On Sep 1, 7:32 am, Shadowland > wrote:
> I'm going vegetarian !
>
> I don't feel good after eating meat anymore. I can't tell if it due
> to all the chemicals and what not
> in today's mass produced meats, or if it's because I'm entering
> middle age.


I tend to feel better if I avoid pork and red meat completely or at
least keep my consumption of them down to less than a pound per week.
Most weeks I'm able to, anyway. That stuff is no damn good for you. I
try to stick to turkey and chicken. When some heart surgeon does a
bypass operation, it's not waxy lumps of fresh vegetables and whole
grains that they're bypassing.

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article >,
> Miche > wrote:

> > > Nothing is free...
> >
> > Oh, I know _that_.
> >
> > Miche
>
> Sorry Miche, could not resist.
> You stated above:
>
> "They're totally free here in the land of socialised medicine."
>
> One could only wish. <G>
>
> TANSTAAFL... ;-)

What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.

They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

"Miche" > wrote in message
...
> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
> insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
> whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
> for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>
> They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>
> Miche

No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me a
break.
Dee Dee

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:04 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"Miche" > wrote in message
...
>> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
>> insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
>> whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
>> for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>>
>> They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>>
>> Miche
>
>No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me a
>break.
>Dee Dee
>

i know you don't believe this, but the u.s. spends more for poorer
health care than any other first-world country. but keep yammering on
about waiting for hip replacements in canada if that's your idea of a
good time.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:04 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Miche" > wrote in message
...
>>> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>>> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
>>> insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
>>> whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
>>> for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>>>
>>> They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>>>
>>> Miche
>>
>>No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me
>>a
>>break.
>>Dee Dee
>>
>
> i know you don't believe this, but the u.s. spends more for poorer
> health care than any other first-world country. but keep yammering on
> about waiting for hip replacements in canada if that's your idea of a
> good time.
>
> your pal,
> blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:04 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Miche" > wrote in message
...
>>> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>>> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
>>> insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
>>> whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
>>> for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>>>
>>> They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>>>
>>> Miche
>>
>>No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me
>>a
>>break.
>>Dee Dee
>>
>
> i know you don't believe this, but the u.s. spends more for poorer
> health care than any other first-world country. but keep yammering on
> about waiting for hip replacements in canada if that's your idea of a
> good time.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Blake, are you talkin' to me?
How do you know what I believe by just my just saying a few words?
Furthermore, Blake, I don't yammer.
Yam-yam-yam, do dah!
Yamming,
Dee Dee

Dee Dee wrote:
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:04 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>>>> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting
>>>> their insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their
>>>> insurance or whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or
>>>> having to fight later for the coverage they've already bought, or
>>>> any of that silliness. They just make the appointment, then turn up for
>>>> it. End of story.
>>>>
>>>> Miche
>>>
>>> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give
>>> me a
>>> break.
>>> Dee Dee
>>>
>>
>> i know you don't believe this, but the u.s. spends more for poorer
>> health care than any other first-world country. but keep yammering
>> on about waiting for hip replacements in canada if that's your idea
>> of a good time.

OH Blake!!!!!!!!! Please don't speak to Dee Dee like that.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> Dee Dee wrote:
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:04 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>>>>> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting
>>>>> their insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their
>>>>> insurance or whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or
>>>>> having to fight later for the coverage they've already bought, or
>>>>> any of that silliness. They just make the appointment, then turn up
>>>>> for
>>>>> it. End of story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Miche
>>>>
>>>> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give
>>>> me a
>>>> break.
>>>> Dee Dee
>>>>
>>>
>>> i know you don't believe this, but the u.s. spends more for poorer
>>> health care than any other first-world country. but keep yammering
>>> on about waiting for hip replacements in canada if that's your idea
>>> of a good time.
>
> OH Blake!!!!!!!!! Please don't speak to Dee Dee like that.
>
>
O, you are so kind, I can't believe it! Well, yes, I can.
Down deep, tho, I think Blake likes me; he's always answering my posts;
whereas Sheldon seldom does.

Thanks, O.
Dee Dee

In article >,
"Dee Dee" > wrote:

> "Miche" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
> > worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
> > insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
> > whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
> > for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
> >
> > They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>
> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me a
> break.

For most things it's OK. There are some things where there are longish
waiting periods.

But frankly, I'd rather have this system.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

"Miche" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dee Dee" > wrote:
>
>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>> > worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
>> > insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
>> > whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight
>> > later
>> > for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>> >
>> > They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>>
>> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give
>> me a
>> break.
>
> For most things it's OK. There are some things where there are longish
> waiting periods.
>
> But frankly, I'd rather have this system.
>
> Miche
>
Sorry, Miche if I was a bit flippant. I'm glad you are happy with your
system. I'm not always happy with our system here. But we are a big
country and it is not possible to please everyone.
Dee Dee

"Dee Dee" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
> "Miche" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Dee Dee" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>>> > worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
>>> > insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
>>> > whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight
>>> > later
>>> > for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>>> >
>>> > They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>>>
>>> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give
>>> me a
>>> break.
>>
>> For most things it's OK. There are some things where there are longish
>> waiting periods.
>>
>> But frankly, I'd rather have this system.
>>
>> Miche
>>
> Sorry, Miche if I was a bit flippant. I'm glad you are happy with your
> system. I'm not always happy with our system here. But we are a big
> country and it is not possible to please everyone.
> Dee Dee

It is apparently also not possible to even provide medical coverage for 40
million. Dee Dee, all due respect, but the medical establishment in the US
is disgraceful. Everything is priced so high, insurance is NOT universal,
you have to bankrupt yourself to get help if something goes seriously wrong,
lawsuits have driven insurance costs sky high, essential care is being
denied by HMOs, and if you once lose insurance you may never get it again if
you've ever been ill. It's a great relief to me to be covered for
absolutely anything that may happen to me, including needed pharmaceuticals,
for a payment of 7.5% of my income. (And my doctor makes housecalls if I am
really sick and can't go to his office -- also covered.)


--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:26:40 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:04 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Miche" > wrote in message
...
>>>> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>>>> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
>>>> insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
>>>> whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
>>>> for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>>>>
>>>> They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>>>>
>>>> Miche
>>>
>>>No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me
>>>a
>>>break.
>>>Dee Dee
>>>
>>
>> i know you don't believe this, but the u.s. spends more for poorer
>> health care than any other first-world country. but keep yammering on
>> about waiting for hip replacements in canada if that's your idea of a
>> good time.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>Blake, are you talkin' to me?
>How do you know what I believe by just my just saying a few words?
>Furthermore, Blake, I don't yammer.
>Yam-yam-yam, do dah!
>Yamming,
>Dee Dee
>

i just don't like to see debunked right-wing talking points go
unanswered. that's how we ended up with king george. i apologize for
'yammering.'

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:40:50 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:35:04 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>>>>>> worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting
>>>>>> their insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their
>>>>>> insurance or whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or
>>>>>> having to fight later for the coverage they've already bought, or
>>>>>> any of that silliness. They just make the appointment, then turn up
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> it. End of story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miche
>>>>>
>>>>> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give
>>>>> me a
>>>>> break.
>>>>> Dee Dee
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i know you don't believe this, but the u.s. spends more for poorer
>>>> health care than any other first-world country. but keep yammering
>>>> on about waiting for hip replacements in canada if that's your idea
>>>> of a good time.
>>
>> OH Blake!!!!!!!!! Please don't speak to Dee Dee like that.
>>
>>
>O, you are so kind, I can't believe it! Well, yes, I can.
>Down deep, tho, I think Blake likes me; he's always answering my posts;
>whereas Sheldon seldom does.
>
>Thanks, O.
>Dee Dee
>
i like you just fine, dee dee.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:56:29 +1200, Miche > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Dee Dee" > wrote:
>
>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
>> > worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
>> > insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
>> > whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
>> > for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
>> >
>> > They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
>>
>> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me a
>> break.
>
>For most things it's OK. There are some things where there are longish
>waiting periods.
>
>But frankly, I'd rather have this system.
>
>Miche

....and at least everyone gets the service, even if they have to wait
some. or worry about losing the house if they get sick.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

>> But frankly, I'd rather have this system.
>>
>> Miche
>
> ...and at least everyone gets the service, even if they have to wait
> some. or worry about losing the house if they get sick.
>
> your pal,
> blake

But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
managed to combine the best of each into one program.

In article >,
"Dee Dee" > wrote:

> Yamming

Something we mostly do on holidays. ;-)
Unless we are yamming with yam fries when I've got the fryer out.

<g>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> you have to bankrupt yourself to get help if something goes seriously wrong

Tell that to Kili... :-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Peter A > wrote:

> In article >, Goomba38
> @comcast.net says...
> > But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
> > they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
> > factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
> > the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
> > which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
> > necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
> > managed to combine the best of each into one program.
> >
> >
>
> The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
> country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
> about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
> and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
> system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
> market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
> other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
> health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
> their socialized system would likely be better than ours.

Being forced to wait 6 months for breast cancer surgery can be a death
sentence.

"Free" is not always better.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Peter A wrote:

> The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
> country.

...and this includes a LOT of treatments and surgery done on people here
that in other countries would be never be performed. I heard it just the
other day when one of the Spanish speaking trauma doctors (don't know
where he is from, darn it) compared the all out efforts being provided
to save the life of a patient with a self inflicted gun shot wound and
he said "in my country he would be placed in a quite room and receive
minimum care, mostly just some pain meds until he passed away." So yeah,
I can see where we do often spend money others don't. We give liver
transplants to patients whom would never get them elsewhere. We treat
drug addicted newborns who also sustained fetal alcohol syndrome because
we seem to have a LOT of young women doing stupid stuff during pregnancy
and the outcomes are bad. I'm curious if other countries have the same
per capita rates ? We give granny dialysis when other countries
wouldn't dream of using the finite healthcare resources for an elderly
patient needing such budget breaking treatments....
So I suspect there is more to this story than just "the US spends more..."

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> Peter A wrote:
>
> > The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
> > country.
>
> ..and this includes a LOT of treatments and surgery done on people here
> that in other countries would be never be performed. I heard it just the
> other day when one of the Spanish speaking trauma doctors (don't know
> where he is from, darn it) compared the all out efforts being provided
> to save the life of a patient with a self inflicted gun shot wound and
> he said "in my country he would be placed in a quite room and receive
> minimum care, mostly just some pain meds until he passed away." So yeah,
> I can see where we do often spend money others don't. We give liver
> transplants to patients whom would never get them elsewhere. We treat
> drug addicted newborns who also sustained fetal alcohol syndrome because
> we seem to have a LOT of young women doing stupid stuff during pregnancy
> and the outcomes are bad. I'm curious if other countries have the same
> per capita rates ? We give granny dialysis when other countries
> wouldn't dream of using the finite healthcare resources for an elderly
> patient needing such budget breaking treatments....
> So I suspect there is more to this story than just "the US spends more..."

Agreed.

I've witnessed thousands of dollars of blood products used on terminal
alcoholics in end stage liver failure.... to no avail.

But at least they tried.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:56:29 +1200, Miche > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Dee Dee" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Miche" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > What I mean is, a person can walk in off the street and not have to
> >> > worry about whether they can afford the "co-pay" or presenting their
> >> > insurance card, or whether the doctor will accept their insurance or
> >> > whether their insurance will accept the doctor, or having to fight later
> >> > for the coverage they've already bought, or any of that silliness.
> >> >
> >> > They just make the appointment, then turn up for it. End of story.
> >>
> >> No such things as long waiting periods for anything, either, heh? Give me
> >> a
> >> break.
> >
> >For most things it's OK. There are some things where there are longish
> >waiting periods.
> >
> >But frankly, I'd rather have this system.

> ...and at least everyone gets the service, even if they have to wait
> some. or worry about losing the house if they get sick.

Exactly, exactly.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
> >> But frankly, I'd rather have this system.
> >>
> >> Miche
> >
> > ...and at least everyone gets the service, even if they have to wait
> > some. or worry about losing the house if they get sick.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
> they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
> factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
> the argument for nationalized health care.

Oh, sure. But mostly it works well.

> There are limitations on
> which doctors one can use or see.

Not in NZ there aren't!

> It is a different system, but not
> necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
> managed to combine the best of each into one program.

Indeed.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

Shadowland wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:44 am, Omelet > wrote:
>
> Do you always have the last word ?

No. Usually I do.

<today's word is "troll">

Peter A wrote:

> Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
> explain again why the US health care system is so great?
>
Because I have a choice. I want what I want when I want it and that
alone is worth something to me. I want to pick and choose my own
doctors, not be assigned one or limited in seeing the specialists I
might need. I have those choices now. I don't want to lose that.

Now if we can pick and choose which illnesses to treat and which
patients are left to go on to glory...our costs would be less too.
As I recently read in a letter to the editor, a physician wrote that not
a day goes by that (paraphrased here) "an overweight, smoker with
diabetes doesn't complain to him about the cost of health care."
Well...gee..ya think?

Peter A wrote:
> In article >, Goomba38
> @comcast.net says...
>> Peter A wrote:
>>
>>> The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
>>> country.
>> ..and this includes a LOT of treatments and surgery done on people here
>> that in other countries would be never be performed. I heard it just the
>> other day when one of the Spanish speaking trauma doctors (don't know
>> where he is from, darn it) compared the all out efforts being provided
>> to save the life of a patient with a self inflicted gun shot wound and
>> he said "in my country he would be placed in a quite room and receive
>> minimum care, mostly just some pain meds until he passed away." So yeah,
>> I can see where we do often spend money others don't. We give liver
>> transplants to patients whom would never get them elsewhere. We treat
>> drug addicted newborns who also sustained fetal alcohol syndrome because
>> we seem to have a LOT of young women doing stupid stuff during pregnancy
>> and the outcomes are bad. I'm curious if other countries have the same
>> per capita rates ? We give granny dialysis when other countries
>> wouldn't dream of using the finite healthcare resources for an elderly
>> patient needing such budget breaking treatments....
>> So I suspect there is more to this story than just "the US spends more..."
>>
>
> You suspect? Instead of posting a lot of totally unfounded speculation,
> why don't you look into it and provide some real facts? I've done it for
> you:
>
> In 2002, US per capita health expenses highest of any country = $5267.
> Second highest Switzerland = $3446.
>
> Compared to the average for 30 other developed nations: US has fewer
> physicians per capita. Fewer nurses. Fewer CT scanners. Fewer hospital
> beds. The US has a lower average malpractice payment, so you can't blame
> the lawyers for the high costs.
>
> Source: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...cfm?DR_ID=1329
>
> Compared to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K., people in the
> US face longer waits to see a doctor and more trouble getting care on
> weekends or evenings.
>
> Source: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html
>
> US has higher infant mortality than UK, Spain, Portugal, Canada,
> Finland, Australia, Japan, and about 30 other countries. US has lower
> life expectancy than Italy, Israel, France, Sweden, Japan, New Zealand,
> Norway, and quite a few more.
>
> Source: www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html
>
> Administrative costs of the US system are about $300 billion a year,
> about $1000 per capita. In Canada it's about $300 per capita. This
> enormous waste is due to the inefficiency of having hundreds of payers
> instead of a single-payer system. You, I, and every other American is
> paying $700 a year to have insurance companies shuffle papers, deny
> benefits, and rack up huge profits.
>
> Source: www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html
>
> Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
> explain again why the US health care system is so great?

The single payer system is different, so it frightens people.

If the US put as much money in health care as we put into the military,
we would have a healthier nation.

Becca

"Becca" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...

> The single payer system is different, so it frightens people.
>
> If the US put as much money in health care as we put into the military, we
> would have a healthier nation.
>
> Becca

We were manipulated into fearing it by the medical establishment. They
thought it would wreck their incomes, but instead the insurance companies,
once the public were scared to death to do without them, gradually cut into
their fees anyway. I remember clearly the outcries against socialized
medicine, the inference that it was yet another Communist inroad. I
remember also that the argument went on when many were not insured, but a
simple operation including hospitalization was about $300-500, although
salaries may have been $5000 p/a. You didn't lose your house, maybe, but
you went into debt.

This is one area where enterprise screwed the people and made them happy to
have it done. IMO, enterprise should never have entered such a vital
service.

I much prefer the system where I am, although it is flawed, of course.
Baldness prescriptions are covered but breast reductions are not. There's
always something to which to take exception. In the end, however, medical
needs will not put me on the street nor ruin my old age. And I do get to
choose my primary physician and also to seek help from specific specialists.
And if I want to pay for it, I can go off-system for any care. I now pay in
a year what I used to pay per month for insurance, co-pays and drugs. If I
need a drug that isn't on the system, the prices are a fraction of what they
were in the US.

People who have not experienced anything but the US system haven't a clue,
and that's partly because what they hear of other systems is very
controlled.

--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> Peter A wrote:
>
> > Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
> > explain again why the US health care system is so great?
> >
> Because I have a choice. I want what I want when I want it and that
> alone is worth something to me. I want to pick and choose my own
> doctors, not be assigned one or limited in seeing the specialists I
> might need. I have those choices now. I don't want to lose that.

I have that.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> Peter A wrote:
>
> > Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
> > explain again why the US health care system is so great?
> >
> Because I have a choice. I want what I want when I want it and that
> alone is worth something to me. I want to pick and choose my own
> doctors, not be assigned one or limited in seeing the specialists I
> might need. I have those choices now. I don't want to lose that.
>
> Now if we can pick and choose which illnesses to treat and which
> patients are left to go on to glory...our costs would be less too.
> As I recently read in a letter to the editor, a physician wrote that not
> a day goes by that (paraphrased here) "an overweight, smoker with
> diabetes doesn't complain to him about the cost of health care."
> Well...gee..ya think?

Or a terminal alcoholic gets $10,000 worth of blood products before they
die of cascade organ failure...

There are many examples.

I think the biggest problem with the American Health Care system is not
the cost of health care.

It's the cost of malpractice insurance and litigation risks.

We spend a LOT of money covering our asses.

Right Goomba? I know you have seen this as much, if not more, than I
have.

Socialized medicine is not going to fix that either. Only Tort Reform
will.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Becca > wrote:

> > Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
> > explain again why the US health care system is so great?
>
> The single payer system is different, so it frightens people.
>
> If the US put as much money in health care as we put into the military,
> we would have a healthier nation.
>
> Becca

Oh gods... You WOULD go there! ;-)
If we put as much money into Education as we did the military, we'd have
the best educated kids in the world.

Problem is, throwing money at a problem does not always fix it. :-(
We wish.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> This is one area where enterprise screwed the people and made them happy to
> have it done. IMO, enterprise should never have entered such a vital
> service.

I don't think anyone can truly argue with that.
I just wish we could apply a similar concept to fuel/energy costs.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:04:19 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>>> But frankly, I'd rather have this system.
>>>
>>> Miche
>>
>> ...and at least everyone gets the service, even if they have to wait
>> some. or worry about losing the house if they get sick.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
>they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
>factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
>the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
>which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
>necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
>managed to combine the best of each into one program.

even so, america pays more per capita in health care than any other
country but does not get the best care, even ignoring the uninsured.

<http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm?CFID=126920173&CFTOKEN=53554059>

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:43:34 -0400, Peter A >
wrote:

>In article >, Goomba38
says...
>> But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
>> they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
>> factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
>> the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
>> which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
>> necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
>> managed to combine the best of each into one program.
>>
>>
>
>The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
>country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
>about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
>and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
>system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
>market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
>other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
>health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
>their socialized system would likely be better than ours.

and if you look at stats like infant mortality or life expectancy,
u.s. health care is not better than canada, britain or france.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:17:29 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Peter A > wrote:
>
>> In article >, Goomba38
>> @comcast.net says...
>> > But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
>> > they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
>> > factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
>> > the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
>> > which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
>> > necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
>> > managed to combine the best of each into one program.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
>> country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
>> about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
>> and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
>> system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
>> market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
>> other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
>> health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
>> their socialized system would likely be better than ours.
>
>Being forced to wait 6 months for breast cancer surgery can be a death
>sentence.
>
>"Free" is not always better.

please give examples of a country with a six-month waiting list for
breast cancer surgery. (other than the u.s. if you have no
insurance.)

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:37:12 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Peter A wrote:
>
>> The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
>> country.
>
>..and this includes a LOT of treatments and surgery done on people here
>that in other countries would be never be performed. I heard it just the
>other day when one of the Spanish speaking trauma doctors (don't know
>where he is from, darn it) compared the all out efforts being provided
>to save the life of a patient with a self inflicted gun shot wound and
>he said "in my country he would be placed in a quite room and receive
>minimum care, mostly just some pain meds until he passed away." So yeah,
>I can see where we do often spend money others don't. We give liver
>transplants to patients whom would never get them elsewhere. We treat
>drug addicted newborns who also sustained fetal alcohol syndrome because
>we seem to have a LOT of young women doing stupid stuff during pregnancy
>and the outcomes are bad. I'm curious if other countries have the same
>per capita rates ? We give granny dialysis when other countries
>wouldn't dream of using the finite healthcare resources for an elderly
>patient needing such budget breaking treatments....
>So I suspect there is more to this story than just "the US spends more..."

the u.s. spends more while millions of u.s. women do not get
mammograms because they are too expensive if you're not insured. i
don't see how this makes our system 'better.'

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:34:58 +1200, Miche > wrote:

>In article >,
> Goomba38 > wrote:
>
>> Peter A wrote:
>>
>> > Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
>> > explain again why the US health care system is so great?
>> >
>> Because I have a choice. I want what I want when I want it and that
>> alone is worth something to me. I want to pick and choose my own
>> doctors, not be assigned one or limited in seeing the specialists I
>> might need. I have those choices now. I don't want to lose that.
>
>I have that.
>
>Miche

but, but...you have eeeviiiil socialized medicine! it can't be true!

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:56:10 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Goomba38 > wrote:
>
>> Peter A wrote:
>>
>> > Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
>> > explain again why the US health care system is so great?
>> >
>> Because I have a choice. I want what I want when I want it and that
>> alone is worth something to me. I want to pick and choose my own
>> doctors, not be assigned one or limited in seeing the specialists I
>> might need. I have those choices now. I don't want to lose that.
>>
>> Now if we can pick and choose which illnesses to treat and which
>> patients are left to go on to glory...our costs would be less too.
>> As I recently read in a letter to the editor, a physician wrote that not
>> a day goes by that (paraphrased here) "an overweight, smoker with
>> diabetes doesn't complain to him about the cost of health care."
>> Well...gee..ya think?
>
>Or a terminal alcoholic gets $10,000 worth of blood products before they
>die of cascade organ failure...
>
>There are many examples.
>
but if the man has insurance, somebody pays. or are you objecting
because it makes the stats look bad?

>I think the biggest problem with the American Health Care system is not
>the cost of health care.
>
>It's the cost of malpractice insurance and litigation risks.
>
>We spend a LOT of money covering our asses.
>
>Right Goomba? I know you have seen this as much, if not more, than I
>have.
>
>Socialized medicine is not going to fix that either. Only Tort Reform
>will.

the idea that malpractice judgments are responsible for high health
care costs just isn't true. it's more republican propaganda for 'tort
reform,' i.e., protection for corporations against having to pay for
their misdeeds.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:57:39 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Becca > wrote:
>
>> > Now that you have some actual facts at your disposal, will you please
>> > explain again why the US health care system is so great?
>>
>> The single payer system is different, so it frightens people.
>>
>> If the US put as much money in health care as we put into the military,
>> we would have a healthier nation.
>>
>> Becca
>
>Oh gods... You WOULD go there! ;-)
>If we put as much money into Education as we did the military, we'd have
>the best educated kids in the world.
>
>Problem is, throwing money at a problem does not always fix it. :-(
>We wish.

no, but throwing money at insurance companies is not going to fix out
health system, either. yet that's what we're doing now.

there's a middleman in the u.s. that is not dedicated to providing
health care, but rather dedicated to avoid paying benefits to the
insured. that's most of the problem.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:13:26 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>"Becca" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
>> The single payer system is different, so it frightens people.
>>
>> If the US put as much money in health care as we put into the military, we
>> would have a healthier nation.
>>
>> Becca
>
>We were manipulated into fearing it by the medical establishment. They
>thought it would wreck their incomes, but instead the insurance companies,
>once the public were scared to death to do without them, gradually cut into
>their fees anyway. I remember clearly the outcries against socialized
>medicine, the inference that it was yet another Communist inroad. I
>remember also that the argument went on when many were not insured, but a
>simple operation including hospitalization was about $300-500, although
>salaries may have been $5000 p/a. You didn't lose your house, maybe, but
>you went into debt.
>
>This is one area where enterprise screwed the people and made them happy to
>have it done. IMO, enterprise should never have entered such a vital
>service.
>
>I much prefer the system where I am, although it is flawed, of course.
>Baldness prescriptions are covered but breast reductions are not. There's
>always something to which to take exception. In the end, however, medical
>needs will not put me on the street nor ruin my old age. And I do get to
>choose my primary physician and also to seek help from specific specialists.
>And if I want to pay for it, I can go off-system for any care. I now pay in
>a year what I used to pay per month for insurance, co-pays and drugs. If I
>need a drug that isn't on the system, the prices are a fraction of what they
>were in the US.
>
>People who have not experienced anything but the US system haven't a clue,
>and that's partly because what they hear of other systems is very
>controlled.

your last paragraph nails it, guisi. added to the belief that america
is necessarily 'the best' at whatever we do makes change very
difficult.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:43:34 -0400, Peter A >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, Goomba38
> says...
> >> But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
> >> they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
> >> factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
> >> the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
> >> which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
> >> necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
> >> managed to combine the best of each into one program.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
> >country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
> >about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
> >and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
> >system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
> >market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
> >other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
> >health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
> >their socialized system would likely be better than ours.
>
> and if you look at stats like infant mortality or life expectancy,
> u.s. health care is not better than canada, britain or france.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Blake.

It runs much deeper than that. The "cost per capita" is not the real
problem. If only it were that easy.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:17:29 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Peter A > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Goomba38
> >> @comcast.net says...
> >> > But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
> >> > they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
> >> > factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
> >> > the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
> >> > which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
> >> > necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
> >> > managed to combine the best of each into one program.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
> >> country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
> >> about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
> >> and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
> >> system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
> >> market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
> >> other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
> >> health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
> >> their socialized system would likely be better than ours.
> >
> >Being forced to wait 6 months for breast cancer surgery can be a death
> >sentence.
> >
> >"Free" is not always better.
>
> please give examples of a country with a six-month waiting list for
> breast cancer surgery. (other than the u.s. if you have no
> insurance.)
>
> your pal,
> blake

I have no specific quotes, but I have Internet friends in England that
have told me of such.

And long waiting lists for needed surgeries in Canada.
You also rarely get to pick your own doctor. You may not even have the
same one twice in a row. (or so I have been told)

I'm glad that you have had nothing but good experiences, but abuse of
the health care system is occurring in some areas according to others
(anecdotal complaints, sorry) so it's apparently not all coming up roses?

I don't live there so I have no personal experience. Just several years
on the web and lots of gripes.

It's not all perfect here either but Charity Care exists. Actually,
those that qualify for such are often luckier than those with middle
class incomes. We get wiped out, they get cared for for free.

Why do you think so many are bitching about the illegal alien thing?
They don't pay into the system and get free health care as they have no
way of paying, but we are not allowed to ignore them and let them die.

We that DO have a certain level of income and DO pay into the system are
the ones that get hurt in, say, a terminal illness situation.

Not everything is equitable.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson