Re: BUSH IN ISREAL

"Dutch"

Apparently you have not read it at all.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/
"Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups,
though, certain requirements must be met. These may include your age,
whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged; your income and
resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can be
sold for cash);"

Who am I to believe, you, or the Medicaid website?


You seem to think (or you are just a complete dolt, of which you provide
evidence every post) that "resources (like bank accounts, real property, or
other items that can be sold for cash" means "anything of value" ... it does
not ... you can have some "resources" ... if these "resources" are "meager"
enough, you can qualify for medicaid ... if they are not "meager" enough,
then you have enough "resources" to afford medical insurance so you do NOT
qualify for medicaid.

You continue to post nonsense about medical care in the USA so we have never
been able to discuss how to make our system better. You refuse to do
anything more than say that Canada has a "better" system and "other
civilized countries" have an even better system, but the big picture is lost
in your glee for skipping all details.



If you cannot afford health care insurance, you have too new a car and
too big a house and eat out too much and buy designer clothes and a host
of other things that cost money ... it is called "living beyond your
means" ... it is not that complicated to understand.

That's a possible scenario, but what about people who do none of the above
and still can't afford medical insurance? Why do you assume that everyone
can afford insurance? Or rather why do you assume that anyone who can't
must be a fool and wastrel? Deducting a proportion of everyone's wages for
medical insurance solves that problem. Nobody can foolishly ignore their
health needs.


You keep changing what you say to something new. You use words foolishly.
Your argument is obfuscation.

YOU started the discussion about not being able to pay your monthly bills.
Now you want to say the person you are talking about has "none of the above"
.... do you mean that the person has no mortgage and no car and "can't
afford" these things? There are many people that might fit that
description. We have many people drawing food stamps, living in subsidized
housing, working a little on the side for cigarettes, getting "free" medical
care ... do you see a disincentive for those folks to start working on their
own?

As for "foolish" people ... ignoring their health needs is not the only
thing they are foolish about. Why do you only pick that one? (I know you
don't really want to stop there ... you are more than willing to let the
government prevent people from being foolish with their time and talent and
treasure.)



Labels are meaningless, compartmentalizing others makes it easier for you,
but it does not elucidate anything. In the context of Canadian thinking on
health insurance I am considered ANTI-socialist.


By whom, the communists?


What do people who pay for "private alternatives" get that is not already
provided by the government?

They get quicker access instead of going on a waiting list. There are
clinics with MRIs, and those that do hip replacements, etc. I think this
helps the system, by shortening the waiting lists.


That's it, huh ... just the waiting list for MRIs and hip replacements ...
and the "etc."


I thought you had "universal health care?" I must have misunderstood.

I've told you repeatedly that you are misconstruing the meaning of
universal health care, but you think you know everything. It means that
everyone is covered by one medical insurance plan, and that plan covers
all medically necessary services, and the amount each person pays is
proportionate to his income, up to a maximum.


Everyone is "covered" but being covered does not mean that "all medically
necessary services" are available "universally" ... as a matter of fact,
those that live in some places have more "services" available to them ...
but even they might be covered but unable to avail themselves of the
services at the time they need it.


To address a silly objection you have raised before, every participant in
the plan is entitled to equal access to care, within reason. Obviously if
there is a top heart specialist 4000 miles away, you will not be flown
across the country to see him unless there is a very good reason, you will
see someone qualified in your own geographic region.

I don't think you've ever explained what you think "universal health care"
means.

I think the term "universal health care" is a political term used to fool
people into thinking that the government knows best what you need and want
and should have when you think you are sick.

You seem to think that the terms "very good reason" and "qualified" are not
words of art. They are rationing words like "waiting list" and
"underfunded" and "better equipment not available" ... and many others that
you seem to just "believe" are not rationing words. You continue to
propound that health care is not rationed but provide the proof of the
rationing with every post. It is just a matter of how it is rationed not
whether or not it is rationed. It is a matter of providing incentives to
patients and health care providers to be innovative and "better" ... you
have ignored the whole idea of "motivation" and counter with the idea that
doctors and nurses just "want" to be health care providers and being
"better" than some other doctor or nurse is just part of their being ... it
has nothing to do with "money" ... public servants say the same thing ...
all the time ... politicians are just working for the people ... all of them
.... all the time. Non-profit means that everyone in the "system" is just
working for others out of the goodness of their hearts, because no one will
get "ahead" because that is a "bad" thing.

The problem with the medical insurance system in the USA is that there is
very little to no competition between the various insurance companies ...
there are disincentives for the health care providers ... there is
government induced waste ... there is NO care from the patients about cost
because the patients have no input in the cost or choices that determine
cost. Just changing all the insurance companies into one big company, or
just giving it directly to the government (like making everyone covered by
Medicare) will just cause a giant collapse of the entire industry ... or
costs will just be higher than they are now ... or access and quality of
care must go down. It is the nature of the beast of limited resources and
allocation.

I think people should have to move to be provided complete welfare ... they
should live where the basic necessities for reasonable life can be provided
as cheaply as possible. They can live in tents and eat three meals at a
nice soup kitchen and if they no longer want their children, they can give
them up for adoption ... they will be provided reasonable clothing and they
will get all the health care they need, for whatever they need. If they
want to "get off the dole," they can go to work and pay a very small amount
for day care for their children and contribute to the general fund. There
can even be a bit of recreation provided. And there is complete access to
education. There is no TV or cigarettes, however, there is no "need" for
that.

There are no qualifications, it will be a lot like jail without the bars ...
they are free to leave and earn their own way any time they want ... and if
Warren Buffet would like to drop in for lunch, he is just as free to have a
"free" meal as anyone else.

If someone want to leave, they can go at any time. If they make any
trouble, they can move from their no-bars location to a location with bars.
There is no tolerance for even the slightest deviation from what the
government thinks is the best for you while you are there. If you don't
like it, then go somewhere else. All your "needs" are provided ... all of
them. You get everything to which you are "entitled" as a human being and
you do not have to do a darned thing to get it. You will have "wealth"
beyond measure as compared to most of the "human beings" in the universe.
You do nothing and get everything you need.

Churches, the Salvation Army, and many secular groups can make different
provisions for the disabled and other special cases ... they will be happy
to take up any special case because that is what they do. People who want
to save the "poor" can get together and choose who they want to save ... the
"deserving" poor ... they can be as generous or as stingy as they want, but
there is no problem because everyone has an opportunity to receive
everything they really need for free from the government. What they provide
is just extra.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ObamaCare: Kiss Your Access Goodbye
    ... Clinton unsuccessfully tried to get almost 50 million Americans a decent ... the health care that the richest country in the ... government price controls in America allows private companies to recoup ... accepting or limited the number of new Medicaid patients. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Franklin Delano Obama
    ... Suddenly our government regulator ... Medicaid causes fiscal distress for local governments ... Canada Health Care ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... Its an essential component of health care, ... Socialism is an essential component of health care? ... Which is why old folk have Medicare and poor folk have Medicaid. ... I don't think government involvement is anything to put up ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Obamas real views caught on tape (Healthcare)
    ... they don't want "everyone" to have insurance. ... How many of you who are against this would be able to get insurance on your own if you were to lose you group coverage (be it Medicare, Medicaid, VA or some other group)? ... I don't think that anyone who is against the Obama, Pelosi, Reed form of Government supported health care is saying they don't want "everyone" to have insurance. ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)
  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... Its an essential component of health care, ... Socialism is an essential component of health care? ... The government is the single largest provider of medical care in the US, ... The US provides Medicaid, a government program. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)