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

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

"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-

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:
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!


As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
with both hands on your shoulders...

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:52:41 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
with both hands on your shoulders...

Let's hope those hands on your shoulder have enough sense to push you
in front a bus. Reading your whining and complaining ad nauseam is
enough to make everyone else jump in front of bus and I sure as hell
don't want to be the only one left while you're around.

"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

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.

"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

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.

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.

--

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.

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.

--

"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:

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

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?

"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

"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.

diggerop wrote:

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.

Well said. Unfortunately a great many Americans (on the left and the right)
take an entrenched tribal view of things, and either you stick to their
party line all the way, or you're a heretic.

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?

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.

"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

Rick Samuel wrote:
SNIP

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?


I read this to mean - or that you are implying at least - that our
government is controlled not directly by the people, but by special
interest groups. Care to guess what the single biggest and most
influencial lobbying organization in Washington D.C. is?

Hint - It is NOT:

- The Financial Industry
- The Insurance Industry
- The Energy Industry
- The Manufacturing Industry
- The Medical Industry
- The Legal Industry
- The Military/Aerospace Industry

IOW - it is none of the usual suspects that everyone gets all exercised
about. It is not the big eeeeeeeeeevil corporations or foreign governments,
or any of the boogeymen you hear blamed for all our ills.

In fact, the largest and most influential lobby in the US is ...
the envelope please:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the...ng_group_in_US

They don't necessarily spend the most amount of money, but the sheer
size of the AARP makes them the most influencial lobby in D.C. What they
don't spend in money, they sell in votes. It's also why you'll never
see real healthcare reform. In the words of a sign seen recently
at an anti-reform rally: "Don't replace Medicare with Socialism."
(Apparently without any sense of the irony / stupidity / irrationality
of said statement.)

So, don't blame the capitalists, the bankers, the lawyers, the influence
peddlers, the agents of foreign governments, or the evil geniuses in
the military-industrial complex. Blame grandma ...

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 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.

wrote:
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.

It's not for saving a life - it's for diagnosing an injury (that may be life
saving). I suspect that MRI machines at football stadiums are virtually
never used (maybe once a year?). The people who own the MRI machine don't
WANT to donate it to the community health center. They use it (possibly) to
protect their players which makes more money for the owners which allows
them to donate to worthy causes far in excess of one MRI machine. The poor
can't even take care of themselves, let alone contribute to the well-being
of others.

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.

Arguing from a false premise. Every mandated right implies a duty on the
part of someone else. If the pregnant mother had a "right" of any kind, a
duty is simultaneously imposed on others. Inasmuch as we reject the imposed
duty, if follows she has no "right" to life - or anything else - at our
expense.

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.

This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.

Some people just need to keep up.

"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

diggerop wrote:

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

diggerop

Heh, a great scene.

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.

That America can afford to waste more money on health care than other
nations doesn't alter the fact that a great deal of that expenditure is
indeed wasted. That pro sports teams can afford MRI machines while many
millions of Americans can't get basic health care is also not something to
be proud of.

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.
[snip]

Interesting post. Much of the world seems to have been able to make
"socialized"¹ medicine work with varying degrees of success, one measure of
that being that the citizens of many nations live longer than Americans
while their governments spend less per capita on health care. But in
America a powerful lobby protects the profits of the health care industry,
that's why Americans pay more and often get less--the administrative
overhead of health insurance companies consumes 20% of what Americans pay
for insurance. I don't know what portion of the current reform legislation
will survive to become law, I suspect just reigning in the worst abuses of
the insurance companies might be all we get. So long as members of Congress
are taking millions in campaign donations from the health care industry I'm
dubious as to how much real reform we'll see.

¹"Socialized" in this context means anything that puts people's health ahead
of the profits of health care corporations.

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.