Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: William Clark on 27 Dec 2009 17:14 In article <KJidndtVFfChUarWnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article > <wclark2-BA7199.14291727122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > In article <28KdndzN689-G6rWnZ2dnUVZ_r5i4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, > > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > <wclark2-534414.09473627122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > > > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > g to see how > > > > > the US comes out. > > > > > > > > Ah, the standard wingnut dogma to try to get out of the life expectancy > > > > trap. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The data are from the UN and WHO and are > > > > filtered for difference in reporting practice, so you can save your > > > > lottery money, because the study has/is already been done. > > > > > > I've read the reports and they don't look at such things. Unless you > > > are seeing ones I haven't seen. A very high possibility since they do > > > come out with so much stuff. Give me a couple places to look. > > > > I obviously am. UN and WHO reports, to be precise, > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081 > > 200113_pf.html > > > > This one actually tends to make my case. It doesn't address the social > issues I was asking about, but does bring some others. The social issues are a red herring. if they are not, then we have an even more fundamental question of why the richest and most powerful nation on earth takes cares of its citizens so badly, and no just in terms of health care. > > > https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/210 > > 2rank.html > > > > Listing has nothing at all to do with what I was discussing. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by > > _the_United_Nations_.282005-2010.29 > > > Same with this one. Sure they do. These are the numbers. It simply does not wash that you can explain away why 50 countries, from Sweden to the UK to Jordan, can provide for their citizens to live longer than those in the US. You can try, but it does not work.
From: Kurt Ullman on 27 Dec 2009 17:21 In article <wclark2-CF8C5A.17112927122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > Faulty logic on your above statement. > > > > Insurance companies do not provide health care, > > the money comes from taxes. > > Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax > money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system > that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of > phase with the tax system. If you look at it the proper way, they do mess with tax money since the employer contribution is tax deductible. FWIW, it the single biggest tax deduction. > > > > > If they keep _too_ _much_ money for themselves, > > a competitive insurance company will run them > > out of business. > > No it won't, because it is run on a state by state basis. In most states > there are only a very few insurers, so there is not genuine competition > in the marketplace. They have this sewn up like a cartel. That is largely because every state is different and you have to be licensed to operate in that state. Only a couple companies can afford to mess with the overhead of having to deal with 50 different states, with 50 different policy requirements, etc. -- To find that place where the rats don't race and the phones don't ring at all. If once, you've slept on an island. Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
From: Kurt Ullman on 27 Dec 2009 17:28 In article <wclark2-B42D46.17143227122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > This one actually tends to make my case. It doesn't address the social > > issues I was asking about, but does bring some others. > > The social issues are a red herring. if they are not, then we have an > even more fundamental question of why the richest and most powerful > nation on earth takes cares of its citizens so badly, and no just in > terms of health care. Maybe, maybe not. I would like to know for sure. I am not fantasizing that controlling for the social issues will move us to first or second in any category. But it would give us a clearer picture of where we REALLY sit. For instance, there are several studies suggesting that a hefty percentage of the reduction in murder rates is related to the health services (specifically trauma centers) turning murders into attempted murders. http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych242/Articles/Murder&MedicineJHSMAY2 002.pdf -- To find that place where the rats don't race and the phones don't ring at all. If once, you've slept on an island. Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 27 Dec 2009 19:28 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article > <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > The lunacy in the current US system is the notion that health care > > should be provided by private insurance companies (whose business is > > based on eliminating high risk clients), and linked to employment. There > > is simply no logic in that any more. > > Yeah the government has done so well with MCare where the trustees > note it will go bankrupt in a couple of years, people have to spend > large amounts of money for "gap" coverage, and pays so little that fewer > and fewer docs are accepting new MCare patients. Heck, yes, I am sold! Maybe they should look outside the US for answers, not to mention examples of what works and what doesn't. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: Nick Naym on 27 Dec 2009 22:08
In article 241220092233156424%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at aeiou(a)mostly.invalid wrote on 12/25/09 1:33 AM: > In article <C759A282.4E44F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym > <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > .... .... > > >> Look, right now I have absolutely no real choice when it comes to my >> health-care insurance. Years ago, before the Industry got "special >> dispensation," I had several choices; didn't have to take out a second >> mortgage to pay increasing premiums (health-care premiums do indeed >> rival >> mortgage payments) for _shrinking_ coverage; nor fear that my policy >> might >> not be renewed and I'd find myself "uninsurable" next year for a >> condition I >> developed this year. A little competition -- that "free market" >> economics >> stuff that the right wingnuts seem to claim stewardship of (including >> the >> God-given right to interpret what the hell it means and when and where >> it >> applies), to suit their (or their corporate sponsors') agenda, certainly >> wouldn't hurt. > > Okay, I will agree that the right-wingnuts (of which I am one) > sometimes go too far, but they are orders of magnitude better at > medical decisions than rabid left wing socialist politicians with What is the special expertise in medical decision making that they bring to bear, and where can the rest of us sorry, ill-informed morons acquire it? > Muslim leanings who are constantly running down our brand > of capitalist democracy to the world. What do the Muslims have to do with freakin' US healthcare policy? And when did they all band together to "constantly run down our brand of capitalist democracy?" May I ask: Do you even _know_ any Muslims? Or are you simply regurgitating everything that Mssrs. Limbaugh and Beck -- those Illuminati of Socio-Political Thought and World Culture -- spout on their TV programs? You know, Mark, it seems to me that any time the right wing doesn't like an idea or position, they blame it on the lefties/commies, Al Quaeda (or Muslims -- after all, they're all members of Al Quaeda, right?), etc. -- whomever the Enemy of the (US) State _Du Jour_ may be -- and then point a finger at anyone who supports the idea/position -- or even simply doesn't vehemently criticize it -- and accuse them of being a leftie/commie/etc. sympathizer, if not a straight out anti-American Enemy of the State. This kind of Witch Hunting-and-Burning logic (hmmm...the Church sponsored that kind of terrorist activity, along with the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc., didn't it?) seems to be a favored Right Wing approach to structuring argument (along with Flag Waving) designed to dissuade dissent. > I for certain did not like the Bush stand on stem-cell research, > nor do I like the Right Wing rabid types denying global warming, Hmmm...you probably've been drinking too much of that fluoridated water, dontcha think? > even though I am a dues-paying member of the Rush Limbaugh > for president movement. ;-) ;-) ;-) > I rest my case. ;P > >>> Why? - Because your fly-by-night competitive "regulated" >>> blood lab did not check you for rare blood types, and you >>> have the rare "Bombay phenotype" type of blood. >>> (there are about 200 rare blood types) >>> >> >> Ah! I see. Competition inevitably leads to >> "lowest-bidder-offering-poorest- >> quality-always-wins" economics. > > Right on, I have you pegged as a closet right-wingnut. > > ...but then, I am a closet left-wingnut, go figure. > Wrong on both counts. > > >> Sort of like allowing a government-sponsored insurance >> alternative, to stimulate competition and provide consumers >> some choice, will lead to Death Panels, right? > > Right on again, you frighten me. > Oh? Now you're in favor of a "Public Option?" > What _really_ frightens me is that once we go down the > socialist path, we will no longed have the power to return > to a capitalistic democracy, as per one of the definitions > in my Mac dictionary: > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > "socialism - (in Marxist theory) a transitional social > state between the overthrow of capitalism and the > realization of communism." > > "The term "socialism" has been used to describe > positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state > communism, and social democracy; however, it > necessarily implies an opposition to the > untrammeled workings of the economic market." > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Do we really want to abandon our capitalist > democracy which has led to our high standard > of living, and go down the path of a so-called > "social democracy" like most Europeans have? > > State dictated health care is certainly the first step > towards a socialist system, so we had better well > decide exactly what we want before we take that step. > > Mark- My God, Mark. Any public activity that the State gets involved with seems to generate an irrational fear in you that that it might push us into the Marxist Abyss that leads inexorably to our morphing into the Communist States of America. Do you have so little regard for our Capitalist Democracy -- so little belief in it as a way of life -- that you fear it's _that_ fragile? Tell me something else, Mark -- you never really commented on it when I mentioned it before -- why is that public safety (police, fire), and even public health (sanitation, food-and-drug safety), are activities that our state and federal governments can legitimately be involved with, without running the risk of plummeting our society into that Marxist Abyss, but health care is not? What allows public safety and public health to be considered "essential services" in a Capitalist Democracy, but not health care? Are there certain defining characteristics that apply and metrics we can use, or is it simply a matter of visceral wisdom, born of dogma and stoked by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck? -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8) |