Re: OT government healthcare and it is more expensive & not as comprehensive
- From: "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:43:48 -0400
I hear a lot of opinions but few verifiable facts
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185467958.322091.241850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You mean like under our present system?
Mike Hunter wrote:
Why did Moore not say in 'Sicko' there are two types of "free" healthcare
in
Cuba, one for the rich and tourist and another for the masses?
Probably because his movie is about health care for the average
person, but every country has different levels of health care for the
average person and the priviledged (sic).
Moore's whole premise is flawed, there is no such thing as "free"
healthcare.
What do you mean extra cost, do you prefer not to have the protection of
Moore never said it was 100% free in the sense that absolutely nobody
pays for it through taxes Rather he said it free the way public
libraries and fire departments don't cost the individual user extra
whether they use them or not.
police and firemen? The most expensive cost to any city is police and fire
protection. NYC has 39,000 cops
You admit we can not afford more government "free" healthcare?Why does he not point our that Medicare will go bankrupt if billions
of more dollars are not infused into the system when all the
boomers hit 65? Someone has to pay the piper. Where will
to money come from if the government takes over the
healthcare?
In 1968, when Robert Kennedy was asked who would pay for the universal
health care system he proposed, he unhesitatingly said, "You will".
Do you realize that the rest of the world thinks our health care
system is bankrupt? Even the Economist described it as such, a few
years ago.
Because no county in the world has healthcare as good as the US. EighteenWhat will happen to the availability?
What happens now when government proposes to cut Medicare services?
Senior citizens fight like crazy, as every member of Congress knows.
Wherever private enterprise competes with government, private
enterprise always does it better and at less cost.
Then how do you explain that all other developed foreign countries
have cheaper health care than we do, despite their systems having much
higher government involvement and covering higher proportions of their
populations?
of the top twenty hospitals are in the word are in the US. In Canada
hundreds of new life saving drugs that are available in the US can not
available in Canada
In the Phoenix area, the lowest cost hospitals are Maricopa County
General and Boswell Memorial, and they're both very good, with County
being one of the nation's best burn treatment centers. It used to
generate so much profit that the county government would use the money
to sweep other county shortfalls under the rug. Boswell is private
but receives a higher percentage of its revenue from government than
any other private hospital in the area, and in the medical insurance
industry you'll find that the private sector has copied the
innovations of the federal government, not the other way around.
Still, it can't compete with government on efficiency because of its
huge bureaucratic and marketing overhead, this despite it charging
people more if they have certain preexisting conditions, something
that government doesn't do.
Search the Hill Burton Act and you will see why.
The fact is the much maligned HMOs provide more services at
lower cost than Medicare.
False, because the amount that HMOs cut costs by denying treatment is
more than offset by their enlargement of the medical bureacracy (sic),
and
this has been true even when they've operated under Medicare rules.
Every time Medicare has contracted out coverage to an HMO, the cost to
the taxpayers has been higher, not lower.
Hogwash, how can the costs be any different when Medicare sets the
reimbursement rates?
I have more coverage at lower cost and less expensive drugs with an HMO than
I would if I had accepted Medicare. I have never been denied any coverage
for anything by Senior Blue
If that is true why do compaines prefer UPS and FedEx over the USPS?
I. E. UPS etall do a much better job than USPS etc..
What will UPS deliver for 41 cents, and why are Parcel Post and
Priority cheaper than UPS ground (or even FedEx ground)? Also USPS
generally delivers a day sooner compared to UPS and FedEx ground, and
a few surveys have found that their breakage rate is lower. I don't
know any surveys that have said otherwise, unless you go back over
twenty years.
UPS etall are banned by law from delivering mail.
One of my grand children was in an auto accident in a county with "free"
healthcare.
The driver received a broken nose that was set without local anesthetic.
He
want to a doctor when he returned to the US and needed surgery to have it
proper repaired. The doctor asked if he set his nose himself?
What county? The people I know who've gotten medical treatment
overseas, mostly Mexico, one person France, another Britain, said it
was very good.
Spain. In the UK there are private groups that many join to get the care
they want
.
- References:
- OT We already have government healthcare
- From: edspyhill01@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: OT government healthcare and it is more expensive & not as comprehensive
- From: Mike Hunter
- Re: OT government healthcare and it is more expensive & not as comprehensive
- From: larry moe 'n curly
- OT We already have government healthcare
- Prev by Date: Re: Hybrid question
- Next by Date: Driver's side power window problem
- Previous by thread: Re: OT government healthcare and it is more expensive & not as comprehensive
- Next by thread: Re: OT government healthcare and it is more expensive & not as comprehensive
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|