Single Payer Universal Health Care

[Proconsul]

"Mâck©®" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:51:52 GMT, "Evelyn Ruut" <mama-
| [email protected]> wrote:
|
| >"Bob Blaylock" <[email protected]> wrote in
| >message news:BobHatesSpam-
| >[email protected]...
| >> In article
| >> <[email protected]>,
| >> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
| >>
| >> > Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those
| >> > with cash or what can be begged.
| >>
| >> Just like food, clothing, shelter, automobiles,
| >> gasoline, and all the other material things in life.
| >> None of these things are free.
Someone,
| >> somewhere, has to pay for everything.
| >>
| >> What you want is to be able to receive "free" medical
| >> care, paid for by others. It doesn't work that way.
| >
| >Nonsense.
| >
| >Nothing is free but maybe the air.
| >
| >Medical care is all paid for....by SOMEBODY. It would be
| >nice if that
was
| >laid out in a more fair way, instead of overcharging
| >those who have insurance and those who do pay for their
| >care, to make up for those who
do
| >not.
|
|
| Interesting.
|
| I have insurance.
|
| If the hospital charges $5000.00 U$ and my insurance
| company says they cover only 4000.00 of that and my copay
| is 15.00 or 50.00(when admitted to hospital) I do not pay
| the difference.
|
| "who does?"

Nobody does - if the hospital accepts the insurance, that's
what they "take".....

I had a "same day" minor surgery a couple of years ago - I
was in the hospital less than four hours. The bill for the
hospital was $17,000 and change. They took $2500 as they
always do - they wildly inflate costs and then take what
they get from the insurance companies.....but they ALL have
hordes of bureaucrats/clerical help working three shifts a
day pushing paper....and that wildly inflates all
costs.....!

Cost are also wildly escalated since somebody, you, me and
others who pay taxes, have to pay for those who receive
medical care for which they pay nothing, like illegal aliens
and the destitute....

| when I had no insurance and did not qualify for any
| financial aid from the state, if the bill was 5000.00 I
| paid all 5000.00, granted over time on monthly payments.
|
| who really pays?
|
| the uninsured.

If you were an illegal alien, you would pay nothing - think
about it.....

PC

 

[Skeptic]

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newswwsc.24072$PU5.2447@fed1read06...
>
> "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:yuvsc.19430$af3.1017482@attbi_s51...
> |
> | "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:j7fsc.20884$PU5.697@fed1read06...
> | >
> | > "Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in
> | > message
> | > news:[email protected]...
> | > | "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> | > | in message news:fbcaefd.0405230902.51aca329@posting-
> | > | .google.com...
> | > |
> | > | > It will need to tax the **** out of hard working
> | > | > America to pay
for
> | > | > **** they neither want or need and limit access to
> | > | > the things they really want and need.
> | > | >
> | > | > All so the 42 million uninsured can get insurance?
> | > | > Wouldn't it be
a
> | > | > lot easier just to subsidize poor peoples
> | > | > insurance premiums
rather
> | > | > than drag all of us into a system that has not
> | > | > worked well in any country?
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | Just happened upon this thread.
> | > |
> | > | FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no
> | > | insurance. That is
> why
> | > | medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor and
> | > | non-paying, non-insured people get medical care just
> | > | like those who have
> insurance.
> | > |
> | > | Our insurance premiums are higher than they should
> | > | be, and our
medical
> | > | expenses are higher than they should be.... it is
> | > | necessary in order
> to
> | > pay
> | > | for those who don't have insurance.
> | > |
> | > | Better it should be upfront and honest and available
> | > | to everybody.
> | >
> | > You've nailed it! Dead bang right!
> |
> | You sure? Have you seen cost estimates of taking care of
> | the uninsured
> in
> | ER type settings or other "emergencies" vs. costs of
> | providing care for these people? Though I don't have any
> | data, I strongly doubt it will
cost
> | less to provide total, upfront care for all than it does
> | now on
emergency
> | bases. However, you have a very valid point that we are
> | already paying
> for
> | the uninsured. This is a great reason for the immediate
> | institution of mandatory health insurance.
>
> It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of
> providing "free
medical"
> to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting
> legitimate charities - privately financed - handle the
> indigent.

I disagree. I think that any human being who needs emergency
medical care should be and needs to be cared for. Currently,
however, these folks get their care and leave the hospital.
That needs to change. What needs to happen to illegals is
they need to get their care and be transferred directly to
the care of Immigration Services.

> We need to focus on the difference between the two types
> of indigents, the unwilling and the unable. A
> compassionate society has always taken care of the unable,
> that's what charity....private charity....is about. The
> unwilling deserve nothing from anyone. Government has no
> place in either venue and forced taxation is wrong no
> matter how "noble" the cause.....!
>
> PC

 

[Jonathan Smith]

"W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
> : |
> : | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
> : | message news:[email protected]...
> : | >
> : | >
> : | > Skeptic wrote:
> : | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point,
> : | > > but let me try to
> : | > <snipped for brevity)
> : | >
> : | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> : | > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of
> : | > overhead of prepaid health plans.
> : |
> : | Any thoughts as to why?
>
> : It's not a fraction of prepaid health
> : plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy,
> : lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes of
> : overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently report
> : whatever part of the cost they want to report....just as
> : those who champion single payer don't tell you that all
> : too often care is rationed and unavailable to
> : many....another way of keeping costs down. I prefer the
> : private sector and open competition - whenever you have
> : a free market and competition, quality goes up and costs
> : go down....that's an a priori truth.....
>
> : PC
>
> And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced?
>
> Wendy

People select insurance providers and are free to switch to
plans with access provisions more in line with their needs.
One of the wonders of competition is that providers need to
meet the needs of their customer - if not, the customer goes
somewhere else. Under single payer, all you get is a vote
and then only every four years.

The World Health Organization has rated the US health care
system as the most responsive in the world. Wonder why?

You want to see rationing - try the NHS in the UK.

js

 

[Jonathan Smith]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > Make a single payer universal health care system and all
> > the prices will go down.
>
> There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system that
> doesn't have shortages and long delays for complex
> treatments such as surgery, etc.

I'd even be impressed if she could name one where there
isn't a waiting list for simple things like diagnostic xrays
and specialist referrals.

js

 

[Evelyn Ruut]

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newswwsc.24072$PU5.2447@fed1read06...
>
> "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:yuvsc.19430$af3.1017482@attbi_s51...
> |
> | "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:j7fsc.20884$PU5.697@fed1read06...
> | >
> | > "Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in
> | > message
> | > news:[email protected]...
> | > | "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> | > | in message news:fbcaefd.0405230902.51aca329@posting-
> | > | .google.com...
> | > |
> | > | > It will need to tax the **** out of hard working
> | > | > America to pay
for
> | > | > **** they neither want or need and limit access to
> | > | > the things they really want and need.
> | > | >
> | > | > All so the 42 million uninsured can get insurance?
> | > | > Wouldn't it be
a
> | > | > lot easier just to subsidize poor peoples
> | > | > insurance premiums
rather
> | > | > than drag all of us into a system that has not
> | > | > worked well in any country?
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | Just happened upon this thread.
> | > |
> | > | FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no
> | > | insurance. That is
> why
> | > | medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor and
> | > | non-paying, non-insured people get medical care just
> | > | like those who have
> insurance.
> | > |
> | > | Our insurance premiums are higher than they should
> | > | be, and our
medical
> | > | expenses are higher than they should be.... it is
> | > | necessary in order
> to
> | > pay
> | > | for those who don't have insurance.
> | > |
> | > | Better it should be upfront and honest and available
> | > | to everybody.
> | >
> | > You've nailed it! Dead bang right!
> |
> | You sure? Have you seen cost estimates of taking care of
> | the uninsured
> in
> | ER type settings or other "emergencies" vs. costs of
> | providing care for these people? Though I don't have any
> | data, I strongly doubt it will
cost
> | less to provide total, upfront care for all than it does
> | now on
emergency
> | bases. However, you have a very valid point that we are
> | already paying
> for
> | the uninsured. This is a great reason for the immediate
> | institution of mandatory health insurance.
>
> It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of
> providing "free
medical"
> to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting
> legitimate charities - privately financed - handle the
> indigent.
>
> We need to focus on the difference between the two types
> of indigents, the unwilling and the unable. A
> compassionate society has always taken care of the unable,
> that's what charity....private charity....is about. The
> unwilling deserve nothing from anyone. Government has no
> place in either venue and forced taxation is wrong no
> matter how "noble" the cause.....!
>
> PC

I guess you are one of those people who has a different
definition of "a civilized society" than I do.
--
Regards, Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")

 

[Matt Weber]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:29:42 -0700, "Proconsul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>| "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
>| message
>|
>
><snip>
>
>| There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly
>| as the AMA.
>|
>| Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make too
>| much money too.
>|
>| The system is broke and we end users are the casualties.
>| Too bad.
>|
>| WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but
>| nobody wants to
>admit
>| it. Make a single payer universal health care system and
>| all the prices will go down.
>
>Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is
>approved, prices, i.e., TAXES, will go way up and quality
>of service along with availability of service will go way
>down as care is rationed to lower costs......that's the
>way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's
>been tried.
I suggest you compare the per capita medical expense in the
USA with the rest of the world. We have the highest costs in
the world. What sort of ranking does that give us on infant
mortality? Is the average life span in the USA materially
longer than it is in the rest of industrialized world?

The experience in the rest of the world is for cost
effectiveness, Single payer wins by a huge margin. The
problem today is insurance is like the Welfare bureaucracy
that lacks any oversight at all. The resistance to single
payer is like the people who were opposed to welfare reform.
In welfare it turned out that only 1 out of ever 3 dollars
spent on welfare, ended up being spent on recipients. The
people opposed to welfare reform weren't the recipients, it
was bureaucracy that was consuming the 67 cents out of every
dollar spent!!!

The biggest challenge to single payer will be the
unemployement it will create as we rip the incredible
administrative costs out of the system because we won't need
2000 different insurers with differig standards all trying
to enforce 2000 differing sets of rules.
>
>Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior to
>any other system so far devised by anyone.....and we need
>to focus on what we KNOW works.....a free market with
>competition and no government interference is the key to
>lower costs and higher quality care - that's the way it's
>always worked whenever it's been tried.....
>
>PC

 

[Founding Father]

"Mâck©®" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004?
>
> NO C-heney NO A-shcroft NO R-umsfeld NO B-ush

Definitely the diet of choice for fat heads, anti-Semites
and supporters of terrorism.

 

[Muscleman]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 23:07:00 GMT, mike gray <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>> It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6
>>
>> Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than
>> for Medicare.
>
>Administrative costs are computed very differently for
>government and private entities.

A buck is a buck. It's just less bucks with the gummint.

When they are figured on the same basis, they are very
>close.

Cite?

>
>Do it yerself. Go to the 10Ks for private insurors and
>figure the percentage of premium revenue that does not go
>to providers. Very simple. Now go the the federal budget
>and figure the percentage of Title
>XVIII/XIX funding that does not go to providers. Not so
> simple, but doable.
>
>Report the results here.

Burden of proof is on the asserter, prove it yourself.

 

[Eva Whitley]

Proconsul wrote:

> "W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <[email protected]>
> | wrote:
> |
> | : "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | : news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
> | : |
> | : | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
> | : | message news:[email protected]...
> | : | >
> | : | >
> | : | > Skeptic wrote:
> | : | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall
> | : | > > point, but let me try
> to
> | : | > <snipped for brevity)
> | : | >
> | : | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> | : | > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of
> | : | > overhead of prepaid health plans.
> | : |
> | : | Any thoughts as to why?
> |
> | : It's not a fraction of prepaid health
> | : plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy,
> | : lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes
> of
> | : overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently report
> | : whatever part of
> the
> | : cost they want to report....just as those who champion
> | : single payer
> don't
> | : tell you that all too often care is rationed and
> | : unavailable to many....another way of keeping costs
> | : down. I prefer the private sector
> and
> | : open competition - whenever you have a free market and
> | : competition,
> quality
> | : goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori
> | : truth.....
> |
> | : PC
> |
> | And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are
> | forced?
>
> Indeed they do - HMO's are the precursor of the single
> payer system. No sane person uses them....and those of you
> who continue to whine that you have no other choice can
> save your bandwidth.......only people who want cheap care
> use HMOs and they get what they paid for, cheap care.....

Cheap care, my butt. Mine costs me $135/week. Plus it seems
like every scrip is $40. And the treatment the wound care
center recommended for my diabetic DH is $30 a visit, 3
visits a week, plus special shoes, etc.

It'd be nice if I got the going rate for my profession but
I've been searching for a different job for 2 years now with
no luck. I've got the plan I can afford and still buy
groceries.

>
> A free market, with competition, mitigates for "fee for
> service" and choice for the consumer. Our system provides
> the finest health care in the world for everyone, even
> illegal aliens who broke the law to enter the country.
> High prices are due to bureaucratic excesses and phony
> "controls". The free market with competition is the
> answer, not HMO's, which are a pathetic travesty on decent
> medical care....
>

If it's the finest health care in the world, why do many
other countries have longer living people and why do inner
city babies have the mortality rate of a third world
country? If competition worked, gas would be half of what it
is. There's a gas station on every corner, practically.

I dare y'all to go to 7500 Security Blvd., near Baltimore
and tell the workers there they're overpaid. How much do
they make? It's easy enough to go www.cms.hhs.gov and click
on the jobs section, and match up the government pay rates
with the job listings. A little clicking around will give
you the rates they have to pay for health insurance (the zip
code for CMS--Medicare--is 21244).

A GS9 makes just $21,980 to start and would pay $65/week for
her family to be in an HMO. If you haven't lived on $22K
annually, $65 is a lot of money.
--
I'm Eva Whitley and I approved this message.

 

[Skeptic]

"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> newswwsc.24072$PU5.2447@fed1read06...
> >
> > "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:yuvsc.19430$af3.1017482@attbi_s51...
> > |
> > | "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > | news:j7fsc.20884$PU5.697@fed1read06...
> > | >
> > | > "Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > | > message
> > | > news:[email protected]...
> > | > | "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> > | > | in message news:fbcaefd.0405230902.51aca329@posti-
> > | > | ng.google.com...
> > | > |
> > | > | > It will need to tax the **** out of hard working
> > | > | > America to pay
> for
> > | > | > **** they neither want or need and limit access
> > | > | > to the things
they
> > | > | > really want and need.
> > | > | >
> > | > | > All so the 42 million uninsured can get
> > | > | > insurance? Wouldn't it
be
> a
> > | > | > lot easier just to subsidize poor peoples
> > | > | > insurance premiums
> rather
> > | > | > than drag all of us into a system that has not
> > | > | > worked well in
any
> > | > | > country?
> > | > |
> > | > |
> > | > | Just happened upon this thread.
> > | > |
> > | > | FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no
> > | > | insurance. That
is
> > why
> > | > | medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor
> > | > | and non-paying, non-insured people get medical
> > | > | care just like those who have
> > insurance.
> > | > |
> > | > | Our insurance premiums are higher than they should
> > | > | be, and our
> medical
> > | > | expenses are higher than they should be.... it is
> > | > | necessary in
order
> > to
> > | > pay
> > | > | for those who don't have insurance.
> > | > |
> > | > | Better it should be upfront and honest and
> > | > | available to everybody.
> > | >
> > | > You've nailed it! Dead bang right!
> > |
> > | You sure? Have you seen cost estimates of taking care
> > | of the
uninsured
> > in
> > | ER type settings or other "emergencies" vs. costs of
> > | providing care
for
> > | these people? Though I don't have any data, I strongly
> > | doubt it will
> cost
> > | less to provide total, upfront care for all than it
> > | does now on
> emergency
> > | bases. However, you have a very valid point that we
> > | are already
paying
> > for
> > | the uninsured. This is a great reason for the
> > | immediate institution
of
> > | mandatory health insurance.
> >
> > It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of
> > providing "free
> medical"
> > to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting
> > legitimate
charities -
> > privately financed - handle the indigent.
> >
> > We need to focus on the difference between the two types
> > of indigents,
the
> > unwilling and the unable. A compassionate society has
> > always taken care
of
> > the unable, that's what charity....private charity....is
> > about. The unwilling deserve nothing from anyone.
> > Government has no place in either venue and forced
> > taxation is wrong no matter how "noble" the cause.....!
> >
> > PC

> I guess you are one of those people who has a different
> definition of "a civilized society" than I do.

He is one of *many* who are very upset over the illegal
alien problem right now. Please spare me any comparisons to
the days of old, when our country was founded on such
things. It was also founded on slavery, but times do change.
The days of a free and open border are over. I saw a tidbit
on TV tonight (which makes me want to watch even less TV)
where kids (young, middle school kids) are being suspended
from school because of the color bracelets they wear and
their possible "hidden" or "secret" meaning of

colors. But we should take those who violate our country by
sneaking in, past our security, and then live in our country
without ever paying taxes? I pay for those people. I pay for
their water to be clean. I pay for their security. I pay for
their fire department to douse their burning houses. I pay
the police to protect them. I pay for the emergency
appendectomy or their stab wounds with a three month
hospital stay requiring 5 separate abdominal operations.
These are drains on society - and not small ones. It's not
an issue of civilization but one of practicality.

 

[Proconsul]

"Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:r5xsc.111777$xw3.6471032@attbi_s04...
|
|| > It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of
|| > providing "free
| medical"
| > to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting
| > legitimate
charities -
| > privately financed - handle the indigent.
|
| I disagree. I think that any human being who needs
| emergency medical care should be and needs to be cared
| for. Currently, however, these folks get their care and
| leave the hospital. That needs to change. What needs to
| happen to illegals is they need to get their care and be
| transferred directly to the care of Immigration Services.

I should have stated the exception as you did - I agree
that anyone in need of CRITICAL care - and ONLY critical
care - should be stabilized and then, if an illegal alien,
promptly deported.

Furthermore, ANY social service provided to ANY illegal
alien from ANY country should be charged back to the country
of origin by having that cost deducted off the top of the
country of origin's foreign aid payments.....

PC

 

[Proconsul]

"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| > We need to focus on the difference between the two types
| > of indigents,
the
| > unwilling and the unable. A compassionate society has
| > always taken care
of
| > the unable, that's what charity....private charity....is
| > about. The unwilling deserve nothing from anyone.
| > Government has no place in either venue and forced
| > taxation is wrong no matter how "noble" the cause.....!
| >
| > PC
|
|
| I guess you are one of those people who has a different
| definition of "a civilized society" than I do.

What you've described isn't "civilized" but rather
socialist....big difference. In a civilized society, the
unable are cared for, but NOT by government. Please explain
why the unwilling should be cared for??

When government steps in, socialism is at the door and
everyone suffers....

I'll stick with my version of "civilized". You may continue
to champion yours, if you are so inclined.....

PC

 

[Guy]

It is interesting to read this thread. It shows there is no
solution to medical care in the US.

Everyone wants something for nothing. That includes the
providers. It is just human nature. We are ethical when
profit from it or when we get afraid we will die.

A system where everyone pays should be implemented. Then the
providers will have a pile of un collectable bills and
people will deal with their own pimples.

Cosmetic surgery will be for the very rich.

The gal next door will not be in the docs office every other
day. OK with me.

It is interesting to see the motivation behind some posts.
Medicine is very profitable. We are abused by some elements
of society. Really don't matter which. We all are a bunch
of suckers.

Glad when the election is over. Maybe the fads will fade and
we can get back to basics.

We do need to look at the socialism of many educational
units, particularly medical schools. Much of the welfare is
used by special interest to promote their causes. We could
spend weeks on the extensions of the arguments here, maybe
we should look at grants which quietly flow to special
interest.. Guy

 

[Founding Father]

"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:29:42 -0700, "Proconsul"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> >| "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >| message
> >|
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >| There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly
> >| as the AMA.
> >|
> >| Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make
> >| too much money
too.
> >|
> >| The system is broke and we end users are the
> >| casualties. Too bad.
> >|
> >| WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but
> >| nobody wants to
> >admit
> >| it. Make a single payer universal health care system
> >| and all the
prices
> >| will go down.
> >
> >Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is
> >approved, prices,
i.e.,
> >TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with
> >availability of service will go way down as care is
> >rationed to lower costs......that's
the
> >way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's
> >been tried.
> I suggest you compare the per capita medical expense in
> the USA with the rest of the world. We have the highest
> costs in the world. What sort of ranking does that give
> us on infant mortality? Is the average life span in the
> USA materially longer than it is in the rest of
> industrialized world?
>
> The experience in the rest of the world is for cost
> effectiveness, Single payer wins by a huge margin.

Only if you consider rationing cost effective.

> The problem today is insurance is like the Welfare
> bureaucracy that lacks any oversight at all. The
> resistance to single payer is like the people who were
> opposed to welfare reform. In welfare it turned out that
> only 1 out of ever 3 dollars spent on welfare, ended up
> being spent on recipients. The people opposed to welfare
> reform weren't the recipients, it was bureaucracy that was
> consuming the 67 cents out of every dollar spent!!!

Boy are you confused. Welfare reform involved REDUCING
government spending and getting people into private sector
jobs. The same people who opposed welfare reform are the
ones who want a government take over of health care - and in
both cases for the same reason: they want MORE government
welfare spending.

You want to INCREASE government spending on health care by
at least a factor of 5. The government has already proven it
CANNOT run Medicare without it going bankrupt. So how can it
magically do better by running it all?

> The biggest challenge to single payer will be the
> unemployement it will create as we rip the incredible
> administrative costs out of the system because we won't
> need 2000 different insurers with differig standards all
> trying to enforce 2000 differing sets of rules.

Sure. Name a major government program that cost less than
the private version. without destroying the quality. Usually
government does both - greatly increase costs and
significantly reduce quality.

 

[Proconsul]

"Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qjysc.18971$hi6.1954392@attbi_s53...
|

| > >
| > > It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of
| > > providing "free
| > medical"
| > > to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting
| > > legitimate
| charities -
| > > privately financed - handle the indigent.
| > >
| > > We need to focus on the difference between the two
| > > types of indigents,
| the
| > > unwilling and the unable. A compassionate society has
| > > always taken
care
| of
| > > the unable, that's what charity....private
| > > charity....is about. The unwilling deserve nothing
| > > from anyone. Government has no place in
either
| > > venue and forced taxation is wrong no matter how
| > > "noble" the
cause.....!
| > >
| > > PC
|
| > I guess you are one of those people who has a different
| > definition of "a civilized society" than I do.
|
| He is one of *many* who are very upset over the illegal
| alien problem
right
| now. Please spare me any comparisons to the days of old,
| when our country was founded on such things. It was also
| founded on slavery, but times do change. The days of a
| free and open border are over. I saw a tidbit on
TV
| tonight (which makes me want to watch even less TV) where
| kids (young, middle school kids) are being suspended from
| school because of the color bracelets they wear and their
| possible "hidden" or "secret" meaning of

| colors. But we should take those who violate our country
| by sneaking in, past our security, and then live in our
| country without ever paying taxes? I pay for those people.
| I pay for their water to be clean. I pay for
their
| security. I pay for their fire department to douse their
| burning houses.
I
| pay the police to protect them. I pay for the emergency
| appendectomy or their stab wounds with a three month
| hospital stay requiring 5 separate abdominal operations.
| These are drains on society - and not small ones. It's not
| an issue of civilization but one of practicality.

It's also an issue of fairness and justice! Try to get
anything "free" from the government in any other country on
earth! The rest of the world marvels at our naivete and
stupidity......

PC

|
|

 

[Guy]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:30:48 -0700, "Proconsul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>| > We need to focus on the difference between the two
>| > types of indigents,
>the
>| > unwilling and the unable. A compassionate society has
>| > always taken care
>of
>| > the unable, that's what charity....private
>| > charity....is about. The unwilling deserve nothing from
>| > anyone. Government has no place in either venue and
>| > forced taxation is wrong no matter how "noble" the
>| > cause.....!
>| >
>| > PC
>|
>|
>| I guess you are one of those people who has a different
>| definition of "a civilized society" than I do.
>
>What you've described isn't "civilized" but rather
>socialist....big difference. In a civilized society, the
>unable are cared for, but NOT by government. Please explain
>why the unwilling should be cared for??
>
>When government steps in, socialism is at the door and
>everyone suffers....
>
>I'll stick with my version of "civilized". You may continue
>to champion yours, if you are so inclined.....
>
>PC
>
At one time that was the system. The hospitals were run be
orders and the help were from religious orders. If I
remember it was a different world. If a man was know to
cheat people he was black listed. A contract could be sealed
by a hand shake. Those people of honor are now known as
fools. Try leaving your door unlocked today. We used to have
about three to five law enforcement in a county. Socialism
comes as a response to greed. I suspect we will cycle and
finally socialism will become the way. An old friend who
died 20 years ago told me he was the last generation to be
free. The thread seems to bear it out. Hell, if they can't
pay that is their bad luck. If I can "take" them I should,
Let solve the problem with an euthanasia program for those
over 50.. The word civilized set me off. Have a good night.

 

[Evelyn Ruut]

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0QAsc.27027$PU5.5301@fed1read06...
>
> "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:r5xsc.111777$xw3.6471032@attbi_s04...
> |
> || > It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of
> || > providing "free
> | medical"
> | > to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting
> | > legitimate
> charities -
> | > privately financed - handle the indigent.
> |
> | I disagree. I think that any human being who needs
> | emergency medical
care
> | should be and needs to be cared for. Currently, however,
> | these folks
get
> | their care and leave the hospital. That needs to change.
> | What needs to happen to illegals is they need to get
> | their care and be transferred directly to the care of
> | Immigration Services.
>
> I should have stated the exception as you did - I agree
> that anyone in
need
> of CRITICAL care - and ONLY critical care - should be
> stabilized and then, if an illegal alien, promptly
> deported.
>
> Furthermore, ANY social service provided to ANY illegal
> alien from ANY country should be charged back to the
> country of origin by having that
cost
> deducted off the top of the country of origin's foreign
> aid payments.....
>
> PC

Now THAT sounds like a good idea.
--
Regards, Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")

 

[Evelyn Ruut]

"Founding Father" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mâck©®" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004?
> >
> > NO C-heney NO A-shcroft NO R-umsfeld NO B-ush
>
> Definitely the diet of choice for fat heads, anti-Semites
> and supporters
of
> terrorism.

You have branded yourself an asshole by branding all non-
republicans with this broad brush.

We are the TRUE patriots, hating what Bush and Co. has done
to our country, our young men fighting overseas and our
image in the world.

It has nothing at all to do with endorsing the behavior of
Islamofascists.

--
Regards, Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")

 

[Muscleman]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 09:18:59 -0700, "Founding Father" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:u8GdnVZNluheri3dRVn-
>[email protected]...
>>
>> Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone.
>
>And neither does the government, or trial lawyers. They
>drive up costs much more than insurance companies.
>
>> Non-profit national health insurance will actually
>> decrease total health care spending while providing more
>> treatment and services -- through reductions in
>> bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk
>purchasing
>> of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard
>> Medical School
>and
>> Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last
>> year cost the
>United
>> States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national
>> health insurance could save at least $286 billion
>> annually on paperwork, enough to cover
>all
>> of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug
>> coverage for
>everyone
>> in the United States.
>
>Then explain why government run Medicare is rapidly going
>bankrupt.

Because of prior borrowing by Reagan and Bush with SS
money and Bu$sh's screwups, not the system prior to his
taking office.

>
>> How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from
>> existing government health care spending (more than $1
>> trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7%
>> (almost
>$1
>> trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already
>> paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920
>> billion. In addition to that, there's already over a
>> trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and
>> federal dollars for health care. The American people are
>> already paying
>for
>> universal health care; they're just not getting it.
>
>Promises, promises. All lies. The government promised
>Medicare would cost only 1/10th of what it actually does.
>
>You just can't believe the government when it's looking to
>expand its power and control over our lives.

Exactly what I mean by voting out Bush. See how much he's
increased spending and power with the patriot act, and our
economy is still bad off?

That's why we need less conservatives.

>
>> Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has
>> worked well in other countries, none of which spend as
>> much per capita on health care as the United States. The
>> cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has
>been
>> affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by
>> the Congressional Budget Office and the General
>> Accounting Office. The GAO has said: "If the US were to
>> shift to a system of universal coverage and a single
>> payer, as
>in
>> Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to
>> private insurers)
>would
>> be more than enough to offset the expense of universal
>> coverage."
>
>Again, explain why the single payer Medicare system is
>going bankrupt.

Due to the Bush adminsitration and conservatives, not
by liberals.

 

[Muscleman]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 07:30:41 -0700, Bob Blaylock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
>"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with
>> cash or what can be begged.
>
> Just like food, clothing, shelter, automobiles, gasoline,
> and all the other material things in life. None of these
> things are free. Someone, somewhere, has to pay for
> everything.
>
> What you want is to be able to receive "free" medical
> care, paid for by others. It doesn't work that way.

Rather, what you want is to be as selfish as you can for as
long as you can, until of course you can get it too.