apologies to the docs on here, but this is just how I feel.
Erin
I do know that in my state, NM, children are now able to access many well checkups that include immunizations and sick visits through the medicaid system. That's a definite thing for the low income families. But I'm pretty sure even those who fall through the cracks in terms of being too poor to pay for insurance on their own (without employer paying a hefty portion of it) and too rich to qualify for medicaid entirely, also receive these benefits. A lot of healthcare, in my state at least, is available free of charge or low cost if one is willing to do the legwork.
Now quality of the care or having the ability to have a say in what care, doctors you receive, I'm not too sure about this. But I have such different views about what quality, affordable care might look like that doesn't appear to be modeled in any country at this point, that you all would prob think I crazy.
There's so many other ways of doing healthcare, healing, prevention, and reducing the need for sooooooo much 'doctor' advice. There are healthcare practitioners with radical (traditional) ways of diagnosing and treating stuff we have come to believe only a MD is able to provide. For example, take childbirth. In my opinion no woman who is low risk should ever even see an obstetrician sp? She and baby can be healthfully and adequately served by a midwife (midhusband too but noone has named them that yet
) I think hospitals are disgusting to born a baby, sorry, just my little ol' humble opinion. Anyway, I think doctors are great if you break your leg or need antibiotics or meds to treat something not treatable through alternative methods, or for aggressive procedures when a life is at stake (in an acute situation, perhaps that could have been treated at an earlier stage using less invasive measure), but for the most part I want this western medicine mentality out of and off my body! Again my apologies to the docs on here, but this is just how I feel.
Erin
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
May I try to get back to basics as far as the US health system's concerned?
Private insurance is a central factor in getting fuss-free treatment - that seems a fair statement.
Private insurance is offered by corporations whose legal obligation is to maximize their dividend payments and share value for their owners, the stockholders, while acting within all constraints the law demands.
The income to these corporations is from the policy holders.
That corporate income pays administrative overheads and the charges made by the medical practices which treat the policyholders. The corporation minimizes administrative overheads and payments to medical practices in order to maximize shareholder dividends.
Would the policy holders not benefit from lower premiums and better medical care if the corporate profit motive were removed from the equation? Why are these leeching shareholders being allowed to suck money out of the medical system and increase the policy premiums from every American rich enough to buy into medical care?
Are there no not-for-profit health insurance schemes?
Private insurance is a central factor in getting fuss-free treatment - that seems a fair statement.
Private insurance is offered by corporations whose legal obligation is to maximize their dividend payments and share value for their owners, the stockholders, while acting within all constraints the law demands.
The income to these corporations is from the policy holders.
That corporate income pays administrative overheads and the charges made by the medical practices which treat the policyholders. The corporation minimizes administrative overheads and payments to medical practices in order to maximize shareholder dividends.
Would the policy holders not benefit from lower premiums and better medical care if the corporate profit motive were removed from the equation? Why are these leeching shareholders being allowed to suck money out of the medical system and increase the policy premiums from every American rich enough to buy into medical care?
Are there no not-for-profit health insurance schemes?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
RedGlitter;700028 wrote: We still owe an absurd amount for treatments given to my mom in her last year. Seriously, every time an intern stuck his head in the door and asked "How's Mrs. Williams" that was considered a consultation. You non-US people probably think I'm exaggerating but sadly, I am not.
Unless I'm mistaken, the hospitals, insurance, etc. can only require payment from her estate. You are not obligated to pay squat.
Unless I'm mistaken, the hospitals, insurance, etc. can only require payment from her estate. You are not obligated to pay squat.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Accountable;702075 wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, the hospitals, insurance, etc. can only require payment from her estate. You are not obligated to pay squat.
I expect hospitals oblige relatives to sign as guarantors, acc. Why else would they provide treatment?
I expect hospitals oblige relatives to sign as guarantors, acc. Why else would they provide treatment?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
After seeing hospital staff step over and mop the floor around that lady that was dying in an LA hospital lobby and then having her arrested Im inclined to say our system needs tweaking.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
BTS;701858 wrote: OOHH OOOHHH spot you noticed this:
"no medical or dental charges at all in the UK for under-18s, either for treatment or for prescriptions"
Sounds good ol spot........... BUTTTTT what is the (parents) TAX RATE vs USA's....and at this rate (below)......... is it REALLY FREE?
A pie chart showing the constituents of UK taxation receipts for the tax year 2004-2005.
As I looked at this chart, I thought HMMM 1/4 of my taxes to heathcare that
After paying federal, state and local taxes how much is left and out of the remaining how much more does the average american have to pay for healthcare insurance over and above all the other taxes?
posted by patsy warnick
How many feel that we/all as a society have the fundamental right to Health Care?
There's a documentary on the Health Care Crisis in the US
Documentary " SICKO " by Michael Moore
I occasionally look at his site. Not being an american it's hard to keep much interest but the debate is a bit surreal. Over here healthcare is something we tell our govt to provide. If it's as bad as portrayed why do you all put up with uit. The debate is on how best to do it not whether we should have it. It's a major issue at election time.
I think you would find that most europeans take for granted that one of the functions of govt is to make life better for people and take care of them. It's not the nanny state with free enterprise being smothered as portrayed in the states more a case of you will do this you B)**S or we won't elect you.
"no medical or dental charges at all in the UK for under-18s, either for treatment or for prescriptions"
Sounds good ol spot........... BUTTTTT what is the (parents) TAX RATE vs USA's....and at this rate (below)......... is it REALLY FREE?
A pie chart showing the constituents of UK taxation receipts for the tax year 2004-2005.
As I looked at this chart, I thought HMMM 1/4 of my taxes to heathcare that
After paying federal, state and local taxes how much is left and out of the remaining how much more does the average american have to pay for healthcare insurance over and above all the other taxes?
posted by patsy warnick
How many feel that we/all as a society have the fundamental right to Health Care?
There's a documentary on the Health Care Crisis in the US
Documentary " SICKO " by Michael Moore
I occasionally look at his site. Not being an american it's hard to keep much interest but the debate is a bit surreal. Over here healthcare is something we tell our govt to provide. If it's as bad as portrayed why do you all put up with uit. The debate is on how best to do it not whether we should have it. It's a major issue at election time.
I think you would find that most europeans take for granted that one of the functions of govt is to make life better for people and take care of them. It's not the nanny state with free enterprise being smothered as portrayed in the states more a case of you will do this you B)**S or we won't elect you.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Patsy Warnick;701114 wrote: How many feel that we/all as a society have the fundamental right to Health Care?
How many feel since you have Health Insurance that your covered?
Patsy
Patsy
If you can show me where our constitution says it requires that the government has to supply its citizens with health care, if so then yes we do have the fundamental right to Health Care.
I looked but could not find that right anywhere.
How many feel since you have Health Insurance that your covered?
Patsy
Patsy
If you can show me where our constitution says it requires that the government has to supply its citizens with health care, if so then yes we do have the fundamental right to Health Care.
I looked but could not find that right anywhere.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
gmc;702326 wrote: After paying federal, state and local taxes how much is left and out of the remaining how much more does the average american have to pay for healthcare insurance over and above all the other taxes?
posted by patsy warnick
I occasionally look at his site. Not being an american it's hard to keep much interest but the debate is a bit surreal. Over here healthcare is something we tell our govt to provide. If it's as bad as portrayed why do you all put up with uit. The debate is on how best to do it not whether we should have it. It's a major issue at election time.
I think you would find that most europeans take for granted that one of the functions of govt is to make life better for people and take care of them. It's not the nanny state with free enterprise being smothered as portrayed in the states more a case of you will do this you B)**S or we won't elect you.
I think it (health care in the USA) is not as bad as portrayed by some.
In the land of milk and honey there is some kind if govt. support that you can rely on no matter how large or small your needs are. You just need to know where to look. (see below)
This from wikpedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car ... ted_States
Many individuals not covered by private insurance are covered by government insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, various state and local programs for the poor, and the Veterans Administration, which provides care to veterans, their families, and survivors through medical centers and clinics. In 2006, Medicaid provided health care coverage for 38.3 million poor Americans and Medicare provided health care coverage for 40.3 million elderly and disabled Americans.[3] One study estimates that about 25% of the country's uninsured, or roughly another 11 million people, are eligible for government health care programs but unenrolled. However, extending coverage to all who are eligible remains a fiscal challenge.[20]
In 1997, the federal government also created the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a joint-federal state program to insure children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford health insurance.[22] SCHIP covered 6.6 million children in 2006,[23] but the program is already facing funding shortfalls in many states.[24]
posted by patsy warnick
I occasionally look at his site. Not being an american it's hard to keep much interest but the debate is a bit surreal. Over here healthcare is something we tell our govt to provide. If it's as bad as portrayed why do you all put up with uit. The debate is on how best to do it not whether we should have it. It's a major issue at election time.
I think you would find that most europeans take for granted that one of the functions of govt is to make life better for people and take care of them. It's not the nanny state with free enterprise being smothered as portrayed in the states more a case of you will do this you B)**S or we won't elect you.
I think it (health care in the USA) is not as bad as portrayed by some.
In the land of milk and honey there is some kind if govt. support that you can rely on no matter how large or small your needs are. You just need to know where to look. (see below)
This from wikpedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car ... ted_States
Many individuals not covered by private insurance are covered by government insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, various state and local programs for the poor, and the Veterans Administration, which provides care to veterans, their families, and survivors through medical centers and clinics. In 2006, Medicaid provided health care coverage for 38.3 million poor Americans and Medicare provided health care coverage for 40.3 million elderly and disabled Americans.[3] One study estimates that about 25% of the country's uninsured, or roughly another 11 million people, are eligible for government health care programs but unenrolled. However, extending coverage to all who are eligible remains a fiscal challenge.[20]
In 1997, the federal government also created the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a joint-federal state program to insure children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford health insurance.[22] SCHIP covered 6.6 million children in 2006,[23] but the program is already facing funding shortfalls in many states.[24]
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
BTS;702437 wrote: Patsy
If you can show me where our constitution says it requires that the government has to supply its citizens with health care, if so then yes we do have the fundamental right to Health Care.
I looked but could not find that right anywhere.
You get what you ask for in this life, BTS. The US wants to run around the bottom end of the world's health spectrum, let it. It's only the poor who suffer, after all, and who cares about lowlifes like them.
Rawls has a healthy view on life but it ain't capitalist. Capitalism is essentially a philosophy that throws the weak to the wall. You want it, you got it. As experiments go it's a lesson to the rest of us but it's not my business to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
Rawls advanced two principles: that "all have the greatest degree of liberty compatible with like liberty for all", and that inequality is only justified when it's to the advantage of those who are less well-off. Those are principles I'd happily subscribe to. The US system advocates greed at the expense of others, and that plain sucks.
If you can show me where our constitution says it requires that the government has to supply its citizens with health care, if so then yes we do have the fundamental right to Health Care.
I looked but could not find that right anywhere.
You get what you ask for in this life, BTS. The US wants to run around the bottom end of the world's health spectrum, let it. It's only the poor who suffer, after all, and who cares about lowlifes like them.
Rawls has a healthy view on life but it ain't capitalist. Capitalism is essentially a philosophy that throws the weak to the wall. You want it, you got it. As experiments go it's a lesson to the rest of us but it's not my business to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
Rawls advanced two principles: that "all have the greatest degree of liberty compatible with like liberty for all", and that inequality is only justified when it's to the advantage of those who are less well-off. Those are principles I'd happily subscribe to. The US system advocates greed at the expense of others, and that plain sucks.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Spot
I couldn't of stated it any better - my point exactly.
Patsy
I couldn't of stated it any better - my point exactly.
Patsy
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
spot;702454 wrote: You get what you ask for in this life, BTS. The US wants to run around the bottom end of the world's health spectrum, let it. It's only the poor who suffer, after all, and who cares about lowlifes like them.
Rawls has a healthy view on life but it ain't capitalist. Capitalism is essentially a philosophy that throws the weak to the wall. You want it, you got it. As experiments go it's a lesson to the rest of us but it's not my business to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
Rawls advanced two principles: that "all have the greatest degree of liberty compatible with like liberty for all", and that inequality is only justified when it's to the advantage of those who are less well-off. Those are principles I'd happily subscribe to. The US system advocates greed at the expense of others, and that plain sucks.
Neither have shown me where it is a RIGHT granted in our constitution...
spot:
Spoken like a truly committed socialist at heart.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.
Thank you
Rawls has a healthy view on life but it ain't capitalist. Capitalism is essentially a philosophy that throws the weak to the wall. You want it, you got it. As experiments go it's a lesson to the rest of us but it's not my business to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
Rawls advanced two principles: that "all have the greatest degree of liberty compatible with like liberty for all", and that inequality is only justified when it's to the advantage of those who are less well-off. Those are principles I'd happily subscribe to. The US system advocates greed at the expense of others, and that plain sucks.
Neither have shown me where it is a RIGHT granted in our constitution...
spot:
Spoken like a truly committed socialist at heart.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.
Thank you
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
BTS;702472 wrote: Spoken like a truly committed socialist at heart.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.Me spew? I merely note that the majority of your countrymen, as far as the ForumGarden vote you asked for is concerned, disagree with you.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.Me spew? I merely note that the majority of your countrymen, as far as the ForumGarden vote you asked for is concerned, disagree with you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
BTS;702437 wrote: Patsy
If you can show me where our constitution says it requires that the government has to supply its citizens with health care, if so then yes we do have the fundamental right to Health Care.
I looked but could not find that right anywhere.
It also says somewhere all men are created equal but it took till 1865 before you decided maybe black people were men as well and abolished slavery. Where does it say people should be discriminated against because they happen to be poor? If you disallow discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, colour, religion why the hang up about ability to pay? Why should children be deprived of health services because their parents are skint?
In 1920 you allowed women to vote so there does seem to be some scope for change in social attitudes changing the constitution and adding in new "rights".
Odd way you have of looking at things if you don't mind me saying so. Government don't decide what you can and can't have you should be telling them what you want. You live in a liberal democracy so you should have some say in what that government should be doing for you rather than what was acceptable 300 years ago.
If you did have socialised medicine I dare say you would be able to pay to jump the queue like happens here. Surprisingly few actually do so but at least when their private op goes wrong the NHS is there to sort them out.
posted by BTS
Neither have shown me where it is a RIGHT granted in our constitution...
spot:
Spoken like a truly committed socialist at heart.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.
Thank you
I don't think it's fair to call spot a socialist some of his ravings (no offence spot) are fairly right wing and besides it's not much of an insult to call someone a socialist in the UK. Tory boy now-that is a real insult- at least where I come from.
If you can show me where our constitution says it requires that the government has to supply its citizens with health care, if so then yes we do have the fundamental right to Health Care.
I looked but could not find that right anywhere.
It also says somewhere all men are created equal but it took till 1865 before you decided maybe black people were men as well and abolished slavery. Where does it say people should be discriminated against because they happen to be poor? If you disallow discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, colour, religion why the hang up about ability to pay? Why should children be deprived of health services because their parents are skint?
In 1920 you allowed women to vote so there does seem to be some scope for change in social attitudes changing the constitution and adding in new "rights".
Odd way you have of looking at things if you don't mind me saying so. Government don't decide what you can and can't have you should be telling them what you want. You live in a liberal democracy so you should have some say in what that government should be doing for you rather than what was acceptable 300 years ago.
If you did have socialised medicine I dare say you would be able to pay to jump the queue like happens here. Surprisingly few actually do so but at least when their private op goes wrong the NHS is there to sort them out.
posted by BTS
Neither have shown me where it is a RIGHT granted in our constitution...
spot:
Spoken like a truly committed socialist at heart.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.
Thank you
I don't think it's fair to call spot a socialist some of his ravings (no offence spot) are fairly right wing and besides it's not much of an insult to call someone a socialist in the UK. Tory boy now-that is a real insult- at least where I come from.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
gmc;702491 wrote: some of his ravings (no offence spot) are fairly right wing*blink*
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Patsy Warnick;701114 wrote: How many feel that we/all as a society have the fundamental right to Health Care?
How many feel since you have Health Insurance that your covered?
Patsy
BTS;702472 wrote: Neither have shown me where it is a RIGHT granted in our constitution...
spot:
Spoken like a truly committed socialist at heart.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.
Thank you
The original post you refer to refers to people "feel that" the right should exist - not claiming that it does.
If you try addressing the points made, rather than the points you want to answer, I'm sure that we'd get on a lot better.
Firstly, your original claim was that the US has the best health system in the world, period. I think that it is evident that your fellow Americans do not agree with you.
Secondly, from the, admittedly, apocryphal stories being aired here, your free enterprise system is failing far too large a percentage of your population to be a role model for the rest of the world. Whilst you may believe that it's the best health system in the world, period, I believe that a health system should look after the health of its target population.
How many feel since you have Health Insurance that your covered?
Patsy
BTS;702472 wrote: Neither have shown me where it is a RIGHT granted in our constitution...
spot:
Spoken like a truly committed socialist at heart.
I'll keep the good ol "free enterprise system" over the socialism you spew.
Thank you
The original post you refer to refers to people "feel that" the right should exist - not claiming that it does.
If you try addressing the points made, rather than the points you want to answer, I'm sure that we'd get on a lot better.
Firstly, your original claim was that the US has the best health system in the world, period. I think that it is evident that your fellow Americans do not agree with you.
Secondly, from the, admittedly, apocryphal stories being aired here, your free enterprise system is failing far too large a percentage of your population to be a role model for the rest of the world. Whilst you may believe that it's the best health system in the world, period, I believe that a health system should look after the health of its target population.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Spot posted:
"In the UK the working person pays - roughly - between 38% and 46% of their gross income in taxes. The maximum possible personal payment into the National Health fund from any worker is $140 (£70) a week and that figure includes the worker's State Pension payment as well. That is an absolutely exact statement of taxation paid by the worker."
What's the least a worker would pay? That amount, $140.00 per week, is incredibly high by my standards. I know some households with 6 people that pay $200.00 per month for everyone (subsidized of course by employer, which may be corrupted by all the insurance garbage, but still) with a policy that has been flexible and responsive to the needs of the people covered.
Are you happy with your healthcare then? Sounds like you are. Do you have a doctor you like and know and who knows you? Have you been able to develop a relationship with your doctor, or are they all too busy and every visit is with a different doctor?
Someone mentioned that doctors may not all be good ones -I've been thinking that if everyone had same access to healthcare then wouldn't that place a greater demand on doctors and all involved, wouldn't one still have probs with quality? You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
One byproduct of our USA system is that insurance companies are dictating the prices of services, determining what doctors are to charge for what (now who the hell are these people
) and doctors end up getting paid about what they would if in a system like some universal healthcare systems I've been hearing you guys talk about. For a standard office visit, by the time everyone gets paid, the doctor gets, what, $20.00 dollars?
I stand by my ideas of using alternative health practitioners for the majority of ailments and prevention and processes, with the option of working with MDs if needed. Why couldn't this work? Surely this wouldn't put doctors out of business!
Erin
"In the UK the working person pays - roughly - between 38% and 46% of their gross income in taxes. The maximum possible personal payment into the National Health fund from any worker is $140 (£70) a week and that figure includes the worker's State Pension payment as well. That is an absolutely exact statement of taxation paid by the worker."
What's the least a worker would pay? That amount, $140.00 per week, is incredibly high by my standards. I know some households with 6 people that pay $200.00 per month for everyone (subsidized of course by employer, which may be corrupted by all the insurance garbage, but still) with a policy that has been flexible and responsive to the needs of the people covered.
Are you happy with your healthcare then? Sounds like you are. Do you have a doctor you like and know and who knows you? Have you been able to develop a relationship with your doctor, or are they all too busy and every visit is with a different doctor?
Someone mentioned that doctors may not all be good ones -I've been thinking that if everyone had same access to healthcare then wouldn't that place a greater demand on doctors and all involved, wouldn't one still have probs with quality? You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
One byproduct of our USA system is that insurance companies are dictating the prices of services, determining what doctors are to charge for what (now who the hell are these people
) and doctors end up getting paid about what they would if in a system like some universal healthcare systems I've been hearing you guys talk about. For a standard office visit, by the time everyone gets paid, the doctor gets, what, $20.00 dollars? I stand by my ideas of using alternative health practitioners for the majority of ailments and prevention and processes, with the option of working with MDs if needed. Why couldn't this work? Surely this wouldn't put doctors out of business!
Erin
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
watermark;702699 wrote: Spot posted:
"In the UK the working person pays - roughly - between 38% and 46% of their gross income in taxes. The maximum possible personal payment into the National Health fund from any worker is $140 (£70) a week and that figure includes the worker's State Pension payment as well. That is an absolutely exact statement of taxation paid by the worker."
What's the least a worker would pay? That amount, $140.00 per week, is incredibly high by my standards. I know some households with 6 people that pay $200.00 per month for everyone (subsidized of course by employer, which may be corrupted by all the insurance garbage, but still) with a policy that has been flexible and responsive to the needs of the people covered.
Are you happy with your healthcare then? Sounds like you are. Do you have a doctor you like and know and who knows you? Have you been able to develop a relationship with your doctor, or are they all too busy and every visit is with a different doctor?
Someone mentioned that doctors may not all be good ones -I've been thinking that if everyone had same access to healthcare then wouldn't that place a greater demand on doctors and all involved, wouldn't one still have probs with quality? You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
One byproduct of our USA system is that insurance companies are dictating the prices of services, determining what doctors are to charge for what (now who the hell are these people) and doctors end up getting paid about what they would if in a system like some universal healthcare systems I've been hearing you guys talk about. For a standard office visit, by the time everyone gets paid, the doctor gets, what, $20.00 dollars?
I stand by my ideas of using alternative health practitioners for the majority of ailments and prevention and processes, with the option of working with MDs if needed. Why couldn't this work? Surely this wouldn't put doctors out of business!
Erin
I had the same doctor from seven to twenty seven - when I moved into the area to when I moved out. He was a wonderful man who retired shortly afterwards.
I had the same doctor for the seventeen years I was living in the Home Counties. Excellent doctor who gave total satisfaction to me and mine.
Again, moving area was the reason for changing doctors.
I have had the same doctor since moving back. We are going to change to a different practice as, for the first time in my life, I'm not too happy with him.
As far as quality of service goes you'll get no complaints here.
As far as doctors' salaries go, I think market forces will drive them to roughly the same place in either system.
I would like to take issue with Spot's figures regarding the funding of the NHS.
Whilst National Insurance was originally introduced, as Spot says, to fund the NHS and the State Pension, I believe that all monies now go into the treasury pot and funding is independent of source.
Figures I've seen suggest that the NHS costs the government just over seventy billion pounds a year. An ever increasing proportion of this cost is down to the UK's demographics - a rapidly aging population where, although people are living far longer than when the NHS was formed their health in old age is no better.
"In the UK the working person pays - roughly - between 38% and 46% of their gross income in taxes. The maximum possible personal payment into the National Health fund from any worker is $140 (£70) a week and that figure includes the worker's State Pension payment as well. That is an absolutely exact statement of taxation paid by the worker."
What's the least a worker would pay? That amount, $140.00 per week, is incredibly high by my standards. I know some households with 6 people that pay $200.00 per month for everyone (subsidized of course by employer, which may be corrupted by all the insurance garbage, but still) with a policy that has been flexible and responsive to the needs of the people covered.
Are you happy with your healthcare then? Sounds like you are. Do you have a doctor you like and know and who knows you? Have you been able to develop a relationship with your doctor, or are they all too busy and every visit is with a different doctor?
Someone mentioned that doctors may not all be good ones -I've been thinking that if everyone had same access to healthcare then wouldn't that place a greater demand on doctors and all involved, wouldn't one still have probs with quality? You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
One byproduct of our USA system is that insurance companies are dictating the prices of services, determining what doctors are to charge for what (now who the hell are these people
) and doctors end up getting paid about what they would if in a system like some universal healthcare systems I've been hearing you guys talk about. For a standard office visit, by the time everyone gets paid, the doctor gets, what, $20.00 dollars? I stand by my ideas of using alternative health practitioners for the majority of ailments and prevention and processes, with the option of working with MDs if needed. Why couldn't this work? Surely this wouldn't put doctors out of business!
Erin
I had the same doctor from seven to twenty seven - when I moved into the area to when I moved out. He was a wonderful man who retired shortly afterwards.
I had the same doctor for the seventeen years I was living in the Home Counties. Excellent doctor who gave total satisfaction to me and mine.
Again, moving area was the reason for changing doctors.
I have had the same doctor since moving back. We are going to change to a different practice as, for the first time in my life, I'm not too happy with him.
As far as quality of service goes you'll get no complaints here.
As far as doctors' salaries go, I think market forces will drive them to roughly the same place in either system.
I would like to take issue with Spot's figures regarding the funding of the NHS.
Whilst National Insurance was originally introduced, as Spot says, to fund the NHS and the State Pension, I believe that all monies now go into the treasury pot and funding is independent of source.
Figures I've seen suggest that the NHS costs the government just over seventy billion pounds a year. An ever increasing proportion of this cost is down to the UK's demographics - a rapidly aging population where, although people are living far longer than when the NHS was formed their health in old age is no better.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
watermark;702699 wrote: What's the least a worker would pay? That amount, $140.00 per week, is incredibly high by my standards. That's how much a person pays if their gross annual income is $70,000 or higher. Below $10,000 they pay nothing. In between they pay on a linear scale.
Bryn mawr wrote: I believe that all monies now go into the treasury pot and funding is independent of source.My figures relate to the explicit charge to the individual, since that's what BTS was asking. How you'd go about proportionately assigning the £70bn a year to individual taxpayers I've no idea - the government has far more revenue streams than individual taxation. I agree that National Insurance isn't ring-fenced but I do think the notion of a specific tax element for pensions and health is meaningful. It gives an indication of what people pay for what they get.
spot;702070 wrote: May I try to get back to basics as far as the US health system's concerned?
Private insurance is a central factor in getting fuss-free treatment - that seems a fair statement.
Private insurance is offered by corporations whose legal obligation is to maximize their dividend payments and share value for their owners, the stockholders, while acting within all constraints the law demands.
The income to these corporations is from the policy holders.
That corporate income pays administrative overheads and the charges made by the medical practices which treat the policyholders. The corporation minimizes administrative overheads and payments to medical practices in order to maximize shareholder dividends.
Would the policy holders not benefit from lower premiums and better medical care if the corporate profit motive were removed from the equation? Why are these leeching shareholders being allowed to suck money out of the medical system and increase the policy premiums from every American rich enough to buy into medical care?
Are there no not-for-profit health insurance schemes?
I hate to quote myself but nobody went anywhere near this question, and I did so hope I might get an informed reply to it. I don't ask just for fun, you know.
Bryn mawr wrote: I believe that all monies now go into the treasury pot and funding is independent of source.My figures relate to the explicit charge to the individual, since that's what BTS was asking. How you'd go about proportionately assigning the £70bn a year to individual taxpayers I've no idea - the government has far more revenue streams than individual taxation. I agree that National Insurance isn't ring-fenced but I do think the notion of a specific tax element for pensions and health is meaningful. It gives an indication of what people pay for what they get.
spot;702070 wrote: May I try to get back to basics as far as the US health system's concerned?
Private insurance is a central factor in getting fuss-free treatment - that seems a fair statement.
Private insurance is offered by corporations whose legal obligation is to maximize their dividend payments and share value for their owners, the stockholders, while acting within all constraints the law demands.
The income to these corporations is from the policy holders.
That corporate income pays administrative overheads and the charges made by the medical practices which treat the policyholders. The corporation minimizes administrative overheads and payments to medical practices in order to maximize shareholder dividends.
Would the policy holders not benefit from lower premiums and better medical care if the corporate profit motive were removed from the equation? Why are these leeching shareholders being allowed to suck money out of the medical system and increase the policy premiums from every American rich enough to buy into medical care?
Are there no not-for-profit health insurance schemes?
I hate to quote myself but nobody went anywhere near this question, and I did so hope I might get an informed reply to it. I don't ask just for fun, you know.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
NON PROFIT?
Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care organization, based in Oakland, California, founded in 1945 by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and physician Sidney R. Garfield. Kaiser Permanente is a consortium of three distinct groups of entities: the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and its regional operating organizations, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Permanente Medical Groups. As of 2006, Kaiser Permanente operates in nine states and Washington, D.C., and is the largest managed care organization in the United States. Kaiser Permanente has 8.5 million health plan members, 148,884 employees, 12,879 physicians, 37 medical centers, 400 medical offices, and $31.1 billion in annual operating revenues. The Health Plan and Hospitals operate under state and federal not-for-profit tax status, while the Medical Groups operate as for-profit partnerships or professional corporations in their respective regions.
Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care organization, based in Oakland, California, founded in 1945 by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and physician Sidney R. Garfield. Kaiser Permanente is a consortium of three distinct groups of entities: the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and its regional operating organizations, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Permanente Medical Groups. As of 2006, Kaiser Permanente operates in nine states and Washington, D.C., and is the largest managed care organization in the United States. Kaiser Permanente has 8.5 million health plan members, 148,884 employees, 12,879 physicians, 37 medical centers, 400 medical offices, and $31.1 billion in annual operating revenues. The Health Plan and Hospitals operate under state and federal not-for-profit tax status, while the Medical Groups operate as for-profit partnerships or professional corporations in their respective regions.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
spot;702791 wrote: I hate to quote myself but nobody went anywhere near this question, and I did so hope I might get an informed reply to it. I don't ask just for fun, you know.
You don't :yh_ooooo
In answer to your last question, yes there are - try the Kaiser Permanente.
You don't :yh_ooooo
In answer to your last question, yes there are - try the Kaiser Permanente.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Bryn Mawr;702890 wrote: In answer to your last question, yes there are - try the Kaiser Permanente.Thank you Lon and Bryn.
Here's the assessed comparison between the UK NHS and the largest representative of the US Not-For-Profit healthcare system:Br J Gen Pract. 2004 Jun;54(503):410-1.
Questioning the claims from Kaiser: Talbot-Smith A, Gnani S, Pollock AM, Gray DP.
Public Health Policy Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London, London.
BACKGROUND: The article by Feachem et al, published in the BMJ in 2002, claimed to show that, compared with the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in the United States (US) has similar healthcare costs per capita, and performance that is considerably better in certain respects. AIM: To assess the accuracy of Feachem et al's comparison and conclusions.
METHOD: Detailed re-examination of the data and methods used and consideration of the 82 letters responding to the article.
RESULTS: Analyses revealed four main areas in which Feachem et al's methodology was flawed.
Firstly, the populations of patients served by Kaiser Permanente and by the NHS are fundamentally different. Kaiser's patients are mainly employed, significantly younger, and significantly less socially deprived and so are healthier. Feachem et al fail to adjust adequately for these factors.
Secondly, Feachem et al have wrongly inflated NHS costs by omitting substantial user charges payable by Kaiser members for care, excluding the costs of marketing and administration, and deducting the surplus from Kaiser's costs while underestimating the capital charge element of the NHS budget and other costs. They also used two methods of converting currency, the currency rate and a health purchasing power parity conversion. This is double counting. Feachem et al reported that NHS costs were 10% less per head than Kaiser. Correcting for the double currency conversion gives the NHS a 40% cost advantage such that per capita costs are 1161 dollars and 1951 dollars for the NHS and Kaiser, respectively.
Thirdly, Feachem et al use non-standardised data for NHS bed days from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, rather than official Department of Health bed availability and activity statistics for England. Leaving aside the non-comparability of the population and lack of standardisation of the data, the result is to inflate NHS acute bed use and underestimate the efficiency of performance by at least 10%. Similar criticisms apply to their selective use of performance measures.
Finally, Feachem et al claim that Kaiser is a more integrated system than the NHS. The NHS provides health care to around 60 million people free at the point of delivery, long-term and psychiatric care, and continuing care after 100 days whereas Kaiser provides care to 6 million people, mainly employed and privately insured. Important functions, such as health protection, education and training of healthcare professionals, and research and development are not included or properly costed in Feachem et al's integrated model.
CONCLUSION: We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.
Here's the assessed comparison between the UK NHS and the largest representative of the US Not-For-Profit healthcare system:Br J Gen Pract. 2004 Jun;54(503):410-1.
Questioning the claims from Kaiser: Talbot-Smith A, Gnani S, Pollock AM, Gray DP.
Public Health Policy Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London, London.
BACKGROUND: The article by Feachem et al, published in the BMJ in 2002, claimed to show that, compared with the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in the United States (US) has similar healthcare costs per capita, and performance that is considerably better in certain respects. AIM: To assess the accuracy of Feachem et al's comparison and conclusions.
METHOD: Detailed re-examination of the data and methods used and consideration of the 82 letters responding to the article.
RESULTS: Analyses revealed four main areas in which Feachem et al's methodology was flawed.
Firstly, the populations of patients served by Kaiser Permanente and by the NHS are fundamentally different. Kaiser's patients are mainly employed, significantly younger, and significantly less socially deprived and so are healthier. Feachem et al fail to adjust adequately for these factors.
Secondly, Feachem et al have wrongly inflated NHS costs by omitting substantial user charges payable by Kaiser members for care, excluding the costs of marketing and administration, and deducting the surplus from Kaiser's costs while underestimating the capital charge element of the NHS budget and other costs. They also used two methods of converting currency, the currency rate and a health purchasing power parity conversion. This is double counting. Feachem et al reported that NHS costs were 10% less per head than Kaiser. Correcting for the double currency conversion gives the NHS a 40% cost advantage such that per capita costs are 1161 dollars and 1951 dollars for the NHS and Kaiser, respectively.
Thirdly, Feachem et al use non-standardised data for NHS bed days from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, rather than official Department of Health bed availability and activity statistics for England. Leaving aside the non-comparability of the population and lack of standardisation of the data, the result is to inflate NHS acute bed use and underestimate the efficiency of performance by at least 10%. Similar criticisms apply to their selective use of performance measures.
Finally, Feachem et al claim that Kaiser is a more integrated system than the NHS. The NHS provides health care to around 60 million people free at the point of delivery, long-term and psychiatric care, and continuing care after 100 days whereas Kaiser provides care to 6 million people, mainly employed and privately insured. Important functions, such as health protection, education and training of healthcare professionals, and research and development are not included or properly costed in Feachem et al's integrated model.
CONCLUSION: We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
spot;702902 wrote: Thank you Lon and Bryn.
Here's the assessed comparison between the UK NHS and the largest representative of the US Not-For-Profit healthcare system:
CONCLUSION: We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.
The point I'd figured our when I read the original article is that Kaiser are selective in their clientèle and have a far smaller geriatric population to deal with then the NHS which would skew the figure by a huge margin.
Here's the assessed comparison between the UK NHS and the largest representative of the US Not-For-Profit healthcare system:
CONCLUSION: We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.
The point I'd figured our when I read the original article is that Kaiser are selective in their clientèle and have a far smaller geriatric population to deal with then the NHS which would skew the figure by a huge margin.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
So my real question, I suppose, is why are there no not-for-profit healthcare plans which aren't designed to feed patients into the generic rather than in-house for-profit hospitals? I'm quite sure they could get the best deal going, they'd not have an in-built preference for a single supplier to skew their costs. A not-for-profit heathplan designed around in-house for-profit medical centers isn't what I started out asking for. There's still a stack of shareholders skimming off their blood-money from the capitalist racket we just looked at.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
:-6
It would appear that a bad tooth or abscess can prove fatal in the USA if you a (A) Poor and (B) Black.
According to the BBC news yesterday.
God Bless
randall
:)
It would appear that a bad tooth or abscess can prove fatal in the USA if you a (A) Poor and (B) Black.
According to the BBC news yesterday.
God Bless
randall
:)
-
WonderWendy3
- Posts: 12412
- Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:44 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Lon;702889 wrote: NON PROFIT?
Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care organization, based in Oakland, California, founded in 1945 by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and physician Sidney R. Garfield. Kaiser Permanente is a consortium of three distinct groups of entities: the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and its regional operating organizations, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Permanente Medical Groups. As of 2006, Kaiser Permanente operates in nine states and Washington, D.C., and is the largest managed care organization in the United States. Kaiser Permanente has 8.5 million health plan members, 148,884 employees, 12,879 physicians, 37 medical centers, 400 medical offices, and $31.1 billion in annual operating revenues. The Health Plan and Hospitals operate under state and federal not-for-profit tax status, while the Medical Groups operate as for-profit partnerships or professional corporations in their respective regions.
My last employer provided Kaiser for me and my boys, it was awesome care and I was very pleased with the doctors every visit. The bad part was the location, but was worth it when we got there. My Dad's company had Kaiser as well, when I was a kid.
Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care organization, based in Oakland, California, founded in 1945 by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and physician Sidney R. Garfield. Kaiser Permanente is a consortium of three distinct groups of entities: the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and its regional operating organizations, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Permanente Medical Groups. As of 2006, Kaiser Permanente operates in nine states and Washington, D.C., and is the largest managed care organization in the United States. Kaiser Permanente has 8.5 million health plan members, 148,884 employees, 12,879 physicians, 37 medical centers, 400 medical offices, and $31.1 billion in annual operating revenues. The Health Plan and Hospitals operate under state and federal not-for-profit tax status, while the Medical Groups operate as for-profit partnerships or professional corporations in their respective regions.
My last employer provided Kaiser for me and my boys, it was awesome care and I was very pleased with the doctors every visit. The bad part was the location, but was worth it when we got there. My Dad's company had Kaiser as well, when I was a kid.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
posted by watermark
What's the least a worker would pay? That amount, $140.00 per week, is incredibly high by my standards. I know some households with 6 people that pay $200.00 per month for everyone (subsidized of course by employer, which may be corrupted by all the insurance garbage, but still) with a policy that has been flexible and responsive to the needs of the people covered.
I see spot has answered rev the amount. If a household has 6 people working then conceivably they are all paying the maximum-on the other hand of one works and the other 5 are unemployed, dependant or suffering from a chronic illness that stops them working then all will receive medical treatment regardless of their income. Nor will it be finite but for as long as they need it. If the main earner becomes unemployable through ill health then the last thing they will have to worry about is if they can afford the medical bills.
What happens if they are self employed with no employer to subsidise them?
posted by watermark
Someone mentioned that doctors may not all be good ones -I've been thinking that if everyone had same access to healthcare then wouldn't that place a greater demand on doctors and all involved, wouldn't one still have probs with quality? You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
You forget we tend to view education as a right as well. Poverty should not be a bar to further education and there are grants available although It's changed recently and there is an ongoing debate as to whether university education should be free.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4749575.stm
You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
The astronomical medical school debt is not an issue, Doctors are actually highly paid in this country, getting in to do medicine is very tough and based on your qualifications. Being rich doesn't help get you in if you happen to be thick as well.
In the UK it is the private doctors that are viewed as the charlatans with potentially dodgy qualifications not the NHS ones.
posted by watermark
Are you happy with your healthcare then? Sounds like you are. Do you have a doctor you like and know and who knows you? Have you been able to develop a relationship with your doctor, or are they all too busy and every visit is with a different doctor?
Speaking personally it's two or three years since I was at a doctor and couldn't even tell you the name of the one |I am registered with. like most males I tend to only visit when very ill or injured.
What's the least a worker would pay? That amount, $140.00 per week, is incredibly high by my standards. I know some households with 6 people that pay $200.00 per month for everyone (subsidized of course by employer, which may be corrupted by all the insurance garbage, but still) with a policy that has been flexible and responsive to the needs of the people covered.
I see spot has answered rev the amount. If a household has 6 people working then conceivably they are all paying the maximum-on the other hand of one works and the other 5 are unemployed, dependant or suffering from a chronic illness that stops them working then all will receive medical treatment regardless of their income. Nor will it be finite but for as long as they need it. If the main earner becomes unemployable through ill health then the last thing they will have to worry about is if they can afford the medical bills.
What happens if they are self employed with no employer to subsidise them?
posted by watermark
Someone mentioned that doctors may not all be good ones -I've been thinking that if everyone had same access to healthcare then wouldn't that place a greater demand on doctors and all involved, wouldn't one still have probs with quality? You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
You forget we tend to view education as a right as well. Poverty should not be a bar to further education and there are grants available although It's changed recently and there is an ongoing debate as to whether university education should be free.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4749575.stm
You know the supply and demand thing without the increase in salary for doctors and perhaps doctors wouldn't want to be in the profession anymore if they weren't being paid the astronomical salaries to pay back their astronomical medical school debt. Who would even choose to go into this profession?
The astronomical medical school debt is not an issue, Doctors are actually highly paid in this country, getting in to do medicine is very tough and based on your qualifications. Being rich doesn't help get you in if you happen to be thick as well.
In the UK it is the private doctors that are viewed as the charlatans with potentially dodgy qualifications not the NHS ones.
posted by watermark
Are you happy with your healthcare then? Sounds like you are. Do you have a doctor you like and know and who knows you? Have you been able to develop a relationship with your doctor, or are they all too busy and every visit is with a different doctor?
Speaking personally it's two or three years since I was at a doctor and couldn't even tell you the name of the one |I am registered with. like most males I tend to only visit when very ill or injured.
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Question:
US Insurance policys are so difficult to understand - My husband & I are looking into secondary insurance coverage and its so difficult.
Why can't health insurance policy be as easy to read & figure out as our car insurance. I read the car insurance and I know my coverage - I know my deductable, I know if towing is included.
Health Insurance goes into this Usual & Customary - which means if & when a serious problem occurs (they) the insurance company has the right to say yeh or neh??? But I'm paying the premiums for insurance to cover a procedure and they get the right to bow out of the commitment.
Insurance companys will let you die before they approve a procedure - they have to save the Buck.
These booklets are very confusing - and scarey to trust.
Patsy
US Insurance policys are so difficult to understand - My husband & I are looking into secondary insurance coverage and its so difficult.
Why can't health insurance policy be as easy to read & figure out as our car insurance. I read the car insurance and I know my coverage - I know my deductable, I know if towing is included.
Health Insurance goes into this Usual & Customary - which means if & when a serious problem occurs (they) the insurance company has the right to say yeh or neh??? But I'm paying the premiums for insurance to cover a procedure and they get the right to bow out of the commitment.
Insurance companys will let you die before they approve a procedure - they have to save the Buck.
These booklets are very confusing - and scarey to trust.
Patsy
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
There was a time long, long ago when the US Health Care System was pretty darn good. I would say that was in the late 70's early 80's since then it has been all down hill. HMO's have been the distruction of our Health Care delivery system. They run everything now. Patient as well as Doctor's have very little say it what they can do, or what the patient can receive period. Not the way medicine is suppose to be.
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Bryn Mawr;702910 wrote: The point I'd figured our when I read the original article is that Kaiser are selective in their clientèle and have a far smaller geriatric population to deal with then the NHS which would skew the figure by a huge margin.
haha- not for long. Never forget the baby boomers.
haha- not for long. Never forget the baby boomers.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
spot;702454 wrote: Capitalism is essentially a philosophy that throws the weak to the wall. You want it, you got it. As experiments go it's a lesson to the rest of us but it's not my business to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
The US system advocates greed at the expense of others, and that plain sucks.
Please humor me spot, because I'm, well, uh, I'm not so sharp when it comes to economics. Just tell me what your definition of capitalism is and what you think would work better than a capitalistic society? When someone without money or education decides they want a better life, independent of government help, what would you suggest they do? I know I don't have any business talking about these things. It just seems that any system that deals with so many people will have problems. I think that any system is dog eat dog. I think that there will always be inequality in distribution of wealth. That doesn't mean that someone who is poor should receive lower quality health care. Nor should they not receive an opportunity to become educated fair and square. Lots of stuff like this. But don't go and blame this on capitalism.
What I see as a problem is that my government (for example) has decided that they will override the sentiment of the majority of the people in this 'democratic' society to spend billions of dollars (per day? don't quote me :-5) on a senseless war that was absolutely ill advised (by me) to begin with. For that kind of money healthcare for the entire population of the world (like I said don't quote me on this I might be exagerating
) could receive good healthcare. No amount of picky analysis can refute my argument. Greed is a byproduct of seeing the trees for the forest.
Erin :-6
The US system advocates greed at the expense of others, and that plain sucks.
Please humor me spot, because I'm, well, uh, I'm not so sharp when it comes to economics. Just tell me what your definition of capitalism is and what you think would work better than a capitalistic society? When someone without money or education decides they want a better life, independent of government help, what would you suggest they do? I know I don't have any business talking about these things. It just seems that any system that deals with so many people will have problems. I think that any system is dog eat dog. I think that there will always be inequality in distribution of wealth. That doesn't mean that someone who is poor should receive lower quality health care. Nor should they not receive an opportunity to become educated fair and square. Lots of stuff like this. But don't go and blame this on capitalism.
What I see as a problem is that my government (for example) has decided that they will override the sentiment of the majority of the people in this 'democratic' society to spend billions of dollars (per day? don't quote me :-5) on a senseless war that was absolutely ill advised (by me) to begin with. For that kind of money healthcare for the entire population of the world (like I said don't quote me on this I might be exagerating
) could receive good healthcare. No amount of picky analysis can refute my argument. Greed is a byproduct of seeing the trees for the forest.Erin :-6
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
randall;702973 wrote: :-6
It would appear that a bad tooth or abscess can prove fatal in the USA if you a (A) Poor and (B) Black.
randall
:)
Nah, just have it pulled. Just like everyone did on this whole entire earth at one point in history.
It would appear that a bad tooth or abscess can prove fatal in the USA if you a (A) Poor and (B) Black.
randall
:)
Nah, just have it pulled. Just like everyone did on this whole entire earth at one point in history.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
spot;702791 wrote: That's how much a person pays if their gross annual income is $70,000 or higher. Below $10,000 they pay nothing. In between they pay on a linear scale.
What about someone who makes forty thousand a year with two kids? Or no kids?
I hate to quote myself but nobody went anywhere near this question, and I did so hope I might get an informed reply to it. I don't ask just for fun, you know.
:) What was your question again?
What about someone who makes forty thousand a year with two kids? Or no kids?
I hate to quote myself but nobody went anywhere near this question, and I did so hope I might get an informed reply to it. I don't ask just for fun, you know.
:) What was your question again?
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
spot;702925 wrote: So my real question, I suppose, is why are there no not-for-profit healthcare plans which aren't designed to feed patients into the generic rather than in-house for-profit hospitals? I'm quite sure they could get the best deal going, they'd not have an in-built preference for a single supplier to skew their costs. A not-for-profit heathplan designed around in-house for-profit medical centers isn't what I started out asking for. There's still a stack of shareholders skimming off their blood-money from the capitalist racket we just looked at.
Here, I share your opinion. Damn them, DAMN THEM! Nobody said all capitalists were good.
Here, I share your opinion. Damn them, DAMN THEM! Nobody said all capitalists were good.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
Nomad;702295 wrote: After seeing hospital staff step over and mop the floor around that lady that was dying in an LA hospital lobby and then having her arrested Im inclined to say our system needs tweaking.
Might have missed something but what do you mean, was there a story about this or something said prior in this thread? If you are saying that the staff of a hospital was insensitive, doing its job by cleaning, minding their own business, trying not to become involved- maybe they just wanted to get home quick, drink a beer, wrap their arms around their sweetheart, watch a little telly, forget about the troubles of the world- what's the issue? Are you complaining people aren't sensitive enough? Wow, then you ought to open your squinty eyes, cuz man that's not how people are taught to work anymore. Maybe it's just the time we're living in.
sarcasm intended.
Might have missed something but what do you mean, was there a story about this or something said prior in this thread? If you are saying that the staff of a hospital was insensitive, doing its job by cleaning, minding their own business, trying not to become involved- maybe they just wanted to get home quick, drink a beer, wrap their arms around their sweetheart, watch a little telly, forget about the troubles of the world- what's the issue? Are you complaining people aren't sensitive enough? Wow, then you ought to open your squinty eyes, cuz man that's not how people are taught to work anymore. Maybe it's just the time we're living in.
sarcasm intended.-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
watermark;703824 wrote: Might have missed something but what do you mean, was there a story about this or something said prior in this thread?
I just looked for the original thread but couldn't find it. Nomad was referring to the woman in this article:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ?cs=469926&
I just looked for the original thread but couldn't find it. Nomad was referring to the woman in this article:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ?cs=469926&
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
RedGlitter;703835 wrote: I just looked for the original thread but couldn't find it. Nomad was referring to the woman in this article:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ?cs=469926&
I'm sorry but that is the most damning indictment of a health system that I have ever seen.
Totally indefensible - it amount to manslaughter
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ?cs=469926&
I'm sorry but that is the most damning indictment of a health system that I have ever seen.
Totally indefensible - it amount to manslaughter
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
watermark;703812 wrote: Please humor me spot, because I'm, well, uh, I'm not so sharp when it comes to economics. Just tell me what your definition of capitalism is and what you think would work better than a capitalistic society? When someone without money or education decides they want a better life, independent of government help, what would you suggest they do? I know I don't have any business talking about these things. It just seems that any system that deals with so many people will have problems. I think that any system is dog eat dog. I think that there will always be inequality in distribution of wealth. That doesn't mean that someone who is poor should receive lower quality health care. Nor should they not receive an opportunity to become educated fair and square. Lots of stuff like this. But don't go and blame this on capitalism.
What I see as a problem is that my government (for example) has decided that they will override the sentiment of the majority of the people in this 'democratic' society to spend billions of dollars (per day? don't quote me :-5) on a senseless war that was absolutely ill advised (by me) to begin with. For that kind of money healthcare for the entire population of the world (like I said don't quote me on this I might be exagerating) could receive good healthcare. No amount of picky analysis can refute my argument. Greed is a byproduct of seeing the trees for the forest.
Erin :-6
I know I don't have any business talking about these things.
You live in a liberal democracy which incorporates aspects of both capitalism and socialism-the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and lots of other isms as well. As such your opinion carries as much weight as anyone else's and you should chin anyone that tries to convince you otherwise.
As an outsider I find the way Americans talk about these things sometimes a bit bizarre. Government seems to be something detached from you, You talk about government and rights and your freedom and how it's protected and what govt should and should do and then in the next poster chips in saying you have no right to demand govt does things for you like provide healthcare for all because it detracts from your freedom of choice and you don't have a right to tell your government to do something because they hadn't thought of it three hundred years ago so it's not written down somewhere. I'm surprised you ever let women vote and good grief one of them is even trying to be president.
What I see as a problem is that my government (for example) has decided that they will override the sentiment of the majority of the people in this 'democratic' society to spend billions of dollars (per day? don't quote me :-5) on a senseless war that was absolutely ill advised (by me) to begin with. For that kind of money healthcare for the entire population of the world (like I said don't quote me on this I might be exagerating
) could receive good healthcare. No amount of picky analysis can refute my argument. Greed is a byproduct of seeing the trees for the forest.Erin :-6
I know I don't have any business talking about these things.
You live in a liberal democracy which incorporates aspects of both capitalism and socialism-the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and lots of other isms as well. As such your opinion carries as much weight as anyone else's and you should chin anyone that tries to convince you otherwise.
As an outsider I find the way Americans talk about these things sometimes a bit bizarre. Government seems to be something detached from you, You talk about government and rights and your freedom and how it's protected and what govt should and should do and then in the next poster chips in saying you have no right to demand govt does things for you like provide healthcare for all because it detracts from your freedom of choice and you don't have a right to tell your government to do something because they hadn't thought of it three hundred years ago so it's not written down somewhere. I'm surprised you ever let women vote and good grief one of them is even trying to be president.
Poll - BTS v Bryn Mawr regarding health care - US posters only
:-6
(By GMC)
As an outsider I find the way Americans talk about these things sometimes a bit bizarre. Government seems to be something detached from you, You talk about government and rights and your freedom and how it's protected and what govt should and should do and then in the next poster chips in saying you have no right to demand govt does things for you like provide healthcare for all because it detracts from your freedom of choice and you don't have a right to tell your government to do something because they hadn't thought of it three hundred years ago so it's not written down somewhere. I'm surprised you ever let women vote and good grief one of them is even trying to be president.
Brilliant GMC you have described it much better than I could ever have done but I back up every word you say.
I had my wife in three hospitals in less than three hours without the mention of money - or the worry.
In 1953 I sat for three hours in a Staten Island Hospital totally ignored by doctors because the ship's agent forgot to tell them that his agency would be picking up the bill.
God Bless All
randall
:)
11/10/2007
(By GMC)
As an outsider I find the way Americans talk about these things sometimes a bit bizarre. Government seems to be something detached from you, You talk about government and rights and your freedom and how it's protected and what govt should and should do and then in the next poster chips in saying you have no right to demand govt does things for you like provide healthcare for all because it detracts from your freedom of choice and you don't have a right to tell your government to do something because they hadn't thought of it three hundred years ago so it's not written down somewhere. I'm surprised you ever let women vote and good grief one of them is even trying to be president.
Brilliant GMC you have described it much better than I could ever have done but I back up every word you say.
I had my wife in three hospitals in less than three hours without the mention of money - or the worry.
In 1953 I sat for three hours in a Staten Island Hospital totally ignored by doctors because the ship's agent forgot to tell them that his agency would be picking up the bill.
God Bless All
randall
:)
11/10/2007