flipper wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:11:08 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

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

My bad, I meant strict 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.

So did Mussolini.

That doesn't save your point. If you have evidence that Obamacare
providers are to be lawsuit-proof, now would be a good time.



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

It is a combined graph of cost, life expectancies, and 'number of
visits' and cutting 'cost' spent for 'marginal return', meaning the
elderly and young, is precisely the mechanism espoused by Obama
appointees in their writings..

That doesn't save your point. You can't have America so low on the life
expectancies axis, then claim that the alternative under universal health
care in case of terminal illness is just 'dying off'.