Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Good question.

---

Because what we BUY is better. The doctors are more responsive, the wait times are shorter, the care is more personal, the doctor gets to know you, and he develops a relationship with you.

Whereas, in an ER you can wait for 10 hours before you are seen for your sniffles, the doctor has about 150 other cases most of which are more important than yours because they score higher on the triage scale, and he MIGHT have a few minutes to spend with you, but it isn't the half hour or hour that a private physician might spend with you. And he isn't YOUR doctor... chances are if you go back to the same ER two months later, that doctor will have rotated to another area or even another hospital.

So the care is there, and it gets you the care you NEED, but not necessarily the care you WANT. Good, but not the best money can buy.

If you want that higher level of care, you need to pay for it. If you can't, you make do.

Elliot

But would 48 year old FDR with polio survive the rulings of the Death Commission ? How about JFK with Addison's disease ? Actually he followed the Obama perscription . He took the pain killers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No one said it was "just for the asking."

---

Hello again, Steve:

If it's NOT just for the asking, then SOME people who ask WON'T get it, true?? If there are HOOPS to go through, then SOME won't qualify, true? If everybody qualified, there wouldn't be hoops, true? Therefore, SOME people won't get health care no matter HOW MUCH they ask, true??

If they happen to be one of the less than responsible people you mention, they probably WON'T qualify, true? If you're saying that THIS group won't get medical services because they DESERVE it, we can argue about that. But, there's no doubt that SOME people don't get health care, by your own admission.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If it's NOT just for the asking, then SOME people who ask WON'T get it, true??? If there are HOOPS to go through, then SOME won't qualify, true? If everybody qualified, there wouldn't be hoops, true? Therefore, SOME people won't get health care no matter HOW MUCH they ask, true???

If they happen to be one of the less than responsible people you mention, they probably WON'T qualify, true? If you're saying that THIS group won't get medical services because they DESERVE it, we can argue about that. But, there's no doubt that SOME people don't get health care, by your own admission.

excon

---

And you think that the government plan is going to have FEWER hoops?

Have you ever had to get anything done at the DMV? Or had to wait to buy postage at the post office? Or had to deal with the IRS? Or even your local police station? How many hoops have you had to jump through to obtain the very basic services you were trying to obtain? How much paperwork have you filled out? How many lines have you waited on? How many different departments have you been switched to by a computerized voice mail system before being cut off or hung up on? How long have you listened to really bad muzak while waiting for some bureaucrat to pick up his phone to answer your question incorrectly?

Based on your PERSONAL experience in dealing with government agencies (and I know you have such experience), what makes you think that a government-run health care system is going to have FEWER hoops for people to jump through than the private system?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And you think that the government plan is going to have FEWER hoops?

---

Hello again, El:

So you ADMIT, that people are DENIED health care because of hoops in the private system. I'm glad you've come around.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

So you ADMIT, that people are DENIED health care because of hoops in the private system. I'm glad you've come around.

excon

---

I've never denied that. What I have said is that...

1) The number of problems is LOWER than those on the left would have us believe. I have in fact acknowledged that there are roughly 10-12 million people who are uninsured in the long term. But there are NOT 46 million uninsured Americans that need to be helped.

2) The problems of our fundamentally sound health care system, that covers 97% of our population just fine, can be solved through other means than destroying it and replacing it with a system that is fundamentally flawed.

3) A government system is fundamentally flawed and creates much worse problems of accessibility of care than they solve.

In point of fact, I have listed on a number of occasions a list of 10 things that we can do to improve our health care system. I would not have listed those items if I didn't think there weren't areas that needed improvement. In fact, inthebox linked to one such list in the OP.

The fact that you can claim that I have stated that there are no problems when I specifically listed SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS means that you have
a) been ignoring what I have actually said in favor of what you THINK I have said, and
b) are arguing just for the sake of arguing without even knowing what you are arguing against.

Neither of those are the traits of a good debater. Or a good problem-solver. Or a good listener for that matter.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If it's NOT just for the asking, then SOME people who ask WON'T get it, true??

---

How many things are literally "just for the asking?" The "you'll love my nuts" guy might tell you if you act now he'll double your order "just for the asking" but it's not really "just for the asking" is it? No, there are conditions, you have to pay separate shipping and handling. A magazine might send you 4 free issues with no obligation "just for the asking" but it's not really "just for the asking" is it? No, if you do nothing they'll bill you for the rest, if you only want the free issues you have to do something, cancel your subscription.

There are conditions to most everything, call 'em hoops if you want. I still call it responsibility for the most part, an ethic America used to have of working hard and paying your way. For the neediest among us paying your way may mean waiting, filling out forms, applying for assistance - ASKING for help. For others it may mean negotiating, bartering or living within your means - sacrificing the satellite HDTV, the iPhone, the $30,000 car and $300,000 house they shouldn't have bought in the first place.

Quote:

---

If there are HOOPS to go through, then SOME won't qualify, true? If everybody qualified, there wouldn't be hoops, true? Therefore, SOME people won't get health care no matter HOW MUCH they ask, true??

---

No I don't quite see the logic in your logic. There ARE hoops for all of us already and if you think those hoops are too much now just wait until the feds are in control of everyone's health care. Just ask all those car dealers that have been telling everyone $4500 towards a car is yours "just for the asking." They can't get their money from the feds and now they're hurting for operating funds.

Quote:

---

If they happen to be one of the less than responsible people you mention, they probably WON'T qualify, true? If you're saying that THIS group won't get medical services because they DESERVE it, we can argue about that. But, there's no doubt that SOME people don't get health care, by your own admission.

---

I haven't admitted any such thing. As has already been pointed out repeatedly - aside from the other options we've listed - all they have to do is walk into an ER. It may suck but we don't have to remake the industry so we'll all have have the same mediocre level of care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But would 48 year old FDR with polio survive the rulings of the Death Commission ? How about JFK with Addison's disease ? Actually he followed the Obama perscription . He took the pain killers.

---

Hello again, tom:

So, you think that the death commission called your insurance company WOULD have approved treatment for those people?? Really?? Why is Obama's death commission different?

By the way, wouldn't Roosevelt's condition be considered Pre-existing?? I think it would. I don't think there's an insurance company that would SELL him insurance at ANY price. What? You DO?? Really?? Addison's?? Dude, if YOU know about it, so the does the health insurance industry... I'll bet that made Kennedy uninsurable... What, you think they insure sick people?? Nahhh. There ain't no profit in insuring sick people.

I swear, you own health insurance stock.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

So, you think that the death commission called your insurance company WOULD have approved treatment for those people?? Really?? Why is Obama's death commission different?

---

I've answered that already.

Insurance companies make more money by people being kept alive.

The government makes more money by making sure that those who cost the most are DEAD.

Quote:

---

By the way, wouldn't Roosevelt's condition be considered Pre-existing?? I think it would. I don't think there's an insurance company that would SELL him insurance at ANY price. What? You DO?? Really?? Addison's?? Dude, if YOU know about it, so the does the health insurance industry... I'll bet that made Kennedy uninsurable... What, you think they insure sick people?? Nahhh. There ain't no profit in insuring sick people.

---

Ah... but Roosevelt could go out and buy his own health care out of pocket if he so chose. Which he would NOT be able to do under a single-payer government plan. And once the death commission decided that his life expectancy was nil, he wouldn't get anything more than "the red pill" which is probably an aspirin. Or maybe a sugar pill.

And there's the fact that if Franky Roosevelt were willing to pay a high enough premium, he could easily find an insurance company to cover him. It would cost him a bunch, but he could do it. And if he DID do it, you could be damned sure that the insurance company would do everything in their power to make sure that their golden goose stayed alive for as long as possible so they could continue to get PAID!!

Money talks, bull$h!t walks. That's what makes the system work.

Quote:

---

I swear, you own health insurance stock.

Excon

---

Nope, we just have a common sense that you lack.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I've answered that already.

Insurance companies make more money by people being kept alive.

---

Hello again, El:

So, you're saying they'll approve procedures that keep people alive because it's profitable to do so?? Really? You're saying that an insurance company makes LESS money when they deny treatment to people... Hmmmm.

Just how does that math work?? You got a 67 year old guy who needs $120,000 operation, but even if he gets it, he's only got, what, 5 years to live? You're saying, the premium he's going to pay for the rest of his life is going to be MORE than the $120,000?? How do you figure??

Dude! It's no wonder the banking industry went broke with people like you running things.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

Let's dispel this myth right now. I've heard about all this choice we have - but it's bunk... If you're a working stiff who gets his health insurance from his job, as MOST of us do, you don't have any choice... If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice. NO insurance company will sell you anything... If you're amongst the working poor, the choice you make is between health insurance and eating... That ain't choice.

Now if you're wealthy, you have some choice..

Excon

---

Every job I've had in which the employer provide health nsurance had more than one option, even HSA's. Will you have that under single payor?

Quote:

---

If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice.

---

This is a defeatist attitude of helplessness. Very few conditions are truly genetic. Most are genetic and environmental and behavioral.

Take obesity for example: this is associated or correlated with higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, high cholesterol, osteoarthritis, obstructive sleep apnea... etc.

One can passively accept this or one can ACTIVELY CHOOSE to do something about it. Eat right, exercise etc.. Safeway and Whole Foods provide incentives / rewards for good behavior. This is regardless of socioeconomic status.

Does your auto insurance penalize you for speeding tickets, and reward you for a spotless record?

Does home insurance go down if you actively choose to put an alarm system or make sure smoke detectors are installed.

Why should the health insurance companies not penalize you if continue to smoke or be obese? These behavioral habits cost money and well being. You can choose cheaper generics or pay for name brand medications, you can choose higher premiums and a lower deductible or a lower premium and a higher deductible. With government there is much more limited choice. Ask any vet in the VA system what VA hospital they can go to or what medications are available. THAT IS REALITY.

Tell me where in HR 3200 is the government giving personal incentives to actively choose the right health behaviors?






G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Still below other nations but you're catching up!
Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d_Factbook.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li...d_Factbook.png

---

And the US will have declining life expectancy IF:

There is a push by the government to make everyone DNR

There is a push by the government to "lower costs" which will lead to rationing and squelch research, development, and technologic innovation.

The government has its way and reduces reimbursement to hospitals and physicians:
Physicians, will retire, cut back on hours worked, and medical school enrollment and qualifications will drop.





G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

So you ADMIT, that people are DENIED health care because of hoops in the private system. I'm glad you've come around.

excon

---

EMTALA forbids ERs from denying care based on income.

Private insurance and private doctors, heck private businesses have the right to deny anyone service.

Why should you expect free service or service provided to you at lower than the cost of doing that service?

Do you expect this out of your electrician? Plumber? Grocer? Home bulider? Barber? Lawyer? Internet provider?

Are people DENIED shelter or food or clothing? Or are these things available at a COST?

If you think the cost is to high, don't you think that may be due to gov regulations? Will more help?



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

And the US will have declining life expectancy IF:

There is a push by the government to make everyone DNR

There is a push by hte government to "lower costs" which will lead to rationing and squelch research, development, and technologic innovation.

The government has its way and reduces reimbursement to hospitals and physicians:
Physicians, will retire, cut back on hours worked, and medical school enrollment and qualifications will drop.

---

Those countries that have a life expectancy higher than yours all have universal healthcare. But don't let that stop you, please continue to fear monger - it's what you do.

Quote:

---

I swear, you own health insurance stock.

---

Nah ;it isn't profitable enough . I already provided a Yahoo link for this
But here it is again :

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...05#post1924105

Industry Browser - Yahoo! Finance - Full Industry List

The health insurance industry rakes in a disgustingly greedy 3.4% profits ranking it 86th among American industry .
I'd rather invest in microbreweries .

Now ;some like CIGNA are doing well.
Industry Browser - Healthcare - Health Care Plans Industry - Company List
But most have very modest returns .

Edit... Ex do you have any stake in the companies represented by the Friends Of Obama... especially big Pharma ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/...re_consultants

Quote:

---

The firms were hired by Americans for Stable Quality Care and its predecessor, Healthy Economy Now. Each was formed by a coalition of interests with big stakes in health care policy, including the drug maker lobby PhRMA, the American Medical Association, the Service Employees International Union and Families USA, which calls itself "The Voice for Health Care Consumers."

---

Tom, you were absolutely right about dropping the public option being meaningless. It's just another Democrat Trojan Horse...

Quote:

---

Mr. Schumer's conditions are a national structure, federal financing, and a ban on federal appointees who have ties to the insurance industry. This "co-op" would be federally controlled, federally funded, and federally staffed. Expressing his opposition to smaller organizations and his demand for a national "co-op," Mr. Schumer says, "It has to have clout; it has to be large." He adds, "There would at least be one national model that could go all over the country," which would require "a large infusion of federal dollars."

---

National structure, federally controlled, federally funded, and federally staffed... but it's not government run health care. Do they really think we're that stupid? Don't answer that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

So, you're saying they'll approve procedures that keep people alive because it's profitable to do so?? Really? You're saying that an insurance company makes LESS money when they deny treatment to people... Hmmmm.

---

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Just how does that math work?? You got a 67 year old guy who needs $120,000 operation, but even if he gets it, he's only got, what, 5 years to live? You're saying, the premium he's going to pay for the rest of his life is going to be MORE than the $120,000?? How do you figure??

---

That insurance company, by providing GREAT SERVICE, not only gets to collect premiums from this 65-year-old guy for the next 5 years at $1500/month ($90,000 or 3/4 of the cost of your hypothetical operation), but they also attract several new clients due to word of mouth advertizing. Just one more client for 5 years that results from word of mouth advertising about how good that insurance company is would result in another $90K of income, which in turn would result in a 50% Return on Investment for the cost of that operation (including bothe the original client's $90K and the new client's $90K). The better the service, the more clients they get. The more clients they get, the more profitable they become. And OLD FOLKS TALK TO EACH OTHER, especially about their medical care. Old folks are the best means of word of mouth advertizing in the world, as has been shown over and over again.

Thar's gold in them thar old folks, and the insurance companies want that gold. So they keep the golden goose as warm and comfortable and well-fed as possible.

Quote:

---

Dude! It's no wonder the banking industry went broke with people like you running things.

excon

---

You look at finance like a static, one-time-only, transaction. You only see one part of a very large, constantly changing equation that has ripple effects throughout the economy.

That's why I'm a financial professional and you're not.

Now... exactly how would a nationalized single-payer health care system justify the cost of that $120K operation? Or would they do what we've been saying they would do... use the same math that you use (which is appropriate when PROFITS aren't the motivator) and decide not to bother giving that 65-year-old guy his operation? Would it result in a Death Panel that denies care based on cost? Since their motive isn't PROFITS but rather SAVINGS, the best thing they could do is deny this patient the care he needs.

But perhaps you can explain the math to me and tell me how this patient would be served by a single-payer government system.

But you won't bother defending the single-payer system because the position is indefensable. You will instead attack the private insurance industry again.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Tom, you were absolutely right about dropping the public option being meaningless.

---

I know the schmuckster like the back of my hand .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Those countries that have a life expectancy higher than yours all have universal healthcare. But don't let that stop you, please continue to fear monger - it's what you do.

---

They also ALL (every single one of them without exception) have lower cancer survival rates, lower heart condition survival rates, lower organ transplant survival rates, lower survival rates for any disease you can name, and generally worse medical outcomes for every condition. That has been shown over and over again in every study published by Lancet, AMA, the American Cancer Society, etc.

But go continue to try to tell us how much better your system is than ours.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I know the schmuckster like the back of my hand .

---

You have the Schmuckster on the back of your hand? Quick, get him off. You have no idea where that thing's been. (Or maybe you do, which is all the more reason... ):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

They also ALL (every single one of them without exception) have lower cancer survival rates, lower heart condition survival rates, lower organ transplant survival rates, lower survival rates for any disease you can name, and generally worse medical outcomes for every condition. That has been shown over and over again in every study published by Lancet, AMA, the American Cancer Society, etc.

---

How does a nation with lower rates in all those fields have higher life expectancies? Because a) what you say is not true and b) the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives. Just take a look at the health boards on this forums - it's chock full of americans asking for medical advice for problems that should require a doctor's advice ASAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But perhaps you can explain the math to me and tell me how this patient would be served by a single-payer government system.

---

Hello again, El:

Guy gets sick. Guy gets operation. Government pays bill. Done.

excon

Speaking of better systems, another example of the benefits of government health care...

Family told by NHS: Alzheimer's is not a 'health condition'

And closer to home, the VA has issued a directive that "instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices," a Clinton era "planning document" whose use was rightly suspended by the Bush administration.

The Death Book for Veterans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Guy gets sick. Guy gets operation. Government pays bill. Done.

excon

---

Guy gets sick. Guy applies to the government for pre-approval of an operation. Guy is denied because the cost is too high and the amount of quality of life improvement isn't justified.

Yeah... he's done all right.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Guy gets sick. Guy applies to the government for pre-approval of an operation. Guy is denied because the cost is too high and the amount of quality of life improvement isn't justified.

Yeah... he's done alright.

---

Hello again, El:

Just so we're clear... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

But, what IS happening now, is that every day, insurance adjusters are denying medical care in the name of PROFIT. That's not hype. That's so. Your position that they pay for EVERYTHING, but the government won't, is ridiculous on its face.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Just so we're clear.... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't.... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

---

Ex, some conclusions are pretty easy to reach. When one of the major provisions of the plan is to have a committee determining what treatments they deem effective, it's only logical to conclude they aren't going to pay for a lot of things. And having a wife that's dealt with Medicare and Medicaid payments for along time, I know first hand how difficult it is to get them to pay anything. Why do you think so many doctors stopped taking such patients? The government doesn't pay enough to cover their costs and it's an extreme hassle to jump through all those hoops to get paid. Do you honestly think the Feds are going to get better about that once they add a couple hundred million more people to the rolls? And how many doctors, nurses and others in the field are going to walk away rather than deal with the government exclusively?

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/20...rez-trojan.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

When one of the major provisions of the plan is to have a committee determining what treatments they deem effective, it's only logical to conclude they aren't going to pay for a lot of things.

---

That's right, it's good to receive a treatment that's effective. Would you rather get a treatment that's ineffective? Where did you make the illogical conclusion that they aren't going to pay for a lot of things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do you honestly think the Feds are going to get better about that once they add a couple hundred million more people to the rolls? And how many doctors, nurses and others in the field are going to walk away rather than deal with the government exclusively?

---

Hello Steve:

I have NEVER said that there won't be rationing of health care. All I've ever said, is that insurance companies ration health care too.

It's simple economics. We've got the amount we spend, and we have the result we get. In comparison to other nations, we don't get much bang for our buck. It's MY view, that that's a MANAGEMENT problem, not a rationing problem. It LOOKS solvable. Does that mean I think government WILL solve it? No. But, who knows, I could be surprised. There's certainly NO surprise what's going to happen if we DON'T fix it.

If the government doesn't fix it, they'll ration too. But, will they do it any LESS than the private insurers do now?? NO! Is it to be any more feared than what's happening today? NO! Personally, I don't care WHO the guy works for that won't approve medical services I need.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

How does a nation with lower rates in all those fields have higher life expectancies? Because a) what you say is not true and b) the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives. Just take a look at the health boards on this forums - it's chock full of americans asking for medical advice for problems that should require a doctor's advice ASAP.

---

Life expectancy, as I have previously explained and you obviously have forgotten, is not a just function of medical care. It is also a function of genetics, diet, excersize, lifestyle, environment, stress, job environment, crime, CULTURE, etc.

The USA simply has the WORST DIET ON THE PLANET. (And I'm typing this one-handed as I grab another bunch of chips from the bag next to me.) We also have the highest stress levels, and the longest working hours. Our cost of living is high, and that creates high stress levels about finances. And we have more violent crime (especially murder) than any European country. Those are the factors that are driving our life expectancies.

And none of them effect MEDICAL OUTCOMES, which are PURELY a factor of medical care.

That is why the country with the best medical care can still have the lowest life expectancies.

However, as more Americans become aware of the need for a better diet, better excersize and a healthier lifestyle, our life expectancies are beginning to catch up with those of other countries. We see it happening. As Steve pointed out in #68.

NK, you really have to get off this "he lied" kick and learn to actually check your facts first. People who disagree with you are not liars. They're just better informed than you.

Oh, one more point. The USA has higher rates of preventive care than anywhere else in the world too. So your argument that "the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives" is just pure BS. More of our women get pap smears and mamograms than in any other country. More of our men get collonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings. More US citizens see their primary doctors at least once a year. More men and women get tested for diabetes. Across the board, we have better preventive medicine than you do. So your argument that you guys get better preventive care than we do and that is why you are "healthier" than us is also a crock of crap.

Source: June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."

Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Elliot




Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Life expectancy, as I have previously explained and you obviously have forgotten, is not a just function of medical care. It is also a function of genetics, diet, excersize, lifestyle, environment, stress, job environment, crime, CULTURE, etc.

---

So you've now chosen to use intangibles as measures of life expectancies? Ok with me. I guess I'd rather live in a country with less crime, less stress, citizens concerned with their diet and exercise, etc and still have universal health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The USA has higher rates of preventive care than anywhere else in the world too. So your argument that "the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives" is just pure BS. More of our women get pap smears and mamograms than in any other country. More of our men get collonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings. More US citizens see their primary doctors at least once a year. More men and women get tested for diabetes. Across the board, we have better preventive medicine than you do. So your argument that you guys get better preventive care than we do and that is why you are "healthier" than us is also a crock of crap.

---

Where do all those millions without insurance go for their preventative care? The ER?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Just so we're clear... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

---

I know it because that is EXACTLY what is happening in Europe and Canada under these systems. I don't have to guess at it. I know it because it is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. And in the USA, the VA Medical system is doing it, the Native American Health System is doing it, and the Massachusets state-run system is doing it. We don't have that far to look to find this to be true.

Quote:

---

But, what IS happening now, is that every day, insurance adjusters are denying medical care in the name of PROFIT. That's not hype. That's so. Your position that they pay for EVERYTHING, but the government won't, is ridiculous on its face.

---

Actually, no it's not. The government gets more money for letting people die, especially if they aren't paying into the system anymore. Insurance companies get more money by keeping them alive for as long as possible. This is simple economics.

And you haven't been listening. You are saying that I said things that I haven't said.

1) As I have pointed out to you, if you are willing to pay a high premium, they will cover you for 100% of anything you want.

2) As I have also pointed out to you, for those who are denied coverage and cannot pay a higher premium, they can purchase out of pocket.

3) As I have also said, for those who are denied and cannot pay out of pocket, there are additional alternatives.

4) And as I have also said, in a single payer health plan if you are denied, there is no other option.

You just don't want to hear these simple facts. You can not counter them, except to try to argue that it makes no sense, when it clearly does... nor can you deny the fact that the government is denying coverage to people right now, and other countries are denying health care to their citizens right now... even though those systems are supposed to cover everyone for everything.

Elliot

Basically ET favours a system that favours the rich.

Quote:

---

4) And as I have also said, in a single payer health plan if you are denied, there is no other option.

---

You repeat that like it's a common occurrence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care. I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So you've now chosen to use intangibles as measures of life expectancies? Ok with me. I guess I'd rather live in a country with less crime, less stress, citizens concerned with their diet and exercise, etc and still have universal health care.

---

Actually, these are very tangible variables. And very measurable. In fact, if you eliminate crime as a cause of death, the statistics show that we actually have longer life expectancies than you Canadians with your universal health care. But since crime IS a factor, we can't state that as a fact.

But what we CAN say is that if you see a doctor in the USA for any ailment, you've got a better chance at surviving in the USA than you do in Canada. And THAT is the only statistic that counts when measuring the effectiveness of our medical systems.

Quote:

---

Where do all those millions without insurance go for their preventative care? The ER?

---

The ER in some cases. Also:

• 
  Free clinics.
• Church based charitable health programs. (Darn those evil religious groups.)
• Insurance-company-run health community care events. (Darn those evil insurance companies)
• Free community health care services offered by hospitals. (Darn those evil medical service providers.)

And many more.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The ER in some cases. Also:

• 
  Free clinics.
• Church based charitable health programs. (Darn those evil religious groups.)
• Insurance-company-run health community care events. (Darn those evil insurance companies)
• Free community health care services offered by hospitals. (Darn those evil medical service providers.)

And many more.

---

Hello again, El:

So, when you're sick, it's time to go begging... You're something else.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Basically ET favours a system that favours the rich.

---

I'm curious as to why when I say that if you are on government health care and the government denies your claim, you have no other option, you automatically assume that this favors the rich?

I favor a system that allows for choices OTHER THAN the health care system you are in, in case that system doesn't do what it should for you. And a GOVERNMENT SINGLE-PAYER system doesn't allow for any other options.

How is that a case of supporting a system that favors the rich?

You, on the other hand, favor a system that treats everyone like children, gives no options for individual freedom or individual choice, and prevents personal improvement of the human condition.

Quote:

---

You repeat that like it's a common occurrence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care.

---

And therefore it doesn't happen, right?

Quote:

---

I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

---

This last sentence makes no sense.

However, your own government's health care statistics show that people are REGULARLY denied care, forced to wait for care that is urgently needed, and many end up dying before they get the treatment that would have saved their lives. YOU may not know any of these people, but they exist (or they did until they died waiting on lines they should never have been forced to wait on).

I happen not to know anyone who has been denied care here in the USA, but government statistics that say it is happening. Does the fact that I don't know any such people make it less true?

You need to stop thinking that YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is the be-all and end-all of knowledge of the Canadian health care system. Because frankly, you're not that knowledgeable about it.

Here's my personal story: My grandmother, who died in March, had been chronically ill. She was brought to Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, NY just before she died. She was covered by PRIVATE INSURANCE, as well as Medicare. Medicare never paid a dime, but her private insurance covered every penny of her medical costs, which were rather high. The doctors in the hospital were jumping all over themselves to find out what else they could do to help her... they even wanted to trache her. My father and his siblings signed a DNR/DNI so that they would let her go easily without drawing out the inevitable.

The doctors in the hospital were jumping all over themselves to find out what else they could do to help her...

If we had been on government health care, she never would have been in the hospital in the first place. Doctors would be under orders to let her die, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE WANTED. If we had wanted the doctors to perform "heroic measures" to try to save her, we would have been denied that option, because my grandmother's utility had run out.

And I experienced the same thing THREE TIMES in the past 18 months, with three grandparents at two different hospitals. So I know it wasn't an isolated case.

I know which system I prefer. I prefer the one where the doctors are jumping all over themselves to help the patient and have to be told by the family to stop, rather than one where she would not receive care in the first place.

So if you want to compare personal experiences, I'll see your "I don't know anyone" and raise you "two grandmothers and a grandfather in the past 18 months".

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

So, when you're sick, it's time to go begging... You're something else.

excon

---

It beats the hell out of "If you're sick and you're denied coverage by the government, just go and die."

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You repeat that like it's a common occurence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care. I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

---

Do you know anyone who has been denied care by a private insurance company? No? It must not have happened then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's right, it's good to receive a treatment that's effective. Would you rather get a treatment that's ineffective? Where did you make the illogical conclusion that they aren't going to pay for a lot of things?

---

Um, a large part of that isn't just "effectiveness" but whether they deem a treatment to be "cost-effective." That's how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Um, a large part of that isn't just "effectiveness" but whether or not they deem a treatment to be "cost-effective." That's how.

---

Ok, quote the part of the bill that says that. Link to page number and paragraph would be great.