From: David Ruether on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message news:j8ednTpSpe1f7S3XnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)

> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page headline saying:
> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.

And in the last couple of days, well over 70% of doctors
supported the "public option" in another poll I caught on TV.
Good ol' polls can "say" whatever you want, I guess...! ;-)

From: Bob Larter on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>> "Andrew Cook" <nospam(a)> wrote in message
>>> I'm having difficulty working out how free competion works in health
>>> care.
>>> Say I've just been shot / had a heart attack / have some other
>>> immediately life threatening illness. How does 'free competion in
>>> healthcare' help me? I don't have time to shop around between multiple
>>> providers - my options are get in the first ambulance and go to the
>>> nearest hospital, or die.
>>> Them when I can't afford the co-pay, I either don't have it, or con the
>>> hospital I can afford it then go bankrupt later - competition doesn't
>>> help me there either.
>> The free competition allows you to buy a very good health insurance policy
>> for a minimum amount of money.
> If you consider $1000 to $3000 per month to be a "minimum" amount of money.

Yeah, those sorts of figures astound me. In Australia, people were
bitching when the government increased the Medicare levy from 1% to 1.5%
of salary.

. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
From: Bob Larter on
Bill Graham wrote:
> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)> wrote in message
> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist
>>> idea. Can
>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets
>>> property? If
>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be
>>> socialized? How
>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a hotel's
>>> property?
>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they
>> require proof
>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before they
>> transport
>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they treat
>> you?
> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens)
> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that
> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, then
> the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology is more
> than adequate to accomplish this.

Jeez. Ever read 1984?

. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
From: C J Campbell on
On 2009-09-15 19:22:21 -0700, "DRS" <drs(a)> said:

> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in
> message
> news:2009091512274050073-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom
>> On 2009-09-14 11:55:18 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)>
>> said:
> [...]
>>> Living in a country with almost no trial lawyers, I've learned that
>>> the trial system is the (imperfect but at least existent) means by
>>> which people who are harmed by the actions of others get redress and
>>> that not having such a system is not a good thing. (Fortunately,
>>> I've not had to learn this from experience.)
>>> It's so much fun to rant about the (both real and falsely claimed)
>>> excesses of the system that most Americans don't even undertstand
>>> what it's for any more.
>> You have a funny idea of fun. Apparently you have never run a business
>> where you got hit by frivolous lawsuits several times a month. I have.
>> It is not fun. It is a huge expense. And it is extremely aggravating.
> America has a peculiar civil litigation system that exacerbates the problem
> of frivolous law suits. It is not inherent in trial systems per se. In
> countries that use the British model, those who lose a civil suit by default
> have to pay not only their own legal costs but those of the other side as
> well. The rationale is that a person who is found to have acted within the
> law should not be penalised by. In practice, judges recognise that in many
> disputes there are degrees of wrong on both sides and splitting of costs is
> common, but that is at the judge's discretion. The prospect of taking
> someone to court frivolously knowing that you could be bankrupting yourself
> in the process is an effective deterrent. If you should ever be in the
> position of threatening to sue someone in such a jurisdiction and they
> respond, "Go ahead, I'll enjoy living in your house," you'll know why.

The trial lawyers in the US absolutely oppose adoption of the British
system. They argue that some suits have merit, but are risky, and that
such a system deprives potential litigants of their right to sue.

Of course, what it really does is deprive trial lawyers of customers.

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: SMS on
David Ruether wrote:

> Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is
> for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency
> room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP.
> As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a
> $100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my
> bills.

It's more logical and less expensive, but you'll never see it for two
reasons. First, it's politically impossible because there are still too
many Republicans in the House and Senate. Second, that "free" ER visit
is now being funded by the operator of the hospital or clinic (public or
private or non-profit) and everyone's private insurance which goes up as
a result of the cost of indigent care. It's basically another unfunded
federal mandate borne by state and local governments and private
insurers. Providing coverage for illegals, while it would be cheaper
overall, would be something that the federal government would have to
fund. It would also attract more illegals. It's really moot anyway, as
illegals would be unlikely to sign up for government health care even if
offered since they'd be worried about being caught and deported.

OTOH, something needs to be done regarding the ER situation. My nephew
is an ER physician and the ERs are being overwhelmed by the uninsured,
mostly legal residents, that come in for free medical care, most of
which would not be necessary were the condition treated earlier. The
people really being hurt are the people that cannot afford insurance but
that are not indigent. They are the only ones paying $1000 for a $1000
ER visit, just as they are the only one's paying rack rate for hospital

> And I would also prefer that a communicable desease or potentially
> very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care.
> It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal
> health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those against
> single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are
> VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction
> of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country
> that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is
> greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than
> ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter
> idiotic things like, "socialism"...

They mutter it because they are being told to mutter it. You have to
realize who these people are, for the most part. Under-educated,
under-employed, middle-aged, white males. These are now the core
constituency of the Republican party, and they do and say what Rush,
Sean, Glenn, etc. tell them do and say. They have no capacity for
looking at the big picture, and they have no desire or ability to check
out any facts for themselves. I don't want to have Godwin's law kick-in
so I'll avoid making the obvious statement.

Maybe before Obama works on the health care problem he needs to work on
the education problem, or we'll raise another generation of people that
lack critical thinking skills. But he'd better hurry. The Democrats are
unlikely to pick up any more House and Senate seats in the mid-term
election in 2010, and if history is any indication they'll likely lose
some seats. So Obama has only a year and a half to push through his
agenda prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him.