View Full Version : Politically Incorrect.
Pages : 1 2 3 4
[
5]
6 7 8
tokugawa wrote:
>
> Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
>
> United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer system)
> ...................................3%
>
> Why?
>
> 1. Private insurers' number one priority in a capitalist system is to make a profit. All other
> considerations are secondary.
It doesn't sound like those capitalists are doing such a good job at being capitalists if they are
overspending on "administrative costs." ;-) What is wrong with making a profit? Do you work for
free? If so, will you please wash my car and rake my lawn?
> 2. Private insurers have a financial incentive to deny claims.
This in and of itself is not wrong.
> ... A friend of mind recently had her claim denied unjustly. She pursued legal means and won her
> case. Good news, you say? WRONG! It cost her $20,000 in legal fees (which, of course, are not
> reimbursed) and it delayed payment to her for two years WHEN SHE REALLY NEEDED THE MONEY. The
> f***ing insurance company hired private investigators who violated her privacy, and produced
> evidence which did not hold up in court. In addition, she suffered from post-tramatic stress
> disorder after the trauma she received when she found out about the snooping.
Well that sounds very wrong for the way you've presented it, and I am very sorry for your friend.
What was the claim for and why was there such a big fight about it? I wonder what the ratio of "just
claims denied" to "unnessary or optional procedures approved" is.
> 3. The U.S. has 3,000 different health insurance entities, each with their own internal set of
> rules and regulations as to which claims are paid. We're talking about a lot of wasteful
> paperwork here.
Why is it "wasteful?"
> 4. The 3,000 different entities each must 'sell' their product or go out of business. So
> currently, some of your health care dollar goes to pay for marketing and advertising costs.
> Advertising like those 'feel good' television commercials intended to establish 'brand
> identity'. Brand identity is when companies get more for their services because people remember
> their name.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this. If you think that companies don't look at the
bottom line, in spite of any advertising, you are nuts. Employers change their Health Plan
administrators all the time. This keeps costs down and shakes out the bad ones.
> It adds nothing to health care. Zero. Zip. Nada. The null set.
I like advertising because it let's me know who is providing product X at a low opportunity cost. So
I guess I think I get something out of my advertising dollar.
> While high medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the United States, nobody is ever
> denied necessary medical care in Canada at a hospital.
Then why do Canadians come over the border to get service in the US that they couldn't get in
Canada? This has been reported on TV "Dateline" style shows. It isn't that I think the US system
couldn't use a complete shaking out, but I sure hope it doesn't look the Canadian system when it
is finished.
> As compared to the way the Canadian system is financed, the U.S. system is like a leech which
> sucks your blood. It produces a lot of harm and it provides no benefit,...
Ridiculous. Many people get good health care in the US, and have always gotten good health care. The
progress needed is to make it cheaper and more accessible to all.
> ...except to stockholders and sometimes to extremely wealthy executives, who make up 0.01% of the
> population. Tough break for the other 99.99% of us.
Even more ridiculous.
> Many Americans find themselves in Medicaid "spend down" mode. After they lose their health
> insurance, they must improvish themselves before they can get life-saving heath care. Not a pretty
> picture if you ever have experienced this happen to somebody. This does not happen in Canada.
Nor does it mean the US should emulate Canada. Health insurance, IMO, should primarily be a
castastrophic coverage, not a "go to the ER to get a sliver removed" like it is now (because the
user doesn't really "feel" the *cost* of the visit until _everyones_ premium rises a year later). I
think that something needs to be done, but I only thought of Canada as an example of what not to do.
For one thing, people need to "feel the cost" of their medical coverage just like they do every
other purchase. If you go to a doctor for a common cold (happens every day), you should pay out of
your own pocket for it. That isn't true now if you have health insurance (actually it is true, but
the payment and the service are so divorced and disconnected, people don't "feel like" they are
paying for it).
> For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.
Oh ****, here we go again...
> Only the 0.01% of the population who are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives benefit
> from the present system.
Well, I keep hoping the shareholders are going to get smart. Every dollar they pay an executive
comes out of their dividend check. So what have the dividends been lately for health insurance
companies? Who owns stock in these companies, is it your average joe worker with a mutual fund,
saving for his retirement?
> Plus the people who process claims for insurance companies. Their purpose: deny claims.
Funny, in all the years I have had insurance, I have never had a claim denied. Never have I had
proposed procedure rejected. I think you're jacking up the rhetoric more than anything. It is good
someone is scrutinizing the bills.
> The better they are, the higher their salary. For the 99.99% of Americans who don't own stock in
> health insurance companies, nor work for health insurance companies, there is no upside.
If it is so great, then put off the purchase of your next pair of expensive Conti's and buy
some shares.
> Canadians have a better chance of living free of disability. Canadians average 70 years of
> disability-free life, compared to 68 in the United States.
That's because Canadians are locked inside 10 months a year because it is so ******* cold.
>> Prescription drugs in Canada can cost 1/3rd what they do in the USA. The reason is that they are
>> subsidized by the Canadian Health Care system. The down side of this is that the system is
>> EXTREMELY slow to allow newer medicines so most of the prescrition drugs available in Canada are
>> several years behind those prescribed in the USA. So by crossing the border you can get cheap
>> drugs IF YOU HAPPEN to have a prescription for the drugs that are sold there.
>
> It seems that many Americans fall into this category.
Every purchaser of any good anywhere falls into this category. People simply respond to the
incentives presented to them. If they can get medicine cheaper, then why shouldn't they? This really
didn't make the medicine cheaper, it simply made it appear cheaper for a few people living close to
the border. The medicine costs the same on either side. What differed is who paid for it. I suppose
you would say it is justice because those rich Canadians got to pay for the medicine of some poor
Americans.
> Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.
I've heard about this occuring at HMO type orgs. Now it seems bad, and I personally have the choice
of HMO v.PPO, and have always picked PPO, but I have many co-workers who, despite the drawbacks of
the HMO, still choose it. The HMO has lower costs, and the workers who choose this route are
apparently accepting the drawbacks because they see low enough costs to offset the drawback. The PPO
incentive is the opposite, the doctor only _looses_ money by denying service. The tradeoffs seem
clear. The HMO users I've known are happy with it. I'm sure there are exceptions. The PPO doctor
must justify the care, but that is quite appropriate. If you didn't have those administrators
checking up on bills, then costs would go up. The administators keep the cost of my insurance lower
by scrutunizing claims. Whew, thank goodness for them!
> Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less time
> with each patient.
This alone is not bad, as long as the cost goes down along with the reduced time. After all, a
doctor only has so much time. Pay for the time.
> I was once a member of a plan where I didn't even get to see a doctor when I went in for care. I
> saw a physicians assistant, and then she told the doctor what my symptoms were, and the doctor
> wrote a prescription without ever seeing me!!!
What is wrong with this? I had to visit a doctor a recently because I had bronchitis. I already knew
the score (and have the history with my doc to prove it), and knew what the treatment would be
(run-of-the-mill antibiotics). If there was less malpractice risk, I could probably have just
_called_ my doctors _nurse_, explain my symptoms, and just picked up the presciption at the
pharmacy. I could have saved an hours worth of my time (which itself isn't cheap either) and my
insurance company could have saved $75 and my rates could have dropped. The doctor could have seen
more people, preferably those that really _needed_ to see him. Lower insurance rates would allow
more people to afford coverage. Yes, the heath care industry needs to get more efficient.
> Is this what we're coming to in this country?
We can only hope.
What I want to know is how you can answer these sorts of questions with obvious intelligence and
thought and others like Liberal politics with stupid unthinking kneejerk reactions?
"G.T." <ethan_t@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_EqS9.794$cG3.72206476@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> >
>
> Since I have much direct experience with this subject I figured I'd make a comment or two.
>
> >
> > Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this. If you think that companies don't look at the
> > bottom line, in spite of any advertising, you are nuts. Employers change their Health Plan
> > administrators all the time. This keeps costs down and shakes out the bad ones.
> >
>
> Since I've been on both sides of the equation as a claims and customer service rep on one side,
> and as a benefits administrator and consumer on the other side it's hard to find a plan that isn't
> bad. My experience on the claims side at one company along with anecdotal stories from friends who
> moved on to other companies is that the claims and customer service departments are all arguably
> understaffed, the phone and claims personnel are all on production with little emphasis placed on
> quality (i.e., answer 60 calls a day but don't worry about what you tell the client, or pay 75
> claims a day and deny most of them because denials are the easiest), and recently the claims and
> customer service staff are woefully undertrained (when I started at Prudential we had a 6 week
> training course, by the time I left it was down to 2 weeks).
>
> >
> >>It adds nothing to health care. Zero. Zip. Nada. The null set.
> >
> >
> > I like advertising because it let's me know who is providing product X at a low opportunity
> > cost. So I guess I think I get something out of my advertising dollar.
> >
>
> What are your thoughts on prescription drugs being advertised to
consumers?
> Seems to me that ignorant retards like myself shouldn't be badgering
my
> doctor to prescribe something that I don't need.
>
> As far as group health plans are concerned I just go to a broker who hopefully doesn't push the
> company from which he or she gets the most incentives.
>
> >
> >
> > Nor does it mean the US should emulate Canada. Health insurance, IMO, should primarily be a
> > castastrophic coverage, not a "go to the ER to get a sliver removed" like it is now (because the
> > user doesn't really "feel" the *cost* of the visit until _everyones_ premium rises a year
> > later). I think that something needs to be done, but I only thought of Canada as an example of
> > what not to do. For one thing, people need to "feel the cost" of their medical coverage just
> > like they do every other purchase. If you go to a doctor for a common cold (happens every day),
> > you should pay out of your own pocket for it. That isn't true now if you have health insurance
> > (actually it is true, but the payment and the service are so divorced and disconnected, people
> > don't "feel like" they are paying for it).
> >
>
> Depends on how much you think the payment and service are divorced. I agree with what you say
> above but one has to balance "feel the cost" and keeping co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance
> amounts affordable. With the large increases we are seeing in health care costs from only 10% of a
> bill can be huge.
>
> >
> > Funny, in all the years I have had insurance, I have never had a claim denied. Never have I had
> > proposed procedure rejected. I think you're jacking up the rhetoric more than anything. It is
> > good someone is scrutinizing the bills.
> >
>
> Mostly things like cosmetic surgery get denied but there have been a few successful lawsuits where
> people were denied new procedures as being experimental. Those cases were the ones that disgusted
> me with the healthcare insurance industry.
>
> >
> >>Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.
> >
> >
> > I've heard about this occuring at HMO type orgs. Now it seems bad, and I personally have the
> > choice of HMO v.PPO, and have always picked PPO, but I have many co-workers who, despite the
> > drawbacks of the HMO, still choose it. The HMO has lower costs, and the workers who choose this
> > route are apparently accepting the drawbacks because they see low enough costs to offset the
> > drawback. The PPO incentive is the opposite, the doctor only _looses_ money by denying service.
> > The tradeoffs seem clear. The HMO users I've known are happy with it. I'm sure there are
> > exceptions. The PPO doctor must justify the care, but that is quite appropriate. If you didn't
> > have those administrators checking up on bills, then costs would go up. The administators keep
> > the cost of my insurance lower by scrutunizing claims. Whew, thank goodness for them!
> >
>
> If you can afford PPO coverage it definitely is the way to go. Your premiums and out-of-pocket
> expenses will be higher but your doctor is much more likely to provide specialized diagnostics and
> treatment. Not only
are
> HMO doctors on extremely tight budgets (capititation rates were $7 per member per month back when
> I worked for an HMO) they are provided incentives to not refer their patients to specialists.
>
> I think the balance between budget and quality of care is much better with PPOs than with HMOs. I
> had the same doctor after switching from our HMO
to
> our PPO, the very next visit after the change my doctor actually took the time to answer all my
> questions, and subsequent appointments were switched to a day where I never waited more than 5
> minutes for my appointment.
When
> I was with the HMO it felt like we were on an assembly line.
>
> >
> >>Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less
> >>time with each patient.
> >
> >
> > This alone is not bad, as long as the cost goes down along with the reduced time. After all, a
> > doctor only has so much time. Pay for the time.
> >
>
> See my direct experience above.
>
> Greg
> --
> "Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and
> hard, just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
The Pomeranian wrote:
>
Since I have much direct experience with this subject I figured I'd make a comment or two.
>
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this. If you think that companies don't look at the
> bottom line, in spite of any advertising, you are nuts. Employers change their Health Plan
> administrators all the time. This keeps costs down and shakes out the bad ones.
>
Since I've been on both sides of the equation as a claims and customer service rep on one side, and
as a benefits administrator and consumer on the other side it's hard to find a plan that isn't bad.
My experience on the claims side at one company along with anecdotal stories from friends who moved
on to other companies is that the claims and customer service departments are all arguably
understaffed, the phone and claims personnel are all on production with little emphasis placed on
quality (i.e., answer 60 calls a day but don't worry about what you tell the client, or pay 75
claims a day and deny most of them because denials are the easiest), and recently the claims and
customer service staff are woefully undertrained (when I started at Prudential we had a 6 week
training course, by the time I left it was down to 2 weeks).
>
>>It adds nothing to health care. Zero. Zip. Nada. The null set.
>
>
> I like advertising because it let's me know who is providing product X at a low opportunity cost.
> So I guess I think I get something out of my advertising dollar.
>
What are your thoughts on prescription drugs being advertised to consumers? Seems to me that
ignorant retards like myself shouldn't be badgering my doctor to prescribe something that I
don't need.
As far as group health plans are concerned I just go to a broker who hopefully doesn't push the
company from which he or she gets the most incentives.
>
>
> Nor does it mean the US should emulate Canada. Health insurance, IMO, should primarily be a
> castastrophic coverage, not a "go to the ER to get a sliver removed" like it is now (because the
> user doesn't really "feel" the *cost* of the visit until _everyones_ premium rises a year later).
> I think that something needs to be done, but I only thought of Canada as an example of what not to
> do. For one thing, people need to "feel the cost" of their medical coverage just like they do
> every other purchase. If you go to a doctor for a common cold (happens every day), you should pay
> out of your own pocket for it. That isn't true now if you have health insurance (actually it is
> true, but the payment and the service are so divorced and disconnected, people don't "feel like"
> they are paying for it).
>
Depends on how much you think the payment and service are divorced. I agree with what you say
above but one has to balance "feel the cost" and keeping co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance
amounts affordable. With the large increases we are seeing in health care costs from only 10% of a
bill can be huge.
>
> Funny, in all the years I have had insurance, I have never had a claim denied. Never have I had
> proposed procedure rejected. I think you're jacking up the rhetoric more than anything. It is good
> someone is scrutinizing the bills.
>
Mostly things like cosmetic surgery get denied but there have been a few successful lawsuits where
people were denied new procedures as being experimental. Those cases were the ones that disgusted me
with the healthcare insurance industry.
>
>>Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.
>
>
> I've heard about this occuring at HMO type orgs. Now it seems bad, and I personally have the
> choice of HMO v.PPO, and have always picked PPO, but I have many co-workers who, despite the
> drawbacks of the HMO, still choose it. The HMO has lower costs, and the workers who choose this
> route are apparently accepting the drawbacks because they see low enough costs to offset the
> drawback. The PPO incentive is the opposite, the doctor only _looses_ money by denying service.
> The tradeoffs seem clear. The HMO users I've known are happy with it. I'm sure there are
> exceptions. The PPO doctor must justify the care, but that is quite appropriate. If you didn't
> have those administrators checking up on bills, then costs would go up. The administators keep the
> cost of my insurance lower by scrutunizing claims. Whew, thank goodness for them!
>
If you can afford PPO coverage it definitely is the way to go. Your premiums and out-of-pocket
expenses will be higher but your doctor is much more likely to provide specialized diagnostics and
treatment. Not only are HMO doctors on extremely tight budgets (capititation rates were $7 per
member per month back when I worked for an HMO) they are provided incentives to not refer their
patients to specialists.
I think the balance between budget and quality of care is much better with PPOs than with HMOs. I
had the same doctor after switching from our HMO to our PPO, the very next visit after the change my
doctor actually took the time to answer all my questions, and subsequent appointments were switched
to a day where I never waited more than 5 minutes for my appointment. When I was with the HMO it
felt like we were on an assembly line.
>
>>Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less
>>time with each patient.
>
>
> This alone is not bad, as long as the cost goes down along with the reduced time. After all, a
> doctor only has so much time. Pay for the time.
>
See my direct experience above.
Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
G.T. wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> >
> My experience on the claims side at one company along with anecdotal stories from friends who
> moved on to other companies is that the claims and customer service departments are all arguably
> understaffed, the phone and claims personnel are all on production with little emphasis placed on
> quality (i.e., answer 60 calls a day but don't worry about what you tell the client, or pay 75
> claims a day and deny most of them because denials are the easiest), and recently the claims and
> customer service staff are woefully undertrained (when I started at Prudential we had a 6 week
> training course, by the time I left it was down to 2 weeks).
I wouldn't argue with this at all but I would say I don't believe this is unique to the health care
industry. "Customer Service" seems more a cute phrase rather than something universally practiced by
modern businesses. Trying calling a sofware company about a buggy product -- they'll charge you to
answer the phone, and they won't guarantee they can help you. I predict that real customer service
will make a bit of a comeback in the next ten years, because it has generally dipped below what
people are willing to accept. Folks might decide a small price premium is worth some later service
satisfaction.
I don't think that "approve everything for everybody" is the answer (I'm not claiming you are
saying this). Again, the costs are high no matter how we look at it, and they need to stop
escalating, at the least
(GTa). New ideas are required (and maybe some old but never used and ignored ones). BusinessWeek had
some good coverage on the issue within the last 6 mos. Naturally, they don't just talk, they
put numbers on it, and made projections. If I find it, I'll inform.
> What are your thoughts on prescription drugs being advertised to consumers?
I don't really know. The advertising itself doesn't bother me. Kickbacks to the doctors for writing
specific prescriptions seems wrong on the face of it. I don't know enough about it. In any event, if
regulation is applied to this area, then as always we need to look at what the regulation policy
will actually do, not what problem the politicians claim to have solved. Regulation needs to do that
which it is intended to do, no more, no less to the extent that is possible. Weird unintended
consequences are not acceptable.
Like Sowell said: "Perhaps more than anything else, an understanding of basic economics can
enable us to consider policy issues in terms of the incentives they create and the consequences
that follow, rather than simply the goals they proclaim and how wonderful it would be to achieve
such goals."
> Seems to me that ignorant retards like myself shouldn't be badgering my doctor to prescribe
> something that I don't need.
On the other hand, asking about it might force your doctor to explain why it is, or is not,
applicable to your perceived ill. You just might force your doctor to educate you about your own
health. Now that's not so bad, is it?
> As far as group health plans are concerned I just go to a broker who hopefully doesn't push the
> company from which he or she gets the most incentives.
> Depends on how much you think the payment and service are divorced. I agree with what you say
> above but one has to balance "feel the cost" and keeping co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance
> amounts affordable. With the large increases we are seeing in health care costs from only 10% of a
> bill can be huge.
Well it is huge for almost anyone (except the super-rich) when it comes to a _catastrophe_, and
again I believe that catastrophe should be the major focus of coverage. I do believe the costs are
extremely divorced now, people aren't well enough connected to the costs of the service they receive
(I myself have been guilty of this). Like you said: "$250 for two unused Tylenol is absurd." I would
scream bloody murder if I saw this -- no way would I pay it (and no way would I currently see the
bill). But I just saw a TV documentary where they showed how a lot of garbage charges fly right past
the insurance companies. We do pay for this and _I'm sure_ that pure government administration would
be even worse since there is far less incentive for a bureaucrat to stop this than there is for a
private insurer. So I think we need to find a middle ground somewhere.
> Mostly things like cosmetic surgery get denied but there have been a few successful lawsuits where
> people were denied new procedures as being experimental. Those cases were the ones that disgusted
> me with the healthcare insurance industry.
If it is "experimental" then the researcher should bear a good part of the costs, imo, not
necessarily the "guinea pig" or their insurer. If the research is promising and becomes more widely
accepted and usable, only then should the researcher collect from the fruits of their investment.
If it is contended that a market failure of some form exists (new but necessary procedures &
technologies are not being developed for various reasons), then government intervention can be
considered. If the research is funded by the government, then it is important that the results of
the research belong to the public, not to the researchers. However, practical matters come into
play; typically this means *some* commercial rights are usually needed to incentivise firms and
individuals to co-invest in the technology. Commercial co-investment serves as a check against
approving expenditures for "any old silly but novel procedure" because no commercial firm wants to
waste money. The government is deficient in self-checking itself in this regard because the proper
incentives aren't strong enough (my opinion again, of course).
> >>Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.
> >
> > I've heard about this occuring at HMO type orgs. Now it seems bad, and I personally have the
> > choice of HMO v.PPO, and have always picked PPO, but I have many co-workers who, despite the
> > drawbacks of the HMO, still choose it. The HMO has lower costs, and the workers who choose this
> > route are apparently accepting the drawbacks because they see low enough costs to offset the
> > drawback. The PPO incentive is the opposite, the doctor only _looses_ money by denying service.
> > The tradeoffs seem clear. The HMO users I've known are happy with it. I'm sure there are
> > exceptions. The PPO doctor must justify the care, but that is quite appropriate. If you didn't
> > have those administrators checking up on bills, then costs would go up. The administators keep
> > the cost of my insurance lower by scrutunizing claims. Whew, thank goodness for them!
> >
>
> If you can afford PPO coverage it definitely is the way to go. Your premiums and out-of-pocket
> expenses will be higher but your doctor is much more likely to provide specialized diagnostics and
> treatment. Not only are HMO doctors on extremely tight budgets (capititation rates were $7 per
> member per month back when I worked for an HMO) they are provided incentives to not refer their
> patients to specialists.
>
> I think the balance between budget and quality of care is much better with PPOs than with HMOs. I
> had the same doctor after switching from our HMO to our PPO, the very next visit after the change
> my doctor actually took the time to answer all my questions, and subsequent appointments were
> switched to a day where I never waited more than 5 minutes for my appointment. When I was with the
> HMO it felt like we were on an assembly line.
Well like I said, I favor it too (PPO), but why not give a choice? Perhaps what would be nice is
more flexible opportunities to change enrollment. But that too alters incentives and will then alter
costs accordingly. How? Dunno.
Again, I found the following to be refreshing, if for no other reason I hadn't seen the perspective
put forth before:
The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics by Ted Halstead, Michael Lind Anchor Books;
ISBN: 0385720297; (November 12, 2002) pp63-72 for ideas about health care
I'm looking forward to critiques of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Both within government and in the private sector, individuals and organizations tend to respond to
the particular incentives facing them by trying to promote their own wellbeing. When this adversely
affects others, it need not be due to 'bureaucratic bungling' within government or to 'greed' in
the private sector. Perfectly rational and decent people tend to respond to the incentives
confronting them. Those incentives may need re-consideration more than the individuals need
denouncing." -- Sowell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Over and out.
The Pomeranian wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't argue with this at all but I would say I don't believe this is unique to the health
> care industry. "Customer Service" seems more a cute phrase rather than something universally
> practiced by modern businesses. Trying calling a sofware company about a buggy product -- they'll
> charge you to answer the phone, and they won't guarantee they can help you. I predict that real
> customer service will make a bit of a comeback in the next ten years, because it has generally
> dipped below what people are willing to accept. Folks might decide a small price premium is worth
> some later service satisfaction.
>
After trying to call CheapTickets.com last night because there was a problem with an airline ticket
I tried to purchase for a friend I couldn't agree with you more. My friend and I shared hold duties
which lasted 2 1/2 hours right up until and past the cutoff time for the ticket to be confirmed. I
actually think that there was no one manning the phones. We gave up and used Orbitz.com.
OTOH customer service had gotten so bad at SBC (my home ISP) two years ago that they've already made
considerable strides towards your "ten year" come back. I am actually amazed at the improvements
they've made in the last year regarding their call centers.
>
> Again, I found the following to be refreshing, if for no other reason I hadn't seen the
> perspective put forth before:
>
> The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics by Ted Halstead, Michael Lind Anchor Books;
> ISBN: 0385720297; (November 12, 2002) pp63-72 for ideas about health care
>
> I'm looking forward to critiques of it.
>
I will check it out when I have a chance.
Wow, I wasn't called ignorant or a retard except by myself. I guess it's time to return to
troll mode.
Hahahahaha, Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
The Pomeranian <liftingleg@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote in message
news:<3E18D52E.DC37E9CE@smellslikeakennel.com>...
> A whole lot of dumb crap snipped
Why the **** are you dorks using my name is this stupid ass thread? You take a small vacation from
RBR and when you get back, your name is being dragged through the mud by asswipes dorking out about
taxes or some ****.
Dizzle
Deeznuts wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian <liftingleg@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote in message
> news:<3E18D52E.DC37E9CE@smellslikeakennel.com>...
> > A whole lot of dumb crap snipped
>
> Why the **** are you dorks using my name is this stupid ass thread? You take a small vacation from
> RBR and when you get back, your name is being dragged through the mud by asswipes dorking out
> about taxes or some ****.
>
> Dizzle
The love is back. Thanks.
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<PjpR9.10698$134.1215391@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> "Kyle Legate" <legatek@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.33.0301031545440.6779-100000@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca...
> > On 3 Jan 2003, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe you just don't understand this country. In this country we don't forcibly lock up insane
> > > people. It is probably too much for you to understand that insane people have some rights as
> > > well and unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others it is against the law to
> > > detain them.
> > >
> > So which is it? Either you don't forcibly lock up the mentally ill, or you do forcibly lock them
> > up if they pose a danger to themselves or others. You can't have it both ways.
>
> I didn't think that you'd have an answer to the real world outside of your hallucinations.
>
> The actions of all Liberals are quite predictable. When confronted with the truth they either:
>
> 1) deny it
> 2) lie about it
> 3) change the subject.
Have I been missing Kunich of this quality the whole time I have been gone? This is ******* awesome.
D
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
...
> > Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?
>
> What is adequate healthcare? Few aliens have any problems getting free medical care. Few
> minorities have problems getting free medical care. The one's that suffer most from lack of
> medical care are low income white people whom the government and most of all Liberals do not feel
> any pain for.
A good example of your racism and stupidity.
Poor black people (and aliens) get free medical care and poor white people don't? WRONG!
Liberals feel pain for poor blacks but not for poor whites? WRONG!
Current government programs pay for all necessary health care only if:
1) You are desperately poor (Medicaid),
2) You are over 65 (Medicare),
3) You are a member of the armed forces,
4) You have a condition related to prior military service (Veterans benefits),
5) You are in jail,
6) You are a merchant seaman (Public Health Service).
It looks like quite a few categories of Americans already have socialized medicine. Why not
everybody?
So you say the problem is with low income (white) people not getting necessary medical care? Well, a
single-payer health care financing system on the Canadian model solves that problem. What is your
solution for providing care to low income (white) people? You don't have one.
On 14 Jan 2003 12:04:05 -0800, truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:
>It looks like quite a few categories of Americans already have socialized medicine. Why not
>everybody?
If you want socialized health care move to ******* Canada. We have to keep America pay-for-care so
all those Canadians have somewhere to go to get well.
Thanks for playing. Please drive through.
--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen
Investigators in the northern Italian city of Pordenone reported Tuesday that preliminary autopsy
results indicate that cyclist Denis Zanette died of natural causes last Friday.
The 32-year-old Zanette, who collapsed during a visit to his dentist's office, apparently died of a
previously undetected heart ailment, prosecutor Antonella Dragotto reported.
"A cardiac pathology can be hereditary, but can be difficult to diagnose without detailed clinical
testing (and can be) aggravated by a bronchial infection," Dragotto said.
She added the full results of testing would not be known for around six weeks.
Zanette lost consciousness Friday evening while at his dentist's and was quickly transported to the
main hospital in Pordenone, where he was declared dead by attending physicians.
The Italian judiciary called for the autopsy to see if the rider's death was in any way
drug-related as Zanette was one of several riders implicated in a doping investigation centering on
the 2001 Giro d'Italia.
The president of the Italian cycling federation, Giancarlo Ceruti, said following Zanette's death
that his organization would provide 50,000 euros to the racer's family.
Thanks, Ronde Chimp
Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@notspam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<9gr82v0u72iq33en8jdgi3tkcl0fe287g4@4ax.com>...
> On 14 Jan 2003 12:04:05 -0800, truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:
>
> >It looks like quite a few categories of Americans already have socialized medicine. Why not
> >everybody?
>
> If you want socialized health care move to ******* Canada.
I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you
to handle? WE ALREADY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! (Medicaid, Medicare, Armed Forces, Veterans,
Prisoners, Merchant Seamen, etc.)
> We have to keep America pay-for-care so all those Canadians have somewhere to go to get well.
What is your solution for providing care to low income Americans? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE!
On 15 Jan 2003 02:08:59 -0800, truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:
>Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@notspam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:<9gr82v0u72iq33en8jdgi3tkcl0fe287g4@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Jan 2003 12:04:05 -0800, truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:
>>
>> >It looks like quite a few categories of Americans already have socialized medicine. Why not
>> >everybody?
>>
>> If you want socialized health care move to ******* Canada.
>
>I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you
>to handle? WE ALREADY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! (Medicaid, Medicare, Armed Forces, Veterans,
>Prisoners, Merchant Seamen, etc.)
For a small percentage of the population. Nationalizing 1/3 of the US economy is a great path to
crappy health care and a crappy economy.
>> We have to keep America pay-for-care so all those Canadians have somewhere to go to get well.
>
>What is your solution for providing care to low income Americans? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE!
It's called get a job that has insurance, like flipping burgers are McDonalds.
Please find the relevant passage in the US Constituion that says the Federal Government has either
the responsibility or power to provide heathcare to everyone.
--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen
Sergio SERVADIO <servadio@mail.df.unipi.it> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.3.96.1030115091638.1818B-100000@servadio.df.unipi.it>...
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, ronde chimp wrote:
> > Investigators in the northern Italian city of Pordenone reported Tuesday that preliminary
> > autopsy results indicate that cyclist Denis Zanette died of natural causes last Friday.
>
> To add sadness to the tragedy of Zanette's death, it is now time to record the disgust we have
> experienced once again in hearing and watching vultures fly high and dive into the mud.
Don't mistake the concern for people about Zantte's premature death as personal insults to the man
or his family.
Zanette was a paid athlete in a sport noted for massive drug abuses. Let's not pretend that the EPO
use in the mid-90's never occurred nor forget that books written about it and police records don't
show that the abuse was very wide spread if not universal. Moreover, he was personally involved in
at least one drug investigation.
Anti-drug forces are always on the lookout for another poster child and the death of Denis was at
least suspicious even if it did turn out to be completely natural.
Zanini and Squinzi have shown concern which should have received more attention. Now the sport has
lost one superb sponsor and Verbruggen has had the unmitigated gall to threaten Zanini.
Just what is necessary to prevent deaths in the peloton and results that can be inspected without
having to always wonder whether or not the winner was wired?
truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote in message
news:<fb0ae2f1.0301150208.7338a673@posting.google.com>...
>
> I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for
> you to handle? WE ALREADY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! (Medicaid, Medicare, Armed Forces, Veterans,
> Prisoners, Merchant Seamen, etc.)
The Military, Merchant Seaamen and Veterans were in the service of the Nation and not in a position
to earn enough to pay for medical coverage. We as a nation asked them to take lower wages and in
return offered medical care. This is a quid pro quo and not the giveaway program you imply it is.
Prisoners are prevented from earning a living and a way to make their own way in the world. We as a
society are required to supply care for them if we prevent them from caring for themselves. Again
this is not a giveaway program but a necessary expense from our own actions.
Medicaid and Medicare was originally meant only to supply medical care for those supported by
social security. The expense of this has so far outstripped any predictions that it has been on the
verge of financial collapse for the last decade. As the baby boomers hit social security and have
to rely on Medicare the system will collapse and there will be no possible way to fund it with a
decreasing economy.
Pretending that all you have to do is pass a stupid law to make something viable is just the sort of
problem that has gotten this country into the financial mess it presently is in.
> What is your solution for providing care to low income Americans? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE!
Please explain to me why I should be prevented from saving, money I earn, for my own future while
paying the way for those who won't, don't or can't?
While I make good money when I work and am taxed at the highest rates, I note that the tax
system doesn't care that I may be out of work for a year or more between jobs. My lifetime
earned income may be no more than a school janitor but I'm taxed as a rich person and treated
like trash by Liberals who think that if you take home any more than they do that you are a
crash capitalist whore.
cyclintom@yahoo.com (Tom Kunich) wrote in message
news:<484e7721.0301151204.3be5fa19@posting.google.com>...
> truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote in message
> news:<fb0ae2f1.0301150208.7338a673@posting.google.com>...
So you say the problem is with low income (white) people not getting necessary medical care? Well, a
single-payer health care financing system on the Canadian model solves that problem. What is your
solution for providing care to low income (white) people? You don't have one.
By the way, you did not deny that you are a racist.
> >
> > I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for
> > you to handle? WE ALREADY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! (Medicaid, Medicare, Armed Forces, Veterans,
> > Prisoners, Merchant Seamen, etc.)
>
> The Military, Merchant Seaamen and Veterans were in the service of the Nation and not in a
> position to earn enough to pay for medical coverage. We as a nation asked them to take lower
> wages and in return offered medical care. This is a quid pro quo and not the giveaway program you
> imply it is.
>
> Prisoners are prevented from earning a living and a way to make their own way in the world. We as
> a society are required to supply care for them if we prevent them from caring for themselves.
> Again this is not a giveaway program but a necessary expense from our own actions.
>
> Medicaid and Medicare was originally meant only to supply medical care for those supported by
> social security. The expense of this has so far outstripped any predictions that it has been on
> the verge of financial collapse for the last decade. As the baby boomers hit social security and
> have to rely on Medicare the system will collapse and there will be no possible way to fund it
> with a decreasing economy.
>
> Pretending that all you have to do is pass a stupid law to make something viable is just the sort
> of problem that has gotten this country into the financial mess it presently is in.
>
> > What is your solution for providing care to low income Americans? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE!
>
> Please explain to me why I should be prevented from saving, money I earn, for my own future while
> paying the way for those who won't, don't or can't?
>
> While I make good money when I work and am taxed at the highest rates, I note that the tax
> system doesn't care that I may be out of work for a year or more between jobs. My lifetime
> earned income may be no more than a school janitor but I'm taxed as a rich person and treated
> like trash by Liberals who think that if you take home any more than they do that you are a
> crash capitalist whore.
Despite all your huffing and puffing, you offer no solution. Using your logic, we should eliminate
the current system of Social Security, a program supported by 90% of Americans.
Once more, from the top: we can provide all Americans with quality health care for less money than
what we currently spend. Why is it that you want to deny some Americans adequate health care? Why do
want to deny adequate health care to American CHILDREN?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, ronde chimp wrote:
> Investigators in the northern Italian city of Pordenone reported Tuesday that preliminary autopsy
> results indicate that cyclist Denis Zanette died of natural causes last Friday.
To add sadness to the tragedy of Zanette's death, it is now time to record the disgust we have
experienced once again in hearing and watching vultures fly high and dive into the mud.
Sergio Pisa
ronde chimp <ronde_chimp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Investigators in the northern Italian city of Pordenone reported Tuesday that preliminary autopsy
>results indicate that cyclist Denis Zanette died of natural causes last Friday.
>
>The 32-year-old Zanette, who collapsed during a visit to his dentist's office, apparently died of a
>previously undetected heart ailment, prosecutor Antonella Dragotto reported.
>
>"A cardiac pathology can be hereditary, but can be difficult to diagnose without detailed clinical
>testing (and can be) aggravated by a bronchial infection," Dragotto said.
BTW, It seems that both his father and grandfather died in the same way.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:17:29 -0500, Kyle Legate <legatek@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>Maybe I'm just dense, but what does wait time have to do with the number of options available?
Ok, two words: "medical necessity". That's all Canadian health care covers.
If you want treatment for something that unfairly or not is deemed to not be a medical necessity,
you pay cash unless you're fortunate to still have insurance.
I should've said "fewer _covered_ options".
--
Scott Johnson "There is nothing, I think, more unfortunate than to have soft, chubby, fat-looking
children who go to watch their school play basketball every Saturday and regard that as their week's
exercise."
- John F. Kennedy, 1962
Sergio SERVADIO <servadio@mail.df.unipi.it> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.3.96.1030116105510.2100G-100000@servadio.df.unipi.it>...
> On 15 Jan 2003, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Don't mistake the concern for people about Zanette's premature death as personal insults to the
> > man or his family.
>
> I do not, in fact. I was referring to the premature, untimely, unsensitive and unfair outcry that
> was heard so aloud, prominently from quarters so close to my hometown from people I happen to know
> personally.
People react funny to deaths. Especially people who suspect that what they are doing might be
dangerous and that the death may be proof of
it.
It is always best not to take words people say at times like that too seriously.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
