wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
terry wrote:
There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.

We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
And we understand there is something called Medicaid?

Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Hi,
Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.

Do they have "death lists" for granny and gramps? ) What the poor,
ignorant Americans don't realize is that granny and gramps, when they go
to the nursing home, get great care - well, sort of - until Medicare or
their own money runs out. Then they go to the "hopeless" list,
entertained with Bingo games, unidentifiable food, and not much prospect
of rehabilitation. Rehab meaning to increase their function to the max.
possible for their medical condition - like walking to the dining room,
not back to running marathons. The PR is fantastic - granny gets hosed
down at least twice a week in a multi-stall shower room, gets her face
washed and lipstick slathered on daily, and kept in diapers if she isn't
up to running to the toilet without assistance. This is quite fine with
those Americans who favor corporate profit and began voting like
corporate board members when they bought their first share of stock.
Granny is out of the f------ way and her estate might turn a few bucks
when she is gone.


Most dumb *******s don't know that if GOOD CARE was rendered, granny
might be able to walk around living quarters, use a toilet, not suffer
from untreated conditions that might require "risky" treatment or
surgery. Load her with pills every time a new side effect comes along,
give her some magical antidepressants and cholesterol drugs so she will
think she is "happy" and actually receiving treatment that is best for
her. There are hours and hours and hours of paperwork done by nurses,
physicians, pharmacists, dieticians, activity directors, physical
therapists, all making treatment plans that are garbage, and then
writing volumes about how the "plan" ain't working.

When I last worked in a nursing home, I remember a plate of food being
served - cold - that had three unidentifiable items on it. It looked
like samples of stool for some poor human with a rare disease of the GI
system. Family Values? Christian Coalition? Compassionate
Conservatives? What insufferable, hypocritical b.s.

I went with my father to do a site survey for some remodeling, at a
nursing home once. He was visibly shaken by what he saw, and this is a
man who went through WWII living in shacks and in the woods, eating what
he could scrounge. Afterward, he told me in no uncertain terms to NEVER
put him in a place like that, and started reading up on Hemlock Society.
I mostly share his opinion about such places. If I get to the point I
can't wipe my own ass, and I'm not really aware of my surroundings, I
have no desire to stick around. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to do
something about it in time. If I'm really lucky, I'll just go quietly in
my sleep one night, at home.

--
aem sends...

dpb wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
dpb wrote:

IMO that switch to the mentality of insurance covering all the minor
dings and nicks of ordinary care that has had a major influence in
driving up demand/costs since it developed the mindset that "it's
paid for, why not?" for every little sniffle or hangnail.

Yepper. We essentially have gotten away from health insurance (with
insurance defined as taking a large but rare risk and spreading over a
number of people) when we got away from the old Major Medical and got
into paying for Dr. visits and first dollar RX.

And that seems (to have started as a "benefits arms race" when
employment rates were high and employers needed advantages to
attract/retain better-qualified workers for the professional/skilled
exacerbated by the labor unions when employers were flush-enough it was
easier to capitulate than fight. Now, chickens have come or are coming
home to roost...

--


ISTR employer-paid health plans gained most of their modern traction as
an end-run around WWII wage controls? Since everybody paid the same, and
the supply of skilled available workers was choked off by the draft, the
only way a company could get more people was by ramping up the bennies?


--
aem sends...

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Stormin Mormon
wrote:

About 1/4 as much as if the government handled it all.
Then why does USA gubmint spend as high a percentage of GDP on
health coverage as is spent by gubmints of other western nations
who do handle it all?

It's not the U.S. government that's paying, it's the individual.

We pay more a higher percentage of GDP because we CAN.

Once diagnosed with a chronic disease like cancer or heart failure,
the five year survival rate in the U.S. is greater, sometimes far
greater, than
Because in the US we are fatter and sicker younger.

elsewhere. For example, the five year survival rate for men
diagnosed with prostate cancer is better than 95%. In the UK, it is
56% (and in the high 80s in Canada).
That's ridiculous. 56% in UK? Where did you get that number?

I usually just make up the numbers based on my experience. Turns out I was
being overly generous for both. Here are the actual statistics:


5-year survival rate for prostate cancer
US - 92%
UK - 51%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

Survival rates, male, all cancers.
US - 66%
UK - (Wales 48%, England 45%, Scotland 40%)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...in-Europe.html

This first article also states: "...some of the differences could be
attributed to variations in 'access to diagnostic and treatment services.
This, of course, is associated with the amount of investment in technology
such as CT scanners.' "

The UK has about 9 CT scanners per million people, the US has about 33
http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index....han-world.html

(Australia has even more than the U.S. I think it's because of the
kangaroos.)


Wonder what the numbers look like when adjusted for age of the patient
at first diagnosis. Saw in the papers a year or so back where AMA is now
saying if an 80 YO is diagnosed, no point in treating, because in all
odds he will die of something else before he becomes symptomatic.

--
aem sends...

terry wrote:
There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.

We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at all?
And we understand there is something called Medicaid?

Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?

I hope that before any healthcare legislation gets voted on that people
will stop spreading the insane hysteria about killing granny and INFORM
THEMSELVES, Invite your family doc over for a barbecue. Take a tour of
a nursing home, have a chat with some of the nurses - not the DON - and
find out what an incredible waste of money is going on. There is EASILY
enough money in current costs to pay for good healthcare coverage for
everyone.

Try to remember that some corporations are vitally important, that their
profits furnish us with new and effective treatments. Anyone remember
the days before polio vaccine? Before antibiotics? Before pacemakers?
Before joint implants?

Every damn Walgreens pharmacy has a CVS across the street from it. How
do they do it?

Nursing home chains are responsible, by law, to their shareholders.
They operate to cheat patients out of any possible "extras", to minimize
costs, to furnish goods with a profit. They build new homes, furnish
them with expensive looking stuff that will reek of urine.

Time for folks to be creative - to start small co-ops to care for a few
of their spouses or parents, to volunteer to provide care, to share
housing among a few elders who can help themselves.....there are lots of
ways for baby boomers to provide for themselves if there is family and
community support wise and informed enough to try something new.

aemeijers wrote:


Wonder what the numbers look like when adjusted for age of the patient
at first diagnosis. Saw in the papers a year or so back where AMA is
now saying if an 80 YO is diagnosed, no point in treating, because in
all odds he will die of something else before he becomes symptomatic.

Not just 80-year olds.

For just about anybody with prostate cancer, the first regimen is "watchful
waiting." Most prostate cancers are extremely slow growing and usually do
not metastasize.

aemeijers wrote:
I'll just go quietly in my sleep one night, at home.

Yep. My grandfather died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming and gripped
with fear like the passengers in his car.

"dpb" wrote in message

Have to actually read the legislation/requirements but doesn't sound as
though that would be the way, superficially. In particular, doesn't sound
as though the consequences are of any serious import or couldn't be worked
around so easily as to be of no consequence.

--

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2subto...m&sid=massgov2

The penalty is less than the cost of buying insurance
The maximum penalty for tax year 2009 will be $89 a month ($1,068 for an
entire year of non-compliance) for a person 27 or older with income over 300
percent of the federal poverty level ($31,212 or more for singles). The 2008
penalty for this same individual was $76 per month or $912 per year. The
maximum penalty increased slightly compared to 2008 due to slight increases
in health plan prices and the requirement that individuals have prescription
drug coverage as of Jan. 1, 2009. The penalty for those with incomes over
300 percent of the federal poverty level and ages 18-26 will be $52 per
month ($624 per year).

Kurt Ullman wrote:

It would cost more, much more, to categorize the population (i.e.,
quarterly blood tests, etc.), than to just deal with the larger
group and have everything average out.

Nah, yearly mandatory physicals. THAT would go over real well. .

Doctor Robert S. Mendelson wrote that the biggest threat to your health is
the yearly physical exam. A comprehensive exam will test for over 200 things
and NOBODY can score 'normal' on all 200. The diligent physician, then, will
begin to treat the 'abnormality' and his treatment stands a good chance of
screwing up everything else. Your body has learned to live with a slightly
elevated Cobalthorim-G. Just let it go, man.


Further, the notion that "prevention" is cheaper than the result has
been debunked over and over. In the case of diabetes, for example,
periodic blood tests and medicine for twenty years is WAY more
expensive than the occasional foot amputation.

Of course that would be a good statistic if amputations of the foot
were the only adverse event. But when you bring in the totality
(especially the cardiovascular components), the prevention stuff works
MUCH better.

There's plenty of time to treat the condition after symptoms become
apparent. Quarterly tests to detect the incipient symptoms are a HUGE waste
of money.

wrote:
I hope that before any healthcare legislation gets voted on that
people will stop spreading the insane hysteria about killing granny
and INFORM THEMSELVES, Invite your family doc over for a barbecue. Take a
tour of a nursing home, have a chat with some of the nurses -
not the DON - and find out what an incredible waste of money is going
on. There is EASILY enough money in current costs to pay for good
healthcare coverage for everyone.

Could be, but I'm reminded of the logistical problem in a cavalry regiment.
On a campaign of 100 mounted troopers, one wagon of hay was required for
each ten horses. That's ten wagons of hay. But the wagons were drawn by two
mules who also needed hay. So, for twenty mules, an extra two wagons were
required. but that meant four more mules and one more wagon. And so on.

To eliminate the waste in the healthcare system, more oversight is required.
These green-eyeshade types, wearing decorative sleeve-garters, in turn,
would need managers, and the managers need supervisors, and the supervisors
need directors. All in the loop need manuals, guidelines, studies, reports,
standards, exceptions to the standards, lawyers, investigations, notaries
public without number, and so on.

In a perfect system, a pharmacist who dropped a pill on the floor, then
stepped on it, would have to fill out forms in triplicate, attend a board of
inquiry, and stand by while committees were formed, new guidelines developed
and promulgated, and fussing without end ensued to ensure this ghastly waste
never recurred.


Try to remember that some corporations are vitally important, that
their profits furnish us with new and effective treatments. Anyone
remember the days before polio vaccine? Before antibiotics? Before
pacemakers? Before joint implants?

Screw all that! I remember a world before breast augmentation. The world was
a dismal place indeed.


Every damn Walgreens pharmacy has a CVS across the street from it. How
do they do it?

Competition. Lower prices. Better service.


Nursing home chains are responsible, by law, to their shareholders.
They operate to cheat patients out of any possible "extras", to
minimize costs, to furnish goods with a profit. They build new
homes, furnish them with expensive looking stuff that will reek of
urine.

And if they get no "residents" the profit to the shareholders goes to zero.
The fault is not with the nursing home - they are catering to a particular
class of people. On the other hand, there ARE nursing homes that can compete
with the finest hotels. It's all in the choice of the client.


Time for folks to be creative - to start small co-ops to care for a
few of their spouses or parents, to volunteer to provide care, to
share housing among a few elders who can help themselves.....there
are lots of ways for baby boomers to provide for themselves if there
is family and community support wise and informed enough to try
something new.

Society used to have such a thing. It was called children and grand-kids.

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:34:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
I'll just go quietly in my sleep one night, at home.

Yep. My grandfather died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming and gripped
with fear like the passengers in his car.


My grandfather died after a sexual encounter down the dirt road. What
a way to die at age 68!

wrote:

I hope that before any healthcare legislation gets voted on that people
will stop spreading the insane hysteria about killing granny and INFORM
THEMSELVES, Invite your family doc over for a barbecue. Take a tour of
a nursing home, have a chat with some of the nurses - not the DON - and
find out what an incredible waste of money is going on. There is EASILY
enough money in current costs to pay for good healthcare coverage for
everyone.

My late parents in UK got financial assistance (no means test) to pay
somebody to cook and clean for them for a few hours each week. The nurse
came to the house to take blood samples, check bp, etc. Saved everybody
the cost of assisted living or a nursing home.

Try to remember that some corporations are vitally important, that their
profits furnish us with new and effective treatments. Anyone remember
the days before polio vaccine? Before antibiotics? Before pacemakers?
Before joint implants?

Every damn Walgreens pharmacy has a CVS across the street from it. How
do they do it?

Maybe where you live. We have three or four Walgreens in town and two or
three independent pharmacies. No CVS for almost 20 miles.

In NY we had CVS but AFAIR no Walgreens.

Perce

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

ISTR employer-paid health plans gained most of their modern traction as
an end-run around WWII wage controls? Since everybody paid the same, and
the supply of skilled available workers was choked off by the draft, the
only way a company could get more people was by ramping up the bennies?

Yep. It was away for the government to quiet down some people
without violating the wage controls in place. Government expediency
coming back to bite us on the ass later on. Who coulda seen that coming.
(g).
aem sends...

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


For just about anybody with prostate cancer, the first regimen is "watchful
waiting." Most prostate cancers are extremely slow growing and usually do
not metastasize.

Many but not most. The first regimen is get the biopsy and the
histology done, THEN decide on what you want to do.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
Have to actually read the legislation/requirements but doesn't sound as
though that would be the way, superficially. In particular, doesn't sound
as though the consequences are of any serious import or couldn't be worked
around so easily as to be of no consequence.

--

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2subto...m&sid=massgov2

The penalty is less than the cost of buying insurance
The maximum penalty for tax year 2009 will be $89 a month ($1,068 for an
entire year of non-compliance) for a person 27 or older with income over 300
percent of the federal poverty level ($31,212 or more for singles). The 2008
penalty for this same individual was $76 per month or $912 per year. The
maximum penalty increased slightly compared to 2008 due to slight increases
in health plan prices and the requirement that individuals have prescription
drug coverage as of Jan. 1, 2009. The penalty for those with incomes over
300 percent of the federal poverty level and ages 18-26 will be $52 per
month ($624 per year).

Totally futile...

--

In article , Doug Miller wrote:
In , wrote:
[...]
USA-specific high rate of gun ownership contributes to USA-specific
high rate of big-ticket medical costs from bullet wounds.

Interestingly enough, while the per capita rate of firearm violence in Canada
is significantly lower than in the U.S., the per capita rate of firearm
ownership in Canada vs. the U.S. is lower still -- thus the rate of firearm
violence per firearm, or per firearm owner, is actually higher in Canada!

I do agree that most of USA's freedom-loving gun owners, or even
most of USA's "freedom-loving outlaws", are responsible honest folks
who do a decent job of following their consciences.

There still is the matter of gun-toting criminals who get their guns
in USA, at a higher rate than "common criminals" achieve in the countries
where only outlaws have guns.

Not that I expect much of a solution in the gun-loving USA that has
freedom-lovers that are quick to be "freedom-loving outlaws"...

I do wish that USA would have regulation of federal licenses to
buy/sell/trade guns across state lines regulated somewhat more than the
current case of:

Licence to do so, as in the form usually used by retailers of "modern"
firearms, is granted to applicant if the applicant is not found to be a
felon or disqualifyingly mentally ill within 45 days after applying for
such license. This license is *NOT* disqualified by the applicant lacking
ownership or lease of retail business property. This license is also
*NOT denied* if its applicant lacks any required local business licenses
or any locally-required business tax filings.

I do concede that count of such licensees dropped by almost 50% during
the Clinton Administration.

However, I do want to point out that ATF "routine investigations" of
"licensed gun dealers" have severe limitations by primarily funding and
secondarily limiting scope of investigations to "Book Of Acquisions and
Dispositions", and Federal scrutiny otherwise is limited to where FBI is
allowed to get involved (such as "at-most" where USA Federal authority is
established over "gun traces having loose ends").

- Don Klipstein )

In , Kurt
Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

What the employer pays for FICA or health insurance premiums is
non-taxable employee compensation/benefit. The gubmint effectively
subsidizes health insurance by allowing employers to pay premiums with the
money spent there deducted from the company's income tax and not
contributing to the employee's taxable income.


This write off (AKA "tax expenditures" in the lexicon of
Congresscritter) is the largest one by far. It is about 1/3 bigger than
the second... another market twister known as the mortgage deduction.

Furthermore, USA now has special tax-reducing savings accounts for money
restricted to spending on the specific industries of healthcare and
education. How have the prices of products/services of these industries
compared to the Consumer Price Index? How have industries outside these
two fared in comparison to these two in USA?

You will note that the two major areas of life that refuse to stay
within the inflation of the CPI are the two areas where the government
plays the biggest role in helping to finance it. Coincidence? I think
not!

I do note how these 2 "industries" of USA get subsidized towards
"hyper-inflation" by USA taxation policy.

I would blame "The Lobbyists" and the legislators voted into or
staying-in "legislative offices" with significant help from, "charitably":
The portion of America's voters that are in the bottom-49% in
"intelligence"

- Don Klipstein )

dpb wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
...
healthcare, while millions of Americans choose to not get health
insurance
because choosing health insurance would certainly bankrupt them, ...

That's gross over-exaggeration--mostly in those who simply choose not to
are the young and healthy that simply choose to spend on other
self-indulgences rather than something as mundane as health
insurance...TheDoofus ex-SIL as the cardinal exhibit that dropped
(despite court order) coverage for his kids to buy a racing bike instead
leaving DIL w/ hospital bill for young g-daughter...

A major problem in the US is the rise of the entitlement mentality and
concomitant lack of personal responsibility for actions (and subsequent
expectation of somebody else picking up for consequences of lack of same).

There are issues to be addressed/resolved certainly, but surely nothing
proposed so far is going to be very successful and is certainly going to
drive expenditures thru the roof (which have already gotten a running
start on w/o even adding health care program increases). The
fundamental problem is there simply aren't enough printing presses in
existence to manufacture the kind of money they're talking...

--
Hi,
I often hear down there folks go bankrupt due to serious medical
expenditures. Up here never heard of it.

cshenk wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

And I thank you for that, being one of them. My costs are 478$ a year
just now. There is talk about doubling or tripling it but haven't seen
it happen yet. I do not have vision or dental care though. Those
policy additions are cheaper to get 'out in town' than via the government.

It was medical free before I honorably retired but the family didnt have
dental unless I paid extra and the dental plan for family was so poor,
it was actually better in the end to put the money on the side and just
pay as needed. The dental for example has a lifetime cap of 1,500$.

The 'vision plan' BTW is 'space available' and there has never been
space for dependants in my 26 years except in Sasebo Japan and for the
school age kids only. (it was impossible to find a local optometrist who
spoke enough english to give a child an eye test so once a year they'ed
bring one in).

Then again, this was listed as why my pay was 'comparable' to civilian
work of the same sort for 26 years of my life in the Navy. In fact,
they would calculate the 'medical benefits' as 3,000$ a month offset at
the end. They also said the access to 3 stair steppers, 4 sets of
weights, and 1 broken stationary bicycle (shared by 300 crew and 700
marines) was equal to spa level accomodations at another 500$ a month
and equated my job to that of a first year data entry job. When I
retired, I got hired the next day by a good company. I get dental for
the whole family for 12$ a month with a 2,000$ per person annual cap,
and the medical is not bad at 38.50 per month per person. The problem
with the medical is they will not cover any 'pre-existing conditions'
for the first 3 years of employment and require a physical I will not
pass being 50% disabled (partly war injury related in the gulf).

BTW, do you normally get shot at in your line of work? I've had that
happen several times. 2 speed boat attacks, a diver who tried to plant
a bomb on the sides, stuff like that.

I'm not so worried that your tax dollars pay for my health plan as it
was part of the reason why my pay was so low. What I do think is an
embrassament is that the pay is so low, a young E5 (this is middle rank,
takes years to get normally) will qualify for food stamps if he has a
wife and 2 kids and she can't get a good job because he's moving every
2-3 years. It used to be an E6 with only 2 dependants qualified and I
was one of them that served during that era.
Hi,
Isn't that sickening? Black water guys usually make at least $600.00 a
day. and they are not accountable to anyone if they happen to do bad
things. Like murdering a civilian. I worked as GS-11/13 civilian on
military comm. networks worldwide. Used to get shot at from now and then
depending where I was on TDY. I understand what you mean. Interesting
thing is the guys doing bad things all claim they are die hard Christians.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

-snip-
In NY we had CVS but AFAIR no Walgreens.


Walgreens made a shot at the Capital district a few years ago. 2
stores on the same road a few miles apart.

Now the closest one is in Catskill- 30-40 miles away. The Rite
Aids across the intersection from those Walgreens are still going
strong.

Jim

Don Klipstein wrote:

I do agree that most of USA's freedom-loving gun owners, or even
most of USA's "freedom-loving outlaws", are responsible honest folks
who do a decent job of following their consciences.

There still is the matter of gun-toting criminals who get their guns
in USA, at a higher rate than "common criminals" achieve in the
countries where only outlaws have guns.

Not that I expect much of a solution in the gun-loving USA that has
freedom-lovers that are quick to be "freedom-loving outlaws"...

I do wish that USA would have regulation of federal licenses to
buy/sell/trade guns across state lines regulated somewhat more than
the current case of:

Sigh. By federal law, one cannot obtain a gun across state lines from a
dealer or an individual. If I want to buy a gun from a dealer or individual
in another state, the gun must be shipped to a dealer in my state. I must
then present my bone-fides to my local dealer to obtain the gun.


Licence to do so, as in the form usually used by retailers of
"modern" firearms, is granted to applicant if the applicant is not
found to be a felon or disqualifyingly mentally ill within 45 days
after applying for such license. This license is *NOT* disqualified
by the applicant lacking ownership or lease of retail business
property. This license is also *NOT denied* if its applicant lacks
any required local business licenses or any locally-required business
tax filings.

I do concede that count of such licensees dropped by almost 50%
during the Clinton Administration.

That's because, contrary to your earlier assertion, the BATF imposed new
rules on FFL dealers (such as having premises open to the public) and by
raising the price of a license by a factor of seven.


However, I do want to point out that ATF "routine investigations" of
"licensed gun dealers" have severe limitations by primarily funding
and secondarily limiting scope of investigations to "Book Of
Acquisions and Dispositions", and Federal scrutiny otherwise is
limited to where FBI is allowed to get involved (such as "at-most"
where USA Federal authority is established over "gun traces having
loose ends").


Criminals almost never obtain their weapons directly from a
federally-licensed dealer. A vanishingly small percentage of crimes are
committed with guns legally purchased by the perp. When you remove crimes of
passion (wife shooting husband), the percentage of crimes from lawfully
obtained guns almost disappears.

The BATF has better things to do with its resources than hassle gun dealers.
When duck hunting, you go where the ducks are. There just are no ducks at
the gun store.

Then, after the inital medicine has side effect, another
drug to treat the induced side effect. After a while, you're
on 20 different pills.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Nah, yearly mandatory physicals. THAT would go over real
well. .

Doctor Robert S. Mendelson wrote that the biggest threat to
your health is
the yearly physical exam. A comprehensive exam will test for
over 200 things
and NOBODY can score 'normal' on all 200. The diligent
physician, then, will
begin to treat the 'abnormality' and his treatment stands a
good chance of
screwing up everything else. Your body has learned to live
with a slightly
elevated Cobalthorim-G. Just let it go, man.

Money that goes some where, I'd expect.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


There's plenty of time to treat the condition after symptoms
become
apparent. Quarterly tests to detect the incipient symptoms
are a HUGE waste
of money.

In the Rochester NY area, Walgreens are very common, and
only in the last few years. Also many of them in cities near
Rochester.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

-snip-
In NY we had CVS but AFAIR no Walgreens.


Walgreens made a shot at the Capital district a few years
ago. 2
stores on the same road a few miles apart.

Now the closest one is in Catskill- 30-40 miles away.
The Rite
Aids across the intersection from those Walgreens are still
going
strong.

Jim

"RobertPatrick" wrote
Tony Hwang wrote

I often hear down there folks go bankrupt due to serious medical
expenditures. Up here never heard of it.

It also happens to people whose insurance company dumps them.
The company doesn't want to pay for the treatment.

Correct. Due to medical issues gained in the service, I am 'uninsurable'.
I am 50% disabled.
I have the company insurance for catostrophic but only the policy to protect
my income as they will not cover my pre-existing conditions under any other
of their policies. Able to work some types of jobs with a bit of job
accomodation (which the current one fits with no problem) which keeps me
happy and off the public dole.

"Tony Hwang" wrote
cshenk wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

And I thank you for that, being one of them. My costs are 478$ a year
just now. There is talk about doubling or tripling it but haven't seen
it happen yet. I do not have vision or dental care though. Those policy
additions are cheaper to get 'out in town' than via the government.
(snip)

Hi,
Isn't that sickening? Black water guys usually make at least $600.00 a
day. and they are not accountable to anyone if they happen to do bad
things. Like murdering a civilian. I worked as GS-11/13 civilian on
military comm. networks worldwide. Used to get shot at from now and then
depending where I was on TDY. I understand what you mean. Interesting
thing is the guys doing bad things all claim they are die hard Christians.

Well, USA pay isnt that high (grin). I'm now in a nice GS-11 equivalent job
with the money spec'd as contractor (this may change). I used to work in
Military Comms, but now I do SQL analyst type things (desk job) and a 'sorta
between tier 1 and tier 2' SQL programming (working on my skills to hit true
tier 2 but not there yet). No more getting chased by speed boats in the
gulf or swimmer attacks at the pier ;-)

Tony Hwang wrote:
....
I often hear down there folks go bankrupt due to serious medical
expenditures. Up here never heard of it.

Well, it does happen; the number is certainly being overplayed just now
in particular I think.

Again, certainly there could be/should be some modifications; from what
I observed in Canuckland and listening to the expatriate physicians
who've emigrated it's certainly not convincing to me that that is the
direction in which to solve the problems...

--

"dpb" wrote:

Again, certainly there could be/should be some modifications; from what I
observed in Canuckland and listening to the expatriate physicians who've
emigrated it's certainly not convincing to me that that is the direction
in which to solve the problems...

Grin, what folks 'want' reallly is a free ride with a 'policy' similar to
the highest rate Blue Cross, Blue Shield coverage and no payment nor rise in
their taxes. Even our local yahoo community group here had a thread on it
and when cost came up, all they could offer was a higher tax on items the
people themselves didnt care about. Nannyism stuff like higher beer and
cigs 'because you shouldnt do that anyways'.

Fact, to get that level, it would cost about 12,000$ per year per person
here. People who do have that level of coverage, want to keep it. People
who don't, want it but are either unwilling or unable to pay for it and want
others to pay for them.

Sometimes you get the 'you owe me because I'm poor and can't find a job'.

Often talking with such folks, it's a true situation due to narrow job
skills but I never let that stop *me* from flipping burgers if for a time
thats all I could get. Sometimes it's folks like me now, (medical issues,
can not stand more than 15 mins without pain, can not lift more than 20 lbs
without risk of injury) which puts a major crimp in the ability to get the
simple standby jobs like cashier etc. Other times it's a real but not
lifelong problem (3-4 kids, can't afford childcare unless the job pays well
enough, later have to match hours to school or be able to pay aftercare).

BTW, the natural for the one with 3-4 kids would be operate a home daycare,
but that's not always possible due to laws in some places and number of
kids. Like here, 1 adult per 4 toddlers and she/he would already be at
limit and not 'legal' to take in more.

It's the 'you owe me because I'm poor' without any good reason to not be
working, flipping burgers or stocking walmart shelves for a time, that irk
me. I have no problem with the above set with real reasons, even if
temporary (childcare, elder parent care) but I have a big problem footing
the bill for those who are healthy and just *will not* work to meet us
taxpayers half way on this. TANSTAAFL

Even then though, I could wrap my mind about it for catostrophic care and
some form of basic insurance free for all with a set of tiers for upper
level (lower co-pay etc) services you pay for. In lands with 'free medical'
add-on policies from commercial companys do this. It would be the same
here.

One misunderstood thing is that the person with validated disability,
already *has* some level of care, often medicare/medicaid /SSDI regardless
of their age. The problem there is if they *do* happen to find a job they
can work at, they can't make more than a certain amount per year or they
lose that coverage, yet can not get insurance for any price. If I were not
retired military with Tricare, that would be me.

On 30 Aug 2009 21:10:38 GMT, RobertPatrick wrote:

Jim Elbrecht wrote in
:

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

-snip-
In NY we had CVS but AFAIR no Walgreens.


Walgreens made a shot at the Capital district a few years ago. 2
stores on the same road a few miles apart.

Now the closest one is in Catskill- 30-40 miles away. The Rite
Aids across the intersection from those Walgreens are still going
strong.

Jim


We have 2 Walgreens on the same road about 2 miles apart. And 2 RiteAids
about 1 mile apart. But no CVS. Why or why not! lol.
It must be due to the with the high ratio of older people in town.
Hell, here in Philly we got a CVS, 2 blocks away. A rite aid 4 blocks
away. And all around wally greens and you name it. Drug stores galore.
No wonder so many are addicted to drugs.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Then, after the inital medicine has side effect, another
drug to treat the induced side effect. After a while, you're
on 20 different pills.


A clever physician can handle complications.

In the book "House of God" the resident in internal medicine finds a Gomer*
with slightly elevated blood sugar. She begins treating this condition. The
Sodium levels then go haywire. She treats that. The kidneys shut down and
the Potassium level spikes putting the heart at risk. An external pacemaker
is ordered. The patient is plugged up to a dialysis machine.

The resident turns the patient over to an intern to manage.

It takes two weeks, but the intern manages to get everything disconnected
and the patient returned to the original condition.

The intern then fakes the final lab test and enters a normal blood sugar
level on the patient's chart.

The intern gets an big atta-boy for managing a difficult case.

Law #3 of the House of God: "The best medicine is to do as much nothing as
possible."

------------
* Gomer - Get Out of My Emergency Room
Law #1 - Gomers don't die. You can kill them, but they don't die. Little
children die. Doctors die. People with a reason to live die. Gomers don't
die. They are used to "practice" medicine.
Law #2 - Gomers go to ground. In spite of bed restraints and constant
supervision, Gomers will fall out of the bed. Gomers will fall out of
wheelchairs. Gomers will fall off the floor.

There are about ten more rules. I leave it to the reader to discover them.

On Aug 28, 2:32*pm, "EXT" wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
terry wrote:
There's been so much debate here and on other forums about Universal
US health care (pro and con) that one gets curious about how much it
NOW costs, say, the average US family, to have 'Health Insurance'.

We guess that the cost is either fully paid by the subscriber?
Or in other cases, partly by the subscriber and partly by their
employer?
Then there are others, we gather who have no health insurance at
all? And we understand there is something called Medicaid?

Insurance cost numbers a) As little as 'a few hundred' b) Over
$12,000, per year have been mentioned?.

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Hi,
Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything. No
premium payment. Our system is not perfect but everyone *is taken care
of. I understand U.S. spends more than us per capita on health care.
And many are left out? That is something I don't understand.
To me health care is service for the public, not profit generating
business.

Well Alberta is a Province that is rich with oil and gas revenues. That is
why they have no health care surcharges nor sales tax.

In Ontario, it is a different story. In addition to part of our Federal and
Provincial Income Taxes covering health care, every employer has to pay a
head tax, sometimes called a payroll tax to cover health care plus every
wage earner has to pay a surcharge on their Provinical income tax to the
amount of about $550.00 per year. The only people who get free health care
are the unemployed, retired, welfare cases and ill people who do not earn
any wages. Doing it this way evens the cost over everyone. This is only for
basic health and hospital care. Drugs, dental and other costs are paid by
suplimental insurance or out of our pockets.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes that is much as it in this part of Canada. And we are not
pretending everything is perfect or without any problems.
But when I go for any medical procedure the person I get the same
priority as the person next to me. Witness those investigations into
imperfect laboratory cancer detecetion work. And the firing of a
coroner in one province!

Had agreed with my doc to have (The long form, 12 hour fasting one)
follow up blood test within a month or six weeks. So last Friday I
decided to go have samples taken. My family GP will have the results
(electronically) probably tomorrow, Tuesday. So have just made
appointment to see her to review results and a swelling problem with
my right foot, this coming Thursday. If it was more urgent I would go
a hospital ER. Where waiting times can be long!

There are and will be no charges; except the cost of my gasoline to
drive to blood collection; I choose the hospital where parking is
easy, the staff are pleasant and waiting times are short. Bernice the
regular receptionist was on vacation!

It's all paid for through taxes. Canada is one of many (westernized
anyway) countries that have government funded, THAT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN GOVERNMENT 'RUN', health care schemes that cover
'most' if not all of their population.

With successful European, Scandinavian and other successful national
health care systems operating for the last 50 years etc. it seems
amazing that USA citizens are not 'agitating' FOR universal health
care.

On Aug 28, 4:26*pm, "charlie" wrote:
"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message

m...







"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Stone wrote:

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
* Is that total premium or just what you pay? The OP was discussing
total premium, you and employer parts.

--

What some do not know is that the very large companies do not really pay
any insurance. *They pay the insurance companies to handle the billing,
but they are the ones actually paying the claims.
That *means you are really giving the company some money back. *It would
be just as easy for the company to pay for all the medical insurance and
cut the wages.
It just does not make the dumb employee feel like the company is treating
him badly.

a lot of smaller companies self-insure too. it's much more cost efficient to
do so. of course, those companies that they pay management fees to have a
strong incentive to hold down costs by limiting certain things (new fangled
drugs not on a approved list, new types of operations, etc).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words decisions are made financially not medically.
While that happens to some extent in all health care systems, medical
ones provide better decisions than ones based on 'keeping down the
cost', or improving an insuring companies bottom line!

On Aug 28, 9:31*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:17:30 -0700 (PDT), BobR

wrote:
You do realize that life expectancy is not just based on those who die
of natural causes don't you? *We kill ourselves off faster than any
country in the world in our cars, with our guns, and just sheer
stupidity.

Maybe my "gun" has a malfunction. It has never killed anybody.

Don't prevaricate and try to make one gun (yours) an example for an
overall situation. I'm sure there must a military tank or jet fighter
aircraft somewhere that has never 'been in action'!

Rephrase "...... humans manage to kill themselves off by stupid
irrational human behaviour ...... including, drunk driving, texting
while driving, not wearing a flotation device while boating, so called
gun accidents and in a few cases by deliberate gun use, industrial
accidents, by warlike action and insurrection etc. etc."

OK?

On Aug 28, 11:53*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,





Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, $13,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close
to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost."

--x--x--x--x--

Based on personal observation, government employees of almost any type
have excellent health insurance policies paid by the employer, with
funds graciously provided by my taxes. Those policies cover vision and
dental as well as regular insurance, and include the employee's family.

Private companies often cover only 50% of the cost of the premium, and
if the employee wants insurance for the rug rats or the spouse, the
entire premium comes from his or her own pocket.

The entire premium is coming out of the individual's pocket anyway, even in
employer-sponsored plans. Every dollar the employer spends on purchasing
health insurance is a dollar that is unavailable for spending on salaries or
wages.

It is likewise a convenient fiction that the employer pays half of the FICA
premium. Nope. The employee pays all of it -- half in direct payroll
deduction, and half in the form of a reduced salary.

Well, if we're segueing into "convenient fictions," here's another one:
Governments have to pay high salaries and provide luxury-class benefits
in order to attract qualified workers away from private industry. In
truth, the pay and benefit scales are often double what industry pays
for comparable skill sets. The city, county, and state here are all
going broke, and it's due in large measure to absolutely obscene wages.

* Though I would like to bitch about salaries of municipal and state *
department heads and members of various legislatures and governmental and
quasi-governmental boards, it appears to me that the top few executives
and most VPs (not just CEO) of most of the Fortune 1000 companies and a
majority of specialist MDs make much more still.

* I doubt that Fortune 500 companies have to compensate their CEOs tens of
megabucks annually and their VPs and other top executives megabucks
annually for skill sets that run the companies into the ground and/or
require multigigabuck taxpayer bailouts. *Most foreign large companies,
unlike most USA ones, pay much less than this for executives whose
companies succeed, and less still for executives of companies who don't.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe there should be legislation that executives not be paid more
than say ten times their lowest paid (regularly employed) worker?

Also bonuses, if any should be based on performance; for the running
average of the last five years and be paid five years hence! So any
executive who bankrupts a company instead of taking a fat bonus, thus
assisting the company closedown, laying off thousands (without a
pension) and then leaving to do the same thing elsewhere, would have a
trail of actual performance. Their salary would be proof of their
ability, or inability, to run and lead an organization.

Yeah that's too socialist for many! Who prefer the the existing sytem
where a pop/movie/sport star and executives make millions and the
indigent sleep on the street!

On Aug 29, 2:22*am, BobR wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:51*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:





Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Tony Hwang wrote:

Where I am up here in Alberta Canuck land, we don't pay anything.

Absolute nonsense. Did you think health care was free, that the doctors and
nurses work gratis and all the medicine and equipment and facilities just
magically appear at no cost to anyone?

No premium payment.

"No premium" is not the same as "no payment". You're paying for it.

You figure out how.

Huh?
When I needed *Eprex 3 times(1 cc shots by myself) a week it did not
cost me a dime. Still taking anti rejection pills(may be rest of my
life), Immuran and Rapamune every day. Nothing comes out of my pocket.
I just phone in and go pick up the refill.

How great for you but don't be so ignorant as to believe that someone
is not paying for it somewhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No obviously it IS being paid for (by taxation etc.) and medics of all
types (and researchers) should be well paid. But it more a matter of
eliminating much of the waste and inefficiency (and unnecessary
duplication) from existing systems being run for profit!

On Aug 29, 10:44*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , stan wrote:

Few years ago, about the time Florida was worrying about 'chads'
India managed to run a very good and promptly announced election,
using computers.
Even though many of the population were not literate! And Indians
number, what is it, about half a billion souls?

About one-point-one billion.

Understand they used
symbols; so one voted for the donkey or the elephant etc.!
Cheers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oops. Should have looked it up. Maybe I meant 'adult voters', must
look that up too! Stand by.

charlie wrote:
"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
m...
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Stone wrote:

But what is a 'typical' (or average) USA cost?
Is that total premium or just what you pay? The OP was discussing
total premium, you and employer parts.

--
What some do not know is that the very large companies do not really pay
any insurance. They pay the insurance companies to handle the billing,
but they are the ones actually paying the claims.
That means you are really giving the company some money back. It would
be just as easy for the company to pay for all the medical insurance and
cut the wages.
It just does not make the dumb employee feel like the company is treating
him badly.

a lot of smaller companies self-insure too. it's much more cost efficient to
do so. of course, those companies that they pay management fees to have a
strong incentive to hold down costs by limiting certain things (new fangled
drugs not on a approved list, new types of operations, etc).



My logic doesn't follow you claim about insurance companies having a
strong incentive to hold down costs ... when I worked for self-insured
employers, the employer paid estimated medical claims costs plus a
percentage. The insurance company benefited only from claims paid; NO
incentive to hold down costs. Claims were reviewed closely for accuracy
according to contract, and employer went to bat for anyone who had an
issue with a claim payment or denial. Both quality companies, IMO.

stan wrote:

Yeah that's too socialist for many! Who prefer the the existing sytem
where a pop/movie/sport star and executives make millions and the
indigent sleep on the street!

That's democracy. As Voltaire so ably chronicled:

"The law, in its majestic equality, prohibit both rich an poor alike from
sleeping in doorways, lying in the gutter, and begging alms on the public
way."

stan wrote:

No obviously it IS being paid for (by taxation etc.) and medics of all
types (and researchers) should be well paid. But it more a matter of
eliminating much of the waste and inefficiency (and unnecessary
duplication) from existing systems being run for profit!

As I said elsewhere, the elimination of waste could easily cost more than
just letting it go.

My grandmother had a cigar box labeled "pieces of string too short to be of
any use." Same idea.

stan wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:31 pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:17:30 -0700 (PDT), BobR

wrote:
You do realize that life expectancy is not just based on those who
die of natural causes don't you? We kill ourselves off faster than
any country in the world in our cars, with our guns, and just sheer
stupidity.

Maybe my "gun" has a malfunction. It has never killed anybody.

Don't prevaricate and try to make one gun (yours) an example for an
overall situation. I'm sure there must a military tank or jet fighter
aircraft somewhere that has never 'been in action'!


Why not? You just held up your experience as an exemplar for (presumably)
most of the Canadian health care system.

You said (inter alia)
"There are and will be no charges; except the cost of my gasoline to drive
to blood collection; I choose the hospital where parking is easy, the staff
are pleasant and waiting times are short. Bernice the regular receptionist
was on vacation!"

I think a single gun is just as much a metric for the whole system as your
fun times with the phlebotomist.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:54:22 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

stan wrote:

No obviously it IS being paid for (by taxation etc.) and medics of all
types (and researchers) should be well paid. But it more a matter of
eliminating much of the waste and inefficiency (and unnecessary
duplication) from existing systems being run for profit!

As I said elsewhere, the elimination of waste could easily cost more than
just letting it go.

My grandmother had a cigar box labeled "pieces of string too short to be of
any use." Same idea.



Hospitals buy a pair of rubber gloves for 3 cents, and sell it to the
patient for $5. A box of Klennex tissues sold by the hospital is $13.
A hospital has a separate department for billing and another for
collections. I have seen a billing department with over 80 employees
for just one hospital. Will the government fix this? Or, maybe the
government needs to stop trying to fix things.