Re: Why healthcare in the U.S. is "expensive" (and why Andre's a lumberjack he's ok...)

In article <po06g39nkaprh226kghnhvdiv3e3m180a3@xxxxxxx>,
Jill <asker_w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:17:54 -0400, PolishKnight <marek1@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <ofh0g3lrns0cuvkmivte9v862k04e3smor@xxxxxxx>,
Jill <asker_w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:05:05 -0700, Ben <ArGee45@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:36 pm, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Andre, Ben, er... Jill. :-) I feel like I really ought to stay
far far far away from this, but I can't resist. Andre has this huge
chip on his shoulder about Canada being so much better about the U.S.
(you know, that country people can find on a map. (Well, people who
aren't educated in leftist U.S. schools anyway. More on that later.)

On Sep 29, 9:52 am, Ben <ArGe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:18 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:52 pm, Jill <aske...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[blah blah blah]
Unfortunately, the news about "the Canadian Way" with regards to
health care isn't anywhere near as good as the economic news.

Well, obviously I'm on your side in this one, Ben. Thank you for
making the points in favor of the US so much better than I ever
did
or
could.

Thanks for the support, and you're welcome, Jill.

Bleah! Could you two at least assure me there was no tongue in that
exchange?

Jealous?

Naw. I've got Sharon as my honey already. :-)

Sounds like a personal problem.

She's actually being pretty quiet lately anyway.

Seriously, Mark, I'm taking you out of the killfile. God knows how
many of these "precious" witticisms of yours I've missed but the real
reason I'm taking you out is that, like Ben, you are really good at
shooting down these attacks on the US. If nothing else, for the time
being that makes your posts worth reading again.

I'm sure I'll annoy you sufficiently to get out of your good graces soon
enough.

No doubt.

[edit]
Why should health care be a function of the government in the US in
the first place?

The justification provided by hipsters and Andre is that, supposedly,
health care is cheaper when it's run by the government which doesn't
have a profit motive such as the insurance companies or hospitals.

In the states, at least, government is having problems running ANYTHING
correctly and especially cost-efficiently. The list goes on and on:
Public education, retirement, the airports, and even the roads are
expensive boondoggles. I liked the USPS myself but they've been raising
rates so often recently that we can barely buy a set of first class
stamps before they're obsolete.

I worked for UPS. From what I saw they or Fed Ex could do a better
and cheaper job of handling the mail than USPS does.

Is the USPS subsidized or do they pay for their operation through the
fees? I believe they are cheaper than UPS for packages (but not
necessarily as fast.)

Health care is "cheaper" in other western countries because:

1) Rationing and waiting lists. HMO's in the USA catch a lot of flak
for rationing but they're actually not bad compared to most socialist
health care in these countries. Many Americans CHOOSE to pay more for
PPO's for a better doctor selection.

The last two insurance plans my husband had through his work did not
even offer HMO's. I believe they are going out.

2) Medicaid: Most of these "socialized healthcare is cheap" claims are
based upon the U.S. blowing trillions on almost UNLIMITED NATIONAL
health care for senior citizens.

True but what do you consider as an alternative?

I don't seem to recall that there was an constitutiona right for people
to live as long as possible through free medicine.

This obsession with the old living as long as possible at the expense of
the young seems rather like parasitical. It's one of the worst
expressions of FDR's class warfare.

3) Cheap USA made drugs. It's strange to me that Canada is able to
negotiate a better volume discount for their 33 million citizens (more
or less) when many HMO's in this country probably have that kind of
subscriber base, but there you go. Good for Canada and Europe, but not
a testament to their healthcare system being "better".

The business with Canada getting a "deal" on our drugs is strange to
me, too. I'm willing to bet there is a whole lot more to the politics
of that arrangement than merely giving Canada a volume discount.

Canada turns around and sells these discounted drugs back to
Americans. My mother takes dozens of perscriptions a month and all of
them are filled thru the Canada Store. The politics of all of this
must be more complicated than what meets the eye.

I haven't been able to find evidence of Canada threatening to just open
up the patents if the drug companies don't sell to them but there may be
a subtle psychological concern of the companies that Canada might do it.
They certainly have more bargaining power than an American corporation
in that regard.

4) The Breck Girl: John Edwards made billions using class action suits
to shake down big-pocketed pharmaceutical firms and doctors where he
pocketed half (or more) of the monies.

This can be fixed. It won't be easy but it can be fixed. If nothing
else, we can take Shakespear's advice and "first kill all the
lawyers." Except for GA, of course.

I just got one of those notices in the mail that my old insurance
company did something "bad" and I deserved a $25 rebate BUT the lawyers
get 1.5 million for "legal fees" between the two of them.

I'm writing a nasty letter to the judge and saying these lawyers should
enjoy their ill gotten gains while it lasts.

5) The AMA medical union, er, "association" that discourages foreign
doctors from coming to the USA to practice, sets high arbitrary
educational standards (do you feel more healthy because a doctor studies
"pre-med" for 4 years rather than just going to medical school?),

Ha! I don't feel more healthy after seeing any doctor. I almost
always get the diagnosis "I don't know what's wrong." Luckily I have
a reasonable $25 co-pay.

It's amazing really how these professionals can't diagnose their way out
of a paper bag sometimes.


and
allows hospitals to exploit doctors for years as interns.

6) Illegal immigrants. You don't think they paid for all those anchor
baby medical bills by picking lettuce and doing daycare for career
women, do you?

Another problem that can be solved. The real problem is that neither
the Left nor the Right want to do it.

The left acts largely as a bloc. Even most of the "blue dog" democrats
vote along party lines.

The right is splintered, however, and most of them were the ones who
filibustered the last immigration amnesty bill. Give them the credit
they deserve.

7) Affirmative action. Russian doctors are told to not bother trying to
get an internship because the slots are made available for women and
minorities first.

Another problem that can be solved and this one might not be as
difficult as the others.

As you can see, there's lots of fat for "private" healthcare to cut AND
difficult for a liberal socialist program to address.

If anything, a government "solution" would be unacceptable from the
get-go for nearly EVERYONE:

1) Seniors won't be happy with basically everyone jumping on board of
their private gravy train. Woo woo! Choo choo!

That little engine is running out of steam anyway.

So there's the answer to the question above...

"Soylent green... tasty and nutritious!" :-)

2) Doctors who are established after years of being exploited by their
benefactors (the AMA) are not going to want to become mere government
union employees. (For most people, that's a step up. For them, BIG
step down!)

3) Pharmaceuticals and hospitals: There's billions of big lobbyist and
campaign contribution money there and it won't be going to Hillary for
her to slash their profits to nothing to try to (appear) to make
national health care efficient (for the first year or so.)

National healthcare is such a big dog (with fleas) that I'm amazed the
Democrats didn't bury it in the backyard. It's disliked and distrusted
by most Americans, HATED by politically powerful groups, and guaranteed
to be a flop out of the gate.

So why's Hillary and the faithful still pushing it?

I guess it's a matter of religious faith: She believes in socialism and
her own lies. It's wildly popular with the hipster set and she can't
back away from it now.

If all of the old lefty hippies opposed it hillary would still back
it. It is her "baby" and probably the only one she wouldn't ever
consider aborting.

It's one she should have aborted.

Other agendas she has might be more realistic (such as this ugly
after-school program which is really disguised single mother daycare.)


Are you kidding? Lefties are just fighting over *which* socialist
wannabe they want to elect, not whether or not there should be one in
office.

I think everyone knows that hillary will be the Democrat nominee at
this point in time. It would take something big...catastrophically
big to get the liberals to turn on her now. They all think they are
really re-electing Slick Willy when they vote for her.

Not everyone. Osama Obama's and even the Breck girl are getting
donations as I write this.

There are always the deluded, those in denial, and the tin foil
fringes but everyone else accepts that hillary will be the Democrat
nominee.

The fundamental problem for Hillary is that this is the mainstream
supporters of the Democrat party too.

And Andre falls squarely into this camp, his insistence to the
opposite notwithstanding. There's a video production made in Great
Britain (presumably, one that Andre didn't fact-check when he was
12),
that demonstrates what the world would be like without the existence
of the US, and it painted a bleak picture. If I can find it, I'll
provide the link to you.

I loved the book "fatherland" that engaged in historical science
fiction. It started a huge trend. I'm going to disagree with the
above author.

I think the most significant impact would be WWI. Clearly, without
U.S. involvement there probably would have been an armistance on the
European mainland and the Prussian empire would have continued. This
probably would have been better for Poland since without Hitler, it
wouldn't have suffered the ravages of WWII and communism afterwards.

We can probably safely assume that Lenin would still be in Russia but
with a stable mainland Europe and strong prussian (Prussian?, Andre...
is that German/Austria?) empire,

Just so everyone is on the same page WRT what constituted Prussia:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061665/Prussia

in European history, any of certain areas of eastern and central
Europe, respectively (1) the land of the Prussians on the southeastern
coast of the Baltic Sea, which came under Polish and German rule in
the Middle Ages; (2) the kingdom ruled from 1701 by the German
Hohenzollern dynasty, including Prussia and Brandenburg, with Berlin
as its capital, which seized much of northern Germany and western
Poland in the 18th and 19th centuries and united Germany under its
leadership in 1871; and (3) the Land (state) created after the fall of
the Hohenzollerns in 1918, which included most of their former kingdom
and which was abolished by the Allies in 1947 as part of the political
reorganization of Germany after its defeat in World War II.

End Quote

There doesn't appear to be anything about Austria in the above.

Here's an opportunity for me to annoy you.

The issue wasn't what constituted Prussia but rather who the allies
fought against during WWI. Yes, Austria-Hungary was involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww1
"The Entente Powers, led by France, Russia, the United Kingdom and its
colonies and dominions, and later Italy (from 1915) and the United
States (from 1917), defeated the Central Powers, led by the
Austro-Hungarian, German, and Ottoman Empires. Russia withdrew from the
war after the revolution in 1917."

You didn't annoy me. That wouldn't annoy me unless you made up the
quote which I know you didn't (I checked).

Very little annoys me here, actually. Ok, honestly, nitpickers annoy
me. I'm a big vision person and well, let's just say that if my wife
wasn't around there would be a lot of socks and dirty glasses lying
around. I don't "see" them or care.


This isn't the important point but rather the discussion is about what
the world would be like if the USA didn't exist. I think that's a lot
of fun because it puts our Federalism and "democracy building" into
perspective.

communism in the former, much smaller
USSR would have been contained and eliminated more quickly (possibly
by 1940's). No WWII, no Hiroshima. Also, no Israel and no anti-
western middle east. Germany would have replaced the United States as
the conservative force opposing the USSR in the cold war.

Without white guilt in the U.S. combined with feminism and marxism,
political correctness would have died on the vine. Women would have
the right to vote in most western countries, but that would probably
be it. No reverse discrimination or strong man hating sentiments.
Feminists who suggested in the 1950's "equality in the workplace"
would be laughed out of the room.

Conclusion: The U.S. did a good job of cleaning up the mess they made
in WWI. We've done a LOUSY job of cleaning up the mess we made with
the civil war.

That's quite a number of leaps there. Interesting, but speculative at
best.

I'm curious as to what messes are left from the US Civil War. Race
relations? That was bound to be a problem with or without the Civil
War. The thing that makes that still a mess is liberal socialist
Welfare programs that were started up in the 1960's under LBJ's
Democrat administration.

The US Civil War tramped over the concept of "state's rights" and civil
war post-reconstruction even ignored them to the point of creating
"military districts".

These weak states rights allows FDR and LBJ to later push their
socialist agendas and for the supreme court to run rampant.

I don't dislike Canada. I dislike the way it is always presented as
"better than" the US by some of its citizens. If it were remotely
true perhaps I wouldn't be bothered but the comparison is almost
always factually wrong.

Generally, leftists like to portray the US as inferior to nearly every
country including, according to Michael Moore, Cuba and Saddam Hussein's
Iraq.

A few months back, a hospital administrator friend of mine mused that
maybe what the US should do is socialize basic health care, the type
that someone would visit a doctor's office for, and keep the higher-
end procedure privatized. One of the huge costs to his hospital was
people going to the emergency room for routine care because they
didn't have health insurance (which, to him, didn't signal a 'health
care crisis', because he noted that many of them had the means but
simply didn't want to purchase or contribute towards health care
insurance).

hillary's plan will fix that pesky problem. Whether we want it or
not, under her plan it will become law that all of us MUST have health
insurance. Those that dare to defy the law will not be allowed to
WORK. How is that for liberal compassion...let them eat cake. LOL.

Slick Willy was slick in that he was able to mask his tax-and-spend and
commie impulses as some kind of southern moderate. Remember, too, that
this was before the Internet (well, we knew about it but they didn't :-)
so the press fooled a lot of people.

Unfortunately the press continues to fool a lot of people.

I honestly think they don't mind being fooled though. There's more to
it than that. They like the message the left delivers. They like
feeling superior, "smarter", than other people. They like the left's
religious message including the end-of-the-world global warming. That
is the challenge rather than trying to educate them. They have to want
to see the truth.

I am impressed, however, with the Dems' ability to put up so-called blue
dog democrats who are liberals or attention seeking nuts with military
backgrounds. But when it comes to the presidential elections, they
can't help themselves: They put up the scum that's floated to the top.

I don't know that the Dems floated the scum known as hillary. She and
bill are powerful on their own (corruption pays).

I'm talking about our belly blue dog James Webb who sold out
conservatism and went for race politics to narrowly get into the senate
in Virginia. He's beloved by the left and he got a lot of help
(granted, Allen's campaign was awful even beyond what Dole had.)

He just voted last month to grant welfare to illegal aliens and in
addition, the democrats cut off republicans from voting on the floor (so
much for "every vote" counts...)

With high oil and gold prices, we're riding high.

For now, sure. And good for Canada, because my relatives living
there
are benefiting from it as well. Times change, though.

Si... :-) Eso es? Where's that hole in the border wall senior? :-)

Some believe the Canadian border is the more dangerous of the two and
should be walled up before we do the Mexican border. There have been
any number of terrorists who came into this country via the Canadian
border such as the 911 terrorists and the Millenium terrorist.

They find prayer rugs on the Mexican-USA border all the time.

It's funny that with all this leftist propoganda that more Mexicans
haven't figured out that it makes sense to just keep going up North:
Generous welfare benefits, free healthcare...

Take off (senio'r!) to the great white north!!!!

Mexicans aren't hosers. They will find their way to Canada when they
need to.

I think they were expecting amnesty by now and rockefeller republicans
such as GW and Spectre wanted to sneak it through and got caught.

Now, the Mexicans are terrified that they won't get amnesty after all.
They think it's now going to come in waves every 20 years or so. If
they don't get it, they'll just be stuck working long hours without
reliable benefits.

Ultimately, they, and their children, may go up to Canada to get refugee
status. I don't think the U.S.A needs to take them back since it's
their country of ORIGIN that needs to pick them up.

regards,
PolishKnight
.

Relevant Pages