Time For Single Payer System



"Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Captain Compassion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> > > You must convince me of three things.
> > >
> > > I am self insured. You must convince me of three things.
> > >
> > > 1. My health costs, including payments to government health schemes, will be cheaper.
> > >
> > According to an article this year in the New England Journal of
Medicine,
> > Americans collectively pay $200 billion *more* in administrative costs
> each
> > year compared to Canadians because of the extra paper shuffling due to
the
> > myriad complex rules due to the multiple insurers, both private and government. This $200
> > billion contributes NOTHING to health care, but
> makes
> > lots of insurance and HMO executives very, very wealthy.
>
> So, let's shut them down and throw some 300,000 more people out of work?

We could retrain them to become part of the health *care* system rather than the parasites they
already are. We will need more people actually delivering health care if more people are able to
access the health care system.

>
> >
> > Think of what could be done with $200 billion per year:
> >
> > a) reduce your costs as well as your employer's costs
> >
> > and/or
> >
> > b) provide broader coverage, including the 40 million persons not
> presently
> > covered
> >
> > and/or
> >
> > c) finance the invasion of one or two more countries :)
> >
> > Here's a link to the article abstract:
> >
> > http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768
> >
> > > 2. That health care offered to me and my family will be of the same quality that I can recieve
> > > now.
> > >
> >
> > Under single payer, only the insurance is supplied by the government.
The
> > health care continues to be delivered by private health care providers.
> >
> > > 3. I will be able to chose which doctor treats me.
> > >
> >
> > No reason why this cannot be part of a single payer system. It's
certainly
> > the case in Canada. Contrast that with many HMOs here in the US.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant
> > >
> > > "Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
> > >
> > > "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle
> > > is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
> > >
> > > Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
> > >
> > > Joseph R. Darancette [email protected]
> >
>
 
"Julian D." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:56:40 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> >[email protected] wrote: Well, you beggars can't be choosey.
> >>
> >> But YOU elitist fascists CAN be choosey. Think about it. Why should our Congressmen have a
> >> government run health care plan, which is incidentally the best in the world, while at the same
> >> time these very Congressmen vote against letting the rest of us have any kind of health care
> >> plan at all?
> >>
> >> Hypocracy, thy name is Republican.
> >>
> >> >If you need a government handout to keep you afloat, maybe Canada should be your destination.
> >>
> >> And let the fascists take over this great country? No way! Because some of us would rather stay
> >> here and make it a better country, that's why. Some of us would rather stay and fight, because
> >> we REALLY do love our country, unlike those who think they do.
> >>
> >> No. We will not run to Canada, or anywhere else, no matter how much the fascist monsters
> >> destroy our country. We will stay right here and
fight
> >> these Devils to the bitter end.
> >>
> >> Because some of us really do love America, and our fellow American citizens. And we don't go
> >> around pretending that we are patriotic just so that we can screw our fellow citizens with that
> >> false agenda and a phony flag. That's why.
> >>
> >> You can call it a "government handout" if you want. But what do you call it when the rich and
> >> the powerful are given a "government
handout"?
> >> Such as our Congressmen, and other government workers, who enjoy the best health care system in
> >> the world. Do you call THAT a "government handout"?
> >>
> >> This is what is so evil about the fascist mindset, they think that God is on their side, and
> >> then they completely overlook an obvious evil, they consider it a perfectly normal thing for
> >> our money to go to subsidize those who are already rich and powerful, but then they will raise
> >> and stink and a holler that will reach all the way up to the earth's stratosphere if any money
> >> at all goes to help the poor and the powerless.
> >>
> >> Abel Malcolm
> >>
> >
> >So, stay here and be miserable then. But you ain't gonna' change nothin'.
>
>
> Liberals just LOVE being miserable. They're always in misery. They're the most angry, miserable,
> frustrated people. Ever wonder why liberal talk shows don't succeed? It's always doom-n-gloom, blame-
> America, liberal-inspired guilt trips. But their guilt trips arent working so well anymore. That's
> what is pissing them off more. Liberal-inspired guilt-trips where the US is to blame for
> everything is dead. Bush 2004!
>
> JD

So we have miserable liberals and venom spewing conservatives What a country.

>
>
>
>
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
> worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
> his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
> Qaeda members..." ---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
>
> "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
have terrorists and
> tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before
they strike?
> If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all
words and all recriminations
> would come too late." -President George W. Bush January 28, 2003 (Another liberal lie exposed.)
>
> "Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and
degrade our critics.
> When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi
or anti-Semitic
> .... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the
public mind."
> --Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943
>
> "This time, I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not Clinton. I think this is the end."
>
> - Uday Hussein
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:33:00 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. wrote:
>
>> Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
>> medical care to boot.
>
>Not to those who ALREADY get generous health coverage from their employers: eyewear coverage,
>dental coverage, mental health coverage, chiropractic coverage, membership in exercise & fitness
>centers, etc.

You mean both of them?

I don't think too many people get that sort of coverage.

I think we should consider the system as a whole.

We are burning up several hundred billion dollars a year for needless administrative waste in our
current system. Deploying those resources to other economic activities could by a lot of icing on
top of the cake.
>
>Single-payer will never be able to provide such generous benefits to everyone in the country,
>without bankrupting the country.

But it would come closer, since with the huge savings we could go out and buy much of those
services, if we preferred them to the alternatives.

Hence those
>who already have generous benefits from their employer's plan are going to be forced to accept
>less. And that's why this idea is a political non-starter--neither Dean or Kerry nor Lieberman nor
>Gephardt have endorsed it.

Excellent point. Otherwise our persistance with a system costing far more,delivering far less, was
hard to understand.

>>
>> We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system,
>
>The advocates of single-payer do NOT claim that it can be paid for thru administrative
>savings alone.
>
>Rather, they have called for a whole slew of new taxes, including these two:
>
>- Implement a modest payroll tax of 3.3% on all public and private employers, while eliminating
> employer premiums for private health plans. ("All" means "all"--even some tiny dry-cleaning store
> or convenience store.)
>
>- Anyone who buys or sells a stock will pay a transaction tax equal to one quarter of one percent
> of the purchase price. For example, a $100 stock purchase will be taxed a total of 50 cents.
> ["Anyone" means "anyone"--including folks who carry out transactions inside IRAs and
>401(k) plans. That means the Government will have broken its promise to keep those tax-free. Also,
> the proponents of single-payer either don't know or don't care that a mutual fund buys and
> sells stocks and bonds from its portfolio all the time. If it has to pay taxes every time it
> does that, it's going to be much harder to provide an adequate return to its shareholders.]
>
>http://www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_financing.html
>
>
>
>-- Steven L.
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:42:42 GMT, "Mic Chek 123"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>These people don't care because they don't pay any taxes. Hell, if any of them even work, chances
>are, they work for some government bureaucracy.

That's not just false, it's obviously false.

You are either a liar or a moron.

Which is it?


>
>--
 
"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:12:41 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me
the
> >> >single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.
If
> >a
> >> >poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches
> >and
> >> >charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some
of
> >the
> >> >finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source
> >instead
> >> >of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
> >>
> >>
> >> Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
> >> more medical care to boot.
> >>
> >> We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
> >> millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
> >>
> >> If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
> >> Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
> >>
> >> Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
> >
> >
> >Well, you beggars can't be choosey. If you need a government handout to
keep
> >you afloat, maybe Canada should be your destination. So, if it is all
that
> >great, why do you stay here and suffer this injustice? I know, you need single payor
> >transportation, right?
>
> Canadians pay for their medical care. They simply have to pay about a third less than we do. And
> get about thirty percent more doctors visits than we do.
>
> And are far happier with their health care system than we are.
>
> Please tell us why you want us to pay more, for less, in a system proven to be inferior by ratings
> of its consumers.
>
> I miss your logic.

So what's holding you back? Go there.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me
the
> >>>single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.
If a
> >>>poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches
and
> >>>charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some
of the
> >>>finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source
instead
> >>>of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
> >>
> >>
> >>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
> >>more medical care to boot.
> >>
> >>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
> >>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
> >>
> >>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
> >>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
> >>
> >>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
> >>
> >>The ratings of medical consumers?
> >>
> >If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
> >with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
> >doctors.
>
> I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
> the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
> advertisers, the accoutants, all that.

So, instead of paying for your healthcare, you want us all to pay for their unemployment. You got
one hell of an outlook on life there.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:29:07 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >Let's take whatever it is that you do for a living. You do work for a
living
> >don't you?
>
> I own my own business.
>
>
> >Let us assume that a bunch of us think you are charging too much for your product and we think
> >you are making too much money. How long would you be willing to provide your labor at prices me
> >and some of my friends set for you?
>
> Why talk around the issue? We have a system with a single payer, and it works. It demonstrably
> costs a lot less than our own system. You can not deny that. It delivers thirty percent more
> visits to the doctor per person than our system does. You can not deny that. Its consumers are far
> happier with their system than our consumers are happy with our system I think. You could deny
> that with data which contradicts my memory on that point.
>
> So instead of making up dumb irrelevant hypotheticals, why don't you just look at the real world
> instead?
>

Oh, I get it. If it's your sacred cow getting gored, it's dumb. Well, maybe I'm in the healthcare
field so your **** is just as dumb.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:53:44 GMT, "Mic Chek 123"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"bushmustlose.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > We were not born with the guarantee of a new car every year, a new house when we want it and
>> > good healthcare whenever
>we
>> > want it.
>>
>> Fine. Believe that if you will. Just know that the vast majority of Americans and citizens of the
>> world disagree with you. I assume you feel the same way about court-appointed lawyers, poor
>> people shouldn't have access to them either.
>>
>> Just understand that despite what Rush tells you, you are HEAVILY in the minority on this one.
>
>Rush don't tell me **** because I haven't listened to a radio in 20 years. But, if you think you
>were born with all those guarantees, what are you *****in' about? All you need do is talk to your
>service advisor, right?

Canadians pay for their health care. They just pay a lot less than we do. For more care.
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:25:56 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:01:30 -0500, Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>>>>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>>>>>>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it,
>>>>>>they have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source
>>>>>>instead of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>>>>>more medical care to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>>>>>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>>>>>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>>>>
>>>>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>>>>
>>>>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>>>>
>>>>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
>>>>with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
>>>>doctors. If the service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force
>>>>doctors, hospitals and a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.
>>>
>>>When they're perfectly happy in HMO servitude! Your idea doesn't leverage the much lower overhead
>>>costs involved in single payer.
>>
>> A doctor or consumer can always chose another HMO. It's more difficult to chose another
>> government.
>
>One of the problems is that most doctors belong to too many HMOs already, and each HMO has its own
>rules on what treatments and procedures are allowed - and each has its own paperwork.

Allowed? You mean pay for.

> If they are lucky, each patient may be able to choose another HMO or PPO at some time during the
> next twelve months and then they may or may not get the doctor they really wanted. Single payer
> would mean less paperwork, I thought that's something the right wing and the Libertarians wanted.
>
>--Jeff
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:04:36 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
>> Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is
>> that a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care.
>
>But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
>programs are VERY generous:
>
>- Dental insurance
>- Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
>- Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
>- and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center
>
>You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.

Nope, you're wrong. You could provide everything you listed for the entire country, with no limits
or co-pays, and it would *still* cost less than the current for-profit system. The Kucinich plan, in
fact, has all of the above except for the fitness center membership.

>Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous
>benefits from their employer, to accept less.
>
>And that's why it won't fly.
>
>Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
>support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.

Gary Kleppe http://www.garykleppe.org/politics.html http://www.execpc.com/~ajrc/

So-called president G. W. Bush: POT WTC attackers, whoever they are or were: KETTLE Murdered
civilians in New York and Afghanistan -- and now, Iraq: BLACK
 
Jeffrey Turner wrote:

> Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
>>> Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is
>>> that a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care.
>>
>>
>>
>> But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
>> programs are VERY generous:
>>
>> - Dental insurance
>> - Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
>> - Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
>> - and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center
>>
>> You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.
>>
>> Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous
>> benefits from their employer, to accept less.
>>
>> And that's why it won't fly.
>>
>> Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
>> support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.
>
>
> Maybe we can make a deal with those fifty employees.

America's biggest corporations offer such generous plans. I know. I worked for them.

Have a look at the health care plans offered by Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Northrop-Grumman, and
other huge corporations--for their salaried (non-unionized) white collar work force.

In fact, during the go-go years of the 1990's economy, some corporations actually started offering
health care coverage for employees' PETS (I think it was limited to dogs and cats only). The company
would pay for visits to a veterinarian plus any medications needed by the pet.

I'm not making this up.

-- Steven L.
 
"Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Captain Compassion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > <snippage>
> > >
> > > > You must convince me of three things.
> > > >
> > > > I am self insured. You must convince me of three things.
> > > >
> > > > 1. My health costs, including payments to government health schemes, will be cheaper.
> > > >
> > > According to an article this year in the New England Journal of
> Medicine,
> > > Americans collectively pay $200 billion *more* in administrative costs
> > each
> > > year compared to Canadians because of the extra paper shuffling due to
> the
> > > myriad complex rules due to the multiple insurers, both private and government. This $200
> > > billion contributes NOTHING to health care, but
> > makes
> > > lots of insurance and HMO executives very, very wealthy.
> >
> > So, let's shut them down and throw some 300,000 more people out of work?
>
>
> We could retrain them to become part of the health *care* system rather
than
> the parasites they already are. We will need more people actually
delivering
> health care if more people are able to access the health care system.

Then all you want is price controls. Fine, let's apply it to whatever you earn as well. I get to
decide how much you will be making. Fair enough?

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:58:15 GMT, "Guy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Julian D." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:56:40 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >> >[email protected] wrote: Well, you beggars can't be choosey.
>> >>
>> >> But YOU elitist fascists CAN be choosey. Think about it. Why should our Congressmen have a
>> >> government run health care plan, which is incidentally the best in the world, while at the
>> >> same time these very Congressmen vote against letting the rest of us have any kind of health
>> >> care plan at all?
>> >>
>> >> Hypocracy, thy name is Republican.
>> >>
>> >> >If you need a government handout to keep you afloat, maybe Canada should be your destination.
>> >>
>> >> And let the fascists take over this great country? No way! Because some of us would rather
>> >> stay here and make it a better country, that's why. Some of us would rather stay and fight,
>> >> because we REALLY do love our country, unlike those who think they do.
>> >>
>> >> No. We will not run to Canada, or anywhere else, no matter how much the fascist monsters
>> >> destroy our country. We will stay right here and
>fight
>> >> these Devils to the bitter end.
>> >>
>> >> Because some of us really do love America, and our fellow American citizens. And we don't go
>> >> around pretending that we are patriotic just so that we can screw our fellow citizens with
>> >> that false agenda and a phony flag. That's why.
>> >>
>> >> You can call it a "government handout" if you want. But what do you call it when the rich and
>> >> the powerful are given a "government
>handout"?
>> >> Such as our Congressmen, and other government workers, who enjoy the best health care system
>> >> in the world. Do you call THAT a "government handout"?
>> >>
>> >> This is what is so evil about the fascist mindset, they think that God is on their side, and
>> >> then they completely overlook an obvious evil, they consider it a perfectly normal thing for
>> >> our money to go to subsidize those who are already rich and powerful, but then they will raise
>> >> and stink and a holler that will reach all the way up to the earth's stratosphere if any money
>> >> at all goes to help the poor and the powerless.
>> >>
>> >> Abel Malcolm
>> >>
>> >
>> >So, stay here and be miserable then. But you ain't gonna' change nothin'.
>>
>>
>> Liberals just LOVE being miserable. They're always in misery. They're the most angry, miserable,
>> frustrated people. Ever wonder why liberal talk shows don't succeed? It's always doom-n-gloom,
>> blame-America, liberal-inspired guilt trips. But their guilt trips arent working so well anymore.
>> That's what is pissing them off more. Liberal-inspired guilt-trips where the US is to blame for
>> everything is dead. Bush 2004!
>>
>> JD
>
>
>So we have miserable liberals and venom spewing conservatives What a country.
>

It's not venom. It's an astute observation.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
>> worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
>> his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
>> Qaeda members..." ---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
>>
>> "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
>have terrorists and
>> tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before
>they strike?
>> If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all
>words and all recriminations
>> would come too late." -President George W. Bush January 28, 2003 (Another liberal lie exposed.)
>>
>> "Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and
>degrade our critics.
>> When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi
>or anti-Semitic
>> .... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the
>public mind."
>> --Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943
>>
>> "This time, I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not Clinton. I think this is the end."
>>
>> - Uday Hussein
>

JD

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
members..." ---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants
announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is pe-
rmitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too
late."
- President George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
(Another liberal lie exposed.)

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When
obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic .... The
association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind." --Communist Party,
Moscow Central Committee 1943

"This time, I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not Clinton. I think this is the end."

- Uday Hussein
 
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:33:00 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
>>>medical care to boot.
>>
>>Not to those who ALREADY get generous health coverage from their employers: eyewear coverage,
>>dental coverage, mental health coverage, chiropractic coverage, membership in exercise & fitness
>>centers, etc.
>
>
> You mean both of them?

My former employer offered such a plan. And so do other major corporations.

See for yourself. Ask folks who work for huge corporations like Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard and
Northrop-Grumman.

Also, the National Association for the Self-Employed offers a very generous plan for self-employed
people (perhaps that's what "Captain Compassion" has).

I remember that Raytheon, where I worked in the early 1980's, started offering an eyewear coverage
plan 20 years ago.

> Hence those
>
>>who already have generous benefits from their employer's plan are going to be forced to accept
>>less. And that's why this idea is a political non-starter--neither Dean or Kerry nor Lieberman nor
>>Gephardt have endorsed it.
>
>
> Excellent point. Otherwise our persistance with a system costing far more,delivering far less, was
> hard to understand.

Thank you. One more thing: The much-maligned HMOs offer generous coverage for a lot of different
things (including prescription drugs for a minimal co-pay). People's main gripe about HMOs is the
way they micro-manage the delivery of care services--NOT that they don't offer enough services. So
again, folks are going to look at what their HMO or PPO or POS or fee-for-service plan gives them
now, do an itemized comparison against single-payer, and they're going to say that either single-
payer gives them at least as much as their current plan or it's no sale.

-- Steven L.
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:15 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr.
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>>>>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they
>>>>have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of
>>>>piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
>>>medical care to boot.
>>>
>>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>>>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>>>
>>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>>>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>>
>>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>>
>>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>>>
>>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
>>with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
>>doctors.
>
>I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
>the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
>advertisers, the accoutants, all that.
>
>You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.
>
>In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.
>
Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?
>
> If the
>>service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors, hospitals and a
>>population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.
>>
>
>To get more care, for all, at far less cost.
>
>In a system proven by conusmer ratings to be superior.
>
>Why exactly do you want a system which costs more, does less, and which consumers have many more
>complaints about?
>
>Are you a masochist or what?
>
As I said I'm self insured so as far as I'm concerned there is 0nly one single payer for medical
care... Me. I'm also one of the 40 million uninsured. A couple of years ago I had to go to Emergency
with a possible bowel obstruction. They poked and proded and x-rayed they said it was a combination
of the flu and bad chickin. The bill was 1,400 dollars. I got a 35% cash discount. Many doctors in
private or small practices are willing to give you even more.

The high costs of medical care is due to HMOs, Medicare and high legal costs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email protected]
 
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:

>>>> Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
>>>> Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is
>>>> that a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care.
>>>
>>> But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
>>> programs are VERY generous:
>>>
>>> - Dental insurance
>>> - Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
>>> - Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
>>> - and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center
>>>
>>> You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.
>>>
>>> Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous
>>> benefits from their employer, to accept less.
>>>
>>> And that's why it won't fly.
>>>
>>> Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
>>> support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.
>>
>> Maybe we can make a deal with those fifty employees.
>
> America's biggest corporations offer such generous plans. I know. I worked for them.
>
> Have a look at the health care plans offered by Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Northrop-Grumman, and
> other huge corporations--for their salaried (non-unionized) white collar work force.
>
> In fact, during the go-go years of the 1990's economy, some corporations actually started offering
> health care coverage for employees' PETS (I think it was limited to dogs and cats only). The
> company would pay for visits to a veterinarian plus any medications needed by the pet.
>
> I'm not making this up.

I don't see why these corporations couldn't offer some kind of supplemental insurance. If it's for
services not covered by single payer then the paperwork wouldn't burden "regular" care providers.
Just because the government provided basic health care insurance doesn't mean private insurance
companies couldn't provide automobile or pet or hangnail insurance. I think you introduced a
conflict of interest where there wasn't one.

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."
 
Captain Compassion wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:15 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>>>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>>>>>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they
>>>>>have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of
>>>>>piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>>>
>>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>>>>more medical care to boot.
>>>>
>>>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>>>>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>>>>
>>>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>>>>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>>>
>>>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>>>
>>>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
>>>with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
>>>doctors.
>>
>>I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
>>the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
>>advertisers, the accoutants, all that.
>>
>>You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.
>>
>>In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.
>
> Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?

The "marketplace" remember? Jeez.

>>If the
>>>service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors, hospitals and
>>>a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.
>>
>>To get more care, for all, at far less cost.
>>
>>In a system proven by conusmer ratings to be superior.
>>
>>Why exactly do you want a system which costs more, does less, and which consumers have many more
>>complaints about?
>>
>>Are you a masochist or what?
>
> As I said I'm self insured so as far as I'm concerned there is 0nly one single payer for medical
> care... Me. I'm also one of the 40 million uninsured. A couple of years ago I had to go to
> Emergency with a possible bowel obstruction. They poked and proded and x-rayed they said it was a
> combination of the flu and bad chickin. The bill was 1,400 dollars. I got a 35% cash discount.
> Many doctors in private or small practices are willing to give you even more.
>
> The high costs of medical care is due to HMOs, Medicare and high legal costs.

It doesn't sound like you were even hospitalized. I'm glad it wasn't anything serious, but if it had
been... Does Ms. Compassion have recipes for dog food handy? Still, there are plenty of people who
would have had problems coming up with even $1400 (vast understatement).

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."
 
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:39:06 GMT, "Mic Chek 123"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me
>the
>> >>>single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.
>If a
>> >>>poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches
>and
>> >>>charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some
>of the
>> >>>finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source
>instead
>> >>>of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>> >>more medical care to boot.
>> >>
>> >>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>> >>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>> >>
>> >>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>> >>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>> >>
>> >>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>> >>
>> >>The ratings of medical consumers?
>> >>
>> >If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
>> >with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
>> >doctors.
>>
>> I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
>> the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
>> advertisers, the accoutants, all that.
>
>
>So, instead of paying for your healthcare, you want us all to pay for their unemployment. You got
>one hell of an outlook on life there.

Fewer workers doing the same job is the route to wealth.

It used to take three of five of us to provide the food we need to survive. Now it takes
one of fifty.

You are free to long for the good old impoverished days.

I prefer a higher standard of living.
 
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:00:34 GMT, [email protected] (Captain
Compassion) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:15 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:43:24 GMT, [email protected] (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>>>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>>>>>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they
>>>>>have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of
>>>>>piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>>>>more medical care to boot.
>>>>
>>>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>>>>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>>>>
>>>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>>>>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>>>
>>>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>>>>
>>>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
>>>with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
>>>doctors.
>>
>>I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
>>the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
>>advertisers, the accoutants, all that.
>>
>>You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.
>>
>>In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.
>>
>Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?

They reach an agreement, just as I reach an agreement with my clients about what they pay me for
what I do.

I agree that the single payer has enormous power in that relationship.

The important question is - how does that work out in practice?

>>
>> If the
>>>service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors, hospitals and
>>>a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.
>>>
>>
>>To get more care, for all, at far less cost.
>>
>>In a system proven by conusmer ratings to be superior.
>>
>>Why exactly do you want a system which costs more, does less, and which consumers have many more
>>complaints about?
>>
>>Are you a masochist or what?
>>
>As I said I'm self insured so as far as I'm concerned there is 0nly one single payer for medical
>care... Me.

Your standard of living is reduced because such a large share of our economy goes for medical care.
Were we able to move several million workers out of the health care management business into other
areas then there would be more goods and services produced for you and I to share.

That's why a single payer system would be good for you. even if you never get sick and just drop
dead one day.

I'm also one of the 40
>million uninsured. A couple of years ago I had to go to Emergency with a possible bowel
>obstruction. They poked and proded and x-rayed they said it was a combination of the flu and bad
>chickin. The bill was 1,400 dollars. I got a 35% cash discount. Many doctors in private or small
>practices are willing to give you even more.

It would be better if the cost was less. If you didn't have to worry that calling an ambulance will
force you into bankruptcy.

>
>The high costs of medical care is due to HMOs, Medicare and high legal costs.

Legal costs? That's absurd. Even President Bush, the smart one, not the current guy, only claimed,
when he ran on that stupid claim, that malpractice costs altogether, including legal costs and
awards, came to twenty billion dollars a year.

That's about two percent.

And that was what he claimed when he had an incentive to exaggerate the cost.

I aslo think HMOs lower costs, but I don't know what the implications of medicare are.

>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant
>
>"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
>
>"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
>always evil." -- Ayn Rand
>
>Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
>
>Joseph R. Darancette [email protected]
 
>>Selfish.

Hah!, my money is mine! Not yours, the government or anyone elses.

>Bull, Republicans would rather see thier fellow human beings provide for themselves, period.

>>If that's true, then how do you explain the fact that the unemployment rate almost always goes up
>>whenever a Republican is in the White House?

Slipping here..........the slopes's gettin steeper.........oop's....there you go.....

>That's one hellava lot more compassionate than paying for others.

>>You miss the point. You've obviously never been poor, or if you have, you have forgotten where you
>>came from.

Nope, never have been poor before. I was makin a whoppin $63 a week under that great President
Jimmuh Cahtuh. Now I'm making real money, paying my own way. Just like when ol' Jimmy was our
leader. I paid then and pay now for my own health care.

>>For those who already do have health insurance, thru an employer, or if they are rich enough to
>>have their own, then good for them.

Companies don't offer free health care expenses anymore. Where have you been the last 20 years?
Emplyees PAY for the health insurance. It ain't free.

>>More people were insured when Clinton was President, because more people were employed, and so
>>therefore they acquired health insurance from their
employer.

Now you've gone and done it. You now have to explain to me and the rest of us nasty Republicans why
Hillary attempted to take over the nations health care industry back then if things were damned good
then. WHY did she do it?

>>Let me quote Ruth Rosen's quite prescient words, it's a very powerful
statement

I read it again and it still smacks of 'take the money from those who are working to better
themselves and pay for those are make no effort to pay thier own way'. In other words you want to
take the money *I* spend on my health care and give free health care to someone else who will make
no effort to pay thier own way. Yet, they'll damn sure have a new DVD player, DVD's and a new car
sitting in the driveway all the while taking MY dollars to pay thier health costs. WHY? WHAT GIVES
liberals the 'RIGHT' to demand such drivel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back