American Third Position Political Party
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
Next: Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
From: J�rgen Exner on 22 Jan 2010 23:10 tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >An uninsured person will be treated in any public hospital emergency >room. The law forbids the hospital from turning them away. An >uninsured person will be examined and treated in a public health >clinic. Free treatment for the uninsured is available for medical, >dental, and mental disorders. You mean they will get e.g. medication for high blood pressure or to lower cholesterol, they will get mammograms, and annual physicals, dental checkups and vision correction aids? jue
From: Chris H on 23 Jan 2010 07:58 In message <hjd330$c5f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethyll eadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes >On 2010-01-22, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >> According to an in depth discussion in another group The UK actually >> spends less per person on health care (including dental) in the UK than >> the USA spends per person. Also it covers EVERY person in the UK, not >> just 80% as per the USA. > >The UK is a government run rationed model. As I discovered this morning (and from the last 50 years of personal experience) it is not rationed. The "rationed" and "death panels" is a myth concocted by the US anti-Obama people. It is not something Brits would recognise. Most people would say the US model is a doubly rationed model. Only 80% of the population gets health-care and that 80% they are rationed again to what they can pay for. >The US is a cartel crony >captialist (aka fascist) model. Neither is good. Though one costs less and covers 100% of the population and the other costs more and covers only 80%.... Both have their faults. >The US version uses >government to limit competition through law, regulation, and social >programs. This keeps costs and profits high for the favored players. It >will eventually become a government run rationed model because >government will demand more and more control in exchange for the favors >it is granting to the players. In the end, only the government will be >left standing. The government will then ration care because it isn't >profit seeking, it's mentality is limiting costs instead. There will be >no spending money to make money. Agreed. However the UK model is also having problems. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 23 Jan 2010 08:02 In message <8rjkl51mop0f3ptmj1jffnku49ivl26ji8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:52:57 -0500, "Peter" ><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:4m6kl5tr32uv8gnscvpgipiuadojc5g061(a)4ax.com... >> >>> >>> Where do you get your 80% figure? Everyone in the US is covered by >>> some sort of health care program. It may be a private insurance >>> program, Medicare, Medicaid, or some other government program. There >>> is a wide difference between being covered by a private insurance >>> program and relying on free government care, but the point is that >>> 100% of the people are covered. Few Americans will argue that we our >>> health care system is adequate, but anyone with any knowledge of the >>> system will refute your 80% claim. >> >> >> >>Gotta disagree. Yes a lot of people in certain categories are covered, but I >>know too many who have been forced into bankruptcy and/or lost their life >>savings because of medical costs. > >That's a whole different issue. Even a certain number of the 80% of >Americans who do have private insurance coverage can face this. Most >private insurance policies have some sort of limitation on the >coverage. So health care is RATIONED even for the 80% who do have it.... and the US health care cost a lot more then the UK system that covered 1005 of the population? US.. more expensive covers only a proportion of the population and may bankrupt anyone who is ill if they run out of insurance. UK ... health care for 100% of the population. Will not bankrupt you in any situation. Which is better? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Peter on 23 Jan 2010 09:40 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:sdzdhdCBKvWLFAjF(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > As I discovered this morning (and from the last 50 years of personal > experience) it is not rationed. The "rationed" and "death panels" is a > myth concocted by the US anti-Obama people. It is not something Brits > would recognise. > Basically true, but many myths are based upon some fact. Health care is rationed, to some extent. I know of no system that gives unlimited treatment to all comers. Common sense tells us that is fiscally impossible. Here in the US, under our current system rationing is partially based upon ability to pay. No one really believes that the medical treatment given to our poverty level patients is the same as for those who can afford to pay. Also, an 80 year old person cannot get a kidney or transplant. Heart transplant candidates are carefully screened. All of this is a form of rationing. -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 23 Jan 2010 09:52
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:58:41 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <hjd330$c5f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethyll >eadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes >>On 2010-01-22, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> >>> According to an in depth discussion in another group The UK actually >>> spends less per person on health care (including dental) in the UK than >>> the USA spends per person. Also it covers EVERY person in the UK, not >>> just 80% as per the USA. >> >>The UK is a government run rationed model. > >As I discovered this morning (and from the last 50 years of personal >experience) it is not rationed. The "rationed" and "death panels" is a >myth concocted by the US anti-Obama people. It is not something Brits >would recognise. > >Most people would say the US model is a doubly rationed model. Only 80% >of the population gets health-care and that 80% they are rationed again >to what they can pay for. You never learn, do you? "Health care" is not the same as "covered by a private insurance program". -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |