flipper wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:23:37 -0500, Rich Webb
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:06:24 -0500, "Oppie" wrote:

"Jim Thompson"
/Snicker wrote in
message ...
Important Health Care Announcement...

Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
accept future Medicare patients, etc...

http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/...care-payments/

...Jim Thompson

Was listening to the radio today. I think that it was the
substitute for Rush Limbaugh...
They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve
for health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital),
they negotiate a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower
than the normal insurance rate.

What does this say about another layer of middlemen and bureaucrats
that would only further raise the costs of care when government
gets involved?

Obama care aside. It is pretty pathetic that insurance as it is
increases the care provider's costs so. A while back I needed to
get an orthotics device (drop foot brace) for my wife. Surgical
supply store quoted something like $275. I balked but took out my
checkbook. The owner thought a minute and reduced the price by
almost 50% since I paid 'cash' and he wouldn't have to wait for
reimbursement.

...Oppie

It's probably been mentioned before, but this graphic from that
well-known lefty marxist rag, National Geographic (*National*, get
it? How much more of an admission of a socialist -- or National
Socialist -- agenda is needed? Scary stuff!) is pretty telling:

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/20...t-of-care.html

The problem with simplistic graphs and explanations is precisely that
they're baby talk simplistic.

For example, one of the reasons for the "unneeded treatment," as they
put it, is ass covering for law suits due to the "absolute liability"
principle U.S. courts have placed on the system.

No such thing has occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability





"Government"
healthcare sure does solve that 'problem' because you can't sue the
government and the 'remedy' is whatever the government, not a
'sympathetic' jury, decides to provide.

Sorry, Obamacare uses private providers.



Whether you think that's 'better' is another matter but there are ways
to improve the problem without government running everything.

Another is that equipment and treatment is much more readily available
in the U.S., and that costs money. Another is that, in the U.S.,
'heroic' effort at end of life is common, and that costs a heap of
money. Now, whether you think it's 'better' to wait 6 months to see a
specialist and that when you get a 'terminal illness' it's appropriate
to just die off and get out of the way to 'save money' is a 'good
thing'

The graphic is of life expectancies, making this a line of bull****. lol