Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
"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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
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/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... 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. Again, all but the rich are already receiving, at best, rationed health care, since that is all we can get out of the insurance companies who let a pencil pusher second guess the doctor as to what sort of treatment you "need". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
Brenda Ann wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... 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. Again, all but the rich are already receiving, at best, rationed health care, since that is all we can get out of the insurance companies who let a pencil pusher second guess the doctor as to what sort of treatment you "need". Many years ago, when I 'had' health insurance, I made an appointment to get a mole removed. Where I live there are many hospitals. At the largest one, where I made the appointment, the earliest slot was three months down the line. I missed that appointment and had to make another one...another three months. I got the mole removed, made my copay (along with my premium)...and the mole came back. It's still there..... jak |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... 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. Again, all but the rich are already receiving, at best, rationed health care, since that is all we can get out of the insurance companies who let a pencil pusher second guess the doctor as to what sort of treatment you "need". So then the relevant question becomes, are there enough "rich", with enough money, to finance health care for all the non rich among us, without rationing? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
"John Byrns" wrote in message So then the relevant question becomes, are there enough "rich", with enough money, to finance health care for all the non rich among us, without rationing? Regards, John Byrns There it is, you just answered your own question. America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality of any rich nation. The rich and middle class provide coverage for the poor masses " which is huge in this country". Deal with poverty in this country and you'll deal with one of the major costs associatted with our health care system. The other big problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. -- Regards B.H. Hill Amplification http://hillamplification.com Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... "John Byrns" wrote in message So then the relevant question becomes, are there enough "rich", with enough money, to finance health care for all the non rich among us, without rationing? Regards, John Byrns There it is, you just answered your own question. America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality of any rich nation. The rich and middle class provide coverage for the poor masses " which is huge in this country". Deal with poverty in this country and you'll deal with one of the major costs associatted with our health care system. The other big problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. -- Regards B.H. Hill Amplification http://hillamplification.com Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm The biggest problem with health insurance in general, is that the poorest people, who can least afford it, are the very ones who need it the most. Because of ignorance, lifestyle choices, attitude, etc. the poorest sector of the population is the one you most see frequenting the ER departments at hospitals. There is no solution to this dilemma except to have the upper middle class and the rich help subsidize health care for the poor. We will always have the poor with us, and there is some social responsibility for the more affluent to help take care of the less fortunate. This is not redistributon of wealth, it is simply, "help your fellow man". "Deal with poverty in this country," sounds noble and good, but here in America, we have been trying to deal with poverty for many years. Johnson's war on poverty and its ilk has cost this country $500 billion over 45 years, and I have yet to see a noticeable decrease in the numeric percentage of poor people vs. non poor. Having said that, even the very wealthy sometimes do not benefit from our health care system. Tim Russert is a good example. No amount of sophisticated health care was able to help him. Sadly, I might add. He was a good guy, he'll be missed . . . Just my .02 worth (adjusted for inflation) Regards, Tom |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
"hifi-tek" wrote in message
m... snip The biggest problem with health insurance in general, is that the poorest people, who can least afford it, are the very ones who need it the most. Because of ignorance, lifestyle choices, attitude, etc. the poorest sector of the population is the one you most see frequenting the ER departments at hospitals. There is no solution to this dilemma except to have the upper middle class and the rich help subsidize health care for the poor. We will always have the poor with us, and there is some social responsibility for the more affluent to help take care of the less fortunate. This is not redistributon of wealth, it is simply, "help your fellow man". "Deal with poverty in this country," sounds noble and good, but here in America, we have been trying to deal with poverty for many years. Johnson's war on poverty and its ilk has cost this country $500 billion over 45 years, and I have yet to see a noticeable decrease in the numeric percentage of poor people vs. non poor. Having said that, even the very wealthy sometimes do not benefit from our health care system. Tim Russert is a good example. No amount of sophisticated health care was able to help him. Sadly, I might add. He was a good guy, he'll be missed . . . Just my .02 worth (adjusted for inflation) Regards, Tom Tom, Yes, it's vexing, isn't it? Canada has been trying to deal with "poverty and its ilk" for many years now, especially as it concerns health care, but as you point out, the poor are quite stupid and they continually make bad choices. This makes it very difficult to help them, since they don't always follow our "suggestions". I'm sure if you have any actual ideas as to how we could improve our stats, they would be eagerly accepted. This "help your fellow man" thing is getting tiresome, I agree. It's driven our taxes to the stratosphere! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
hifi-tek wrote:
The biggest problem with health insurance in general, is that the poorest people, who can least afford it, are the very ones who need it the most. Because of ignorance, lifestyle choices, attitude, etc. the poorest sector of the population is the one you most see frequenting the ER departments at hospitals. Certainly those factors apply, but the other factor you overlooked is that they are just, well, poor. -Somebody- has to ask if "you want fries with that" or make the beds at the Holiday Inn -- and usually those jobs don't come with a good health care program. It's just a fact of our society; we can't -all- be highly paid, PhD rocket scientists -- somebody has to shovel the ****. There is no solution to this dilemma except to have the upper middle class and the rich help subsidize health care for the poor. ....and we ARE subsidizing health care for the poor. Why do you think we keep hearing about the twenty dollar Band-Aid(tm)? We complain when we find that on our bill, but it's really part of the 'hidden' subsidy. A BIG reason health care is so expensive is that as more and more people get 'downsized' or lose their well-paying American manufacturing job to Mr. Wong in China, the number of people requiring to be subsidized just keeps growing and growing. As a society, we have two choices: when they come to the ER, we can provide (subsidized) treatment or refuse treatment and put them out on the curb to die. Fortunately (and so far), we have chosen the former. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Eye problems
Brian Hill wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message So then the relevant question becomes, are there enough "rich", with enough money, to finance health care for all the non rich among us, without rationing? Regards, John Byrns There it is, you just answered your own question. America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality of any rich nation. The rich and middle class provide coverage for the poor masses " which is huge in this country". Deal with poverty in this country and you'll deal with one of the major costs associatted with our health care system. The other big problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Add to that the fact that lack of access to quality health care is in itself a major cause of poverty. In addition, paying for a single health issue has caused many formerly solvent individuals and families to slip below the poverty level. jak |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Do these still have problems? | CB | |||
ILG problems | Shortwave | |||
DX-398 FM Problems | Shortwave | |||
DX-440 problems | Shortwave | |||
RF Problems | Antenna |