Re: BUSH IN ISREAL


"Dutch" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:AH%0k.327$js6.100@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"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.
Dutch, noone respects you because you're an idiot.
You've been corrected 100 times in this thread.



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.
No, you moron.
Almost anyone can afford health insurance.
Many choose not to buy it.


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.

Why should anyone be forced to buy insurance for something that can't harm
anyone else?

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.

No, it's supported by SUBjective 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.

No, convenient to debunk.


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.

No, Pickel perceives this issue correctly.

It's a matter of choice, complicated by your total lack of understanding
about what 'afford' means.




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.

It isn't the same at all.
A different kind of risk, with far different likelihoods and liabilities to
the rest of the area.



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.

Dutch, you're a shithead.
Rich people DO receive better police protection.


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.

Yes, but in the US, our for-profit health care has more services available
BY FAR.




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"?

Making money, of course.

There are ways
introduce incentives into a universal system based on results, performance
based incentives are used in other countries.
Suuuure they are.



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.

No, he he explained why the 'advantages' you claim for canada are false.


.