Re: BUSH IN ISREAL

"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:esudnRDSjY4Nb97VRVn_vwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"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)

Yea, sure, let's not bother trying to maintain a modicum of respect or decorum.

that "resources (like bank accounts, real property, or
other items that can be sold for cash" means "anything of value"

What does "anything of value" mean in this context if not "cash 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.

Exactly my point. People who are well off, with solid jobs, are in good shape. People hovering around or below the poverty line are covered, but a huge chunk of the population are not.

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.

What I have posted are facts supported by legitimate cites. I'm willing to discuss how to make your system better, but I'm not an expert. I would say that your system should maintain most of the free-enterprise components it has now, but in place of the hodge-podge of government sponsored services there should be one, mandatory universal coverage, with payroll deductions a proportion of net income. Anyone who wishes alternate insurance should have the option to purchase it instead and have the deduction apply towards it.

You refuse to do anything more than say that Canada has a "better" system

That's a misquote and an oversimplification. The Canadian system *is* better, for some, worse for others. What I have said is that it is philosophically different.

and "other
civilized countries" have an even better system

That is supported by objective studies.

but the big picture is lost in your glee for skipping all details.

You're the one skipping details. All you want to do is categorize things in simplistic black vs white terms that make it convenient for you to attack.

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.

No I am not. Every time I pose the same dilemma, you skate around it, so I restate it. The obfuscation is in your perception.


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?

I'm NOT TALKING about people on food stamps, that is and has been all along a diversion that you have introduced. I realize that they are covered, although the issue of how well thy are covered is another discussion. I'm talking about working people, families whose jobs and budgets are inadequate to afford medical insurance. And yes there will be some who simply don't bother out of foolishness.


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.)

That's the philosphical point I have been trying to get across. As Canadians, British, French, Germans, etc.. we simply are not willing to stand by and watch people go without medical care, just as you do not let people opt out of paying taxes and decline police and fire protection. We see medical care as part of shared social responsibility.

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?

That shows how little you understand of how Canadians view health care insurance. The vast majority, from all sides of the spectrum, are of the view that is is inherently wrong for anyone to receive superior health care as a result of being financially better off than another person. It is seen as similar to a wealthy person receiving better police protection. To put it another way, health care is seen as a fundamental right.

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."

Here's the website for the new one in our area http://www.nationalsurgery.com/FCSC/index.php I hadn't looked at it before. They offer quite a range of procedures. This a new concept in Canada, still very controversial.



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.

No insurance plan can change physical reality, some large hospitals have more facilities or better doctors, or whatever. That's true everywhere.



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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Universal health care, or universal healthcare, is health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region. Universal health care programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded. Typically, most health care costs are met by the population via compulsory health insurance or taxation, or a combination of both.


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.

That's a strawman, rationing is your term not mine. Health care, like everything, is always rationed. In Canada it is rationed according to need, in the US it is rationed according to who pays, or who paid the highest premiums.

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.

What do you mean by a doctor or nurse "getting ahead"? There are ways introduce incentives into a universal system based on results, performance based incentives are used in other countries.


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.

You've provided a good overview of why the economic advantages you are claiming in the American system are not there.

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.

I'm not sure how to respond to all of that, except to say that I agree with a lot of the spirit behind it. I also think drug addicted people should be scooped up and placed in camps until they REALLY kick.

But lets be clear, the issue of welfare for the poor and universal medical insurance are different topics. You are conflating them because of your ideological bias.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: another fear of cheaper health care
    ... insurance that has huge deductables. ... The health care CEO needs MORE than a million dollars per day ... ... Since when could you get medicaid? ... In the other nations health care is a government plan but GM ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... "Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. ... Almost anyone can afford health insurance. ... "free" medical care ... ... health care is seen as a fundamental right. ...
    (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
    ... Who am I to believe, you, or the Medicaid website? ... Almost anyone can afford health insurance. ... health care is seen as a fundamental right. ... that you seem to just "believe" are not rationing words. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • 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)