Re: The more I think, the more ridiculous it is!

In article <Xns9A04754DC1493elektrosmdonet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Alun L. Palmer" <elektros@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:efadnTCJ39WhPcLanZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

Thom Madura wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Thom Madura wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Thom Madura wrote:
Sirius Kase wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:21 pm, Thom Madura <Tommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David Sueme wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:23 am, Bill Blakely <wcblak...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I do find talk about "improving" the species through
"proper" breeding and not allowing "undesirables" to breed to
be very
strange among Harry Potter fans because it runs so counter to
one of
the fundamental themes of the series.
It's sort of like me reading the bible - in an inverted way. I
am an
athiest (an article in the Chicago Tribune this Sunday quoted a
poll for the proposition that 42% of the American public would
not vote for
a homosexual presidential candidate, 46% veto an athiest. I'm
a victim of ignorant prejudice!)
There is no Gawd. But as I read the old testament,
particularly the books that comprise the jewish Torah, I note
that the nonexistent deity detests homosexuality. And as I
appreciate the nuances of the agricultural metaphors employed
in the Torah I begin to appreciate just why this god is
absolutelly correct about the utter uselessness of homosexual
behavior. The truly telling bit is the three lines devoted to
Onan. He's not a homo, but he is a pervert in the eyes of
the diety trying to grow a crop of Jews in the arid soil of
ancient Israel.
Just as the non-existent but oddly rational Gawd serves as a
springboard for my understanding of the comprehensive failure
that homosexuality represents, the only-too-obviously existent
nitwit Rowling may serve as a confirmation of my thinking as to
the rightness of eugenics.
Fess up Bill - you accept the fallacy of the "argument ad
Hitler" and
believe eugenics is intrinsically evil. But think about it -
just because Hitler was wrong on the facts (Jews are generally
among the smarter Homo Sapiens) doesn't mean that the idea of
improving the human race through selective reproduction is
wrong, especially if it
is accomplished by minimally coersive means.
The Japanese have a national average IQ of about 105 (as
opposed to about 95 in the US) and can afford the billions for
child health care you keep harping on. We cannot. The USA is
insolvent. Dave
AS a percentage of the GDP - Japan ranks #2 in world debt at
about 176%
of GDP debt. THe USA ranks # 31 - at approximately 65%. That
places the
US better than Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Canada as well.

IF Japan can afford health care - so can the US.

Japan might not be an example to emulate. Their average age is
higher than US and they have less kids per adult.

I believe the point I was trying to make is that the US is not
insolvent - and many countries who have MUCH higher levels of debt
than the US manage to provide health care for their people.

I also note that the US already spends MORE per capita than any
other country for health care. A single system - while it might
introduce other abuses - would eliminate lots of waste -
duplication of effort - and marketing expenses. It is possible
that a system could be put into place that would use the current
money we spend to cover everyone - and possible save money as
well.

Yes, the government does so well with everything else, let's give
them control of healthcare. Look what a wonderful job they have
done with the railroad, and social security. NOT

I never said the solution was for the government to take over -
although I do believe they could do no worse of a job than is being
done right now. I think the solution would be more like the Fed
Board - a more independent agency with the power to make decisions.

Oh, good, that way they aren't even subject to voter restraint, or
removal. Great idea. Say, why not just appoint someone to the job
for life....?


How -= pray tell - are YOU able to control the people who currently
run the "private" health care providers now? Do they serve a defined
term? Are they subject to voter restraint? Say - maybe they serve for
"life".


They can be fired. I can elect to get another service provider, or
another insurance company. With the government plan proposed by Hilary
Clinton, you get what the government says you get, and that's that.

Well - the Fed board governors do not serve for Life. They have a
defined term. They are nominated by an elected official (No matter
what you say - he was elected) and they must be approved by more
elected officials. Surprisingly, in order to get through the process,
they must actually know something about finance to get nominated - and
they all have great credentials.

This is unlike elected officials who may not even know that Nasa IS
the space agency (Rocket Scientist analogy meant.) This is even unlike
those few officials who do serve for life - even though they must also
go through a similar process - have qualifications - be nominated by
the President - and be approved by the Senate. While you may argue
with their longevity or their politics - it is very hard to argue with
their legal credentials.


The Supreme Court members are all well qualified, but they still make
some 'bone-head' calls, which completely ignore the intent of the
constitution.

Maybe - just Maybe - by indirectly electing these people through
representation - we stand a chance of getting people who actually know
something about Health Care and providing it - no matter what they
look like or sound like.

I doubt it. More likely you get incompetent boobs who neither know,
nor care, about what happens to the average guy.
Remember, in government service, 'job #1' is to preserve YOUR position.


In the UK the government provides NHS health care to everyone, and does it
out of about the same percentage tax that just pays for medicare health
coverage for the over 65s in the US. The NHS has user fees for
prescriptions and for vision and dental, but everything else is covered
100% with no co-pay or deductible, and in fact no bill is ever generated.

The NHS is good at accute care, i.e. emergencies and anything life
threatening, but waitlists people with chronic conditions. However, you can
still get private health insurance on top, and it's much cheaper than in
the US, because most of the people paying premiums are getting all their
health care from the government and never file any claims. Granted AFAIK
their are only two health insurance companies, so if you aren't happy with
the NHS (the governemnt healthcare provider) your only other choices are
BUPA or PPP.

The jobs I had in the UK before moving to the US all included BUPA health
insurance at no cost to me, but I never claimed and only used the NHS,
which I never had a problem with. Mind you, at one time I worked in London,
and my insurance plan didn't include hospitals in London, for which you had
to pay extra, so that was a bit odd, but it didn't make any practical
difference. I could still use London hospitals as an NHS patient or go to
the suburbs for any elective treatment.

There are a few problems in implementing this happy state of affairs in the
US, which at the same time are reasons why it can be done so cheaply in the
UK:-

1) Drug prices are higher in the US, whereas having a government healthcare
system lowers prices by having a near monopoly on buying drugs;

2) Doctors' wages are much higher in the US, partly for the same reason as
above, i.e. a government system would be a near monopoly employer, and
partly because education is more expensive and you have to pay for more of
it yourself;

3) Over-testing, i.e. wasting money on mostly unnecessary lab tests, is
rife in the US, due to fear of litigation (see below), but not in the UK;

4) Medical malpractice insurance is much higher in the US, due to
litigation, probably caused by the 'American Rule' (each party bears it's
own costs), as opposed to the 'English Rule' (loser pays everyone's costs)
and to contingency fees, which the UK doesn't permit (OTOH, many people
have genuine causes of action and are afraid to go to court, but it keeps
helthcare costs down);

5) Health insurance bureaucracy in the US supports huge numbers of people
who do nothing but process bills that don't even exist in the UK system,
where the only billing is for prescription, vision and dental fees;

5) Health insurance companies in the US spend millions in lobbying to keep
the gravy train rolling, even paying for TV ads that are only shown in the
Washington DC area just so they can be seen when 100 senators and a few
hundred representatives turn on the TV; The image of a country with only
two private health insurance companies scares the hell out of them! Any
genuine fix will cost most of their jobs.

It's time for the US to change.

Excellent reporting and analysis!

I can only add two totally subjective and unrepresentative observations
as a dentist who happens to be in Germany.

Overall, the Brits seem to be in better dental shape than the Americans.

Due to the dire state of affairs here, many colleagues see no future and
are being actively recruited in our ~trade~ magazine. The younger ones,
like my god-daughter, seem to be opting for Norway (economic security,
global warming). The more experienced go to Switzerland. Those waiting
for their pensions go to Spain. The desperate work for franchises in the
Netherlands or the UK (McTooth).
--
Chris
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Franklin Delano Obama
    ... Suddenly our government regulator ... Medicaid causes fiscal distress for local governments ... Canada Health Care ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The more I think, the more ridiculous it is!
    ... IF Japan can afford health care - so can the US. ... Yes, the government does so well with everything else, let's give ... their are only two health insurance companies, so if you aren't happy with ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: OT: How Health-Care Reform Could Hurt Doctor-Owned Hospitals
    ... I lived under the US health system for over 25 years AND I was studying to be a doctor there, so I have a pretty good sense as to how it "works". ... It was the only system of those I experienced that did not have any inherent sense of responsibility for those who cannot afford health care. ... but that is often because corruption has been allowed to fester in lower ranking management and employees as has been within upper politicians who control the government. ... The USA is a very unique country and it didn't become the envy of much of the world because it is the same as every other country. ...
    (comp.periphs.printers)
  • Re: Obamas real views caught on tape (Healthcare)
    ... "I'm against government run and mandated health ... mandated Medicare and VA health insurance systems, ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)
  • Re: OT: How Health-Care Reform Could Hurt Doctor-Owned Hospitals
    ... and as someone who has lived within about 6 different health care ... sense of responsibility for those who cannot afford health care. ... Does government sometimes make a mess of things? ... The USA is a very unique country and it didn't become the envy of much ...
    (comp.periphs.printers)
Loading