The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.

Lew


Here is a 62 page "summary" of the bill
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...by_Section.pdf

Lew Hodgett wrote:

The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.

Lew

As someone else put it, "Who would have thought that liberty would die
with the sound of thunderous applause?"



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Lew Hodgett wrote:

The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.

Lew

As someone else put it, "Who would have thought that liberty would die
with the sound of thunderous applause?"



When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually, as I
saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of which were
caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable system. Both
sides of national politics now support it and have done for about the last
14 years.
Insurance companies now have no involvement. Private insurance, which I
carry, is via not for profit organisations which exist for the purpose of
providing medical benefits for their members. Private health cover entitles
me to a choice of private hospitals, choice of doctor and refunds in most
cases of any additional fees not picked up by medicare. Everyone, whether
privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost. Waiting times
are determined by the level of urgency for treatment. Privately insured
patients who have the option of treatment at private hospitals get faster
treatment than those without cover, but only on non life threatening
illnesses.

Standard of care? - I have, unfortunately, spent the last 12 months in and
out of both the private hospital system and the government hospitals.
Surprisingly, I would have to admit that the government hospitals are better
equipped and the standard of care overall is higher.
The financial disasters that I and others like me predicted have not
occurred. The system is remarkably efficient. And everyone, regardless, gets
basic care at no cost, and those of us that wish to, still get freedom of
choice.
Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I believe the
US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet Australians reportedly
live on average live 4 years longer than the average US citizen.
Got to be food for thought in that.

We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts dental
treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers part of the cost,
but disadvantaged people miss out.

diggerop

Lew Hodgett wrote:
The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.


Yep. The Republicans blew it.

Immediately before the vote on the big bill, the House passed the "Stupak
Amendment." This amendment prohibited any federal funds to be used for
abortion. Without this amendment, the "Blue Dog" Democrats would not have
supported the final bill. One hundred and seventy-six Republicans voted for
the amendment and it passed.

Had that amendment failed, the bulk of the 50-odd "Blue Dogs" would have
voted against the final bill.

As a tactical matter, the pro-life Republicans should have voted in favor of
abortion that one time.

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:49 +0800, diggerop wrote:

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually,
as I saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of
which were caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable
system. Both sides of national politics now support it and have done for
about the

Thanks. It's nice to hear from someone who lived through the conversion
to government health care and changed opinions as a result of facts.
That doesn't happen very often :-).

Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
. au...
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually, as
I
saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of which were
caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable system.
snip
Everyone, whether
privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost.

No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?


Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I believe
the
US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet Australians reportedly
live on average live 4 years longer than the average US citizen.
Got to be food for thought in that.

Many variables ae possible there.
One might be American hypocondria. In some instances, staying away from
doctors can be a healthier choice than being treated often. 99,000
Americans die every year from MRSA. Most catch it in hospitals and clinics
during treatment for other problems.


We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts dental
treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers part of the
cost,
but disadvantaged people miss out.

diggerop


Thanks for explaining the dental care situation.

How are optical care and glasses paid for?
Giving benefit of the doubt, let's presume that eye surgery is counted like
any other surgery and paid for in the publicly funded system supported by
tax money.
Axel

diggerop wrote:
....
When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually,
as I saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of
which were caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable
system. Both sides of national politics now support it and have done for
about the last 14 years.
....

Yes, but the population of Australia is less than or roughly equivalent
to that of the three largest states in the US--CA is almost 50% the size
alone. The overall US population is almost 15X that.

Doubt seriously the success there would scale nearly as well to the US
on size and demographics.

I'd love to think whatever they end up doing will have such a miraculous
happy ending but can't see how it can possibly be w/ the cost models
they're making up to support it and the requirements on insurance companies.

--

"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no
cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
who is going to pay how much?

Ed Pawlowski said:


"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no
cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
who is going to pay how much?

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

FWIW,

Greg G.

Greg G. said:

Ed Pawlowski said:


"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no
cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
who is going to pay how much?

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...tract+with+IBM

Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
there is a lesson in there somewhere...



Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski said:


"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at
no
cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
who is going to pay how much?

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

FWIW,

Greg G.


Can you think of a reason why Australia showed up on the spreadsheet and not
on the graphs?

"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Greg G. said:

Ed Pawlowski said:


"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at
no
cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
who is going to pay how much?

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...tract+with+IBM

Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
there is a lesson in there somewhere...

What?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...


Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!


Such a shame that you are so insecure as to have to lob one over the wall at
those you fear so greatly.

--

-Mike-

Greg G. wrote:

Ed Pawlowski said:


"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at
no
cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what
scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is
going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but
who is going to pay how much?

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.


If you don't understand the difference between the enumerated powers,
local responsibilities, and the government takeover of private enterprise
then there is no reason to even attempt discussion on the topic.



Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

FWIW,

Greg G.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually, as
I saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of which
were caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable system.
Both sides of national politics now support it and have done for about the
last 14 years.
Insurance companies now have no involvement. Private insurance, which I
carry, is via not for profit organisations which exist for the purpose of
providing medical benefits for their members. Private health cover
entitles me to a choice of private hospitals, choice of doctor and refunds
in most cases of any additional fees not picked up by medicare. Everyone,
whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost.
Waiting times are determined by the level of urgency for treatment.
Privately insured patients who have the option of treatment at private
hospitals get faster treatment than those without cover, but only on non
life threatening illnesses.

Standard of care? - I have, unfortunately, spent the last 12 months in and
out of both the private hospital system and the government hospitals.
Surprisingly, I would have to admit that the government hospitals are
better equipped and the standard of care overall is higher.
The financial disasters that I and others like me predicted have not
occurred. The system is remarkably efficient. And everyone, regardless,
gets basic care at no cost, and those of us that wish to, still get
freedom of choice.
Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I believe
the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet Australians
reportedly live on average live 4 years longer than the average US
citizen.
Got to be food for thought in that.

We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts dental
treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers part of the
cost, but disadvantaged people miss out.

diggerop

Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?

Axel Grease wrote:
"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
. au...
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was
vehemently opposed to it. Saw it as government interference,
creeping socialism and denying freedom of choice. I held that view
for many years. Gradually, as I saw it get through some teething
troubles and changes, some of which were caused by changes of
government it evolved into a workable system. snip Everyone,
whether
privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost.

No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?


Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I
believe the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet
Australians reportedly live on average live 4 years longer than the
average US citizen.
Got to be food for thought in that.

Many variables ae possible there.
One might be American hypocondria. In some instances, staying away
from doctors can be a healthier choice than being treated often.
99,000 Americans die every year from MRSA. Most catch it in
hospitals and clinics during treatment for other problems.

The problem with this sort of argument is that we don't know how "die" is
defined. Most countries don't count stillbirths and miscarriages as
"deaths" but they define "stillbirth" and "miscarriage" in different
ways--in some places they'll struggle mightily to save a 20 week fetus and
list it as "infant mortality" when they fail, while in other places a full
term infant that dies within an hour of birth is a "stillbirth". And
regardless of UN guidelines their statistics are based on reported deaths
and doctors in the middle of treating patients don't give a hoot in Hell
about some bureaucrat's statistical requirements.

We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts
dental treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers
part of the cost, but disadvantaged people miss out.

diggerop


Thanks for explaining the dental care situation.

How are optical care and glasses paid for?
Giving benefit of the doubt, let's presume that eye surgery is
counted like any other surgery and paid for in the publicly funded
system supported by tax money.

Just a comment, but with regard to routine eye care, an eye exam in the US
costs 50 bucks and anybody can get glasses for 8 bucks, so I don't see any
need for medical insurance to pay for those.

Greg G. wrote:
Ed Pawlowski said:


"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital
treatment at no cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is
what scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the
real cost is going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone
good health care, but who is going to pay how much?

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

People need NASA to live? Do tell.

The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for and
listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the government
paying for medical treatment. And schools, police, and fire departments are
not funded by the national government, nor are parks. I don't know what a
"community power consortium" is but there is certainly no Federally funded
power grid.

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

And the government paying for it is going to alter those charts in what way?

Greg G. wrote:
Greg G. said:

Ed Pawlowski said:


"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital
treatment at no cost.

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is
what scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the
real cost is going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone
good health care, but who is going to pay how much?

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...tract+with+IBM

Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
there is a lesson in there somewhere...

Business is not designed to give away money--the failed concept is that you
can help people by giving them money without also giving them incentives to
work and the skills necessary to obtain work (which are different from the
skills necessary to _do_ work).

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Everyone, whether privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at
no cost.

They converted you to a Socialist.

Heh. With respect, Ed, you have no idea. I am about as socialistic as Ghegis
Khan. I'm a free enterprise man. I am a union hating conservative voter,
suspicious of and opposed to government control (read interference,) in
most things.
Attempting to describe my political outlook from what I wrote amounts to
blind, arrogant stupidity on your part. (If that sounds a little strong to
you, I do admit to, but refuse to apologise for, an aggressive personality.)

Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that I was
vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable disaster actually
worked reasonably well (and could work better, I have no doubt,) doesn't
make me a socialist. Just smart enough to admit I'm not always right.

My greatest regret in recent years has been the defeat of the Howard
government. Had he been returned, I am convinced he would have continued to
make all spheres of public spending leaner and meaner. The current socialist
government seems hell bent on throwing public money around and spending
their inheritance from the Howard/Costello years.

Everything has a cost. That is what scares me about the proposed system,
we don't know what the real cost is going to be. Yes, it would be ice to
give everyone good health care, but who is going to pay how much?

Yes indeed. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

diggerop

Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.


If you don't understand the difference between the enumerated powers,
local responsibilities, and the government takeover of private enterprise
then there is no reason to even attempt discussion on the topic.

Health care should apparently not be private, at least not until greed
is removed as a component. It is a human/societal need, not a Rolex.
No different from the fire department. But to be perfectly honest, I
wouldn't trust the *******s you people elect in this county any
farther than I can toss them either. It's a no win situation either
way.

I'll be damned if I'm going to allow the government to force me to pay
a bunch of avaricious for-profit institutions of ANY sort, for any
reason. Been through this with thieving auto insurance companies and
the legions of parasites and pettifoggers who feed off that particular
mess. And if this turd of a healthcare bill passes I'm leaving. I'd
go to Canada, which has a far more equitable system that this place
but I despise cold. For me, that leaves down under. If that makes me a
socialist, then so be it.


Greg G.

Rick Samuel said:

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and

Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?

Good question, and I think we all know the answer to that one...


Greg G.

"Axel Grease" wrote in message
net...
"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
. au...
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually, as
I
saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of which were
caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable system.
snip
Everyone, whether
privately insured or not, gets hospital treatment at no cost.

No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?

My bad. I should have phrased that better. Perhaps if I had said no direct
charge to the individual being treated?
Federal Government spending, is of course, funded by the taxpayer.


Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I believe
the
US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet Australians reportedly
live on average live 4 years longer than the average US citizen.
Got to be food for thought in that.

Many variables ae possible there.
One might be American hypocondria. In some instances, staying away from
doctors can be a healthier choice than being treated often. 99,000
Americans die every year from MRSA. Most catch it in hospitals and
clinics
during treatment for other problems.


We do not however, have a national dental care system, which puts dental
treatment out of reach of many people. My insurance covers part of the
cost,
but disadvantaged people miss out.

diggerop


Thanks for explaining the dental care situation.

How are optical care and glasses paid for?
Giving benefit of the doubt, let's presume that eye surgery is counted
like
any other surgery and paid for in the publicly funded system supported by
tax money.
Axel


I'm not well versed in the optical care side, despite wearing prescription
glasses myself. I believe those on social security incur no direct cost, -
the rest of us do. Costs don't seem very high to me, they may well be
subsidised in part by the government, but I am just guessing. In addition,
in my case, my health fund reimbursed me most of the cost.

diggerop

"Rick Samuel" wrote in message
...


Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?





Without doubt, governments on both sides of the political spectrum here are
vulnerable to the pressures of special interest groups. They all want to buy
votes, regardless of where they come from. Fortunately, the right tends to
be less affected by the loony left and bleeding hearts, of which there are a
significant number in this country. Unfortunately, we currently have a
socialist Federal government. Ain't democracy wonderful?
I have some personal experience of politics; - my grandfather was a federal
politician and government minister for many years. (He described politics as
the most dishonest profession in the world,) and at one stage I was myself
directly involved in politics. I found the lies, duplicity and self-serving
manipulation that formed a large part of the process (on both sides,) to be
something that I was too idealistic to deal with effectively.

Now I'm just an curmudgeonly old armchair critic. : )

diggerop

LDosser said:

"Greg G." wrote:

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...tract+with+IBM

Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
there is a lesson in there somewhere...

What?

That properly run, government can be as or more efficient at providing
services than private for profit industry.

Our problem is the "properly run" and efficient part...


Greg G.

"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message

Attempting to describe my political outlook from what I wrote amounts to
blind, arrogant stupidity on your part. (If that sounds a little strong to
you, I do admit to, but refuse to apologise for, an aggressive
personality.)

OK, let me take another guess. You have no sense of humor either. If you
can't take a little ribbing on USENET, you are rather thin skinned.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message

Attempting to describe my political outlook from what I wrote amounts to
blind, arrogant stupidity on your part. (If that sounds a little strong
to you, I do admit to, but refuse to apologise for, an aggressive
personality.)

OK, let me take another guess. You have no sense of humor either. If you
can't take a little ribbing on USENET, you are rather thin skinned.



Heh. There are certainly those who would agree with that assessment. My wife
for one.
But then, the only opinion that really matters is mine, when it's all said
and done. ; )

diggerop

J. Clarke said:

Greg G. wrote:

And a recent interesting story about IBM privatization v. "socialism":
http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...tract+with+IBM

Unfortunately, it is in regards to welfare services, but it could be
there is a lesson in there somewhere...

Business is not designed to give away money--the failed concept is that you
can help people by giving them money without also giving them incentives to
work and the skills necessary to obtain work (which are different from the
skills necessary to _do_ work).

Nonsense. A properly run business should be able to excel at any task
assigned - whether manufacturing or disbursement of funds and
services. If not, it should fail. In this case, IBM failed to meet the
standards of even a reputedly grossly ineffective government entity.

My point was not about welfare, but about the efficiency and
effectiveness of government vs. private enterprise. I'm not about to
defend the current state of affairs with regards to the dirt bags in
public office, nor the assortment of profiteering corporations and
their drooling stockholders who do no work at all, short of counting
their returns on investment. Simply pointing out a single recent case
where privatization didn't work - and there are plenty more.

Privatized prisons and parole services have many in law enforcement
and justice up in arms. Companies made big promises, but have utterly
failed to meet either performance objectives or efficiency goals. Most
consider the move a huge mistake. The government was considered
inefficient, but the private companies have turned out to be, as many
expected, profiteers whose primary objective was to extort money under
the color of law while providing no services in the public interest.
In other words, they proved even worse than big, bad government.

As for the welfare aspect, I don't disagree with your point. But where
are you going to employ them? Without jobs people cannot work,
without cash flow, employers cannot hire. The jobs that once provided
income to the poor and uneducated, such as textiles, steel, and much
manufacturing, have been shipped offshore. Even agriculture has been
taken over by AgriCorp and machinery. NAFTA killed off Mexican farmers
ability to profit from farming and resulted in a huge influx of
immigrant workers looking for income. So they end up being exploited
at meat packing plants and farms thereby pushing even more US citizens
out of jobs they would otherwise hate, but do to make a living.

So what do you propose the unemployed do for a living? The right
opposes abortion, and you're never going to stop people from having
sex, so the problem simply grows and grows. Nothing productive is done
on any front. All I see and hear is more rhetoric, vitriol and failed
ideology. The stupid breed en masse and the right screams, "But what
about the unborn children?" Bull****. These morons put more thought
into breeding dogs and horses than they do bettering the human race.
Personally, if some idiot wants to speed at 110 MPH and not wear a
seat belt while talking on a freaking cell phone, I say let him. It's
Darwin in action - they are unwittingly saving us from ourselves. Kids
should be protected from ignorance, adults, not so much.

Those that have want even more, and those that have nothing harbor no
hope of extricating themselves from the miserable lives they lead. To
the newly born this is no longer the land of opportunity, but a land
of corporate fuel screws and impoverished consumers of imported crap.
Unless, of course, you are born into the aristocracy/plutocracy. Even
the few that break out of poverty through education are ultimately
saddled with debt which takes 20+ years to pay off - if then, in this
present economic situation. We can spend a real 32% of the Federal
budget on military profiteers plus another 18% on the debt from past
military spending but we shun science, education and birth control. We
then export jobs and factories en masse to a communist nation while
amassing trillion dollar trade deficits. Smart!

I suppose the short of it is, we're f'd. The US is a failure. Happy?


Greg G.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


You were robbed. Give http://www.zennioptical.com a try. If they don't
work for you you haven't spent much, if they do you end up with a spare
pair. No trifocals though, bifocal or progressive. If you don't have
prescription sunglasses it might be an excuse to pick up a pair.


I was all set to call "bull****" on your claim John, until I looked at the
site. Might be worth trying this site out. I've always been ****ed at the
price gouging that goes on with a pair of new glasses.

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:39:13 -0500, "Axel Grease"
wrote:

"diggerop" toobusy@themoment wrote in message
Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care.
I believe the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP.

No cost? Why do you not count your taxes which pay for it?

You quoted it yourself. It's GDP and those are taxes.Obviously he was
referring some something like noticeable monthly out of pocket
expenses. In other words, if you are a citizen buy essentially making
zero income, you can still get needed medical treatment.

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:47:35 -0600, dpb wrote:

I'd love to think whatever they end up doing will have such a miraculous
happy ending but can't see how it can possibly be w/ the cost models
they're making up to support it and the requirements on insurance companies.

It's back to the same old question. How do you think other countries
are doing it and surviving? Granted populations sizes are going to be
different, but if you consider it to be funded by a certain portion of
GDP, then the model should operate pretty much the same way.

diggerop wrote:
Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I
believe the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet
Australians reportedly live on average live 4 years longer than the
average US citizen. Got to be food for thought in that.


More like food for further investigation. True, we spend more of GDP on
health care than most other countries. That's possibly because we can. We
probably spend more on pay-TV, eating out, earth shoes, and other
non-critical items than other countries simply because we can. Some "health
care" in the U.S. is discretionary (think breast implants - although I did
see a recent article complaining that Australia was having to import 1000cc
implants from the U.S. because of a severe in-country shortage...).

Life expectancy is also a poor metric for the efficacy of health care. For
example, most countries count severly premature infant deaths as "stillborn"
(such as France). In the U.S., Herculean efforts are expended on these
unfortunate children. Regrettably, many don't make it and skew the "life
expectancy" tables downward.

A better metric for health care may very well be life expectancy after a
diagnosis. In this category, the U.S. leads. For example, life expectancy of
five years or more after diagnosis of breast cancer is 95% in the U.S. vs.
56% in the U.K. This MAY be due to greater diagnostic capability in the U.S.
than in other places. In that regard, consider: there are more MRI machines
in my town than in all of Canada. Again, we have a greater diagnostic
infrastructure, probably, because we can afford it.

Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited to 6"
or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an Australian
stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a machine readily
available.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:16:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

I understand that the regular place might not be there later, but
they weren't there for me when I needed them anyway, so screw 'em.

I used to go to the same place for years and years. Every time I
replaced my glasses (about every two years), I'd see the price climb a
few notches. Though, "ok that's to be expected". Then I noticed that
as well as the prices increasing a little bit, the percentage of
increase was getting bigger too, so I started looking around at the
burgeoning proliferation of optometrists.

I'm now buying my glasses elsewhere for more than 50% less and they
come with satisfaction warranties. Replaced my most recent pair that
way. I'm seeing fine and starting a little more to shop around instead
of just going which where I've had the best service. Best service
shopping is great, but when it starts costing more than what I think
is fair, then it's time to amend my shopping methods.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:58:13 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

OK, let me take another guess. You have no sense of humor either. If you
can't take a little ribbing on USENET, you are rather thin skinned.

Hell Ed. You've got to admit that accusing any number of Americans as
being socialist in nature is tantamount to committing a declaration of
war, even if you were ribbing them. To some people, the word is a
volatile, disgusting tool of the damned. There's no room for humour
there. Diggerop may not be American, but he might harbor some of those
same feelings about socialism.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:25:40 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited to 6"
or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an Australian
stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a machine readily
available.

Not sure what your point is about the MRI machine, but again, it could
only be because they can afford it. If it's for saving life, then more
people would be saved by donating that MRI machine to some local
medical clinic. Naturally the question then becomes, who has the
greatest right to life ~ the football player or the pregnant mother
who has recently experienced a car accident. Yes, there's certainly
more money involved with the football player, but there' also more
humanity involved with the pregnant mother. Unfortunately, "humanity"
doesn't count for much, at least not as much as hoped.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
diggerop wrote:
Currently, Australia spends approx 9% of GDP on medical care. I
believe the US currently spends something like 15% of GDP. Yet
Australians reportedly live on average live 4 years longer than the
average US citizen. Got to be food for thought in that.


More like food for further investigation. True, we spend more of GDP on
health care than most other countries. That's possibly because we can. We
probably spend more on pay-TV, eating out, earth shoes, and other
non-critical items than other countries simply because we can. Some
"health care" in the U.S. is discretionary (think breast implants -
although I did see a recent article complaining that Australia was having
to import 1000cc implants from the U.S. because of a severe in-country
shortage...).

Life expectancy is also a poor metric for the efficacy of health care. For
example, most countries count severly premature infant deaths as
"stillborn" (such as France). In the U.S., Herculean efforts are expended
on these unfortunate children. Regrettably, many don't make it and skew
the "life expectancy" tables downward.


I'm not sure why I bother, however; -Think about what you are saying. If
there are sufficient premature infant deaths to skew life expectancy results
for a nation the size of the US, then your standards of medical care,
(despite the herculean efforts you alluded to,) must rank as some of the
most appalling and inept in the world.

A better metric for health care may very well be life expectancy after a
diagnosis. In this category, the U.S. leads. For example, life expectancy
of five years or more after diagnosis of breast cancer is 95% in the U.S.
vs. 56% in the U.K. This MAY be due to greater diagnostic capability in
the U.S. than in other places. In that regard, consider: there are more
MRI machines in my town than in all of Canada. Again, we have a greater
diagnostic infrastructure, probably, because we can afford it.

You posted the same grossly out of date statistics on breast cancer in
another thread some time ago. I refuted them then and gave you cites. It's
interesting to me that you and I probably have the same political leanings,
however, your propensity to post out of date, unsubstantiated, ill thought
out rubbish simply makes you an easy target for the left. ..... I'm
beginning to feel sorry for you, and that can't be good.

Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited to
6" or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an Australian
stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a machine readily
available.


Six inches? ......... That's not a knife! : )

diggerop

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:58:13 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

OK, let me take another guess. You have no sense of humor either. If you
can't take a little ribbing on USENET, you are rather thin skinned.

Hell Ed. You've got to admit that accusing any number of Americans as
being socialist in nature is tantamount to committing a declaration of
war, even if you were ribbing them. To some people, the word is a
volatile, disgusting tool of the damned. There's no room for humour
there. Diggerop may not be American, but he might harbor some of those
same feelings about socialism.


Heh. Now if he'd labeled me a thief or murderer, shyster or philanderer,
(something with redeemable qualities,) I'd maybe have let it pass.
But a *Socialist*? Dagnabbit man, that's the lowest form of life on the
planet. ; )

diggerop

wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:47:35 -0600, dpb wrote:

I'd love to think whatever they end up doing will have such a miraculous
happy ending but can't see how it can possibly be w/ the cost models
they're making up to support it and the requirements on insurance companies.

It's back to the same old question. How do you think other countries
are doing it and surviving? Granted populations sizes are going to be
different, but if you consider it to be funded by a certain portion of
GDP, then the model should operate pretty much the same way.

Not necessarily at all. Demographics aren't at all the same, either, as
well as just numbers.

And, not all these other countries are doing so well, either; or their
systems aren't all functioning as well as might be hoped. Recall GB
some years ago when they went bust? Japan has been in almost 20 year
stagnant at best, France is beset w/ strikes and all sorts of troubles
simmering just under the surface...

And, of course, the US "plan" being proposed isn't one of those anyway,
it's a hodgepodge of stuff and includes a significant fraction of the
supposed cost for the new stuff to come by reducing current expenditures
for Medicare which is some trillions upside down already and has
difficulty getting providers to accept patients for the present
remuneration what more w/ further reductions.

No, I don't see much (as in any) hope of what's being proposed having
any success at all in accomplishing what's being promised it will do. I
do see it creating another humongeous federal bureaucracy and and
bottomless sink for revenue.

I can see some reforms/modifications of systems but these folks running
the show at the moment can't seem to see anything but that it's the
government's job to do everything for everybody whether they want it or
not or whether there's any way to pay for it or not.

And we've not even started to see the impacts of what Cap'n Trade is
going to do to destroy what little competitive position w/ have left in
global marketplace if it goes. If folks think employment situation is
tough now, wait'll manufacturers' input energy costs double or so while
rest of worlds' don't change significantly and see how that works out.

--

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:41:08 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...


Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!


Such a shame that you are so insecure as to have to lob one over the
wall at those you fear so greatly.

You're funny :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:49:23 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

You're spot on, too, Dop. The same goes for our country Up Over. I think
that the best thing the country could do would be to go out on the
street and yank 525 folks from the general population (any person who
did -not- want to be a politician) and replace those thieving *******s
now elected to CONgress.

I've often suggested drawing two or three names for each position and
giving them 30 days to explain their views - then hold the election.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw