Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On May 26, 9:42 am, Peter wrote:
On 5/26/2010 12:10 PM, harry wrote:

On May 26, 10:51 am, "Ed wrote:
wrote
How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if you
could get there.
You are another of the brainwashed.
At any given time, there are hundreds of US citizens in Cuba. Have a good
reason t go, fill out the forms, and you get permission. There is a also a
difference between free and good.
So, you need permission? On what grounds might that permission be
rejected? Why should you need permission anyway?
It's true. It is illegal for the average U.S. private citizen to
travel to Cuba (e.g. for tourism) without explicit permission from the
Department of State. It's a legacy from the American foreign policy
towards Cuba (part of the blockade mentality) that was implemented in
the early 1960s, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Isn't it great
how often we in this country (U.S.A.) complain officially (at the U.N.
and Dept. of State) and unofficially about other country's foreign
policies being stuck in the past? Time for us to look in the mirror
and realize that we can be hypocritical too.
My understanding is that one can travel to Cuba but one cannot spend
money there.

One travels via Toronto or a Mexican city. Buy one ticket to that
destination and a new ticket to Cuba.

SNIP from here to edit for space

I have friends in Canada, especially Toronto. One of them tells me that
he has vacationed in Cuba, and that some Americans do. They go to
Toronto, get a separate ticket to Cuba, and have Cuban customs stamp a
separate piece of paper for Americans to keep in their US Passports until
they return to Canada. Another thing my Cuba-vacationing Toronto friend
tells me is that Americans doing this trick are doing so in violation of
US law, and theoretically can be punished after returning to US.


Has Obama bowed to Castro yet?

TDD

harry wrote:
On May 27, 4:31�pm, wrote:
On May 27, 11:06�am, Mac Cool wrote:

HeyBub:
Ah, but here's where your logic fails: There is no enterprise, health
care, education, etc., that cannot be done cheaper and better by
private industry.
Give me some examples, education and health care for starters.
In the case of education, you only need to look at private schools
versus public schools. � Which is producing a better product in terms
of educated students. � In areas where vouchers have been implemented
so that parents can decide whether to send their children to public
schools or use the voucher for private schools, the results have been
the private schools are doing a far better job. � Such a good job that
the NEA does everything it can to block any use of school vouchers.
Now, if they are doing as good a job as the private schools, why are
they in favor of school vouchers?

In the case of public healthcare, take a look at the fraud going on in
Medicare/Medicaid. � It's been widely reported that about 1/3 of all
claims in Florida are bogus. � There are clinics all over the place
that are listed in the phone book, turning in hundreds of thousands in
bogus claims a month. � And the place actually consists of an empty
building, with maybe one desk and a phone. � 60 minutes went with
investigators to several of them in a story they did about it. � They
showed an old lady who for the past 6 years has been calling Medicare
to report bogus items showing up on her account: �wheelchairs, beds,
walkers. � �They interviewed another man who was billed through
Medicare for two prosthetic arms for tens of thousands of dollars, yet
his arms are intact.

Don;t believe me? � Ask Obama. �One of his most remarkable claims for
funding his new healthcare was that he was gonna recover billions in
waste and fraud from Medicare/Medicaid. � Only in America. �Anywhere
else, the logical response would be, "you idiot, if the govt can't run
those, how are you gonna run an even bigger boondoggle?

The reason some schools appear better than others is to do with the
pupils, or rather their parents. If the pupil comes from a good home
and has been disciplined and socialised then success is more likely.
If the parents make sure homework is done and school is attended
regularly then success is more or less assured.

The American TV personality Kathy Lee Gifford once told a story
about her Asian gardener who's daughter was excelling in school.
When she complemented the man about how much smarter his daughter
was than the other children, he answered in his Mr. Miyagi accent,
"Not smarter, work harder." In most Asian cultures, scholars are
considered superstars like the most skilled athletes are in The
U.S. It's a shame, we worship dumbasses who can run fast, to and
fro while carrying or bouncing a rubber ball. The hiring of a
football coach is national news that is more important than the
hiring of a Nobel Prize winning professor. Oh yea, the coach is
paid many times more than the dean.

TDD

On May 27, 10:52*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:28:29 -0700 (PDT), hibb
wrote:

I see. You are saying that you are stupid and can only copy and paste
and not answer real questions.

Thanks,

David

I'm sorry. Did you have a real question, something I can answer?

In case you forgot. The subject is OT Michael Moore.

--
Never fart in a space suit

Sure, the subject is Michael Moore but you made a specific derogatory
comment about the Brits HC and I axed the question thus:

"Are you saying that horrible things that are a hell of a lot worse
than wrongly taking organs from dead people don't happen in the good
ole USA? Looks like you have that propaganda thing down pat."

And then you, being the propaganda queen, copied and pasted some bull
****.

Now, do you want to address the question or keep farting in your
spacesuit?

Oren wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 04:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Robin Hood definitely never existed. He is part of our Hollywood, now
stolen by yours. He is a composite of many historical figures,
legends, and lately Hollywood guff.
The next thing you will tell us doesn't exist is Santa Claus. How
dare you crush people's dreams like that! It's almost as bad as
finding out that Rock Hudson was a homosexual.

TDD

Brit's don't have Santa Claus.

Rock Hudson died from AIDS cooties.

Do you know how AIDS got to Hollywood?.......

In the back end of an old Hudson.

TDD

In article , HeyBub wrote:
hibb wrote:

For example, there are fewer than 200 MRI machines in the whole
country of Canada (and probably none in Cuba). We have more MRI
machines in my CITY than in the whole country of Canada.

Do yo have a cite for that?

"Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than Canada"
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...s-than-canada/

"... the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Medical Imaging
in Canada, 2007 reports that in 2007, there were ... 222 MRI machines
installed and operational in Canada..."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/119356.php

"At the beginning of 2005, Canada had 176 MRI scanners..."

"Canada ranked 12th, reporting 5.5 MRI scanners per million people. Japan
and the U.S. had the highest number, with 35.3 and 27.0 per million,
respectively..."

http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage....ia_08feb2006_e

And others.

In my city, there are 82 radiographic and imaging centers, each with
presumably at least one MRI. We have more than 100 hospitals, the largest
having 1,500 beds. At least half of these hospitals have MRI machines. The
city also has several hundred radiologists, orthopedists, and other
specialists with an MRI machine in the office.

Down from ~200 to 82?

Do all 82 of them have MRI scanners? (You did also say more than half
of 100.)

My experience with with orthopedists and radiologists is that they don't
have their own separate MRI scanner in their offices, as opposed to the MRI
scanners in the hospitals that let them practice there or in
hospital-associated rental medical office space.

As in "at least one MRI"? Everywhere I saw one or noted existence of
one, it appears to me that there was only one. As in 100% of 7 locations
where I gained enough familiarity to count them.

I suspect that many of these "imaging centers" lack a MRI but have a
CT scanner, it it sounds to me easy for near or over 99% of them to have
an X-ray machine other than a CT scanner.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_M...nes_in_the_US]
says that there may be 7,000 to 10,000 "MRI machines" in the US. If
Canada is to be populated with these to have same ratio of population of
these to population of people that USA has, then Canada should have 700 to
1,000 of them.

How badly does Canada fall short with about 220 of them, with their
lower incidence of off-base aggressive patients having private health
insurance from companies that make more money when healthcare business
increases, and lower incidence of doctors feeling need to keep themselves
safe from malpractice lawsuits? Also consider underutilization of
megabuck high-tech medical devices in USA because many hospitals want
the megabuck toys^H^H^H^Htools that are desired to be "in-house" by
"Top Ranked Physicians"?

--
- Don Klipstein )

In ,
RickH wrote:

On May 26, 5:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
hibb wrote:

For example, there are fewer than 200 MRI machines in the whole
country of Canada (and probably none in Cuba). We have more MRI
machines in my CITY than in the whole country of Canada.

Do yo have a cite for that?

"Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than Canada"
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...as-more-mri-ma...

"... the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Medical Imaging
in Canada, 2007 reports that in 2007, there were ... 222 MRI machines
installed and operational in Canada...
"http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/119356.php

"At the beginning of 2005, Canada had 176 MRI scanners..."

"Canada ranked 12th, reporting 5.5 MRI scanners per million people. Japan
and the U.S. had the highest number, with 35.3 and 27.0 per million,
respectively..."

http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage....ia_08feb2006_e

And others.

In my city, there are 82 radiographic and imaging centers, each with
presumably at least one MRI. We have more than 100 hospitals, the largest
having 1,500 beds. At least half of these hospitals have MRI machines. The
city also has several hundred radiologists, orthopedists, and other
specialists with an MRI machine in the office.

According to the latest data, the United States has just over one MRI
scanner for every 40,000 people. That number that may not sound high,
but it means that we have more than three times as many devices per
person as you will find in the United Kingdom or France, and almost four
times as many as in Canada. Only Japan, an MRI-happy outlier, has more.

Does not even Japan spend a lot less per person for healthcare than USA
spends? (And maybe MRI installations cost a lot less in Japan than in
USA.)

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Cite where this data came from! It may be true.
The reason the Japs have more is that they are nearly all made in
Japan.

Once again, a made-up claim. Here is a list of ALL manufacturers of MRI
machines and their country of origin (for your convenience, they are listed
them in alphabetical order):

Esaote - Italy
Fonar - US
GE Medical Systems - US
Hitachi - Japan
Millennium Technology - Canada
Odin - Israel
ONI - Division of GE, US
Neusoft - China
Phillips - The Netherlands
Shimadzu - Japan
Siemens - Germany
Toshiba - Japan

Source: http://www.magnet-mri.org/resources/...rs/systems.htm

Only one-quarter of MRI manufacturers are Japanese-based. One quarter is far
from "nearly all."

What about their market shares? I doubt Israel has a big one. What
about subcontracting? Where are the parts manufactured?

--
- Don Klipstein )

On May 27, 4:08�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Cite where this data came from! �It may be true.
The reason the Japs have more is that they are nearly all made in
Japan.

Once again, a made-up claim. Here is a list of ALL manufacturers of MRI
machines and their country of origin (for your convenience, they are listed
them in alphabetical order):

Esaote - Italy
Fonar - US
GE Medical Systems - US
Hitachi - Japan
Millennium Technology - Canada
Odin - Israel
ONI - Division of GE, US
Neusoft - China
Phillips - The Netherlands
Shimadzu - Japan
Siemens - Germany
Toshiba - Japan

Source:http://www.magnet-mri.org/resources/...rs/systems.htm

Only one-quarter of MRI manufacturers are Japanese-based. One quarter is far
from "nearly all."

However the Japanese manufacturers are the biggest.

In article , HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:

Exactly! All this machine counting nonsense. The bottom line is
that the average lifespan in the U.S. is well below that of countries
that may have far fewer state of the art diagnostic machines. What's
important is if there are enough machines available to perform the
medically indicated tests, not how many machines are available to
order tests that are not medically indicated.

"Lifespan" is a poor metric for measuring health care.

* A life can be ended before the medical profession has an opportunity to
intervene. Automobile accidents, gang warfare, executions under a lawful
warrant, wars, suicides, and so on.
* The "lifespan" measurement can be jiggled somewhat. In the U.S., a
severely premature infant is assaulted by a massive medical response.
Regrettably, these heroic techniques often fail. In France, the infant is
allowed to expire and is counted as "stillborn."

A better metric for the evaluation of health care is survivability after
diagnosis. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer after diagnosis, if
I remember correctly, in the U.S. is 95%. In the UK, it is 58%. The U.S. is
at the top - or near it - in virtually all chronic (and acute) survivability
measures (heart disease, diabetes, all forms of cancer, and so on).

Are you saying that Americans bring onto themselves deadly diseases so
badly that they don't live longer despite some impressive higher survival
rate after diagnosis? Or are American doctors slow to make a diagnosis
before it looks good for the patient to survive the diagnosis? Or do
American breast cancer victims incur expenditure of megabucks to live 6
rather than 4.5 years after diagnosis? How about a combination of
these? (Overweightness favors development of breast cancer, colon
cancer and cancer in general as well as heart disease, and strokes
unless heart disease or cancer hits first.) These are another American
problems that I have yet to mention in this thread before now, among the
many other specifically-USA problems.

But how about in comparison to Scotland, since I heard that the Scots
like to eschew eating things that grow in the ground (such as parsnips and
carrots)?

--
- Don Klipstein )

In ,
wrote:

On May 26, 12:08*pm, harry wrote:
On May 26, 12:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

Second?

Thirds?

The same guy who stated that Cuba has better health care than the
USA.

Imagine that.

How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if you
could get there.
You are another of the brainwashed.

Free does not equal good.

Health care in Canada is free also, but we see a significant number of
Canadians in the U.S. for care.

For example, there are fewer than 200 MRI machines in the whole country of
Canada (and probably none in Cuba). We have more MRI machines in my CITY
than in the whole country of Canada.

Free is better than *"it's there but only for the wealthy".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That;s another lie, often repeated. Any indigent person in the USA
can walk in to an emergency room and the hospital must treat them.

Only to the point of stabilization - without requirement to treat the
patient to extent of preventing an early death by a treatable condition
that is not "acute". (Indigent patient can come into an ER with a heart
attack, gets treated to survive that specific heart attack, and can still
kick the bucket from heart disease shortly after being discharged.)

And if the patient is "uncovered", the treatment that the patient can
get is often of a lower quality and often delivered on a less favorable
timeline.

--
- Don Klipstein )

On May 27, 9:11�pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:29:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:





On May 26, 12:57?am, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 17:30:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Jeff The Drunk wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 12:13:18 -0700, harry wrote:

On the box in the UK the other night, his film about capitalism in
America which I'd heard of but not seen before. Hah. ?I couldn't
fault the man. ?He was so exactly correct.

Remember he is a film maker hence has ulterior motivation to be
entertaining first and informative second.

Second?

Thirds?

The same guy who stated that Cuba has better health care than the USA.

Imagine that.

How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? �Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if you
could get there.

It's not true because your friend, Michael Moore said it! I have a
choice not to go too Cuba, but I can get there from other places.
Except I let my passport expire -- on purpose.

HC care is also free in the UK. (by use of taxes)

Example of UK HC:

Organs removed in donor mix-up

"Forty-five people whose wishes were wrongly recorded have since died
and health officials will contact some 20 families whose relatives had
organs taken against their recorded wishes"

"Bereaved families will be told that the organ donor records of
800,000 people were wrongly recorded, leading to organs being removed
from some loved ones without consent.

Forty-five people whose wishes were wrongly recorded have since died
and health officials will contact some 20 families whose relatives had
organs taken against their recorded wishes. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...article7094454...

You are another of the brainwashed.

Call it as you wish. I'm not a Socialist, Marxists. Pink-O Communist.

Next you will say the Nazi invented propaganda.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why did you let your passport expire and have you actually been to
Cuba?
There are cock-ups in every large organisation.
Because it is public, it's hard to cover them up. (No-one died as a
result of this cocok-up).
In private organisations things are a lot easier to cover up.
But here y'are anyway.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...y-father/7617/

There's hundreds of pages of stuff like this out there.

http://uk.ask.com/web?qsrc=162&o=0&l...eaths&dm =all

On May 27, 9:19�pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:35:26 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 25, 8:42?pm, keith wrote:
On May 25, 2:25?pm, Frank wrote:

On 5/25/2010 3:13 PM, harry wrote:

On the box in the UK the other night, his film about capitalism in
America which I'd heard of but not seen before.
Hah. ?I couldn't fault the man. ?He was so exactly correct.

He's become a fat, rich capitalist himself making money off the simple
minded

That would be harry.

I am not rich. True, a bit overweight but not fat.

The poster also mentioned "the simple minded". Please keep up Harry.
He was correct about, "That would be Harry".

He hasn't made any money off me. Though he is a deserving cause.

In ,
wrote:
On May 26, 7:16*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
wrote:
On May 26, 12:08 pm, harry wrote:
On May 26, 12:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

Second?

Thirds?

The same guy who stated that Cuba has better health care than the
USA.

Imagine that.

How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if
you could get there.
You are another of the brainwashed.

Free does not equal good.

Health care in Canada is free also, but we see a significant number
of Canadians in the U.S. for care.

For example, there are fewer than 200 MRI machines in the whole
country of Canada (and probably none in Cuba). We have more MRI
machines in my CITY than in the whole country of Canada.

Free is better than "it's there but only for the wealthy".- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That;s another lie, often repeated. * Any indigent person in the USA
can walk in to an emergency room and the hospital must treat them.

But that treatment is only to get them out the door. It hardly matches the
medical care they need in the long term.

How many stories have we seen of patients dumped off outside homeless
shelters by hospitals?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ACtually, I haven't seen any such stories. And if even is it's true
and the patient is still ill, it's only another ambulance call to 911
and they are back at that hospital or another. I'm not saying that's
a good system or produces the best result.

Indigent uncovered heart patients don't get coronary bypass surgery and
few if any get "cath lab" treatment. They get to call 911 and enjoy
ambulance rides and "stabilizing treatment" after above-average
waiting-room waits until they fail to survive a subsequent heart attack.

Indigent uncovered cancer patients are only required to be "stabilized".

An indigent patient with a bullet in the brain is only required by the
hospital to be "stabilized" if alive-that-far.

What about an indigent without medical coverage other than $5,000
1st-party medical of car insurance gets into a bad car crash? Especially
if by that driver's error, or gets crashed by an uninsured (illegal) or
"under-insured" driver? (People have to pay for specific-amount-of-coverage
for crashes by uninsured/underinsured drivers, and it appears to me that
PA's minimum-required-coverage for liability has at most fair chance to
pay all the bills incurred by someone being hospitalized for a week,
especially after totalling even an average car that has 75,000 miles on
its odometer.)

--
- Don Klipstein )

On May 27, 10:58�pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 04:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas

wrote:
Robin Hood definitely never existed. �He is part of our Hollywood, now
stolen by yours. � He is a composite of many historical figures,
legends, and lately Hollywood guff.

The next thing you will tell us doesn't exist is Santa Claus. How
dare you crush people's dreams like that! It's almost as bad as
finding out that Rock Hudson was a homosexual.

TDD

Brit's don't have Santa Claus.

Rock Hudson died from AIDS cooties.

Brit adults don't believe in him which is quite different.
I think some of the posters here might believe in him. They believe
all sort of other equally unlikely things, so why not Santa Claus.
He is/was a Kraut anyway. Probably a relative of Hitler. Did he
bring Jewish kids any presents?
Proves it.

On May 28, 1:12�am, aemeijers wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/26/2010 7:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
hibb wrote:

For example, there are fewer than 200 MRI machines in the whole
country of Canada (and probably none in Cuba). We have more MRI
machines in my CITY than in the whole country of Canada.

Do yo have a cite for that?

"Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than Canada"
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...as-more-mri-ma....

"... the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Medical
Imaging in Canada, 2007 reports that in 2007, there were ... 222 MRI
machines installed and operational in Canada..."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/119356.php

"At the beginning of 2005, Canada had 176 MRI scanners..."

"Canada ranked 12th, reporting 5.5 MRI scanners per million people.
Japan and the U.S. had the highest number, with 35.3 and 27.0 per
million, respectively..."

http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage....ia_08feb2006_e

And others.

In my city, there are 82 radiographic and imaging centers, each with
presumably at least one MRI. We have more than 100 hospitals, the
largest having 1,500 beds. At least half of these hospitals have MRI
machines. The city also has several hundred radiologists,
orthopedists, and other specialists with an MRI machine in the office..

Sounds like proof of our wasteful system.

Exactly! �All this machine counting nonsense. �The bottom line is that
the average lifespan in the U.S. is well below that of countries that
may have far fewer state of the art diagnostic machines. �What's
important is if there are enough machines available to perform the
medically indicated tests, not how many machines are available to order
tests that are not medically indicated.

To belabor your point- most of the short lifespan figures in US are due
to bad habits, not bad medical care. Obesity, tobacco, and booze are the
usual suspects, aided by sloth. Eat a decent diet and get 2 or 3 x the
current average amount of exercise, lay off the booze and smokes, and
the health-care 'crisis' would mostly go away. Yeah, some people will
have accidents or bad genes kick in, but taking common-sense care of
oneself improves the living hell out of the odds. In country after
country that adopts the US style of eating and daily life, the
formerly-rare US style illnesses follow, and lifespan starts dropping.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly so! Including here in the UK.

On May 28, 1:26�am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 5/25/2010 12:13 PM harry spake thus:

On the box in the UK the other night, his film about capitalism in
America which I'd heard of but not seen before.
Hah. �I couldn't fault the man. �He was so exactly correct.

I agree.

Let the flames rise higher and higher! (Here in this newsgroup, I mean.)

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

It has to be said lots of his discourse applied to the UK as well.

On May 28, 2:21�am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,





Higgs Boson wrote:
On May 26, 9:42�am, Peter wrote:
On 5/26/2010 12:10 PM, harry wrote:

On May 26, 10:51 am, "Ed �wrote:
�wrote

How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if you
could get there.
You are another of the brainwashed.

At any given time, there are hundreds of US citizens in Cuba. Have a good
reason t go, fill out the forms, and you get permission. There is a also a
difference between free and good.

So, you need permission? �On what grounds might that permission be
rejected? �Why should you need permission anyway?

It's true. �It is illegal for the average U.S. private citizen to
travel to Cuba (e.g. for tourism) without explicit permission from the
Department of State. �It's a legacy from the American foreign policy
towards Cuba (part of the blockade mentality) that was implemented in
the early 1960s, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. �Isn't it great
how often we in this country (U.S.A.) complain officially (at the U.N.
and Dept. of State) and unofficially about other country's foreign
policies being stuck in the past? �Time for us to look in the mirror
and realize that we can be hypocritical too.

My understanding is that one can travel to Cuba but one cannot spend
money there.

One travels via Toronto or a Mexican city. �Buy one ticket to that
destination and a new ticket to Cuba.

SNIP from here to edit for space

� I have friends in Canada, especially Toronto. �One of them tells me that
he has vacationed in Cuba, and that some Americans do. �They go to
Toronto, get a separate ticket to Cuba, and have Cuban customs stamp a
separate piece of paper for Americans to keep in their US Passports until
they return to Canada. �Another thing my Cuba-vacationing Toronto friend
tells me is that Americans doing this trick are doing so in violation of
US law, and theoretically can be punished after returning to US.

--
�- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You see! Some Americans are curious to know what they're not supposed
to know.
Well done them.
I wonder if they can legally visit Guantanamo bay?

On May 28, 3:04�am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , HeyBub wrote in part:





Ah, but here's where your logic fails: There is no enterprise, health care,
education, etc., that cannot be done cheaper and better by private industry.
Take education, for example. No amount of money can improve it as long as it
remains primarily a government purview.

You don't seem to understand "wealth." The only people who believe in a
"national wealth" are those who believe wealth is a fixed commodity and
needs to be re-distributed. To a liberal, wealth is like energy: it can be
moved around but it cannot be created or destroyed.

To a conservative, wealth is like a souffle, it can rise or it can flop.

A real-life and obvious example of wealth increase or decrease is the stock
market.

Every dollar the government spends in the general marketplace is a
dollar of wealth destroyed. Every transaction entered into by a willing
buyer and a willing seller creates wealth.

� The way I hear it from a conservative engineer and a conservative
manufacturing company owner, wealth is created by making nothing or things
that are worth less or worthless into things that are worth more. �
As in, at least traditionally described, mining and agriculture and
manufacturing - making goods from dirt, making raw materials into valuable
goods, especially making goods production tools.

� If any transaction between willing partners creates wealth as you say,
do you claim lack of exceptions? �What if one of the parties is dishonest
and the other is incompetent? �What if one party pays the other to destroy
something that has value?

--
�- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, exactly so.

On May 28, 3:28�am, hibb wrote:
On May 27, 7:32�pm, Oren wrote:





On Thu, 27 May 2010 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT), hibb
wrote:

On May 27, 4:11�pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:29:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 26, 12:57?am, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 17:30:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Jeff The Drunk wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 12:13:18 -0700, harry wrote:

On the box in the UK the other night, his film about capitalism in
America which I'd heard of but not seen before. Hah. ?I couldn't
fault the man. ?He was so exactly correct.

Remember he is a film maker hence has ulterior motivation to be
entertaining first and informative second.

Second?

Thirds?

The same guy who stated that Cuba has better health care than the USA.

Imagine that.

How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? �Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if you
could get there.

It's not true because your friend, Michael Moore said it! I have a
choice not to go too Cuba, but I can get there from other places.
Except I let my passport expire -- on purpose.

HC care is also free in the UK. (by use of taxes)

Example of UK HC:

Organs removed in donor mix-up

"Forty-five people whose wishes were wrongly recorded have since died
and health officials will contact some 20 families whose relatives had
organs taken against their recorded wishes"

"Bereaved families will be told that the organ donor records of
800,000 people were wrongly recorded, leading to organs being removed
from some loved ones without consent.

Forty-five people whose wishes were wrongly recorded have since died
and health officials will contact some 20 families whose relatives had
organs taken against their recorded wishes. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...article7094454....

You are another of the brainwashed.

Call it as you wish. I'm not a Socialist, Marxists. Pink-O Communist..

Next you will say the Nazi invented propaganda.

Are you saying that horrible things that are a hell of a lot worse
than wrongly taking organs from dead people don't happen in the good
ole USA? Looks like you have that propaganda thing down pat.

Now, what did I say!?!

I use the TWO COW EXPLANATION.

Quoted, henceforth --

THE "TWO-COW EXPLANATION" OF WHAT MAKES...

A CHRISTIAN:
You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST:
You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your
neighbor.

A REPUBLICAN:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

A DEMOCRAT:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being
successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you
to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for
then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor.
You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST:
You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with
milk.

A FASCIST:
You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk.
You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to
sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow,
which was a gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks
the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the
milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of
an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

A GERMAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat
once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows but you don't know where they are. �You break for
lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You
count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and
learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle
of vodka.

A MEXICAN CORPORATION:
You think you have two cows, but you don't know what a cow looks like.
You take a nap.

A SWISS CORPORATION:
You have 5000 cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge for
storing them for others.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American
corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation
declares bankruptcy.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You worship them.

I see. You are saying that you are stupid and can only copy and paste
and not answer real questions.

Thanks,

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just bit of humour. I'd seen that one before but not as exhaustive.

On May 28, 4:30�am, Jim Yanik wrote:
aemeijers wrote innews




Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
�"HeyBub" wrote:

Our mistake was not annexing the island - as we did Puerto Rico and
Guam, after 1898. We just "administered" the island until about 1902
when we granted Cubans their independence.

�Or as Sen SI Hyakawa stated so succinctly during the Panama Canal
Debate: "Of course its ours, we stole it fair and square."

ISTR a compatriot of TR's advised him to not try to dress up his
taking of the canal zone with any banal explantions, on the grounds
that such an audacious theft spoke for itself, and any window-dressing
would only diminish his legacy.

Or words to that effect- I don't care enough to look it up.

"took it"? (the Canal)
we BUILT IT (at our cost)and paid Panama for it.
The French started it,quit,and we completed it,with much loss of life.
It gave great benefit to Panama.
Then Carter gave it back to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_Panama_Canal

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To instigated a revolution and caused Panama to seceed from Colombia.
You stole it fom the Colombians.

On May 28, 5:10�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On May 26, 9:42 am, Peter wrote:
On 5/26/2010 12:10 PM, harry wrote:

On May 26, 10:51 am, "Ed �wrote:
�wrote
How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if you
could get there.
You are another of the brainwashed.
At any given time, there are hundreds of US citizens in Cuba. Have a good
reason t go, fill out the forms, and you get permission. There is a also a
difference between free and good.
So, you need permission? �On what grounds might that permission be
rejected? �Why should you need permission anyway?
It's true. �It is illegal for the average U.S. private citizen to
travel to Cuba (e.g. for tourism) without explicit permission from the
Department of State. �It's a legacy from the American foreign policy
towards Cuba (part of the blockade mentality) that was implemented in
the early 1960s, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. �Isn't it great
how often we in this country (U.S.A.) complain officially (at the U.N..
and Dept. of State) and unofficially about other country's foreign
policies being stuck in the past? �Time for us to look in the mirror
and realize that we can be hypocritical too.
My understanding is that one can travel to Cuba but one cannot spend
money there.

One travels via Toronto or a Mexican city. �Buy one ticket to that
destination and a new ticket to Cuba.

SNIP from here to edit for space

� I have friends in Canada, especially Toronto. �One of them tells me that
he has vacationed in Cuba, and that some Americans do. �They go to
Toronto, get a separate ticket to Cuba, and have Cuban customs stamp a
separate piece of paper for Americans to keep in their US Passports until
they return to Canada. �Another thing my Cuba-vacationing Toronto friend
tells me is that Americans doing this trick are doing so in violation of
US law, and theoretically can be punished after returning to US.

Has Obama bowed to Castro yet?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but he bowed to the Queen. :-)

On May 28, 5:24�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 27, 4:31 pm, wrote:
On May 27, 11:06 am, Mac Cool wrote:

HeyBub:
Ah, but here's where your logic fails: There is no enterprise, health
care, education, etc., that cannot be done cheaper and better by
private industry.
Give me some examples, education and health care for starters.
In the case of education, you only need to look at private schools
versus public schools. Which is producing a better product in terms
of educated students. In areas where vouchers have been implemented
so that parents can decide whether to send their children to public
schools or use the voucher for private schools, the results have been
the private schools are doing a far better job. Such a good job that
the NEA does everything it can to block any use of school vouchers.
Now, if they are doing as good a job as the private schools, why are
they in favor of school vouchers?

In the case of public healthcare, take a look at the fraud going on in
Medicare/Medicaid. It's been widely reported that about 1/3 of all
claims in Florida are bogus. There are clinics all over the place
that are listed in the phone book, turning in hundreds of thousands in
bogus claims a month. And the place actually consists of an empty
building, with maybe one desk and a phone. 60 minutes went with
investigators to several of them in a story they did about it. They
showed an old lady who for the past 6 years has been calling Medicare
to report bogus items showing up on her account: wheelchairs, beds,
walkers. They interviewed another man who was billed through
Medicare for two prosthetic arms for tens of thousands of dollars, yet
his arms are intact.

Don;t believe me? Ask Obama. One of his most remarkable claims for
funding his new healthcare was that he was gonna recover billions in
waste and fraud from Medicare/Medicaid. Only in America. Anywhere
else, the logical response would be, "you idiot, if the govt can't run
those, how are you gonna run an even bigger boondoggle?

The reason some schools appear better than others is to do with the
pupils, or rather their parents. If the pupil comes from a good home
and has been disciplined and socialised then success is more likely.
If the parents make sure homework is done and school is attended
regularly �then success is more or less assured.

The American TV personality Kathy Lee Gifford once told a story
about her Asian gardener who's daughter was excelling in school.
When she complemented the man about how much smarter his daughter
was than the other children, he answered in his Mr. Miyagi accent,
"Not smarter, work harder." In most Asian cultures, scholars are
considered superstars like the most skilled athletes are in The
U.S. It's a shame, we worship dumbasses who can run fast, to and
fro while carrying or bouncing a rubber ball. The hiring of a
football coach is national news that is more important than the
hiring of a Nobel Prize winning professor. Oh yea, the coach is
paid many times more than the dean.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the UK, we worship celebrities with absolutely no abilities
whatsoever.
Hence, we are more advanced than you.

On May 28, 5:25�am, hibb wrote:
On May 27, 10:52�pm, Oren wrote:





On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:28:29 -0700 (PDT), hibb
wrote:

I see. You are saying that you are stupid and can only copy and paste
and not answer real questions.

Thanks,

David

I'm sorry. Did you have a real question, something I can answer?

In case you forgot. The subject is OT Michael Moore.

--
Never fart in a space suit

Sure, the subject is Michael Moore but you made a specific derogatory
comment about the Brits HC and I axed the question thus:

"Are you saying that horrible things that are a hell of a lot worse
than wrongly taking organs from dead people don't happen in the good
ole USA? Looks like you have that propaganda thing down pat."

And then you, being the propaganda queen, copied and pasted some bull
****.

Now, do you want to address the question or keep farting in your
spacesuit?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's OK. I find him amusing.

On May 28, 5:31�am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 04:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Robin Hood definitely never existed. �He is part of our Hollywood, now
stolen by yours. � He is a composite of many historical figures,
legends, and lately Hollywood guff.
The next thing you will tell us doesn't exist is Santa Claus. How
dare you crush people's dreams like that! It's almost as bad as
finding out that Rock Hudson was a homosexual.

TDD

Brit's don't have Santa Claus.

Rock Hudson died from AIDS cooties.

Do you know how AIDS got to Hollywood?.......

In the back end of an old Hudson.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

AIDS

Arsehole Inected Death Sentence.

In ,
harry wrote:

I snip a lot to edit for space

King Arthur didn't exist either. Or the Lone Ranger.
BTW do you know Tonto is Spanish for fool. I could never understand
why that injun was called fool.

But what does Tonto mean, if anything other than a "proper noun", in the
aboriginal language of that region of North America?

--
- Don Klipstein )

On May 28, 6:23�am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:

Exactly! �All this machine counting nonsense. �The bottom line is
that the average lifespan in the U.S. is well below that of countries
that may have far fewer state of the art diagnostic machines. �What's
important is if there are enough machines available to perform the
medically indicated tests, not how many machines are available to
order tests that are not medically indicated.

"Lifespan" is a poor metric for measuring health care.

* A life can be ended before the medical profession has an opportunity to
intervene. Automobile accidents, gang warfare, executions under a lawful
warrant, wars, suicides, and so on.
* The "lifespan" measurement can be jiggled somewhat. In the U.S., a
severely premature infant is assaulted by a massive medical response.
Regrettably, these heroic techniques often fail. In France, the infant is
allowed to expire and is counted as "stillborn."

A better metric for the evaluation of health care is survivability after
diagnosis. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer after diagnosis, if
I remember correctly, in the U.S. is 95%. In the UK, it is 58%. The U.S. is
at the top - or near it - in virtually all chronic (and acute) survivability
measures (heart disease, diabetes, all forms of cancer, and so on).

� Are you saying that Americans bring onto themselves deadly diseases so
badly that they don't live longer despite some impressive higher survival
rate after diagnosis? �Or are American doctors slow to make a diagnosis
before it looks good for the patient to survive the diagnosis? �Or do
American breast cancer victims incur expenditure of megabucks to live 6
rather than 4.5 years after diagnosis? �How about a combination of
these? �(Overweightness favors development of breast cancer, colon
cancer and cancer in general as well as heart disease, and strokes
unless heart disease or cancer hits first.) �These are another American
problems that I have yet to mention in this thread before now, among the
many other specifically-USA problems.

� But how about in comparison to Scotland, since I heard that the Scots
like to eschew eating things that grow in the ground (such as parsnips and
carrots)?

--
�- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are exacty right aout the Scots. They have the lowest life
expectancy of anyone in th UK.

On May 27, 2:27*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Peter
wrote:

You are cherry picking the data that support your case and ignoring the data
that doesn't. *Not all private schools that accept students subsidized by
public
vouchers produce a better product. *The NEA is blocking vouchers because they
know that public school budgets are calculated on the basis of student
enrollment. *Vouchers siphon enrollment, reducing the municipality's pubic
education budget, which translates into less money to pay teacher salaries.

Actually they are protesting less money to pay UNION teacher salaries.
If you look at most of the state constitutions where there is a
requirement for public schools, it requires public FUNDING but not
necessarily public delivery of the product.



Exactly. And if most private schools were not providing a better
education, then the union teachers wouldn't have anything to protest
about, because parents wouldn't want to send their children to those
schools. The fact is, privates schools are producing a better
education and when given a choice with school vouchers, parents then
have the option of sending their kids there. That is what the unions
fear. They want tenure where it becomes virtually impossible to fire
a teacher, not matter how incompetent. I've never had that luxury at
any job I held.






In the case of public healthcare, take a look at the fraud going on in

True, but incomplete information. *There's probably an equal amount of
fraudulent claims being filed with private insurers. *When doctors are
unscrupulous, they don't care who they are bilking. *When I was in private
practice, I quickly got disgusted watching my greedy colleagues intentionally
use diagnostic and therapeutic billing codes that paid more, even if those
codes
did not accurately represent what was wrong with the patient and what was
done
to or for them.

* None of the studies I have seen indicate that, although reading
through them I think the Mcare data was better because it was less
filtered.

Of course not and for an obvious reason. Private insurance companies
have an incentive to reduce fraud as much as possible, because it
improves their bottom line. In the case of govt programs, it's just
another cost overrun that doesn't come out of their pockets, affect
their job performance review, or anything else.





Having written about coding for a few years, there is a
certain amount of subjectivity unless they are trying to bill a toe nail
removal as a transplant. I think there is also a little bit of
maximizing codes since MCare pays so little compared to private
insurance (studies show MCare pays 12 to 20% less than privates for
similar diagnosis and case mix than the Evil Insurance Companies).

Don;t believe me? * Ask Obama. *One of his most remarkable claims for
funding his new healthcare was that he was gonna recover billions in
waste and fraud from Medicare/Medicaid. * Only in America. *Anywhere
else, the logical response would be, "you idiot, if the govt can't run
those, how are you gonna run an even bigger boondoggle?

You don't like Medicare? *Please, when you turn 65, don't sign up. *

* * *Yep. We have so many alternative choices as in none.


Nothing in the above statement says anything about whether I like or
don't like Medicare. It simply points out the stupidity in using the
argument that the govt is going to eliminate massive fraud and waste
in one govt healthcare program as a means to start and pay for another
far bigger one.

On May 27, 11:37*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 05/27/10 10:48 am, HeyBub wrote:

,,, There is no enterprise, health care,
education, etc., that cannot be done cheaper and better by private industry.
Take education, for example. No amount of money can improve it as long as it
remains primarily a government purview.

And in many European countries with universal heath care insurance
coverage is provided by private companies, but costs are controlled --
typically by capping the profits that can be made on basic coverage.

What total nonsense. Take a look at the profits of any of the health
insurance companies and the profit is miniscule compared to the total
premiums collected, benefits paid out, etc. In fact, it averages a
mere few percent of revenues across the insurance industry.

And if profit was the problem, the solution then is to INCREASE
competition, which is always a good thing. Yet, that is one thing
the Dems had absolutely no interest in doing. Obama ragged on how in
Alabama one insurance company controlled the majority of the market.
Yet, he was opposed to any solution that would encourage competition
across state lines, so insurance companies from anywhere could sell
policies in any state.




In
some cases the premiums are subsidized for those with low incomes.

The US system and the Canadian system are NOT the only two options.

Perce

wrote:
On May 27, 11:37 am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 05/27/10 10:48 am, HeyBub wrote:

,,, There is no enterprise, health care,
education, etc., that cannot be done cheaper and better by private industry.
Take education, for example. No amount of money can improve it as long as it
remains primarily a government purview.
And in many European countries with universal heath care insurance
coverage is provided by private companies, but costs are controlled --
typically by capping the profits that can be made on basic coverage.

What total nonsense. Take a look at the profits of any of the health
insurance companies and the profit is miniscule compared to the total
premiums collected, benefits paid out, etc. In fact, it averages a
mere few percent of revenues across the insurance industry.

And if profit was the problem, the solution then is to INCREASE
competition, which is always a good thing. Yet, that is one thing
the Dems had absolutely no interest in doing. Obama ragged on how in
Alabama one insurance company controlled the majority of the market.
Yet, he was opposed to any solution that would encourage competition
across state lines, so insurance companies from anywhere could sell
policies in any state.



Healthcare dollars in the US finance many a ****ing contest: Workers
Comp. fighting cause determination, "managed care" fighting for less
expensive procedure, doctor's office staff with special skills to deal
with insurance companies, doc's doing special exams and filing special
reports to determine who pays, attorneys hawking to fight disability
claims, doc's going to court to defend "failure to cure" lawsuits,
employers sitting down with employees to 'splain why said employee's
medical bill wasn't paid at 100%.

When I started working in employee benefits - helping resolve insurance
claim issues, etc. - my employer had full coverage for full-time
employees. No cost to employee, $100 deductible, dependent coverage,
disability ins., fully-paid pension. Co-insurance limit was, I think,
$1,000/year. When the deductible increased to $150, employees howled
like mad. NEVER, EVER did an employee take issue with fees charged by
providers as long as insurance paid.

Same said employee is likely to sue a doc because their kid has birth
defects or because life ain't perfect or because nobody told them
smoking ain't healthy. I'm surprised nobody has sued Jack Daniels
because they got cirrhosis. Any medical specialty in US nowadays has to
earn $100K just to pay malpractice premiums. Thats a lot of cream on a
little jug of milk.

As with the mortgage crisis and the oil mess, we've gotten what we have
because we want what we want NOW. We've been talkin' about diminishing
oil resources for 40 years, the increasing difficulty of using them.
When the price goes up, all the "small government" lovers want Obama
to DO SOMETHING! With the Gulf of Mexico filling up with oil, all want
the small government to DO SOMETHING. A bunch of cry-babies are howling
because Obama ain't down there in his waders sloshing through the goo.
Some want the military in there cleaning up. They forgot the military
is tied up with two wars and a nasty dust-up brewing in Korea. "Clean
coal" is really popular now...guess a lot of Americans want their kids
to grow up to be coal miners.

George Bush got some points for giving seniors prescription poison
coverage under Medicare. Thanks, George, but my grand-kids will be
paying long after I'm gone.

The idiots who vote based on pro-life or prayer in public schools will
take our country apart...they are well on the way.


In
some cases the premiums are subsidized for those with low incomes.

The US system and the Canadian system are NOT the only two options.

Perce

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I know about 30 Canadians, and 100% them would refuse to trade their
healthcare system for what USA has. This includes a receptionist and
other office workers, a PhD chemist, a recently retired Toronto police
detective who now owns his own little company based heavily on a very
impressive machine shop, another company's CEO and the owner of that
company, and several relatives of some of these.

I can find more than 30 Americans would refuse to trade their health
systems, too. What both sets of people probably have in common is that
they seldom actually use either system.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


SNIP from here - I see a big point to make.

The overall big problem is a big set of a lot of problems, and none of
the individual problems alone is an impressive percentage of the total.
Actually the point I was trying to make, must missed it, is that
people tend to get involved in their little part as being the end-all
and be-all (If only we could kill off all of Big Pharma we could have
medical Nirvana-- not the band, although I would suggest that is
probably closer to reality...by I digress). Instead we need to look at
EVERYthing and see what can be nibbled away within the various parts.


The case is the same for USA excessive energy consumption.

Back to healthcare - so cost of arguably excessive number of fancy
diagnostic devices is less than 5%. Does that figure include cost of
building and maintaining the building space for these devices and paying
total payroll costs of all staff involved in acquiring and posessing and
maintaining these things (and their associated building space, including
climate control, electricity consumed by the device and computers
necessitated by the device, and lighting?) and patient scheduling?
Of course it does, since that is from what the total payments
are and if there is extra money (or profits if you prefer reality), by
definition all of those are included.


High cost of prescription drugs in USA due to protectionism? In USA,
a USA-manufactured FDA-approved prescription drug can cost less after 2
international border crossings (via illegal "reimportation") than after
zero international border crossings.
Low cost of others due to governmental price fixing may be a better
way to put that. Especially when you look at Canada and some of Western
Europe where the non-regulated generics actually cost more than in the
US.
One of the really interesting things about US reform will be what
happens with drug prices elsewhere. I have always wondered if the US is
really subsidizing other countries.


How about how USA values "star doctors"? A surgeon that has
above-average experience becomes more desirable and gets to charge more
from whoever can get him a raise and/or "the latest and greatest"
toys^H^H^H^Htools. At expense of other surgeons becoming less desirable
by having less experience with big-money proceedures.
Not in the US. The charges (especially for MCare and at least
Blues that I am familiar with) are the same no matter who is doing the
cutting. The stars get extra money from the Hospitals because of the
number of patients they bring in (and there is a reflection of greatness
to other areas that might actually bring in more general patients), the
amount of contributions they garner, and in some cases, how much
research money they are able to drum up.


How about hospital nurses being like the doctors by need of making
themselves impressive, taking on needs of impressive continuing education?
It does appear to me that some of that is necessary, but I suspect that
also gets taken to an excess. An RN already has a 4-year college degree,
and in more-prestigious hospitals I sense need for continuing education
that is much of the way worth a master's degree within 20-25 years - along
with working as hard as a restaurant worker does.

CE is a good thing, especially as quickly as things change in
medicine.


What's so bad about bed linen changings and easier drug administrations
and basic body function readings being done by a "Licensed Practical
Nurse"? (Demeaned into "Let's Pretend Nurse" vs. "Real Nurse".) An LPN
requires about 2 years of secondary education, often at a "community
college" ("Associate Degree") or maybe at a trade school, and afterwards
takes a licensing test and if passing becomes officially qualified to
administer drugs even injected ones.
This is happening to many places. Of course, most of us RN use the
bed linen changes and basic body function readings to assess the
patient. Bed sores? Any indications of pain (breathing, grimacing, etc.)
as they move around? Talking to them while doing these things lets us
look at mental function, elicits complaints, etc. Easier drug
administrations give us an opportunity to look for some of the subtler
side effects that might be missed.
Interesting there are many studies showing that all RN staffs
actually save money because their patients tend to be discharged
earlier, problems caught earlier, etc.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On 5/28/2010 7:50 AM, wrote:
On May 27, 11:37 am, "Percival P.
wrote:
On 05/27/10 10:48 am, HeyBub wrote:

,,, There is no enterprise, health care,
education, etc., that cannot be done cheaper and better by private industry.
Take education, for example. No amount of money can improve it as long as it
remains primarily a government purview.

And in many European countries with universal heath care insurance
coverage is provided by private companies, but costs are controlled --
typically by capping the profits that can be made on basic coverage.

What total nonsense. Take a look at the profits of any of the health
insurance companies and the profit is miniscule compared to the total
premiums collected, benefits paid out, etc. In fact, it averages a
mere few percent of revenues across the insurance industry.


I think not. If what you were saying were true, why would there be a clause in
the recently enacted health care reform legislation that mandates that the
health insurance companies spend at least 85% of their income on payments to
beneficiaries for health care delivery? The facts can be stubborn! Many
companies were spending more than 15% of the premiums they receive on profits,
marketing, perks for the top corporate execs, etc. Not exactly consistent with
your claim that their profit is "miniscule compared to the total premiums
collected."

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

I know about 30 Canadians, and 100% them would refuse to trade their
healthcare system for what USA has. This includes a receptionist and
other office workers, a PhD chemist, a recently retired Toronto police
detective who now owns his own little company based heavily on a very
impressive machine shop, another company's CEO and the owner of that
company, and several relatives of some of these.

I can find more than 30 Americans would refuse to trade their health
systems, too. What both sets of people probably have in common is that
they seldom actually use either system.


But we have all of those Canadians pouring over the borders to take our
jobs and get our healthcare....oh, well, some just come for vacation )

On 5/28/2010 1:32 AM, harry wrote:


Wealth cannot be created in the stock market. The purpose of the
stock market should be purely the finance of industry.
Wealth can only be created by work. Ie, manufacturing, construction,
mining etc. The idea that wealth is created by a few electronic
keystrokes is stupid.
A bit of paper cannot be made to be worth more. If it is, the money it
is valued in just becomes worth less.
Wealth is not created in banks. it's created by the "blue collar"
workers. The sooner we get ay from this idea that wealth can somehow
be conjured up out of nothing, the sooner we will have a stable
economy.

Harry, it sounds as though you and I are both Marxists at heart! However, I
believe both from my personal experience and knowledge of history that pure
socialism is entirely unworkable because it is human nature to require
incentives. I suspect that the ideal economic system is some blend of socialism
and free-market capitalism. The problem, yet unsolved, is configuring the best
blend.

In article , Peter
wrote:


the recently enacted health care reform legislation that mandates that the
health insurance companies spend at least 85% of their income on payments to
beneficiaries for health care delivery? The facts can be stubborn! Many
companies were spending more than 15% of the premiums they receive on
profits,
marketing, perks for the top corporate execs, etc. Not exactly consistent
with
your claim that their profit is "miniscule compared to the total premiums
collected."

Most are at 85%, some 80%. From this they have to pay salaries for
administrations, etc. Overall, the profit margin for health insurance
companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data
provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and
slightly above the median of 2.2 percent.
BTW: Executive salaries are effectively capped at $1 million or so
due to tax laws. What aren't capped is incentives and stock options (the
latter usually the biggest and is not paid by the ratepayer, but rather
the stockholders through dilution of shares). This was done by Congress
to better align the needs of the executives with the needs of the
stockholders. Of course when you have a base salary of $1 mill and stock
options of $100 mill you are being paid not to manage the company but to
manage the stock price. Oop s.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

BTW: Executive salaries are effectively capped at $1 million or so
due to tax laws. What aren't capped is incentives and stock options (the
latter usually the biggest and is not paid by the ratepayer, but rather
the stockholders through dilution of shares). This was done by Congress
to better align the needs of the executives with the needs of the
stockholders. Of course when you have a base salary of $1 mill and stock
options of $100 mill you are being paid not to manage the company but to
manage the stock price. Oop s.

BTW Part2. Don't even throw out that old chestnut about how efficient
MCare is at administrating. The low %age often quoted is for Center for
Medicare Medicaid Services direct administration, research, overseeing
the Fiscal Intermediaries (EDS, Blues, etc. depending on the area),
schmoozing with Congress and the constituent organizations.
The actual heavy lifting is done by the Fiscal Intermediaries who
process the claims, write the checks, etc. If you add back in what the
FIs are paid as administration expense, the differences disappear.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On May 28, 1:11*am, harry wrote:
On May 28, 5:10 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On May 26, 9:42 am, Peter wrote:
On 5/26/2010 12:10 PM, harry wrote:

On May 26, 10:51 am, "Ed wrote:
wrote
How do you know it's not true as your gov. won't let you go and see
for yourself? Cuban health care is free to everyone. Even you if you
could get there.
You are another of the brainwashed.
At any given time, there are hundreds of US citizens in Cuba. Have a good
reason t go, fill out the forms, and you get permission. There is a also a
difference between free and good.
So, you need permission? On what grounds might that permission be
rejected? Why should you need permission anyway?
It's true. It is illegal for the average U.S. private citizen to
travel to Cuba (e.g. for tourism) without explicit permission from the
Department of State. It's a legacy from the American foreign policy
towards Cuba (part of the blockade mentality) that was implemented in
the early 1960s, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Isn't it great
how often we in this country (U.S.A.) complain officially (at the U..N.
and Dept. of State) and unofficially about other country's foreign
policies being stuck in the past? Time for us to look in the mirror
and realize that we can be hypocritical too.
My understanding is that one can travel to Cuba but one cannot spend
money there.

One travels via Toronto or a Mexican city. Buy one ticket to that
destination and a new ticket to Cuba.

SNIP from here to edit for space

I have friends in Canada, especially Toronto. One of them tells me that
he has vacationed in Cuba, and that some Americans do. They go to
Toronto, get a separate ticket to Cuba, and have Cuban customs stamp a
separate piece of paper for Americans to keep in their US Passports until
they return to Canada. Another thing my Cuba-vacationing Toronto friend
tells me is that Americans doing this trick are doing so in violation of
US law, and theoretically can be punished after returning to US.

Has Obama bowed to Castro yet?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but he bowed to the Queen. * :-)

Biden?

Mac Cool wrote:
HeyBub:

Ah, but here's where your logic fails: There is no enterprise, health
care, education, etc., that cannot be done cheaper and better by
private industry.


Give me some examples, education and health care for starters.

Consider the schools in Chicago. About one-sixth of the students in that
city attend parochial schools, mainly Catholic (~60,000). The private
schools spend about half the per-pupil amount as do the public ones yet turn
out comparable or better students. The Catholic schools have about one-tenth
the number of "administrators" as do the public schools.

Then, too, there is the Veteran's Administration hospitals. This is probably
the only completely-government run health care facility. A more despicable
collection of incompetence and villainy can not be found. (My plan is to
close all the VA hospitals and have the government pick up the tab for
veterans' treatment at a local, private, facility.)

"But, but, what about, say, police protection?" you might say. "Surely
that's a governmental function!"

The police don't protect anybody. In my town, that function is reserved for
private security guards, of which there are probably ten times as many as
police officers.

"Firefighters!" you insist. "They certainly protect the citizens!"

Yes they do. But that's not a governmental function, in the main, either.
Eighty-five percent of the firefighters in America are members of Volunteer
Fire Departments.

And so it goes...

Peter wrote:

You are cherry picking the data that support your case and ignoring
the data that doesn't. Not all private schools that accept students
subsidized by public vouchers produce a better product. The NEA is
blocking vouchers because they know that public school budgets are
calculated on the basis of student enrollment. Vouchers siphon
enrollment, reducing the municipality's pubic education budget, which
translates into less money to pay teacher salaries.

Uh, yeah. But if there are few students, presumably fewer teachers would be
needed.

In a (most) private schools, a Nobel Laureate, Pulitzer Prize winner or
Fields Medalist could teach. A retired civil engineer could instruct physics
students (off the top of his head). A retired nurse could easily teach
biology, and so on.

Usually these experts are not qualified, by law, to teach in the public
schools.

On May 28, 9:58*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Peter
wrote:

the recently enacted health care reform legislation that mandates that the
health insurance companies spend at least 85% of their income on payments to
beneficiaries for health care delivery? *The facts can be stubborn! *Many
companies were spending more than 15% of the premiums they receive on
profits,
marketing, perks for the top corporate execs, etc. *Not exactly consistent
with
your claim that their profit is "miniscule compared to the total premiums
collected."

* * *Most are at 85%, some 80%. From this they have to pay salaries for
administrations, etc. Overall, the profit margin for health insurance
companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data
provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and
slightly above the median of 2.2 percent.


Exactly. Norminn needs to take a lesson in accounting or economics.
Profit is what's left after paying for marketing, executive
compensation, etc. Why is it that Americans seem to accept that the
free market works and is the best solution for most of what we need,
yet they suddenly have a problem with it when it comes to certain
things like healthcare? A good example is auto insurance or
homeowner's insurance. Why is it that free market solutions with
some govt regulation work in those cases, but so many people reject
that solution for healthcare? The approach to healthcare should be
to look at how to improve the free market system, not abandon it. A
good starting point would be to enable competition across the entire
US so any health insurance company can sell a policy in any state.