So, this is where we are all headed with the coming
national health care system, rationed health care?

What "national health care" system? Where do you get this stuff from, Rush
Limbaugh?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
So, this is where we are all headed with the coming
national health care system, rationed health care?

What "national health care" system? Where do you get this stuff from, Rush
Limbaugh?

Most insured already are dealing with rationed health care, run by HMO's
where any care is determined by THEIR bottom line.

Carter wrote:

I thought "decent recruits" were fading fast -- the military is now
accepting way lower test scores and those with criminal records. How can
they go any lower when they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Don't be so quick to judge.

Are you familiar with the ASVAB tests? This isn't the quick hosedown
for recruitment that was prevalent during Vietnam. Maybe they are
lowering standards on the testing scores but "scraping the bottom of the
barrel" is a stretch.

I can say that because I have a 21-y/o here at home who wants to join
but quite frankly wasn't the best student in our mediocre educational
system and the ASVAB is quite the challenge for him. He's studying the
test like we studied SATs to get into college.

If we don't fix the basic educational system, fat chance we have of
getting decent recruits. Its not cannon-fodder they are looking for
like it used to be as recently as VietNam.

It takes some digging to find sample ASVAB tests online. I found one
and ran thru it myself and scored very well. I can't imagine my kid
being able to even make a credible score unless he is a lot more savvy
than the local school board has revealed.

I wish they would bring up the national educational standard to this
level rather than vice-versa. I didn't see a single question about how
to place condoms on a banana or how faggots are normal people which
seems to be a big deal for public schools.

As for vets and VA facilities....I'm not a vet but many of my cronies
are. They have the normal complaints about efficiency and service but
there are few horror stories coming out of San Juan. For clients here
in Vieques (an offshore island) they even pay RT airfare for attending
the appointments and often pay the airfare for the person accompanying
the patient if it is justified.

Just as a civilian observation, I think a lot of the 'care' issues are
related to health maintenance. My cronies here are over at the VA once
every few weeks dealing with some matter or other...that stuff becomes a
way of life from your fifties onward, veteran or not. Its all
scheduled, no refusals, no waiting 6 weeks. Guy in charge of 'your'
case is accessible by cellfone 24 hrs a day. Maybe, for once,
facilities in Puerto Rico are better than the mainland? We have a
National Health Card scheme that makes many people wish they were
veterans entitled to the VA services !

I know Michael has a threatening medical emergency about once every few
months and he is the same age as me but not as lucky in health. I think
a regular regimen of sitting in the VA Hospital lobby to do health
maintenance might work out better in the long run for Mike.

Good luck to ya, Michael A.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Brenda Ann wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
So, this is where we are all headed with the coming
national health care system, rationed health care?
What "national health care" system? Where do you get this stuff from, Rush
Limbaugh?

Most insured already are dealing with rationed health care, run by HMO's
where any care is determined by THEIR bottom line.

Its a US mainland thing.

Here in PR we have free national care and private care is relatively
inexpensive as a consequence. See photo of my 3S/Blue Cross card.
$130/month, copays are shown and there are no additional (ie: zero)
deductibles. There's some glitches in the system but it works.

Its a Hot issue for me right now since my wife is in the hospital for a
few days for an elective operation under our local health care plan, not
my private plan. Maybe $16 out of pocket so far. "Care" is a bit less
than what the mainland is accustomed to...bring your own pyjamas and
pillow type of stuff.

We in PR have a terrible local economy yet our tax base still makes
universal care practical.

No reason in the world for the US Mainland not being able to do the same
thing. If you think the 'public' hospital in Fajardo, PR is one of
those places dripping with shotup drug dealers bleeding all over the
place and chickens running in/out of the operating rooms ya better think
again. As bitchy as I am I have no complaints.

National medical care can work. Doesn't need to be rationed or
substandard. But it involves re-inventing the wheel.

I made some comments about the VA in another post...I think raising the
bar for *public* care has some advantage. Seems to be the case here in
Puerto Rico.

-ex

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

So, this is where we are all headed with the coming
national health care system, rationed health care?

What "national health care" system? Where do you get this stuff from, Rush
Limbaugh?

I take it you don't own a Television set, we have just been through a
long primary election season with much talk of a national health care
system. The "rationed health care" part was my own addition as I don't
see how they can make it work without some form or rationing. I don't
listen to Rush Limbaugh, what is he saying about this issue?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

So, this is where we are all headed with the coming
national health care system, rationed health care?

What "national health care" system? Where do you get this stuff from,
Rush
Limbaugh?

I take it you don't own a Television set, we have just been through a
long primary election season with much talk of a national health care
system. The "rationed health care" part was my own addition as I don't
see how they can make it work without some form or rationing. I don't
listen to Rush Limbaugh, what is he saying about this issue?


Having listened to the news each and every day for years, I have not heard
of a 'national healthcare system'. There has been talk of universal
insurance coverage. This is not the same thing. For the record, though. I do
not believe that universal insurance coverage is the way to go. I'm not sure
what IS the way to go, and don't pretend that I do... but forcing health
insurance and it's payments on everyone is wrong. There are millions of
people that do not make enough money to pay for insurance, mandated or not.
I've disliked Hillary Clinton since her husband's first term, when she was
trying to force everyone to buy health insurance. At the time, it would have
cost me about $3000 a year in premiums, while I only made $9000 a year, with
$4200 a year for rent plus more for food, gasoline, utilities, etc.. I
didn't have enough for savings as it was, let alone a spare $3G to give to
some HMO for coverage I didn't need. To date (I am 53 years old), I have
spent less than $9,000 on health care in my entire life.

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

So, this is where we are all headed with the coming
national health care system, rationed health care?

What "national health care" system? Where do you get
thisstuff from, Rush Limbaugh?

I take it you don't own a Television set, we have just been through a
long primary election season with much talk of a national health care
system.

I haven't heard anything of a "national health care system". I _have_ heard
discussions of how to finance universal health care, which is not at all the
same thing. None of the principal candidates have advocated any such thing.
Though some right-wing commentators have talked about universal health care
(however it's implemented) as being equivalent to "socialized medicine", an
attempt to confuse the issue.

Great Britain has a national health care system, run by the government, with
attendant long waits, etc.

Having listened to the news each and every day for years, I have
not heard of a 'national healthcare system'. There has been talk
of universal insurance coverage. This is not the same thing.

Thank you for understanding.

For the record, though. I do
not believe that universal insurance coverage is the way to go. I'm not
sure
what IS the way to go, and don't pretend that I do... but forcing health
insurance and it's payments on everyone is wrong. There are millions of
people that do not make enough money to pay for insurance, mandated or
not.
I've disliked Hillary Clinton since her husband's first term, when she was
trying to force everyone to buy health insurance. At the time, it would
have
cost me about $3000 a year in premiums, while I only made $9000 a year,
with
$4200 a year for rent plus more for food, gasoline, utilities, etc.. I
didn't have enough for savings as it was, let alone a spare $3G to give to
some HMO for coverage I didn't need. To date (I am 53 years old), I have
spent less than $9,000 on health care in my entire life.

You're fortunate. Had I not had insurance from my employer in 2006, I would
have died. (I have a rough idea of what Michael Terrel is going through.)
The total cost of my surgery, hospital fees, etc, was in the range of
$40,000. I paid abut $4500 in deductibles.

I see no ideal system to get health care to everyone. The system I would
like to see would have everyone -- individuals. businesses, the
government -- put money into big pot. Doctors, pharmacies, and other
providers would then simply bill the government.

I call this an "everyone pays, single pay-outer" system. It has obvious
problems -- but every system does.

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

So, this is where we are all headed with the coming
national health care system, rationed health care?

What "national health care" system? Where do you get
thisstuff from, Rush Limbaugh?

I take it you don't own a Television set, we have just been through a
long primary election season with much talk of a national health care
system.

I haven't heard anything of a "national health care system". I _have_ heard
discussions of how to finance universal health care, which is not at all the
same thing. None of the principal candidates have advocated any such thing.

Sorry, I tend to think of "universal health care", "national health
care", and "socialized medicine", as synonyms. "Universal health care"
is presumably something of a different animal as you point out, but I
suspect that what it really is, is part of an animal, the camel's nose
under the tent if you will, which must inevitably lead to national
health care/socialized medicine at some point in the future to remain
viable.

Though some right-wing commentators have talked about universal health care
(however it's implemented) as being equivalent to "socialized medicine", an
attempt to confuse the issue.

On the other hand some left-wing commentators speak of national health
care/socialized medicine as the place we must go for fairness. Many
members of the general public, both left and right, seem to also fail to
properly distinguish between the different health care systems.

While you may very well be correct that none of the principal candidates
have advocated national health care/socialized medicine this may be
because Hillary learned her lesson last time around, and didn't want to
make the same mistake again. IIRC back in 93/94 Hillary was seriously
advocating national health care/socialized medicine, although for all I
know that may not have been reflected in her final proposal, which I
didn't pay any attention to as it was obvious by then that it was going
to be dead on arrival in any case. As far as the other principal
candidate, Barack, goes, I don't have a clue what he is proposing other
than the fact that Hillary says that it isn't "universal". Beyond that
he has been very vague, can you explain his health care proposal to me,
or point me to a web site where I can find some actual details?

Great Britain has a national health care system, run by the government, with
attendant long waits, etc.

There you go, sounds like rationing to me. I get the impression that
people are expecting a heath care system free of rationing, that
everyone will be able to get all the health care they might want, and I
just don't see how that could be done. Some form of rationing appears
to be necessary for any system to work, including our current system,
it's simply an issue of how the rationing is going to be accomplished.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Carter wrote:

I thought "decent recruits" were fading fast -- the military is now
accepting way lower test scores and those with criminal records. How
can they go any lower when they are already scraping the bottom of the
barrel?

exray wrote:

Don't be so quick to judge.

Are you familiar with the ASVAB tests? This isn't the quick hosedown
for recruitment that was prevalent during Vietnam. Maybe they are
lowering standards on the testing scores but "scraping the bottom of the
barrel" is a stretch.

I can say that because I have a 21-y/o here at home who wants to join
but quite frankly wasn't the best student in our mediocre educational
system and the ASVAB is quite the challenge for him. He's studying the
test like we studied SATs to get into college.

If we don't fix the basic educational system, fat chance we have of
getting decent recruits. Its not cannon-fodder they are looking for
like it used to be as recently as VietNam.

First, no disrespect to your son. I am 110% positive many great kids are
joining.

However, -broadly speaking-, the standards HAVE been lowered. Also, you
overlooked (ignored?) my comment about the crime issue. They ARE now
accepting people with NASTY criminal records. So, yes, at least
philosophically speaking (and with individual exceptions), I believe
they -are- scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Finally, and as a whole different issue, you and I are in complete
agreement: The educational system in this country is absolutely
horrible, a disgrace, one that may even lead to the downfall of this
country.

Just as a civilian observation, [snip]... Maybe, for once,
facilities in Puerto Rico are better than the mainland?

That could well be. However, and again -generally- speaking, Michael's
circumstances seem to be more the norm. First we promise our kids the
best treatment and care as inducement to get them to join up.
Unfortunately, the -general- reality is that the promises our kids
received are not met and our broken promises to them is a national disgrace.

Good luck to ya, Michael A.

I'll second that!