Politically Incorrect.

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Pomeranian said:

[censored], where, how, and why do you dream all this [censored] up? Do you know why inelastic demand, and
a lot of it, is a problem? For your benefit, the answer is in the question.

Because all that I see in your rhetoric is the supposed supreme perfection of a pure free-market
economy.

Where has anyone here claimed that the free market system is even good let alone perfect? We
acknowledge only that it is far superior to anything else that's been tried.

Quoted message said:

Why do we have so many able-minded and able-bodied homeless?

That is a complete and utter fabrication. Network news tried to pass off every single thing that the
"homeless" activists decided was best for their cause but apparently you haven't kept up. Several
homeless activists came clean. They fabricated almost every fact about the homeless. When the best
estimates were that this country had about 300,000 homeless (something that should have been
shocking enough) they got the network news hacks to report that there were 19 million and climbing
homeless. They got the network news moguls to report that most homeless were able bodied people.
That was a lie. Most homeless are insane or drug or alcohol addicts. Able bodied men are seldom
homeless and find that there is a lot of help from the government and from all sorts of charities. I
personally talked to some of those and they told me that the problem wasn't getting food of
temporary shelter but putting together the trememdous about of money it takes for first and last
month's rent and a security deposit. Welfare has taken care of that for two decades now.

In other words, you are completely full of [censored].

Quoted message said:

Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?

Network news reported that there were many families living under the poverty level. Government
welfare offices reported the same thing. When it was investigated it was found that "poverty level"
was a certain income level for a family. If they had three kids the poverty level was something like
$30,000 a year. Families that owned their own homes and owned several cars would OFTEN be on these
"poverty" roles.

In other words, you've been taken in and are little more than a sucker for a liberal lie.

Quoted message said:

Why are there undernourished children in this great country of ours?

That was covered 25 years ago. Food is not a problem. Nutrician is. And most of the time it isn't
because of poverty or lack of food. It is because of divorced mother homes and the mother often has
little or no education and doesn't understand what nutrician means. And one of the primary reasons
that young ignorant mothers were around was because of the culture of sex freely spread by the
general media in this country. Which is another reason that other more conservative societies see us
as little more than animals.

Quoted message said:

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.

The problem with you Greg is that you are too stupid to think about any of this beyond reading the
occasional lefty news reports. You don't go down to the local emergency rooms and see them filled to
overflowing with aliens while low income citizens get nothing. You hear about homeless but you've
never gone down to the missions and talked to any of them or stood in the soup line on Thanksgiving
or Christmas and handed out food.

In France a homeless person lives about two years. In the USA they are fat until they die of the
effects of their addictions or are carted off to the mental hospitals where you'd argue they
shouldn't be held against their will.

You WANT to believe that the USA is evil because you want to hate a lot more than you want to know
the truth.

Canuck said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No, I just have issues with effete and impudent snobs who can't take a joke. The rest of me is in
complete disagreement with anything TK or that yappy little pomeranian stands for.

I am an effete impudent snob?

I tried to keep the conversation as cordial as possible, perhaps that makes me effete, but
impudent and snobbish, hmmmm, just because I disagree with you.

Actually, I was just kidding with that first sentence. But I do have a problem with people who have
to find fault with many things I think are harmless.

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 said:

G.T. said:

Because all that I see in your rhetoric is the supposed supreme perfection of a pure free-market
economy.

When did I say "supreme perfection of a pure free-market economy" and when did I say the
government can't play an important role in the well being of its citizens and insuring that
markets function properly (for the betterment of the consumers and the environment they live in)?

I have yet to see you provide any examples of where you think government intervention is ok. Here in
r.b.r. or in the Campag=Mac thread on r.b.t.

Quoted message said:

If you don't like the marketplace's way of allocating scarce resources,

Which resources are scarce here in the USA? Food? Water? Housing? Heating oil? Do you mean scarce
or finite?

Quoted message said:

then tell us who should decide

1. What goods are to be produced?
2. How will they be produced?
3. Who will do what jobs?
4. For whom will the products be produced?

Answer the questions.

As far as those questions are concerned production doesn't seem to be the problem here in our
country right now except for #2 and how production of goods effects the environment. #2 is the only
place I think someone needs to keep an eye on things. And as long as someone keeps an eye that the
racists and sexists of the country are hiring and promoting a proportionate amount of minorities and
women the rest of #3 should be left up to producers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do we have so many able-minded and able-bodied homeless?

You tell me: How many and why?

Estimates made over the last 5 years are between 2 and 7 million. Why? Some are mentally ill, some
prefer to be homeless, some have been very unlucky, some are even employed but can't afford housing
within a 2 hours commute of their employmer.

Quoted message said:

What should we do about it and how will it affect the aggregate wealth of our nation?

The first part is a good question. It's hard to balance the need for everyone making a living wage
and keeping unemployment low.

The second part of your question is offensive. Is the aggregate wealth of our country more important
than those 2 million homeless? We sacrifice 1% of our citizens?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?

You tell me: How many, and what does "poverty level" mean and does it change through time in a
given society/nation?

Federal guidelines: aspe.hhs.gov02poverty.htmOpen ↗

How many: "Using CPS data, the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University has
published statistics on the rate of poverty among very young children. The center estimates that
between 1979 and 1993, the number of children under age six living in poverty in the United States
grew from 3.5 million to 6.4 million (26.2 percent of all children under 6 in 1993). In 2001, the
number was 4 million (a poverty rate of 18.2 percent)".

So in one of our best recent years 4 million children live in families that make less than $18,000
per year. That's counting just the children, not the parents.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do so many not have adequate healthcare?

Because the current methodology is outmoded.

Quoted message said:

Because our market's aren't free enough?

You tell me the how's and why's, since that is your claim.

That's not my claim. It's what I've understood to be your claim.

Quoted message said:

Then provide a solution that hasn't already been tried and failed miserably. What should we do
about it and how will it affect the aggregate wealth of our nation?

Well, having worked 7 years for the health insurance industry I do know one thing that needs to be
addressed and that is price gouging by hospitals and providers. $250 for two unused Tylenol is
absurd. I worked for a managed care operation, Prucare of California, and at one time I paid claims
during my management training rotation so these are things that I saw with my own two eyes, there
not anecdotes from some website.

Two things that I learned while working there are that IPA and medical group based HMOs are
definitely not the way to go, and that patient care should absolutely not be regulated by an
administrative organization.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A free market doesn't care about those that can't participate in the market in the first place.

Who in the US does not purchase goods in one marketplace or the other?

Those that I'm talking about above, the ones with no money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And, yes, I understand the problem with unlimited or even much inelastic demand.

I don't believe you. Explain.

It's basically where demand isn't influenced by price. Price can drop or increase and there will be
very little change in demand.

Quoted message said:

What should be done about it?

In the case of skyrocketing prices for an item with inelastic demand? Revolutions have been fought
for less reason.

Quoted message said:

Answer the above first. Tell what the projected costs of entitlements (SS for example) are going
to be in the next 50 years. Put numbers on
it. How will the bill be paid and what fraction of the GDP will it consume.

I don't disagree with you about the projected costs of entitlements.

Quoted message said:

Now do the same for a universal single payer health care plan. Don't mess around. Put numbers on
it and tell how much of the GDP it will likely chew up.

Depends on how it is funded. It's besides the point anyway, I don't know if a universal single payer
plan is the way to go. I do know with health costs increasing far more rapidly than the current rate
of inflation (my monthly premiums went from $242 to $255, that's only 5% but my benefits dropped
considerably), and approximately 44 million uninsured citizens something clearly has to be done.

Quoted message said:

I don't believe you care about anybody but yourself.

That is entirely not true. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that I consider solutions to
the above problems more often than you. And I KNOW I do more than TK.

Quoted message said:

It is because I care about all people, and my country, and my world, and the people that will
inherit it, that I am frustrated with your nonsense.

Your nationalistic, anti-immigratory, borderline racist stance suggests otherwise, particularly the
"my world" part.

Quoted message said:

If you cared you would at least make a casual attempt at throwing off the veil of destructive
ignorance.

That's some good rhetoric. I am. I think you've taken some of what I've said in the past a little
too seriously.

Quoted message said:

So answer my questions and don't ignore this one: "...where did I say anyone should be ignored?"

Well, you don't have to explicitly state it. You've made it clear in previous posts and this post
that the good of the majority is more important than the misery of the few. Is the misery of 1% to
2%, possibly more, of our nation's population acceptable?

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

Tom Kunich said:

That is a complete and utter fabrication. Network news tried to pass off every single thing that
the "homeless" activists decided was best for their cause but apparently you haven't kept up.
Several homeless activists came clean. They fabricated almost every fact about the homeless. When
the best estimates were that this country had about 300,000 homeless (something that should have
been shocking enough) they got the network news hacks to report that there were 19 million and
climbing homeless. They got the network news moguls to report that most homeless were able bodied
people. That was a lie. Most homeless are insane or drug or alcohol addicts. Able bodied men are
seldom homeless and find that there is a lot of help from the government and from all sorts of
charities. I personally talked to some of those and they told me that the problem wasn't getting
food of temporary shelter but putting together the trememdous about of money it takes for first
and last month's rent and a security deposit. Welfare has taken care of that for two decades now.

Not being able to afford first and last still means homeless, you moron.

And now that you bring up the insane, which I wasn't going to go into, why are they on the streets?
They can't work to support themselves. Many of them don't want to be on the streets. Could it be
because your hero cut back federal funds for inpatient psychiatric hospitals sending them all out on
the street?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do we have so many families living under the poverty level?

Network news reported that there were many families living under the poverty level. Government
welfare offices reported the same thing. When it was investigated it was found that "poverty
level" was a certain income level for a family. If they had three kids the poverty level was
something like $30,000 a year.

2002 level for a 5 person family is $21,000. Please post your budget in your reply on how you would
buy a home and several cars on $21,000 a year. [censored], just post a budget on how you would survive.
Quit coming up with [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why are there undernourished children in this great country of ours?

That was covered 25 years ago. Food is not a problem. Nutrician is. And most of the time it isn't
because of poverty or lack of food. It is because of divorced mother homes and the mother often
has little or no education and doesn't understand what nutrician means. And one of the primary
reasons that young ignorant mothers were around was because of the culture of sex freely spread by
the general media in this country. Which is another reason that other more conservative societies
see us as little more than animals.

You mean the societies that wrap their women from head to toe?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

You keep saying that "aliens" get better care than citizens. Please point me to even the most
right-wing website out there that has any so-called proof of that favoritism.

Quoted message said:

The problem with you Greg is that you are too stupid to think about any of this beyond reading the
occasional lefty news reports. You don't go down to the local emergency rooms and see them filled
to overflowing with aliens while low income citizens get nothing.

I've taken my uninsured friends and neighbors to the County ER several times. Nobody was picking
"aliens" over my friends. Tell me, Tom, how do you pick out an alien without asking for their
papers? Do you have some magical powers to discern between legal and illegal? Or is it just the
color of their skin and/or ESL?

Quoted message said:

In France a homeless person lives about two years. In the USA they are fat until they die of the
effects of their addictions or are carted off to the mental hospitals where you'd argue they
shouldn't be held against their will.

I have never seen a fat homeless person. Do you hallucinate these images of fat homeless people? And
they are no longer carted off to mental hospitals because your hero axed federal contributions to
their budgets LONG ago.

Quoted message said:

You WANT to believe that the USA is evil because you want to hate a lot more than you want to know
the truth.

I don't hate anything about the USA except for evil, hate-mongering, racist, sexist [censored] like you.
And you call me sick. What a joke.

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

Tom Kunich said:

So the probability is that I'm going to have to work the rest of my life because the taxes I've
paid for government pork barrel projects and Liberal "help everyone in the world and even
discussing the necessity of it means that you are a greedy hateful person" projects have prevented
me from saving enough of my own money to support myself in my old age.

You argue regularly around here with several people who are retired. If they can do it, you should
be able to do it. If you have to work for the rest of your life you have nothing to blame but your
own inability to plan ahead. Hopefuly you won't linger forever so you can stop working sooner.

... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email hidden] Kyle Legate [email hidden]

Tower of Tongues:Thursday PM:10:30-11:30 EDT:http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca moon
musick:ritual:IDM:experimental(electronica):minimalism:glitch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
>
> United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer
> system) ...................................3%
>
> Why?

Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the USA

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

claims forms are long and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4

times

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for further information.

Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA

where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

our less than perfect system is still superior to a system that would

often

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

take longer to get a patient in than his expected lifespan with a

serious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

illness.

"With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?

Sure, it sucks if you don't have money. But you DO understand that in Canada if you have all the
money in the world you can't get any better medical care than a homeless person?

So you admit even homeless people in Canada get necessary health care.

Quoted message said:

While the level of medical care in Canada is very high in some regards, in others it sucks. And
the average medical care is lower and much slower than in the USA. This is the same experience as
all other countries with socialized medicine. Canada has always been held up as an example because
their system seemed to be actually working though closer scrutiny showed that the reason that it
was working was because of the healthier, younger population with lower numbers of chronically ill
or severely ill patients.

Maybe it's the magic water they drink?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.

The bottom line is that it doesn't

Comparing the effectiveness and quality of health system across borders is a challenging process.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that the empirical evidence indicates that Canada's system
is more effective than America's. The World Health Organization (WHO) has devised an index that
measures how efficiently health systems translate expenditures into health. One yardstick they use
is known as the average disability adjusted life expectancy (DALE) of a population, which measures a
population's health rather than strict life expectancy. WHO combines this data with figures on the
amount of choice patients have, the autonomy of health care providers, the equity of health care
distribution and related issues. In 1997, Canada ranked 35th on this index. The U.S. ranked 72nd.

Life expectancy and similar statistics are admittedly crude measurements of the quality of medical
care. Such figures are influenced not only by the quality of health services but by social,
environmental and demographic factors. Nevertheless, Canada consistently outperforms the United
States on such measures. Canadians have the second longest life expectancy of all countries (79
years). The United States ranks 25th at under 77 years.

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.

Infant mortality rates are also frequently used to grade the health of a particular population. Here
the U.S. fares even worse. In countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the median infant mortality rate was 5.8 deaths per thousand live births in
1996. The U.S. rate was 7.8, better only than Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland and Turkey. Canada's
was 5.6. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were double those in Canada in 1988, with
seven out of every 100,000 dying in Canada compared to 14 in the U.S.

WHO has developed sophisticated criteria to measure the effectiveness of health care services. These
indexes measure a system's level of responsiveness (which includes autonomy, confidentiality, choice
of care providers, quality of basic amenities, etc.); distribution (to all members of society); and
fairness of financial contribution (which reflects inequality in household contributions to their
health care costs). The U.S. scores better than Canada only on the responsiveness index, where it
ranks 1st to Canada's 7th. When all these criteria are combined with basic health measurements, the
WHO ranks Canada 7th, the U.S. 15th.

Quoted message said:

and the proof is that all of the major US cities along the borders have entire departments that do
nothing but service Canadians who come across the border for medical care.

Source, please.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice
versa. Prescription drugs comes to mind.

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.

Quoted message said:

Please be aware that older drugs are usually outdated because newer drugs are more efficacious or
have fewer or less serious side effects and this is nothing to poo-poo since large numbers of
people are made ill or die each year from drug side effects.

Many newer drugs have side effects which are just as bad, or worse, than older drugs. Many 'newer'
drugs are merely combinations of existing drugs, albeit sold at a much higher price.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yeah, instead they are put in a line and die waiting for medical care.

There is no wait in Canada for emergency care. Ever visit a US hospital and see needy patients
turned away because of lack of insurance? It happens. There are many more Americans who die waiting
for medical care because their insurance company refuses to pay for needed care.

Although you snipped portions of my previous post, my friend had to wait two years and spend $20,000
out of pocket until the insurance company paid her valid claim. Not everybody has $20,000 to pay for
a lawyer, so they give up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.

I don't see you deny this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only the .01% of the population who are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives benefit
from the present system. Plus the people who process claims for insurance companies. Their
purpose: deny claims. 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.

Last time I looked, 80% of the population was covered by medical insurance. What would lead you to
believe otherwise?

I'm talking about the extra money Americans pay for administrative expenses. See the table at top of
this post. The extra money for administrative costs is paid for by EVERYBODY who receives health
services in the US.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that there are tons of insurance company employees who would like to deny claims for a
higher salary but that is a complete fabrication on your part.

Employees who do a good job get incentives and are promoted. For an insurance company, a 'good'
claims examiner is one who errs on the side of denying claims rather than paying claims.

Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.

Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less time
with each patient.

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!!! Is this what we're coming to in this country?

Quoted message said:

My ex-inlaws worked in the insurance industry as does the past president of our cycling club.

Some of my best friends work for insurance companies, too.

Quoted message said:

They have a lot of bad things to say about the actions of insurance companies but it all boils
down to slowing payments not throwing them out.

Are you saying insurance companies never deny claims for needed medical care?

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that you'll scream about the 20% who aren't covered

It's nothing to brag about.

Quoted message said:

but if you look it up you'll find that that group is very high in healthy young men who OPT to
have no insurance and save the money.

Most of the healthy young men I know have jobs which include health insurance benefits.

Quoted message said:

Also in that group are people that are between jobs and people who are under government programs
and don't need other insurance.

This is pure fantasy. The majority of people without health insurance in the US are:

1) The long term unemployed who have too many assets to be eligible for Medicaid,

2) The working poor who receive no benefits but make too much money (sometimes they work two minimum
wage jobs, sometimes three) to be covered by Medicaid. This includes many former welfare mothers
AND THEIR CHILDREN.

Again, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unexpected medical bills. Do you
like people going bankrupt?

Also, the number of uninsured in the US is growing.

Quoted message said:

Also there are people that need insurance and don't have it. There are people in Canada dying
without health care because there is none available in their areas.

The same can be said of Americans living in remote areas.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The United States has a far greater proportion of its population obese or worse. It has a far
greater cultural and ethnic diversity.

And it has a far greater number of consumers who are denied care either because they have no
insurance or because the insurance they do have does not pay for the health care that they need.

Quoted message said:

All of these make tremendous differences in the average health of the population. To pretend that
it is not so as you are doing is simple propaganda. The small statistical difference in the
average age and health of the populations by any measure shows that the basic factors in a long
and healthy life and lack of stress

The current way the American health care is financed is in itself stressful, with the ultimate fear:
will something happen to make me lose my insurance? It could be a pink slip from an employer, a
letter from an insurance company canceling one's policy, a denial of a legitimate claim, exceeding
the lifetime maximum for a condition, or even "claims forms are long and complicated and often are
sent back 3 or 4 times for further information."

Quoted message said:

healthy exercise and good nutrician starting at birth.

The Canadian health care system is the only socilaized medicine

Isn't Medicare socialized medicine? Isn't Medicaid socialized medicine? Isn't care for Veterans
socialized medicine? Isn't CHIP socialized medicine? We already have socialized medicine, but not
for everybody. Instead we have another costly, duplicate health financing mechanism called 'private
insurance.'

Quoted message said:

group in the world that has gotten even close to its promise and most of those in the government
who have to deal with it know that it is about to be in trouble.

While rising health care costs occur no matter how health care is financed, some of the troubles of
the American system are:

1. The number of uninsured in America is 40 million and rising,

2. Americans with private health insurance are finding reduced benefits, rising deductibles, rising
copayments, longer eligibility waiting periods, and longer waits to be approved by insurance
company bureaucrats for medically necessary care,

3. Americans can no longer choose their own doctors because HMOs limit selection,

4. Medical bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy filings,

5. Doctors are spending more and more of their time filling out paperwork instead of providing
health care.

Quoted message said:

The pretense that this isn't so cannot hide the financial problems that are beginning to be
well known.

The same can be said of the American system.

Quoted message said:

I don't know what you think you can accomplish by advocating a system based on worldwide failures
and one temporary success, but it isn't going to fly in the United States regardless of what the
Liberals are pressing.

You have failed to convince anybody that the Canadian system is a failure.

Quoted message said:

The citizenry are waking up from a long hypnotic nap when they were under the impression that they
could have everything forever and no one would ever have to pay for it.

I'm not saying Single-Payer makes health care free. I'm saying that the total cost for Single-Payer
is lower than our present crazy-quilt system of financing health care.

Quoted message said:

Now they are looking at their bank accounts, their income and their taxes and they are beginning
to be afraid and to see just what the Liberals have done to them and this country.

Vague scare tactics add nothing to the debate.

Another American health care horror story: 28 year old male HMO member goes to hospital emergency
room with chest pains. Doctors send him home without doing standard (and inexpensive) heart test!
Patient dies two days later of a heart attack. Hospital pays out multi-million dollar settlement to
patients' estate. Medical malpractice insurance rates rise again. Why did the hospital omit the
test? Was there any incentive to cut down on 'unnecessary testing' by the HMO? One thing is certain:
this would not have happened in Canada.

Quoted message said:

"tokugawa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
> > >
> > > United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer
> > > system) ...................................3%
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the

USA the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > claims forms are long and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4

times

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > for further information.
> >
> > Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA

where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > our less than perfect system is still superior to a system that

would often

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > take longer to get a patient in than his expected lifespan with a

serious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > illness.
>
> "With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?

Sure, it sucks if you don't have money. But you DO understand that in

Canada

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if you have all the money in the world you can't get any better medical

care

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than a homeless person?

So you admit even homeless people in Canada get necessary health care.

Quoted message said:

While the level of medical care in Canada is very high in some regards, in others it sucks.
And the average medical care is lower and much slower than in the USA. This is the same
experience as all other countries with socialized medicine. Canada has always been held up

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an example because their system seemed to be actually working though

closer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

scrutiny showed that the reason that it was working was because of the healthier, younger
population with lower numbers of chronically ill or severely ill patients.

Maybe it's the magic water they drink?

Quoted message said:

> The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.

The bottom line is that it doesn't

Comparing the effectiveness and quality of health system across borders is a challenging
process. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that the empirical evidence indicates that
Canada's system is more effective than America's. The World Health Organization (WHO) has
devised an index that measures how efficiently health systems translate expenditures into
health. One yardstick they use is known as the average disability adjusted life expectancy
(DALE) of a population, which measures a population's health rather than strict life expectancy.
WHO combines this data with figures on the amount of choice patients have, the autonomy of
health care providers, the equity of health care distribution and related issues. In 1997,
Canada ranked 35th on this index. The U.S. ranked 72nd.

Life expectancy and similar statistics are admittedly crude measurements of the quality of
medical care. Such figures are influenced not only by the quality of health services but by
social, environmental and demographic factors. Nevertheless, Canada consistently outperforms the
United States on such measures. Canadians have the second longest life expectancy of all
countries (79 years). The United States ranks 25th at under 77 years.

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.

Infant mortality rates are also frequently used to grade the health of a particular population.
Here the U.S. fares even worse. In countries belonging to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the median infant mortality rate was 5.8 deaths per thousand
live births in 1996. The U.S. rate was 7.8, better only than Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland and
Turkey. Canada's was 5.6. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were double those in
Canada in 1988, with seven out of every 100,000 dying in Canada compared to 14 in the U.S.

WHO has developed sophisticated criteria to measure the effectiveness of health care services.
These indexes measure a system's level of responsiveness (which includes autonomy,
confidentiality, choice of care providers, quality of basic amenities, etc.); distribution (to
all members of society); and fairness of financial contribution (which reflects inequality in
household contributions to their health care costs). The U.S. scores better than Canada only on
the responsiveness index, where it ranks 1st to Canada's 7th. When all these criteria are
combined with basic health measurements, the WHO ranks Canada 7th, the U.S. 15th.

Quoted message said:

and the proof is that all of the major US cities along the borders have entire departments
that do nothing but

service

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Canadians who come across the border for medical care.

Source, please.

Quoted message said:

> There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice
> versa. Prescription drugs comes to mind.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

years behind those prescribed in the USA. So by crossing the border you

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get cheap drugs IF YOU HAPPEN to have a prescription for the drugs that

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sold there.

It seems that many Americans fall into this category.

Quoted message said:

Please be aware that older drugs are usually outdated because newer

drugs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are more efficacious or have fewer or less serious side effects and this

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nothing to poo-poo since large numbers of people are made ill or die

each

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

year from drug side effects.

Many newer drugs have side effects which are just as bad, or worse, than older drugs. Many
'newer' drugs are merely combinations of existing drugs, albeit sold at a much higher price.

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Yeah, instead they are put in a line and die waiting for medical care.

There is no wait in Canada for emergency care. Ever visit a US hospital and see needy patients
turned away because of lack of insurance? It happens. There are many more Americans who die
waiting for medical care because their insurance company refuses to pay for needed care.

Although you snipped portions of my previous post, my friend had to wait two years and spend
$20,000 out of pocket until the insurance company paid her valid claim. Not everybody has
$20,000 to pay for a lawyer, so they give up.

Quoted message said:

> For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.

I don't see you deny this.

Quoted message said:

> Only the .01% of the population who are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives
> benefit from the present system. Plus the people who process claims for insurance companies.
> Their purpose: deny claims. 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.

Last time I looked, 80% of the population was covered by medical

insurance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would lead you to believe otherwise?

I'm talking about the extra money Americans pay for administrative expenses. See the table at
top of this post. The extra money for administrative costs is paid for by EVERYBODY who receives
health services in the US.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that there are tons of insurance company employees who would like to deny claims for
a higher salary but that is a complete fabrication on your part.

Employees who do a good job get incentives and are promoted. For an insurance company, a 'good'
claims examiner is one who errs on the side of denying claims rather than paying claims.

Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.

Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less
time with each patient.

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!!! Is this what we're coming to in this country?

Quoted message said:

My ex-inlaws worked in the insurance industry as does the past president of our cycling

club.

Quoted message said:

Some of my best friends work for insurance companies, too.

Quoted message said:

They have a lot of bad things to say about the actions of insurance companies but it all boils
down to slowing payments not throwing them

out.

Quoted message said:

Are you saying insurance companies never deny claims for needed medical care?

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that you'll scream about the 20% who aren't covered

It's nothing to brag about.

Quoted message said:

but if you look it up you'll find that that group is very high in healthy young men who

OPT

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to have no insurance and save the money.

Most of the healthy young men I know have jobs which include health insurance benefits.

Quoted message said:

Also in that group are people that are between jobs and people who are under government
programs and don't

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

other insurance.

This is pure fantasy. The majority of people without health insurance in the US are:

1) The long term unemployed who have too many assets to be eligible for Medicaid,

2) The working poor who receive no benefits but make too much money (sometimes they work two
minimum wage jobs, sometimes three) to be covered by Medicaid. This includes many former
welfare mothers AND THEIR CHILDREN.

Again, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unexpected medical bills. Do
you like people going bankrupt?

Also, the number of uninsured in the US is growing.

Quoted message said:

Also there are people that need insurance and don't have it. There are people in Canada dying
without health care because there is none

available

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in their areas.

The same can be said of Americans living in remote areas.

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The Pomeranian said:

Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included immigration)
was a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know it, is that
immigration has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy.

Again I apologize, I had considered the possibility of sarcasm but in the context it sounded like
you were agreeing with Kunich.

Just so we're on the same page. Both of you seem to be pretty much anti-wealthy so let's describe
what "wealthy" is in the USA.

The top 10% of the income earners in the USA pay 45% of all of the income taxes and a
disproportionately large portion of all other taxes. (Data available from the IRS.)

That top 10% has a combined income from all income sources in the household starting just under
$89,000. That means that a programmer friend of mine in Missouri can't buy a house but is classified
as rich. That means that two married grade school teachers just about anywhere in California (or
most of the nations for that matter) are "rich".

That means that all of the Democrats and other liberals who are trying to screw over the rich are
really trying to screw over an east coast fireman and his daycare worker wife.

While screeching about helping people the Liberal revolution has run my taxes up to half of
everything I make. It seems to me highly unlikely that I should be able to rely on people like Rob
Palachick, Joe Cipale, Andrew Albright and the rest of this self-centered egotistical mob to
continue to pay my social security after I retire. When there are more people retired than working
exactly what do you think the working people are going to demand from their lawmakers? Do you think
that these workers are going to appreciate paying a dollar in taxes for every $1.50 they make in
order to pay for my social security and hopefully their's? I have my doubts.

So the probability is that I'm going to have to work the rest of my life because the taxes I've paid
for government pork barrel projects and Liberal "help everyone in the world and even discussing the
necessity of it means that you are a greedy hateful person" projects have prevented me from saving
enough of my own money to support myself in my old age.

Keep up the class warfare Paterson, GT and the Liberal left. But you are the one's that will suffer
the most when you find that there aren't enough workers to pay for all of your living standard after
you want to retire. And if they allow the immigrants into this country to provide an additional
workforce, they will pave over all of the countryside which you were so environmentally concious of
previously and chances are that such a large percentage of immigrants will not share the American
dream at all and you will become nothing but useless unwanted garbage in the way of their new
manifest destiny.

The Liberals wanted to change the face of America and it never occurred to them that America was a
shining example of everything that couldn't be found anywhere else in the world from the beginning.
They were going to improve it by bringing in all of the people from elsewhere that didn't share the
American ideals. Now they have them - let's see them provide the Liberals with everything they want.

The United States has a far greater proportion of its population obese or worse. It has a far
greater cultural and ethnic diversity. All of these make tremendous differences in the average
health of the population. To pretend that it is not so as you are doing is simple propaganda. The
small statistical difference in the average age and health of the populations by any measure shows
that the basic factors in a long and healthy life and lack of stress, healthy exercise and good
nutrician starting at birth.

The Canadian health care system is the only socilaized medicine group in the world that has gotten
even close to its promise and most of those in the government who have to deal with it know that it
is about to be in trouble. The pretense that this isn't so cannot hide the financial problems that
are beginning to be well known.

I don't know what you think you can accomplish by advocating a system based on worldwide failures
and one temporary success, but it isn't going to fly in the United States regardless of what the
Liberals are pressing. The citizenry are waking up from a long hypnotic nap when they were under the
impression that they could have everything forever and no one would ever have to pay for it. Now
they are looking at their bank accounts, their income and their taxes and they are beginning to be
afraid and to see just what the Liberals have done to them and this country.

"tokugawa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Health care administrative costs (% of health care dollar):
> >
> > United States (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO's, PPO's, etc.) ........13% Canada (Single payer
> > system) ...................................3%
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because there is no paperwork to prove claims in Canada while in the

USA

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

> claims forms are long and complicated and often are sent back 3 or 4

times

Quoted message said:

> for further information.
>
> Canadians with money that require rapid health care come to the USA

where

Quoted message said:

> our less than perfect system is still superior to a system that

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

often

Quoted message said:

> take longer to get a patient in than his expected lifespan with a

serious

Quoted message said:

> illness.

"With money" gets you anything you want in the U.S., doesn't it?

Sure, it sucks if you don't have money. But you DO understand that in

Canada

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if you have all the money in the world you can't get any better medical

care

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than a homeless person?

So you admit even homeless people in Canada get necessary health care.

Quoted message said:

While the level of medical care in Canada is very high in some regards, in others it sucks. And
the average medical care is lower and much slower than in the USA. This is the same experience
as all other countries with socialized medicine. Canada has always been held up

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an example because their system seemed to be actually working though

closer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

scrutiny showed that the reason that it was working was because of the healthier, younger
population with lower numbers of chronically ill or severely ill patients.

Maybe it's the magic water they drink?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bottom line for health care is life expectancy in Canada beats the U.S.

The bottom line is that it doesn't

Comparing the effectiveness and quality of health system across borders is a challenging process.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that the empirical evidence indicates that Canada's
system is more effective than America's. The World Health Organization (WHO) has devised an index
that measures how efficiently health systems translate expenditures into health. One yardstick
they use is known as the average disability adjusted life expectancy (DALE) of a population,
which measures a population's health rather than strict life expectancy. WHO combines this data
with figures on the amount of choice patients have, the autonomy of health care providers, the
equity of health care distribution and related issues. In 1997, Canada ranked 35th on this index.
The U.S. ranked 72nd.

Life expectancy and similar statistics are admittedly crude measurements of the quality of medical
care. Such figures are influenced not only by the quality of health services but by social,
environmental and demographic factors. Nevertheless, Canada consistently outperforms the United
States on such measures. Canadians have the second longest life expectancy of all countries (79
years). The United States ranks 25th at under 77 years.

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.

Infant mortality rates are also frequently used to grade the health of a particular population.
Here the U.S. fares even worse. In countries belonging to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the median infant mortality rate was 5.8 deaths per thousand
live births in 1996. The U.S. rate was 7.8, better only than Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland and
Turkey. Canada's was 5.6. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were double those in
Canada in 1988, with seven out of every 100,000 dying in Canada compared to 14 in the U.S.

WHO has developed sophisticated criteria to measure the effectiveness of health care services.
These indexes measure a system's level of responsiveness (which includes autonomy,
confidentiality, choice of care providers, quality of basic amenities, etc.); distribution (to all
members of society); and fairness of financial contribution (which reflects inequality in
household contributions to their health care costs). The U.S. scores better than Canada only on
the responsiveness index, where it ranks 1st to Canada's 7th. When all these criteria are combined
with basic health measurements, the WHO ranks Canada 7th, the U.S. 15th.

Quoted message said:

and the proof is that all of the major US cities along the borders have entire departments that
do nothing but

service

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Canadians who come across the border for medical care.

Source, please.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are far more Americans making the trip to Canada for health care services, than vice
versa. Prescription drugs comes to mind.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

years behind those prescribed in the USA. So by crossing the border you

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get cheap drugs IF YOU HAPPEN to have a prescription for the drugs that

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sold there.

It seems that many Americans fall into this category.

Quoted message said:

Please be aware that older drugs are usually outdated because newer

drugs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are more efficacious or have fewer or less serious side effects and this

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nothing to poo-poo since large numbers of people are made ill or die

each

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

year from drug side effects.

Many newer drugs have side effects which are just as bad, or worse, than older drugs. Many 'newer'
drugs are merely combinations of existing drugs, albeit sold at a much higher price.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Yeah, instead they are put in a line and die waiting for medical care.

There is no wait in Canada for emergency care. Ever visit a US hospital and see needy patients
turned away because of lack of insurance? It happens. There are many more Americans who die
waiting for medical care because their insurance company refuses to pay for needed care.

Although you snipped portions of my previous post, my friend had to wait two years and spend
$20,000 out of pocket until the insurance company paid her valid claim. Not everybody has $20,000
to pay for a lawyer, so they give up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.

I don't see you deny this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only the .01% of the population who are stockholders or obscenely overpaid executives benefit
from the present system. Plus the people who process claims for insurance companies. Their
purpose: deny claims. 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.

Last time I looked, 80% of the population was covered by medical

insurance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would lead you to believe otherwise?

I'm talking about the extra money Americans pay for administrative expenses. See the table at top
of this post. The extra money for administrative costs is paid for by EVERYBODY who receives
health services in the US.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that there are tons of insurance company employees who would like to deny claims for a
higher salary but that is a complete fabrication on your part.

Employees who do a good job get incentives and are promoted. For an insurance company, a 'good'
claims examiner is one who errs on the side of denying claims rather than paying claims.

Doctors receive incentives from insurers when they deny needed care.

Doctors receive incentives from insurers to see more patients, and therefore they spend less time
with each patient.

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!!! Is this what we're coming to in this country?

Quoted message said:

My ex-inlaws worked in the insurance industry as does the past president of our cycling

club.

Quoted message said:

Some of my best friends work for insurance companies, too.

Quoted message said:

They have a lot of bad things to say about the actions of insurance companies but it all boils
down to slowing payments not throwing them

out.

Quoted message said:

Are you saying insurance companies never deny claims for needed medical care?

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that you'll scream about the 20% who aren't covered

It's nothing to brag about.

Quoted message said:

but if you look it up you'll find that that group is very high in healthy young men who

OPT

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to have no insurance and save the money.

Most of the healthy young men I know have jobs which include health insurance benefits.

Quoted message said:

Also in that group are people that are between jobs and people who are under government programs
and don't

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

other insurance.

This is pure fantasy. The majority of people without health insurance in the US are:

1) The long term unemployed who have too many assets to be eligible for Medicaid,

2) The working poor who receive no benefits but make too much money (sometimes they work two
minimum wage jobs, sometimes three) to be covered by Medicaid. This includes many former
welfare mothers AND THEIR CHILDREN.

Again, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unexpected medical bills. Do you
like people going bankrupt?

Also, the number of uninsured in the US is growing.

Quoted message said:

Also there are people that need insurance and don't have it. There are people in Canada dying
without health care because there is none

available

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in their areas.

The same can be said of Americans living in remote areas.

The Pomeranian said:

And think of all the corn that could have been eaten by poor people.

I think there's too much corn. It's a lot cheaper to produce corn syrup sweetners from it. That's
why most sweet drinks have it rather than cane sugar any more.

Ben

The Pomeranian <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The Pomeranian wrote:

> Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included
> immigration) was a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know
> it, is that immigration has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy.

Again I apologize, I had considered the possibility of sarcasm but in the context it sounded
like you were agreeing with Kunich.

Just so we're on the same page. Both of you seem to be pretty much anti-wealthy so let's
describe what "wealthy" is in the USA.

Who are you talking about when you say "anti-wealthy?"

I didn't write about "the wealthy." I wrote about wealth. Where did I write anything that could be
taken as anti-wealthy? Where did I write anything that could be taken as pro-wealthy?

I am, however, pro-wealth because I believe it tends to help everyone. The only question that
matters is: how do we make _everyone_ richer? For the ten-billionth time, it is not a
zero-sum game.

I had just been reading some [censored] from Paterson and confused the two postings.

Tom Kunich said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The Pomeranian said:

Knucklehead, my sarcastic comment to Kunich about social security (where I included
immigration) was a slap in the face to politicians, and nothing else. The record, as I know
it, is that immigration has always had a net *positive* effect on the economy.

Again I apologize, I had considered the possibility of sarcasm but in the context it sounded
like you were agreeing with Kunich.

Just so we're on the same page. Both of you seem to be pretty much anti-wealthy so let's describe
what "wealthy" is in the USA.

Who are you talking about when you say "anti-wealthy?"

I didn't write about "the wealthy." I wrote about wealth. Where did I write anything that could be
taken as anti-wealthy? Where did I write anything that could be taken as pro-wealthy?

I am, however, pro-wealth because I believe it tends to help everyone. The only question that
matters is: how do we make _everyone_ richer? For the ten-billionth time, it is not a zero-sum game.

Tom Kunich said:

tokugawa said:

Tom Kunich said:

"tokugawa" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Sure, but who's got the nicer bike shops?

tokugawa said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

2. Private insurers have a financial incentive to deny claims.

This in and of itself is not wrong.

Quoted message said:

... 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.

Quoted message said:

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?"

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

...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.

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

For-profit American heath insurance companies are parasites.

Oh [censored], here we go again...

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] cold.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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!

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Pomeranian said:

Since I have much direct experience with this subject I figured I'd make a comment or two.

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Seems to me that ignorant [censored] like myself shouldn't be badgering

my

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I was with the HMO it felt like we were on an assembly line.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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. said:

The Pomeranian said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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."

Quoted message said:

Seems to me that ignorant [censored] 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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

A whole lot of dumb [censored] snipped

Why the [censored] 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 [censored].

Dizzle

Deeznuts said:

The Pomeranian <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

A whole lot of dumb [censored] snipped

Why the [censored] 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 [censored].

Dizzle

The love is back. Thanks.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

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 [censored] awesome.

D

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.