[OT-ish] It's Spring, when a young man's thoughts turn to

You draw conclusions from three sentences. Typical arrogant moron.

Its a gamble. If I croak without getting ill, canada wins. If I get sick, and cost alot of money, I win. Canada is garanteed I'll spend money, I get security of healthcare.

Healthcare can easily wipeout a life savings in weeks in US. That is my motivation. I have 15 years till covered by US medicare.

Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.

Nothing special about Canuckistanis, or everyone would have gone there.

Yep, I thought he was even going to say the popular American chant - "Healthcare is for Commies!" Watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" and learn something, it will surprise you in places.

You're the arrogant asshole who wants someone else to pay for his medical care.

Either way, you win. Yep, typical leftist loon.

Not much of a life's savings. You really don't have enough money to retire. Forget Canuckistan, they wouldn't be impressed.

So, you'll go to Canuckistan and steal from them until you can steal from the US taxpayer. You are a real piece of work.

...and this has to do with your wish to steal from the Canuckistani taxpayer, how?

It seems you have a thing about their money.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now we know your IQ.

If you do not like canada's immigration policy ... protest.

While I file for residency.

I don't want to kill the whole thread - I want to kill a *branch* of the thread. This is what the "followup-to" header was invented for. The original thread was (somewhat) relevant to all three newsgroups, and thus cross-posted. A branch about countries' health services, or lack thereof, is only of interest in sci.electronics.design, so should have had a followup-to set.

I have no interest in Canada's immigration policy, idiot. I'm not the one who wants to screw their taxpayers.

Common leftist thief.

Then quit whining.

Throw one on the barbi for me ... or whatever it is you do up there.

Whining? I'm just showing you what a leftist thief you really are.

Up?

Its obvious he wants to scam them out of mental health care.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

I know you're an intensive user of medical services, and that you'd rather someone else paid for it. You might be surprised that in your case I agree. Yours is not the usual case though, and doesn't convince me to socialized medicine in general.

My main reservation is efficiency--our government isn't. It already spends as much to cover ~1/3rd of our population as other governments spend for universal care. If ours could do the same with the same money, heck, I think I'd be for it! "Go ahead, do it," I say. "You've already got the money, so get us the care. Put up or shut up."

But that's asking a lot from a government that's squandered all the rest of the dough they've collected, borrowed even more, and is obviously horrible with the healthcare money we give them.

I'm a doctor's kid. My dad saw poor people, cared for them, and was paid in apple pies and thank-you notes. My mom's a practicing nurse; I grew up in hospitals, debating treatments with Dad; I've dated and known ER & ICU nurses all my life. I've seen lots of poor people getting great, free care. And I've seen lots of not-sick people abusing the ER and ICU, taking advantage of them. Freeloaders.

At the moment I'm thinking that having people handle their small stuff directly, out their pockets, and having a socialized safety net for disasters might work. People don't fake cancer, for example, and aren't likely to abuse their visitation rights on spurious stuff. Spending their own money, they might not run to the ($$$) emergency room for a cold. Maybe. Dunno.

Personally, I'm in the throes of helping someone dear in a desperate life-and-death struggle, a crisis presently brought on by deficient healthcare. But, it's not money or healthcare per se that's to blame. The care is excellent, the problem is delay. Bureaucracy.

I read other countries' discussions & controversies, in their own forums, last night. ISTM they handle the small stuff pretty well, with quick appointments & care, but the big stuff was rationed; parceled out slowly.

This particular setup is very much like foreign services--geared toward servicing everyday things beautifully, but exceptions not so well. When leagues of specialists are needed to handle complex patients--like this one--communication fails, and delay is the result. Ironically, too many cooks, not too few. Bureaucracy kills. It has grievously harmed, and may yet kill this person, soon.

I can say this though--but for months of my and other interested outsiders' vigorous intervention this year, this battle would've been lost already. And we always have the option of going wherever we want, whenever we want, and fixing this situation, if need be, because there are still competing systems here in the US. That's a valuable option. I'd hate to lose it.

So, I'm skeptical of delays and rationing, and bureaucrats directing care, and that's my stake in it.

Cheers, James Arthur

Actually, I pay my own way. 100%. Always have. I've provided other posts (long ones) about my experiences negotiating -- which I do regularly.

You are on about something entirely different, as though it matters to what I'm talking about. It doesn't. You can talk about all the costs you want, it changes nothing. Other societies manage quite well to do this and at less cost per capita.

No child in the US should have to depend upon their parents' choices for their health care. You can blame parents for their circumstances, but you cannot blame their children. The wonderful fact is, it's possible to provide access to everyone and do it effectively. Part of the puzzle is removing insurance companies from the pie. I've watched as they raised rates to doctors for liability, then within two years jacked up rates they also charged to corporations for the rising health care costs that were, in part, being passed on by doctors paying those 10X rate hikes. Smiling all the way to the bank, too. For them, it's about handling money and taking a piece on every pathway taken.

Yeah. My family is also doctors and dentists, nurses, etc. My wife's grandpa would literally run from the office to help someone with a broken leg. Today, if you can't make it into the office on your own power, they won't lift a finger. Then, he also was paid in furnature, food, you name it. So I know at least a little what you are talking about.

Yeah. I've seen that, too. So you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? There are people who deserve fair medical treatment. And other countries which demonstrate that it is achievable on a society wide basis.

Frankly, I'm in agreement here. But perhaps that's because I've been self-employed all my life and paying all my own bills. I negotiate with the office personnel on every visit, except emergencies. These days, you have to. The charges they make include a huge fake amount just to cover themselves for what they know the insurance companies don't pay them (for the so-called 80% part.) Which, if I don't take the time to negotiate, means I wind up paying them a handsome extra dividend at a minimum.

I wish more people worried about when and if to take advantage of services. (Some aren't able to make those judgments, though. Not all are as smart about this as I am.)

I've looked for insurance that I could buy that provided only for the exceptional case in my life. In short, I wanted insurance which let me pay the first $10000 of any event. In other words, they stayed completely out of it, unless the event resulted in billings totalling more than $10k. Then I wanted them to step in for the rest. Up to some negotiable limit.

It doesn't exist. I looked. Hard. No one is selling it. At least, not to individuals.

Instead, they always want some part of the routine action. Which means all I do is pay them to pay someone else, and they take something from me for the privilege. And I didn't want that. And they wanted way too much, besides.

I'm still looking. If you find it, let me know.

I really think the reason is simple. They don't really want to be in the insurance business, medicine-wise, but in the money handling and negotiation business. They want to be in the middle of every single transaction and take a piece each and every moment. It pays their bills.

Frankly, I want them the hell out of that part of the business and get back to doing REAL insuring. As you mentioned and as I agree.

However, I stil stand on the fact that children are NOT responsible for their existence. They were hauled into this world without asking for it. No one can blame them. And they deserve access. Period. No questions. No ifs. No ands. No buts. No debate. Every child should have access, universally, to health care.

We can get into a debate about adults and their choices and whether or not they should only have access to exceptional circumstances and if they want something more they need to pay for it. There is lots of gray area in there. Some things you and I will agree about, some not. But I'll grant there is room for negotiation.

But not with children.

I understand. There needs to be something in the system so that people are encouraged to make wiser choices. There is no way that

300+ million people can be managed by some green-visor boys in a back room, and done well. Just like the free market system establishing, almost automatically, the fair price for a loaf of bread -- by choices each of us make from day to day, here and there, all the time -- so there needs to be something in the medical system that causes some "pain" if it is accessed so that people going after it are making those decisions on the ground, at the time. Each one of us filtering these decisions will help the whole system.

One possibility that crossed my mind is that we keep an insurance system that people pay into and when the bill arrives, they are allowed to simply let the green-visor boys use their rules and ways and means to pay whatever they pay and then each of us pays our part of what remains. Like what we already have, kind of, except that everyone must have reasonable access to the insurance program. (By reasonable, I mean that poorer people get it way less than cost.) But if any of us wants to negotiate with the hospital or the doctor for the amount, we are free to do so. And if we manage to reduce the charged amount, we get to pocket half of the savings. That will motivate folks to push on pricing -- something that is almost absent in the current system. (You and I both know that most people don't go in and negotiate prices. I do. But I know I'm unusual because the people I negotiate with tell me so. I posted some months back the fact that I got a $850 MRI done for $185, after talking to the billing centers, while waiting for the service!) But if people get something back for the trouble, some will do more of it. And it will put pressure on pricing, which is decidedly needed.

I was willing to pay out of pocket for my daughter. I couldn't find anyone who could do it sooner for any amount I could afford. (I didn't open a briefcase of a million dollars to see if that would help, I admit.) Delay, in this case, was due to too many people needing service, too many professionals needing to coordinate, and scarse metering of hospital privileges for dentists. Among other things. It wasn't about bureacracy, at all. And this is in the US. I simply had NO access. I had to go out of the US to get the work done, quickly. It was as simple as that.

This was big stuff for our family. Couldn't get it done, here. Had to go elsewhere. Much quicker, that way. And frankly just as good. I was an outsider, too.

I've not been exposed to what you are talking about here. My personal experiences differ profoundly with this claim. You may be right in some cases, but frankly my daughter's teeth being broken to the gum line is an emergency situation. And there is NO EXCUSE possible for a

10 month waiting period. None. It simply shouldn't be this way in the US. And I was paying the bills, too. Our system really sucks bad in some ways, James. Seriously bad.

I'm also skeptical. My take is simple.

Anything that isn't watched becomes a problem. It doesn't matter if it is publicly run or privately run. Every single activity that isn't monitored and watched like a hawk will go wrong, someday, sometime. There is no panacea of just saying "let private business do it" or saying "this is best handled as a public service." No matter what it is, if we aren't watching it, it will go wrong.

The banking system, of late, is a class example of an unwatched pot. But governments go awry. So do privately run businesses. They all go bad if we, as citizens, don't stay vigilent and watchful.

I'm skeptical of ANYTHING that isn't getting our collective attention. Turn your head away from something and someone will reach into the till. Private or public. The only solution is that all of us stay engaged, all the time, everywhere. It hurts, it drains our time, but that's the only solution. Everything unwatched will stab you in the back, someday. Because there are always people looking for some new scam, public or private.

I also don't know what the answer is, here. I think whatever it is, it will bear constant vigilence. However, one thing I'm certain about. Children have an absolute right to access to health care, without regard to their parents' circumstances. Adults we can debate about and try and design something that will encourage their vigilence in the system. I do feel that adults also have a right to health care access, though. Just that the lines drawn are negotiable and I agree that I'd like some way to encourage individuals to make rational decisions and not just go waste resources because it gets them a free coke to drink, for example (diabetes test?) If there is going to be something like that built it, it must be about money to make it personal. This means either there is a price to pay for each event (perhaps means tested) which puts some pressure on them or else provides some cash back for reducing costs to the system my active negotiation efforts. Or both.

My daughter's case, though, is inexcusable. Our system is very, very bad in this case. I cannot tell you what it put us through and for no good reason I can imagine, either. Luckily, other places in the world do a LOT BETTER at it, it seems. It's just very sad that I faced that kind of choice. We are better than this, James. I know we are.

Jon

You must be kidding. Life expectancy is *the* measure for effectiveness of health care, second only maybe to child mortality rate.

A bizar stand. US care is better because the economic system puts the population in health conditions nowhere to be seen elsewhere. Then gigantic expenses are due to overcome those uh.. "interesting" problems.

If you define healt care efficiency by something unrelated to my health, you're welcome. But you must not expect that I draw conclusions or act upon such theories.

For me health care is what results in healthy lives. In China, once doctors where paid for how healthy their patients were, not for treatments. How is that for a change?

Groetjes Albert

--

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Life expectancy, child mortality. Those figures stand little tampering. That is probably why you dislike them.

Groetjes Albert

--

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Too late. He already has a terminal case of weenieism.

Not seen it then? Ignorant child.

However, I stil stand on the fact that children are NOT responsible

=46ine, so set up a fund, gather support for it and provide it. Start small, prove it works, and has benefits, and build it.

WHY? Examine your presumptions and prejudices very carefully, Mr. "always paid as you went". Perhaps all we really need is killing enough lawyers and bean counters that want to prevent decent people of good conscience from helping others, doing so, so that government can intervene incompetently.

When

many

... snip about prepaid health care etc.

It takes very little to knock down your argument. Medicare. It is primarily concerned with the elderly, who get sick considerably more often than their juniors. Yet Medicare is highly efficient. If extended to the general population it would be even more so.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
            Try the download section.

It is an inescapable economic truth that any business or activity conducted at a given volume is less efficient when regulated than when unregulated, simply because the activity is required to pay for the bureaucratic layer.