On 06/30/2012 04:19 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:26:30 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

It's very material unless you believe the Constitution is immaterial.
Again, read the 10th amendment.

I do believe the Civil War (among other things) more or less ignored the
10th amendment. The Constitution, or at least the literal interpretation
of it, was on life support even before that.

Do you really believe that health care even entered the founders minds,
considering its primitiveness at the time? See death of G. Washington.


I believe the founders were intent on limiting the power of the federal
government. That is exactly the reason for the 10th and the remainder
of the bill of rights. They were not about to have the same issues in
the new government that they fought to escape from.

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
or the intended power of the federal government.

A refresher of "enumerated powers" may help to enlighten.

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Frank Stutzman wrote in
:

Now days just nagging insurance companies to pay (either Medicare or
private) takes a staff of and least 2 full time employees per
practitioner.


and that need just ****es me off (at the insurance companies).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew




Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no
insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have
coverage either through your employer or you can afford it.

On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying
to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you
can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000.


Tax the poor. That's a new tactic.

On 6/30/2012 2:35 PM, Frank Stutzman wrote:
Han wrote:

Well said. Just a little question. Most (I think) physicians, including
primary care doctors, nowadays are saddled with an extensive staff of
billing agents, transcribers, appointment secretaries etc, etc. So net
pay and gross pay are very different.
Absolutely. My father-in-law was also a general practitioner (doctoring tends
to run in my wife's family). He ran his clinic with just a nurse and a
front desk person who also handled the business operation. Very low overhead
and, thusly, very low costs to his patients.

On the other hand, it was a cash only business. He did his patient notes in
his own shorthand on 3x5 cards, owned the building he worked in, and ended
up marrying his nurse.

Now days just nagging insurance companies to pay (either Medicare or private)
takes a staff of and least 2 full time employees per practitioner.



There are former doctors who quit being doctors because they couldn't
afford the $100,000 a year or more the insurance companies demanded for
malpractice premiums.

On 6/30/2012 7:12 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:01:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

You need to talk to an insurance agent that has access to several
different companies, and compare the cost for what you are getting.

See Ed K's response.

Remember, engage brain before putting mouth in gear :-).



I did compare insurance company and found that while the basics were the
same the price varied significantly for the additional that was provided
between the various companies and policies. These additional included
co pays, and what was deductible and not, eye glass, dental, etc..

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For people
who don't already have insurance because they can't afford it, it
amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going, Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some choice!

On 01 Jul 2012 11:23:58 GMT, Han wrote:




It underwent revolutionary changes in Holland in ~2006. It works in
Canada (ask Robatoy), and it is working just fine in Massachusetts.

Working, yes. Working just fine? Debatable.

Rates keep going up even with everyone insured. Where is the big
savings promised?

On 6/30/2012 5:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:29:53 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from
crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts
of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies
gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical
community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a
small part of it all.

Agreed.

You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.

It is also spent on advertising the drugs they went out of their way
to produce, to make people think they had some new disease, which the
drug in question just happens to cure.

Pharmaceutical advertising is in the tens or hundreds of billions
annually, depending on your scope.

Yeah, a far twenty third place behind the ads for tennis shoes,
ambulance chasers, campaign ads, greeney ads, etc

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:44:19 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 6/30/2012 5:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:29:53 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from
crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts
of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies
gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical
community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a
small part of it all.

Agreed.

You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.

It is also spent on advertising the drugs they went out of their way
to produce, to make people think they had some new disease, which the
drug in question just happens to cure.

Pharmaceutical advertising is in the tens or hundreds of billions
annually, depending on your scope.

Yeah, a far twenty third place behind the ads for tennis shoes,
ambulance chasers, campaign ads, greeney ads, etc

So what? I opt out/boycott/don't buy the exotic tennies, rent
speaking weasels, donate to corrupt politicians, or support tree
huggers. But when I need meds, I want them to be reasonably priced.
The fact that our own pharmceutical companies sell the exact same
drugs to Europe and the rest of the world at 1/5 (or less) the price
they gouge us for, to me, is unconscionable. I can't opt out of
needing meds, though losing weight is doing as much for my high BP as
the Lisinopril. Luckily, it's one of the $4/mo drug prescriptions. The
cost of one month's worth of HIV drugs exceeds the annual income of
citizens from most other nations.

The medical community has put itself on pedestals which we can no
longer afford to ignore or condone.

--
If you're trying to take a roomful of people by
surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets
if you don't yell going through the door.
-- Lois McMaster Bujold

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:14:14 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

I did compare insurance company and found that while the basics were the
same the price varied significantly for the additional that was provided
between the various companies and policies. These additional included
co pays, and what was deductible and not, eye glass, dental, etc..

I don't know what you looked at Keith, but if they were indeed Medicare
Supplement Policies they did not vary in benefits within a federally
defined level (A,B,...).

I suspect you were looking at MedAdvantage plans or plans that had
nothing to do with Medicare.

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

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
or the intended power of the federal government.

As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level
of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.

They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of
their principles (reached after much compromising) are still applicable -
others need adjustments for reality.

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

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
================================================== =====================
It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point in
the first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should work at
least as well as this clustre**** we have now.

Right. Require that the homeless buy a house. Simple!

Uh, they already did.

Well, not actually "require," but they made is so attractive that the vast
majority participated.

It all started with the Community Re-Development Act under President Carter,
but it really took off under the Clinton administration.

steve robinson wrote:

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to
get the poor subscribed without taxing them.

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the
ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe water for
their hospitalized patients so they won't die of dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If alive,
they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor, nurse,
or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed that upwards
of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from non-treatment or poor
treatment.

Swingman wrote:
On 6/28/2012 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

It's entirely plausible that Roberts may have done more future damage
to the liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may
have well been Marbury'ed ...

Yep. One commentator opined that the other justices are playing checkers
while Roberts is playing chess.

There are several cases scheduled for next term where his rationale in the
ACA case will come back to bite the liberals. Chief among these cases are
those having to do with voting rights and civil rights.

The bottom line on the ACA case, according to Roberts, is that a LEGISLATIVE
solution is the proper path. That looses a massive political effort for the
fall.

Hold my beer and watch this!

On 7/1/2012 1:06 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
or the intended power of the federal government.

As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level
of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.

They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of
their principles (reached after much compromising) are still applicable -
others need adjustments for reality.

If they thought health care was a right they would have said PROVIDE for
the common welfare, NOT PROMOTE the general welfare.

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 7/1/2012 1:06 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things
the feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the
Constitution or the intended power of the federal government.

As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume
the founders would have not considered it as a possible right if
todays level of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but
it's possible.

They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some
of their principles (reached after much compromising) are still
applicable - others need adjustments for reality.

If they thought health care was a right they would have said PROVIDE
for the common welfare, NOT PROMOTE the general welfare.

I believe I know enough English to conclude that the PPACA promotes
welfare (in that sense).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 01 Jul 2012 11:23:58 GMT, Han wrote:




It underwent revolutionary changes in Holland in ~2006. It works in
Canada (ask Robatoy), and it is working just fine in Massachusetts.

Working, yes. Working just fine? Debatable.

Rates keep going up even with everyone insured. Where is the big
savings promised?

It's a common refrain. In Holland too, they have had to adjust premiums
upward. Probably savings come from the fact that there is no or far less
cost caring for indigent. I wish I know how I could get healthcare costs
to go down. On the other hand, several of my medications have gone
generic, and they cost me far less now (and the cost to the insurance
company is down too, probably).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

steve robinson wrote:

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to
get the poor subscribed without taxing them.

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the
ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe water
for their hospitalized patients so they won't die of dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If
alive, they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed
that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

How many of those people chose palliative treatment rather than
aggressive "life"-saving treatment?


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/1/2012 11:06 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
or the intended power of the federal government.
As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level
of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.

There were houses, food, clothing, and education back then. The
founders didn't consider those things to be "rights."

On 7/1/2012 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/1/2012 1:06 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things
the
feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the
Constitution
or the intended power of the federal government.

As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays
level
of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.

They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of
their principles (reached after much compromising) are still
applicable -
others need adjustments for reality.

If they thought health care was a right they would have said PROVIDE
for the common welfare, NOT PROMOTE the general welfare.

No, they would have said something specific about health care itself.

in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:
steve robinson wrote:

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to
get the poor subscribed without taxing them.

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the
ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe water for
their hospitalized patients so they won't die of dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If alive,
they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor, nurse,
or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed that upwards
of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from non-treatment or poor
treatment.

US media propaganda.

On 7/2/2012 1:35 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If alive,
they live to be treated another day.

Yep ... alive, just not healthy enough to live without Big Pharma. There
is no profit in a healthy population.


In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor, nurse,
or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed that upwards
of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from non-treatment or poor
treatment.

US media propaganda.

Agreed ... not to mention that the past three decades, approximately
109,000 people die DIRECTLY each year from drug interactions in the US
.... to put that in perspective, about 30,000 die from automobile accidents.

A medical profession, and culture, where "nutrition" is not on the menu,
plus government malfeasance while Food, Inc and Big Pharma poisons the
population, insures profits.

There is NO profit in "healthy" for politicians, the medical and/or drug
industries.

You are what you eat ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/1/2012 8:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For people
who don't already have insurance because they can't afford it, it
amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going, Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some choice!

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health care.

Bob Martin wrote:
in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:
steve robinson wrote:

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to
get the poor subscribed without taxing them.

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the
ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe
water for their hospitalized patients so they won't die of
dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive.
If alive, they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

US media propaganda.

Not US media at all. A cursory check, or neutral question, would have
prevented a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

"[LONDON, June 21, 2012] An eminent British doctor told a meeting of the
Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000 elderly patients
that die while under the care of the National Health Service (NHS) have been
effectively euthanized by being put on the controversial Liverpool Care
Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of the terminally ill that he described
as a "death pathway."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/130...top-uk-doctor/

And from a UK newspaper:

"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly
hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a
senior consultant claimed yesterday.

"[The Liverpool Care Pathway] is designed to come into force when doctors
believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent. It
can include withdrawal of treatment - including the provision of water and
nourishment by tube - and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1zT2ujcKn

To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing "LCP"
on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different critter.)

Larry Jaques wrote:

So what? I opt out/boycott/don't buy the exotic tennies, rent
speaking weasels, donate to corrupt politicians, or support tree
huggers. But when I need meds, I want them to be reasonably priced.
The fact that our own pharmceutical companies sell the exact same
drugs to Europe and the rest of the world at 1/5 (or less) the price
they gouge us for, to me, is unconscionable. I can't opt out of
needing meds, though losing weight is doing as much for my high BP as
the Lisinopril. Luckily, it's one of the $4/mo drug prescriptions. The
cost of one month's worth of HIV drugs exceeds the annual income of
citizens from most other nations.

The medical community has put itself on pedestals which we can no
longer afford to ignore or condone.

It's called Mutual Assured Destruction. Canada, for example, goes to Pfizer
and says: "We'll pay your cost of production plus ten percent for your new
miracle drug."

Pfizer says: "Not by the hair of our chinney-chin-chins!"

Canada comes back with "Then we'll abrogate our treaty on mutual patent
protection under the rubric of saving lives. The World Court and everybody
else will be on our side."

"We'd be more comfortable at 12.5%..."

Classic Canuck view from Seattle.

-----------
"Dave" wrote in message
...
And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some choice!

Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/1/2012 8:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For
people who don't already have insurance because they can't afford
it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going,
Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some choice!

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health
care.

Yeahbut social changes outside of the government are as responsible for
things as the government - or perhaps more so. People became more "me"
focused and less concerned for others around them. He who dies with the
most toys and all that crap. Attitudes like that created competitive social
environments as opposed to cooperative social environments. The government
had nothing to do with that. Look right around your own surroundings to see
that in action even today. Maybe not the "most toys" thing, but certainly
the distance that has grown between memebers of a community. Today people
are proud of themselves for donating a few bucks to a cause. Doesn't
usually go any further than that.

--

-Mike-

On 7/2/2012 10:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/1/2012 8:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For
people who don't already have insurance because they can't afford
it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going,
Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some choice!

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health
care.

Yeahbut social changes outside of the government are as responsible for
things as the government - or perhaps more so. People became more "me"
focused and less concerned for others around them. He who dies with the
most toys and all that crap. Attitudes like that created competitive social
environments as opposed to cooperative social environments. The government
had nothing to do with that. Look right around your own surroundings to see
that in action even today. Maybe not the "most toys" thing, but certainly
the distance that has grown between memebers of a community. Today people
are proud of themselves for donating a few bucks to a cause. Doesn't
usually go any further than that.

The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each individual
knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around him. With
the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last resort is a
government program.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 1:35 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health
care providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients
alive. If alive, they live to be treated another day.

Yep ... alive, just not healthy enough to live without Big Pharma.
There is no profit in a healthy population.


In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

US media propaganda.

Agreed ... not to mention that the past three decades, approximately
109,000 people die DIRECTLY each year from drug interactions in the US
... to put that in perspective, about 30,000 die from automobile
accidents.

A medical profession, and culture, where "nutrition" is not on the
menu, plus government malfeasance while Food, Inc and Big Pharma
poisons the population, insures profits.

There is NO profit in "healthy" for politicians, the medical and/or
drug industries.

You are what you eat ...

So the solution is simple - pay the medical providers on the basis of the
health of their patients. Oh, wait, that's just bookkeeping ...

That was for the kidding. I believe some progress is being made in
hospital reimbursements. No more reimbursement for preventable side
effects (hospital-acquired infections, readmissions because something
didn't go right during the first admission, etc).

Nowadays with the computerization of pharmacy records it is easier to
flag potential drug interactions. But it's difficult in some respects,
since almost everything you put into your body is a drug in some respect
(if you're on coumadin, as some in this newsgroup are, either eating or
not eating broccoli acts as a drug, becausethe vitamin K in broccoli
prevents the coumadin from doing it's job).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle wrote:


The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
resort is a government program.

I disagree Keith. And - I'm one who has no problem at all in blaming
socialists for a lot of ills. Socialism and "me"ism are at odds with each
other to a very large degree. I believe that the me-first attitude enabled
the onslaught of socialistic thinking.

--

-Mike-

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bob Martin wrote:
in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:
steve robinson wrote:

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms
to get the poor subscribed without taxing them.

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on
the ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe
water for their hospitalized patients so they won't die of
dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health
care providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients
alive. If alive, they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

US media propaganda.

Not US media at all. A cursory check, or neutral question, would have
prevented a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

"[LONDON, June 21, 2012] An eminent British doctor told a meeting of
the Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000
elderly patients that die while under the care of the National Health
Service (NHS) have been effectively euthanized by being put on the
controversial Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of the
terminally ill that he described as a "death pathway."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/130...-killed-every-
year-by-death-pathway-top-uk-doctor/

And from a UK newspaper:

"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly
hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up
beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

"[The Liverpool Care Pathway] is designed to come into force when
doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is
imminent. It can include withdrawal of treatment - including the
provision of water and nourishment by tube - and on average brings a
patient to death in 33 hours."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-chilling-cl
aim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1zT2ujcKn

To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing
"LCP" on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different
critter.)

Everywhere it is really important that advance directives, living will
etc are in order, legally speaking. Plus the next of kin need to know
and be willing to execute the wishes of the patient. IMNSHO that is
paramount and should govern the actions of patients, next of kin,
doctors, hospitals, all to whom the care of the patient is entrusted.

However, there will always be situations where there is little if any
hope that medical science will be able to "resurrect" an elderly or
otherwise infirm individual to what I would call a quality life. Then
the question is whether such a "vegetable" should be articifially kept
alive in the sole sense of having a beating heart. It is of note that
being kept alive could be extremely painful, physically, mentally or
both, for the affected individual. The treatment-related questions then
are soul searching to the max. If and when one gets to the point of
having to make such decisions for others, he/she will (hopefully) lay
awake long hours trying to make the correct decisions.

I could relate several stories in this respect, but they are kind of
personal. One involves that an ambulance was called. "They needed" to
take the patient to the hospital for care, because the relevant paperwork
(living will, advance directives) couldn't be located. The patient might
have expired without the care. Some may contend that "living" weeks or
months longer at that point is something good, others that it isn't
really living. My point is that we should comply with the wishes of the
person involved, and not necesarily commit huge resources to keep someone
alive who might not wish that.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:32:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health care.

No family? No friends, or at least none better off than you? To the
poorhouse! Which, BTW, was run by the local/county/state government.

Now it's federal. Why? Because the state politicians figured out it was
safer to blame taxes on the feds so they wouldn't be responsible.

When I was a child, we had a name for the homeless - we called them
"escapees from the insane asylum" - want to go back to that?


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

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 10:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/1/2012 8:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For
people who don't already have insurance because they can't afford
it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going,
Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some
choice!

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health
care.

Yeahbut social changes outside of the government are as responsible
for things as the government - or perhaps more so. People became
more "me" focused and less concerned for others around them. He who
dies with the most toys and all that crap. Attitudes like that
created competitive social environments as opposed to cooperative
social environments. The government had nothing to do with that.
Look right around your own surroundings to see that in action even
today. Maybe not the "most toys" thing, but certainly the distance
that has grown between memebers of a community. Today people are
proud of themselves for donating a few bucks to a cause. Doesn't
usually go any further than that.

The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
resort is a government program.

This isn't a socialist or capitalist concept. In the stone ages, the
tribe was the insurance for the individual's well-being. If there was a
use for the sick, old or infirm, they'd keep them alive. If the
individual was a drag on society, I have been told the Eskimo would go
outside and freeze. In modern society, insurance has been invented to
help in case of rare occurances (sp?) where the individual might not have
the resources to correct what has gone wrong.

The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount, and
worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and altruistic,
but it leaves out the problem when there is no money available to pay for
that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for hospital costs to help
pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax or penalty on people with the
foresight to have insurance, or able to pay without, so that the indigent
can be cared for. I like the proposed system where everyone is urged to
be responsible and get insurance much better.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/2/2012 7:52 AM, m II wrote:
Classic Canuck view from Seattle.

-----------
"Dave" wrote in message
...
And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
lie about it?

Han wrote:


The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax or
penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able to
pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
insurance much better.

And the difference is... what? The difference is in name only.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:25:55 +0000, Han wrote:

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed
that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

How many of those people chose palliative treatment rather than
aggressive "life"-saving treatment?

He also forgot to mention that around 200,000 die each year in the US
from medical mistakes - and that apparently doesn't include non-treatment.


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

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:7556$4ff1c5ec
:

Han wrote:


The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax or
penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able to
pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
insurance much better.

And the difference is... what? The difference is in name only.

I don't think it is. Now everyone will pay insurance premiums. For some
they will go up (mine, I think), for others they will go down: the
individual not currently able to get group insurance, not being able to
pay those rates, and therefore going bareback. The premium will go down
so now he's able to afford, or else grin. I think the system will
(should) get more equitable.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:25:55 +0000, Han wrote:

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed
that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

How many of those people chose palliative treatment rather than
aggressive "life"-saving treatment?

He also forgot to mention that around 200,000 die each year in the US
from medical mistakes - and that apparently doesn't include non-treatment.

I read something that put it closer to a million a year. Gary Null
says 480k from adverse drug reactions/medical errors.
http://www.whale.to/a/null9.html

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:7556$4ff1c5ec :

Han wrote:


The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax
or penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able
to pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
insurance much better.

And the difference is... what? The difference is in name only.

I don't think it is. Now everyone will pay insurance premiums. For
some they will go up (mine, I think), for others they will go down:
the individual not currently able to get group insurance, not being
able to pay those rates, and therefore going bareback. The premium
will go down so now he's able to afford, or else grin. I think the
system will (should) get more equitable.

The cynic in me says that nothing designed and managed by the US Government
will ever be more equitable. The point though is that both systems - that
of hospitals surcharging to cover the care of indigents, and more affluent
Americans covering the insurance costs of the less capable, boil down to the
same thing. Just because you can now call it insurance is simply a matter
of semantics. Nothing is going to change except for the cost of
adminsitering this nightmare.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


This morning, my haircutter girl at the neighborhood new Great Clips
made a mistake in entering data into the cash register. Now she had
to pull out the calculator to subtract $7.01 from $14.00. I'm just
saying ...

Why did you have to go there Han? Now it's my turn... I bought something
at a local cash and carry type store. The total came to something like
$7.20. I gave the girl $20.20. Didn't even throw her a curve ball by
giving her a twenty and a quarter - straight up $20.20.

She screwed somethin up on her "think for me"-cash register and had to ask
another cashier for a calculator to figure out my change. I was so baffled,
I didn't even come up with a smart ass comment...

--

-Mike-