Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:33:44 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
>> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
>> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
>
>How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
>magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?
It wouldn't. The point is that marriage is no longer held to be a
truly sacred institution by society any more. If it was, there
wouldn't be so much failure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
>> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
>> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
>
>How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
>magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?
It wouldn't. The point is that marriage is no longer held to be a
truly sacred institution by society any more. If it was, there
wouldn't be so much failure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#7132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:33:44 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
>> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
>> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
>
>How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
>magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?
It wouldn't. The point is that marriage is no longer held to be a
truly sacred institution by society any more. If it was, there
wouldn't be so much failure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Gay marriages wouldn't have gay divorces too?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point was that marriage is apparently something too
>> valuable to risk tampering with. At a 50% failure rate, society
>> apparently doesn't consider it to be that valuable anymore.
>
>How would introducing gay marriage improve said "failure" rate? What is the
>magic percentage needed to necessitate gay marriage?
It wouldn't. The point is that marriage is no longer held to be a
truly sacred institution by society any more. If it was, there
wouldn't be so much failure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
#7133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:<3FD260E0.A63695A4@greg.greg>...
> z wrote:
>
> > Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> > HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> > you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> > profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> > factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> > know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> > money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> > their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> > of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> > accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> > a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> > the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> > charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> > for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> > discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> > see on your hospital bill?)
> > Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> > and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> > satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> > members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> > nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> > healthcare.
>
> Don't be so sure.
>
> " Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of health care, pays hospitals and doctors
> a fixed sum to treat a specific diagnosis or perform a given procedure, regardless of
> the quality of care they provide.
Yes, a policy which was rapidly adopted by all medical insurers. Look
up 'Diagnosis Related Groups', 'Groupers', and 'Risk Adjustment'.
> Those who work to improve care are not paid extra,
> and poor care is frequently rewarded, because it creates the need for more procedures
> and services."
That has been a valid criticism of the way we do medical care since
the beginning: 'Doctors only get paid when you get sick, not when you
stay healthy'. All the more reason to prefer systems like Canada,
which use reimbursement rates to push cheap routine primary care (i.e.
vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, prompt and cheap treatments for
problems in their early and mild stages) over the American system,
which steers physicians to expensive glamorous secondary and tertiary
care (specialists and hospitalization); with obvious success in terms
of reduced rates of disease and death.
> . . .
> " "Right now, Medicare's payment system is at best neutral and, in some cases,
> negative, in terms of quality ? we think that is an untenable situation," said Glenn
> M. Hackbarth, the chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent
> panel of economists, health care executives and doctors that advises Congress on such
> issues as access to care, quality and what to pay health care providers." New York
> Times 5 Dec 2003 Friday Section A; Page 1; Column 1
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y1t7 [NY Times, no registration needed]
All quite true, but the piece you omit is that private healthcare
plans have even less of a clue about how to measure quality, as
distinct from disease severity and patient mix, and what to do about
it. In fact, it's usually Medicare that leads the industry in things
like reimbursement strategies (see reference to DRGs, above), and
quality vs risk adjustment, and the private health plans that follow
where Medicare has broken new ice. It's hard to swallow the argument
that a single payer national healthcare plan will eliminate medical
research, when in fact all the medical policy research for decades has
been done by Medicare. Similarly, an explicit aim of Medicare had been
to funnel funds to those institutions of medical research and
education which therefore had higher costs for treatment. Private
plans decided quite a while back that they could save money by sending
patients to hospitals which did not have these expenses. And now that
the 'Tax Cuts Uber Alles!' folks have gotten their way, Medicare has
followed suit, so prepare to enjoy the fruits of massive cutbacks in
medical research and education, after the few years it takes for the
effects to travel down the pipelines.
Of course, I repeat, the one area in all these international
comparisons of outcomes where American medicine is at or near the top
in quality is in medical care for the elderly, especially the extreme
elderly, who are all covered by Medicare, the same state-sponsored
plan which you are referring to above.
For all those Americans under age 65, none of whom have Medicare, the
quality of their medical care compares with the worst in the
industrialized world.
>
> (According to Lloyd, the NY Times would be a right wing rag, I'm sure, lol).
>
> Despite the problems, some don't want them fixed:
> "Keep Your Hands Off Our Medicare!" -Senator Ted Kennedy (D, Mass)
>
> >
> > > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> > > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> > > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > > >
> > > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> > > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > > >in the USA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> > > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> > >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> > >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> > >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
> >
> > Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> > The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> > such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> > care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> > and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
>
> > of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> > deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> > not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> > quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> > to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> > most appropriate care, regardless of price.
>
> Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (greater than US per capita),
> but its smoking related diseases are lower than the US. So there are other factors
> involved.
Yeah, like better medical care.
>The US leads the world in obesity, a country where even poor people
have so
> much to eat that they are overweight. Lack of exercise is also a major concern.
> Fortunately both of these are personal lifestye choices for all of us that are
> physically capable to do so.
How would the cheap and easy availability of food in America relate to
the fact that America has rates of low birthweight and infant
mortality that look like what you'd find in Bangladesh? Other factors
involved, like lack of prenatal medical care for pregnant women?
Do you think folks in Canada, for instance, are going hungry? They
have Macdonald's and Burger King up there too, not to mention Tim
Horton's Donuts. However, they do have more primary doctors bugging
the people at every visit to eat right and exercise and keeping tabs
on them when they start to enter the danger zone, and make it
easier/cheaper for everyone to get annual checkups, instead of letting
the "poor people who have so much to eat that they are overweight" but
can't afford medical care just deteriorate until they hit the
emergency rooms needing massive, expensive, and continual care for the
rest of their lives.
>
> > But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> > you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> > average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> > belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> > consider?
>
> I know that the care I have received has been excellent and have no problems to
> report. When my father needed care, his HMO provided him with a superior heart
> procedure at a Boston hospital that was invented there.
You do realize that that tells you absolutely nothing about how US
care compares to care anywhere else, don't you? When my father needed
care, Canada flew him to Toronto where he got excellent care from one
of the world's best cardiac surgeons, who has refused several offers
to go to the US and make more money because he's not exactly hurting
for money, even under the Canadian payment schedule, because he feels
he can help more people in Canada rather than just the subset of those
who can afford it in the US, and because he feels that the Canadian
system is less restrictive than American insurers on his ability to
innovate and improve procedures, enabling cardiac patients from all
over the world (including Americans) to sponge off the benefits of
research paid for by the Canadian system.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=( david%20te%5Bau%5D%20AND%20notpubref%5Bsb%5D)>
> z wrote:
>
> > Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> > HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> > you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> > profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> > factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> > know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> > money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> > their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> > of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> > accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> > a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> > the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> > charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> > for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> > discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> > see on your hospital bill?)
> > Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> > and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> > satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> > members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> > nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> > healthcare.
>
> Don't be so sure.
>
> " Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of health care, pays hospitals and doctors
> a fixed sum to treat a specific diagnosis or perform a given procedure, regardless of
> the quality of care they provide.
Yes, a policy which was rapidly adopted by all medical insurers. Look
up 'Diagnosis Related Groups', 'Groupers', and 'Risk Adjustment'.
> Those who work to improve care are not paid extra,
> and poor care is frequently rewarded, because it creates the need for more procedures
> and services."
That has been a valid criticism of the way we do medical care since
the beginning: 'Doctors only get paid when you get sick, not when you
stay healthy'. All the more reason to prefer systems like Canada,
which use reimbursement rates to push cheap routine primary care (i.e.
vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, prompt and cheap treatments for
problems in their early and mild stages) over the American system,
which steers physicians to expensive glamorous secondary and tertiary
care (specialists and hospitalization); with obvious success in terms
of reduced rates of disease and death.
> . . .
> " "Right now, Medicare's payment system is at best neutral and, in some cases,
> negative, in terms of quality ? we think that is an untenable situation," said Glenn
> M. Hackbarth, the chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent
> panel of economists, health care executives and doctors that advises Congress on such
> issues as access to care, quality and what to pay health care providers." New York
> Times 5 Dec 2003 Friday Section A; Page 1; Column 1
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y1t7 [NY Times, no registration needed]
All quite true, but the piece you omit is that private healthcare
plans have even less of a clue about how to measure quality, as
distinct from disease severity and patient mix, and what to do about
it. In fact, it's usually Medicare that leads the industry in things
like reimbursement strategies (see reference to DRGs, above), and
quality vs risk adjustment, and the private health plans that follow
where Medicare has broken new ice. It's hard to swallow the argument
that a single payer national healthcare plan will eliminate medical
research, when in fact all the medical policy research for decades has
been done by Medicare. Similarly, an explicit aim of Medicare had been
to funnel funds to those institutions of medical research and
education which therefore had higher costs for treatment. Private
plans decided quite a while back that they could save money by sending
patients to hospitals which did not have these expenses. And now that
the 'Tax Cuts Uber Alles!' folks have gotten their way, Medicare has
followed suit, so prepare to enjoy the fruits of massive cutbacks in
medical research and education, after the few years it takes for the
effects to travel down the pipelines.
Of course, I repeat, the one area in all these international
comparisons of outcomes where American medicine is at or near the top
in quality is in medical care for the elderly, especially the extreme
elderly, who are all covered by Medicare, the same state-sponsored
plan which you are referring to above.
For all those Americans under age 65, none of whom have Medicare, the
quality of their medical care compares with the worst in the
industrialized world.
>
> (According to Lloyd, the NY Times would be a right wing rag, I'm sure, lol).
>
> Despite the problems, some don't want them fixed:
> "Keep Your Hands Off Our Medicare!" -Senator Ted Kennedy (D, Mass)
>
> >
> > > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> > > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> > > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > > >
> > > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> > > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > > >in the USA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> > > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> > >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> > >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> > >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
> >
> > Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> > The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> > such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> > care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> > and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
>
> > of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> > deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> > not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> > quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> > to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> > most appropriate care, regardless of price.
>
> Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (greater than US per capita),
> but its smoking related diseases are lower than the US. So there are other factors
> involved.
Yeah, like better medical care.
>The US leads the world in obesity, a country where even poor people
have so
> much to eat that they are overweight. Lack of exercise is also a major concern.
> Fortunately both of these are personal lifestye choices for all of us that are
> physically capable to do so.
How would the cheap and easy availability of food in America relate to
the fact that America has rates of low birthweight and infant
mortality that look like what you'd find in Bangladesh? Other factors
involved, like lack of prenatal medical care for pregnant women?
Do you think folks in Canada, for instance, are going hungry? They
have Macdonald's and Burger King up there too, not to mention Tim
Horton's Donuts. However, they do have more primary doctors bugging
the people at every visit to eat right and exercise and keeping tabs
on them when they start to enter the danger zone, and make it
easier/cheaper for everyone to get annual checkups, instead of letting
the "poor people who have so much to eat that they are overweight" but
can't afford medical care just deteriorate until they hit the
emergency rooms needing massive, expensive, and continual care for the
rest of their lives.
>
> > But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> > you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> > average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> > belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> > consider?
>
> I know that the care I have received has been excellent and have no problems to
> report. When my father needed care, his HMO provided him with a superior heart
> procedure at a Boston hospital that was invented there.
You do realize that that tells you absolutely nothing about how US
care compares to care anywhere else, don't you? When my father needed
care, Canada flew him to Toronto where he got excellent care from one
of the world's best cardiac surgeons, who has refused several offers
to go to the US and make more money because he's not exactly hurting
for money, even under the Canadian payment schedule, because he feels
he can help more people in Canada rather than just the subset of those
who can afford it in the US, and because he feels that the Canadian
system is less restrictive than American insurers on his ability to
innovate and improve procedures, enabling cardiac patients from all
over the world (including Americans) to sponge off the benefits of
research paid for by the Canadian system.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=( david%20te%5Bau%5D%20AND%20notpubref%5Bsb%5D)>
#7134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:<3FD260E0.A63695A4@greg.greg>...
> z wrote:
>
> > Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> > HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> > you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> > profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> > factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> > know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> > money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> > their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> > of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> > accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> > a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> > the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> > charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> > for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> > discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> > see on your hospital bill?)
> > Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> > and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> > satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> > members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> > nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> > healthcare.
>
> Don't be so sure.
>
> " Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of health care, pays hospitals and doctors
> a fixed sum to treat a specific diagnosis or perform a given procedure, regardless of
> the quality of care they provide.
Yes, a policy which was rapidly adopted by all medical insurers. Look
up 'Diagnosis Related Groups', 'Groupers', and 'Risk Adjustment'.
> Those who work to improve care are not paid extra,
> and poor care is frequently rewarded, because it creates the need for more procedures
> and services."
That has been a valid criticism of the way we do medical care since
the beginning: 'Doctors only get paid when you get sick, not when you
stay healthy'. All the more reason to prefer systems like Canada,
which use reimbursement rates to push cheap routine primary care (i.e.
vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, prompt and cheap treatments for
problems in their early and mild stages) over the American system,
which steers physicians to expensive glamorous secondary and tertiary
care (specialists and hospitalization); with obvious success in terms
of reduced rates of disease and death.
> . . .
> " "Right now, Medicare's payment system is at best neutral and, in some cases,
> negative, in terms of quality ? we think that is an untenable situation," said Glenn
> M. Hackbarth, the chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent
> panel of economists, health care executives and doctors that advises Congress on such
> issues as access to care, quality and what to pay health care providers." New York
> Times 5 Dec 2003 Friday Section A; Page 1; Column 1
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y1t7 [NY Times, no registration needed]
All quite true, but the piece you omit is that private healthcare
plans have even less of a clue about how to measure quality, as
distinct from disease severity and patient mix, and what to do about
it. In fact, it's usually Medicare that leads the industry in things
like reimbursement strategies (see reference to DRGs, above), and
quality vs risk adjustment, and the private health plans that follow
where Medicare has broken new ice. It's hard to swallow the argument
that a single payer national healthcare plan will eliminate medical
research, when in fact all the medical policy research for decades has
been done by Medicare. Similarly, an explicit aim of Medicare had been
to funnel funds to those institutions of medical research and
education which therefore had higher costs for treatment. Private
plans decided quite a while back that they could save money by sending
patients to hospitals which did not have these expenses. And now that
the 'Tax Cuts Uber Alles!' folks have gotten their way, Medicare has
followed suit, so prepare to enjoy the fruits of massive cutbacks in
medical research and education, after the few years it takes for the
effects to travel down the pipelines.
Of course, I repeat, the one area in all these international
comparisons of outcomes where American medicine is at or near the top
in quality is in medical care for the elderly, especially the extreme
elderly, who are all covered by Medicare, the same state-sponsored
plan which you are referring to above.
For all those Americans under age 65, none of whom have Medicare, the
quality of their medical care compares with the worst in the
industrialized world.
>
> (According to Lloyd, the NY Times would be a right wing rag, I'm sure, lol).
>
> Despite the problems, some don't want them fixed:
> "Keep Your Hands Off Our Medicare!" -Senator Ted Kennedy (D, Mass)
>
> >
> > > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> > > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> > > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > > >
> > > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> > > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > > >in the USA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> > > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> > >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> > >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> > >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
> >
> > Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> > The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> > such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> > care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> > and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
>
> > of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> > deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> > not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> > quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> > to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> > most appropriate care, regardless of price.
>
> Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (greater than US per capita),
> but its smoking related diseases are lower than the US. So there are other factors
> involved.
Yeah, like better medical care.
>The US leads the world in obesity, a country where even poor people
have so
> much to eat that they are overweight. Lack of exercise is also a major concern.
> Fortunately both of these are personal lifestye choices for all of us that are
> physically capable to do so.
How would the cheap and easy availability of food in America relate to
the fact that America has rates of low birthweight and infant
mortality that look like what you'd find in Bangladesh? Other factors
involved, like lack of prenatal medical care for pregnant women?
Do you think folks in Canada, for instance, are going hungry? They
have Macdonald's and Burger King up there too, not to mention Tim
Horton's Donuts. However, they do have more primary doctors bugging
the people at every visit to eat right and exercise and keeping tabs
on them when they start to enter the danger zone, and make it
easier/cheaper for everyone to get annual checkups, instead of letting
the "poor people who have so much to eat that they are overweight" but
can't afford medical care just deteriorate until they hit the
emergency rooms needing massive, expensive, and continual care for the
rest of their lives.
>
> > But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> > you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> > average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> > belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> > consider?
>
> I know that the care I have received has been excellent and have no problems to
> report. When my father needed care, his HMO provided him with a superior heart
> procedure at a Boston hospital that was invented there.
You do realize that that tells you absolutely nothing about how US
care compares to care anywhere else, don't you? When my father needed
care, Canada flew him to Toronto where he got excellent care from one
of the world's best cardiac surgeons, who has refused several offers
to go to the US and make more money because he's not exactly hurting
for money, even under the Canadian payment schedule, because he feels
he can help more people in Canada rather than just the subset of those
who can afford it in the US, and because he feels that the Canadian
system is less restrictive than American insurers on his ability to
innovate and improve procedures, enabling cardiac patients from all
over the world (including Americans) to sponge off the benefits of
research paid for by the Canadian system.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=( david%20te%5Bau%5D%20AND%20notpubref%5Bsb%5D)>
> z wrote:
>
> > Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> > HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> > you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> > profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> > factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> > know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> > money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> > their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> > of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> > accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> > a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> > the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> > charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> > for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> > discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> > see on your hospital bill?)
> > Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> > and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> > satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> > members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> > nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> > healthcare.
>
> Don't be so sure.
>
> " Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of health care, pays hospitals and doctors
> a fixed sum to treat a specific diagnosis or perform a given procedure, regardless of
> the quality of care they provide.
Yes, a policy which was rapidly adopted by all medical insurers. Look
up 'Diagnosis Related Groups', 'Groupers', and 'Risk Adjustment'.
> Those who work to improve care are not paid extra,
> and poor care is frequently rewarded, because it creates the need for more procedures
> and services."
That has been a valid criticism of the way we do medical care since
the beginning: 'Doctors only get paid when you get sick, not when you
stay healthy'. All the more reason to prefer systems like Canada,
which use reimbursement rates to push cheap routine primary care (i.e.
vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, prompt and cheap treatments for
problems in their early and mild stages) over the American system,
which steers physicians to expensive glamorous secondary and tertiary
care (specialists and hospitalization); with obvious success in terms
of reduced rates of disease and death.
> . . .
> " "Right now, Medicare's payment system is at best neutral and, in some cases,
> negative, in terms of quality ? we think that is an untenable situation," said Glenn
> M. Hackbarth, the chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent
> panel of economists, health care executives and doctors that advises Congress on such
> issues as access to care, quality and what to pay health care providers." New York
> Times 5 Dec 2003 Friday Section A; Page 1; Column 1
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y1t7 [NY Times, no registration needed]
All quite true, but the piece you omit is that private healthcare
plans have even less of a clue about how to measure quality, as
distinct from disease severity and patient mix, and what to do about
it. In fact, it's usually Medicare that leads the industry in things
like reimbursement strategies (see reference to DRGs, above), and
quality vs risk adjustment, and the private health plans that follow
where Medicare has broken new ice. It's hard to swallow the argument
that a single payer national healthcare plan will eliminate medical
research, when in fact all the medical policy research for decades has
been done by Medicare. Similarly, an explicit aim of Medicare had been
to funnel funds to those institutions of medical research and
education which therefore had higher costs for treatment. Private
plans decided quite a while back that they could save money by sending
patients to hospitals which did not have these expenses. And now that
the 'Tax Cuts Uber Alles!' folks have gotten their way, Medicare has
followed suit, so prepare to enjoy the fruits of massive cutbacks in
medical research and education, after the few years it takes for the
effects to travel down the pipelines.
Of course, I repeat, the one area in all these international
comparisons of outcomes where American medicine is at or near the top
in quality is in medical care for the elderly, especially the extreme
elderly, who are all covered by Medicare, the same state-sponsored
plan which you are referring to above.
For all those Americans under age 65, none of whom have Medicare, the
quality of their medical care compares with the worst in the
industrialized world.
>
> (According to Lloyd, the NY Times would be a right wing rag, I'm sure, lol).
>
> Despite the problems, some don't want them fixed:
> "Keep Your Hands Off Our Medicare!" -Senator Ted Kennedy (D, Mass)
>
> >
> > > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> > > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> > > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > > >
> > > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> > > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > > >in the USA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> > > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> > >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> > >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> > >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
> >
> > Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> > The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> > such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> > care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> > and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
>
> > of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> > deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> > not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> > quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> > to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> > most appropriate care, regardless of price.
>
> Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (greater than US per capita),
> but its smoking related diseases are lower than the US. So there are other factors
> involved.
Yeah, like better medical care.
>The US leads the world in obesity, a country where even poor people
have so
> much to eat that they are overweight. Lack of exercise is also a major concern.
> Fortunately both of these are personal lifestye choices for all of us that are
> physically capable to do so.
How would the cheap and easy availability of food in America relate to
the fact that America has rates of low birthweight and infant
mortality that look like what you'd find in Bangladesh? Other factors
involved, like lack of prenatal medical care for pregnant women?
Do you think folks in Canada, for instance, are going hungry? They
have Macdonald's and Burger King up there too, not to mention Tim
Horton's Donuts. However, they do have more primary doctors bugging
the people at every visit to eat right and exercise and keeping tabs
on them when they start to enter the danger zone, and make it
easier/cheaper for everyone to get annual checkups, instead of letting
the "poor people who have so much to eat that they are overweight" but
can't afford medical care just deteriorate until they hit the
emergency rooms needing massive, expensive, and continual care for the
rest of their lives.
>
> > But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> > you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> > average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> > belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> > consider?
>
> I know that the care I have received has been excellent and have no problems to
> report. When my father needed care, his HMO provided him with a superior heart
> procedure at a Boston hospital that was invented there.
You do realize that that tells you absolutely nothing about how US
care compares to care anywhere else, don't you? When my father needed
care, Canada flew him to Toronto where he got excellent care from one
of the world's best cardiac surgeons, who has refused several offers
to go to the US and make more money because he's not exactly hurting
for money, even under the Canadian payment schedule, because he feels
he can help more people in Canada rather than just the subset of those
who can afford it in the US, and because he feels that the Canadian
system is less restrictive than American insurers on his ability to
innovate and improve procedures, enabling cardiac patients from all
over the world (including Americans) to sponge off the benefits of
research paid for by the Canadian system.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=( david%20te%5Bau%5D%20AND%20notpubref%5Bsb%5D)>
#7135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:<3FD260E0.A63695A4@greg.greg>...
> z wrote:
>
> > Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> > HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> > you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> > profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> > factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> > know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> > money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> > their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> > of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> > accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> > a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> > the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> > charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> > for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> > discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> > see on your hospital bill?)
> > Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> > and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> > satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> > members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> > nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> > healthcare.
>
> Don't be so sure.
>
> " Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of health care, pays hospitals and doctors
> a fixed sum to treat a specific diagnosis or perform a given procedure, regardless of
> the quality of care they provide.
Yes, a policy which was rapidly adopted by all medical insurers. Look
up 'Diagnosis Related Groups', 'Groupers', and 'Risk Adjustment'.
> Those who work to improve care are not paid extra,
> and poor care is frequently rewarded, because it creates the need for more procedures
> and services."
That has been a valid criticism of the way we do medical care since
the beginning: 'Doctors only get paid when you get sick, not when you
stay healthy'. All the more reason to prefer systems like Canada,
which use reimbursement rates to push cheap routine primary care (i.e.
vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, prompt and cheap treatments for
problems in their early and mild stages) over the American system,
which steers physicians to expensive glamorous secondary and tertiary
care (specialists and hospitalization); with obvious success in terms
of reduced rates of disease and death.
> . . .
> " "Right now, Medicare's payment system is at best neutral and, in some cases,
> negative, in terms of quality ? we think that is an untenable situation," said Glenn
> M. Hackbarth, the chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent
> panel of economists, health care executives and doctors that advises Congress on such
> issues as access to care, quality and what to pay health care providers." New York
> Times 5 Dec 2003 Friday Section A; Page 1; Column 1
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y1t7 [NY Times, no registration needed]
All quite true, but the piece you omit is that private healthcare
plans have even less of a clue about how to measure quality, as
distinct from disease severity and patient mix, and what to do about
it. In fact, it's usually Medicare that leads the industry in things
like reimbursement strategies (see reference to DRGs, above), and
quality vs risk adjustment, and the private health plans that follow
where Medicare has broken new ice. It's hard to swallow the argument
that a single payer national healthcare plan will eliminate medical
research, when in fact all the medical policy research for decades has
been done by Medicare. Similarly, an explicit aim of Medicare had been
to funnel funds to those institutions of medical research and
education which therefore had higher costs for treatment. Private
plans decided quite a while back that they could save money by sending
patients to hospitals which did not have these expenses. And now that
the 'Tax Cuts Uber Alles!' folks have gotten their way, Medicare has
followed suit, so prepare to enjoy the fruits of massive cutbacks in
medical research and education, after the few years it takes for the
effects to travel down the pipelines.
Of course, I repeat, the one area in all these international
comparisons of outcomes where American medicine is at or near the top
in quality is in medical care for the elderly, especially the extreme
elderly, who are all covered by Medicare, the same state-sponsored
plan which you are referring to above.
For all those Americans under age 65, none of whom have Medicare, the
quality of their medical care compares with the worst in the
industrialized world.
>
> (According to Lloyd, the NY Times would be a right wing rag, I'm sure, lol).
>
> Despite the problems, some don't want them fixed:
> "Keep Your Hands Off Our Medicare!" -Senator Ted Kennedy (D, Mass)
>
> >
> > > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> > > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> > > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > > >
> > > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> > > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > > >in the USA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> > > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> > >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> > >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> > >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
> >
> > Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> > The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> > such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> > care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> > and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
>
> > of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> > deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> > not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> > quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> > to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> > most appropriate care, regardless of price.
>
> Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (greater than US per capita),
> but its smoking related diseases are lower than the US. So there are other factors
> involved.
Yeah, like better medical care.
>The US leads the world in obesity, a country where even poor people
have so
> much to eat that they are overweight. Lack of exercise is also a major concern.
> Fortunately both of these are personal lifestye choices for all of us that are
> physically capable to do so.
How would the cheap and easy availability of food in America relate to
the fact that America has rates of low birthweight and infant
mortality that look like what you'd find in Bangladesh? Other factors
involved, like lack of prenatal medical care for pregnant women?
Do you think folks in Canada, for instance, are going hungry? They
have Macdonald's and Burger King up there too, not to mention Tim
Horton's Donuts. However, they do have more primary doctors bugging
the people at every visit to eat right and exercise and keeping tabs
on them when they start to enter the danger zone, and make it
easier/cheaper for everyone to get annual checkups, instead of letting
the "poor people who have so much to eat that they are overweight" but
can't afford medical care just deteriorate until they hit the
emergency rooms needing massive, expensive, and continual care for the
rest of their lives.
>
> > But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> > you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> > average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> > belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> > consider?
>
> I know that the care I have received has been excellent and have no problems to
> report. When my father needed care, his HMO provided him with a superior heart
> procedure at a Boston hospital that was invented there.
You do realize that that tells you absolutely nothing about how US
care compares to care anywhere else, don't you? When my father needed
care, Canada flew him to Toronto where he got excellent care from one
of the world's best cardiac surgeons, who has refused several offers
to go to the US and make more money because he's not exactly hurting
for money, even under the Canadian payment schedule, because he feels
he can help more people in Canada rather than just the subset of those
who can afford it in the US, and because he feels that the Canadian
system is less restrictive than American insurers on his ability to
innovate and improve procedures, enabling cardiac patients from all
over the world (including Americans) to sponge off the benefits of
research paid for by the Canadian system.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=( david%20te%5Bau%5D%20AND%20notpubref%5Bsb%5D)>
> z wrote:
>
> > Because there are no expenses for HMO marketing, competing redundant
> > HMO bureaucracies (if you think the government bureaucracy is bad
> > you're not familiar with HMOs), huge executive salaries, dividends and
> > profits for shareholders, money to cover investment losses (a big
> > factor in the current sudden rise in insurance costs, or didn't you
> > know that that's what insurance companies and HMOs do with your
> > money?); because providers don't have to spend significant chunks of
> > their highly expensive time filling out various and sundry varieties
> > of reimbursement forms; because there are no random deliberate or
> > accidental routine nonpayments of bills that should be paid, requiring
> > a repeat of the reimbursement process; because a huge health plan has
> > the market muscle to wrestle low charges from providers, who then
> > charge correspondingly more for smaller plans and charge the maximum
> > for individuals paying out of pocket. (Or did you have no idea the
> > discount your health plan, if you have one, gets from the amount you
> > see on your hospital bill?)
> > Of course, that explains why Medicare gets the lowest rates in the US,
> > and is one of the most successful plans in terms of patient
> > satisfaction, as well as being the only health plan in the US whose
> > members get care that's at or near the top rank of the industrialized
> > nations. Ironic, because of course it is, of course, state-run
> > healthcare.
>
> Don't be so sure.
>
> " Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of health care, pays hospitals and doctors
> a fixed sum to treat a specific diagnosis or perform a given procedure, regardless of
> the quality of care they provide.
Yes, a policy which was rapidly adopted by all medical insurers. Look
up 'Diagnosis Related Groups', 'Groupers', and 'Risk Adjustment'.
> Those who work to improve care are not paid extra,
> and poor care is frequently rewarded, because it creates the need for more procedures
> and services."
That has been a valid criticism of the way we do medical care since
the beginning: 'Doctors only get paid when you get sick, not when you
stay healthy'. All the more reason to prefer systems like Canada,
which use reimbursement rates to push cheap routine primary care (i.e.
vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, prompt and cheap treatments for
problems in their early and mild stages) over the American system,
which steers physicians to expensive glamorous secondary and tertiary
care (specialists and hospitalization); with obvious success in terms
of reduced rates of disease and death.
> . . .
> " "Right now, Medicare's payment system is at best neutral and, in some cases,
> negative, in terms of quality ? we think that is an untenable situation," said Glenn
> M. Hackbarth, the chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent
> panel of economists, health care executives and doctors that advises Congress on such
> issues as access to care, quality and what to pay health care providers." New York
> Times 5 Dec 2003 Friday Section A; Page 1; Column 1
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y1t7 [NY Times, no registration needed]
All quite true, but the piece you omit is that private healthcare
plans have even less of a clue about how to measure quality, as
distinct from disease severity and patient mix, and what to do about
it. In fact, it's usually Medicare that leads the industry in things
like reimbursement strategies (see reference to DRGs, above), and
quality vs risk adjustment, and the private health plans that follow
where Medicare has broken new ice. It's hard to swallow the argument
that a single payer national healthcare plan will eliminate medical
research, when in fact all the medical policy research for decades has
been done by Medicare. Similarly, an explicit aim of Medicare had been
to funnel funds to those institutions of medical research and
education which therefore had higher costs for treatment. Private
plans decided quite a while back that they could save money by sending
patients to hospitals which did not have these expenses. And now that
the 'Tax Cuts Uber Alles!' folks have gotten their way, Medicare has
followed suit, so prepare to enjoy the fruits of massive cutbacks in
medical research and education, after the few years it takes for the
effects to travel down the pipelines.
Of course, I repeat, the one area in all these international
comparisons of outcomes where American medicine is at or near the top
in quality is in medical care for the elderly, especially the extreme
elderly, who are all covered by Medicare, the same state-sponsored
plan which you are referring to above.
For all those Americans under age 65, none of whom have Medicare, the
quality of their medical care compares with the worst in the
industrialized world.
>
> (According to Lloyd, the NY Times would be a right wing rag, I'm sure, lol).
>
> Despite the problems, some don't want them fixed:
> "Keep Your Hands Off Our Medicare!" -Senator Ted Kennedy (D, Mass)
>
> >
> > > >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> > > >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> > > >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> > > >
> > > >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
> > > >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> > > >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> > > >in the USA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> > > Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
> > >And naturally this has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle, food
> choices,
> > >relative scarcity of obesity, and regular excercise as part of the
> daily
> > >routine. Nope, it must only because of state run health care.
> >
> > Well, yeah, good to see it's dawning on you.
> > The famous JAMA 7/26/2000 paper points out that the US doesn't have
> > such bad habits as to put it at the bottom of the barrel for health
> > care outcomes; we're the 5th best and 3rd best for smoking for females
> > and males, 5th best for alcohol consumption, fifth best in consumption
>
> > of animal fats and third best for cholesterol level, for instance. And
> > deaths from unnatural causes, like getting shot or car accidents, are
> > not included. So, if we rank at the bottom of healthcare measures of
> > quality without ranking at the bottom for lifestyle causes, it's hard
> > to escape the implication that we are just not getting the best or
> > most appropriate care, regardless of price.
>
> Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (greater than US per capita),
> but its smoking related diseases are lower than the US. So there are other factors
> involved.
Yeah, like better medical care.
>The US leads the world in obesity, a country where even poor people
have so
> much to eat that they are overweight. Lack of exercise is also a major concern.
> Fortunately both of these are personal lifestye choices for all of us that are
> physically capable to do so.
How would the cheap and easy availability of food in America relate to
the fact that America has rates of low birthweight and infant
mortality that look like what you'd find in Bangladesh? Other factors
involved, like lack of prenatal medical care for pregnant women?
Do you think folks in Canada, for instance, are going hungry? They
have Macdonald's and Burger King up there too, not to mention Tim
Horton's Donuts. However, they do have more primary doctors bugging
the people at every visit to eat right and exercise and keeping tabs
on them when they start to enter the danger zone, and make it
easier/cheaper for everyone to get annual checkups, instead of letting
the "poor people who have so much to eat that they are overweight" but
can't afford medical care just deteriorate until they hit the
emergency rooms needing massive, expensive, and continual care for the
rest of their lives.
>
> > But enough about me and what I know; what evidence do you have that
> > you are getting the best care in the industrialized world, or even
> > average care for the industrialized world, other than your deep-seated
> > belief that anything else would be just too unthinkable to even
> > consider?
>
> I know that the care I have received has been excellent and have no problems to
> report. When my father needed care, his HMO provided him with a superior heart
> procedure at a Boston hospital that was invented there.
You do realize that that tells you absolutely nothing about how US
care compares to care anywhere else, don't you? When my father needed
care, Canada flew him to Toronto where he got excellent care from one
of the world's best cardiac surgeons, who has refused several offers
to go to the US and make more money because he's not exactly hurting
for money, even under the Canadian payment schedule, because he feels
he can help more people in Canada rather than just the subset of those
who can afford it in the US, and because he feels that the Canadian
system is less restrictive than American insurers on his ability to
innovate and improve procedures, enabling cardiac patients from all
over the world (including Americans) to sponge off the benefits of
research paid for by the Canadian system.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=( david%20te%5Bau%5D%20AND%20notpubref%5Bsb%5D)>
#7136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"George" <no.spam@no.spam.either.net> wrote in message news:<PVvAb.7302$5g.3781@okepread04>...
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
Not familiar with the concept of a 'thread', are you?
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
Not familiar with the concept of a 'thread', are you?
#7137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"George" <no.spam@no.spam.either.net> wrote in message news:<PVvAb.7302$5g.3781@okepread04>...
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
Not familiar with the concept of a 'thread', are you?
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
Not familiar with the concept of a 'thread', are you?
#7138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"George" <no.spam@no.spam.either.net> wrote in message news:<PVvAb.7302$5g.3781@okepread04>...
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
Not familiar with the concept of a 'thread', are you?
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
Not familiar with the concept of a 'thread', are you?
#7139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:<3FD16141.AA7C7E88@greg.greg>...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >
> > How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance? He
> > wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.
>
> Only in LloydLand. Medicare, Medicaid, and state medical assistance in the USA
> pays for such services every day. Many hospitals and their doctors operate free
> clinics for low income patients in addition to this.
And you think that this care is somehow 'free'? Talk about
fantasyland. You think that the large cost of the emergency C-section
for the pregnant woman who can't afford to see an obstretician or get
prenatal vitamins aren't a cause of the average American paying twice
as much total for healthcare as the average Canadian, so it must all
be because American medical care is twice as good?
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >
> > How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance? He
> > wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.
>
> Only in LloydLand. Medicare, Medicaid, and state medical assistance in the USA
> pays for such services every day. Many hospitals and their doctors operate free
> clinics for low income patients in addition to this.
And you think that this care is somehow 'free'? Talk about
fantasyland. You think that the large cost of the emergency C-section
for the pregnant woman who can't afford to see an obstretician or get
prenatal vitamins aren't a cause of the average American paying twice
as much total for healthcare as the average Canadian, so it must all
be because American medical care is twice as good?
#7140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:<3FD16141.AA7C7E88@greg.greg>...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >
> > How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance? He
> > wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.
>
> Only in LloydLand. Medicare, Medicaid, and state medical assistance in the USA
> pays for such services every day. Many hospitals and their doctors operate free
> clinics for low income patients in addition to this.
And you think that this care is somehow 'free'? Talk about
fantasyland. You think that the large cost of the emergency C-section
for the pregnant woman who can't afford to see an obstretician or get
prenatal vitamins aren't a cause of the average American paying twice
as much total for healthcare as the average Canadian, so it must all
be because American medical care is twice as good?
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> > >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> > >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
> > >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >
> > How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance? He
> > wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.
>
> Only in LloydLand. Medicare, Medicaid, and state medical assistance in the USA
> pays for such services every day. Many hospitals and their doctors operate free
> clinics for low income patients in addition to this.
And you think that this care is somehow 'free'? Talk about
fantasyland. You think that the large cost of the emergency C-section
for the pregnant woman who can't afford to see an obstretician or get
prenatal vitamins aren't a cause of the average American paying twice
as much total for healthcare as the average Canadian, so it must all
be because American medical care is twice as good?