"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
...
>
> The real problem is liberal socialists like you. You want
> my niece off welfare? Get her a job. She got fired from
> the last three I found for her.
>

To get your niece off welfare requires only that welfare be terminated. Her
choices then would be to work, rely on the charity of others, or to starve.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:01:35 -0500, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> In article >, Glenn Jacobs
> > wrote:

>
> It's not that one-dimensional. Street violence and auto accidents do
> contribute to the after-15 death load. While I freely admit there are
> crazier drivers in other countries -- I made the mistake of keeping my
> eyes open in a Paris taxicab, and now know that if I ever get to Rome,
> I'm bringing a blindfold for traffic -- the availability of cars is much
> greater.
>
> Some of the countries you cite have more genetically homogeneous
> populations, and may be better adapted to their diet.
>
> That being said, I don't find huge problems with US healthcare once you
> get it -- it's the access to it that's a nightmare. That difficulty in
> access, admittedly coupled with some cultural factors, also interferes
> with preventive and maintenance medicine. Less quantifiable are the
> stress factors, but it is interesting to compare the increasing work
> week and reduced vacations of American white collar workers with
> European practice.

Yes, If you get to Rome do take a blindfold, I once made the mistake of
telling a taxi driver in Rome that I was in a hurry, he didn't even slow
for red light.

I agree that if you can get the health care it is fairly good. The problem
is the lack of Universal access and the high cost.

Glenn Jacobs wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:09:30 +0100, Oelewapper wrote:
>
>
>>GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
>>keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans
>>afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes
>>America's health care the best in the world."
>>
>>- Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should either
>>be in prison or in a mental health care institution.
>
>
> And is the US Healthcare System the best in the world? The following
> countries have lower child mortality rates than the US: Australia, Chech
> Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and
> Switzerland. And if you live to 15 your chances of dieing before you reach
> 60 are greater in the US than in 24 other countries if you are male and in
> 27 other countries if you are female.
>
> Does this sound like the US has the best health care system, no I don't
> think so.

It has the best health care, but stats include the millions of "illegals"
who don't use free pre-natal care and vaccinations available for fear of
being deported.

MTV

"Kal Alexander" > wrote:

>moveeman1 wrote:
>> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
>
>Without info to the contrary, why not?


Why are you "without info", when Google is at your fingertips?

For starters, the FDA is lying out its every orifice concerning ephedra.

For seconds, the FDA is a US government alphabet soup bureaucracy, and
if there is a case of one which hasn't lied, I'd like to hear of it.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> "Kal Alexander" > wrote:
>
> >moveeman1 wrote:
> >> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
> >
> >Without info to the contrary, why not?
>
>
> Why are you "without info", when Google is at your fingertips?
>
> For starters, the FDA is lying out its every orifice concerning ephedra.

Ephedra is the basis of crank.

FDA is doing the correct thing and banning the import of Canadian
pseudo-ephedra is the next correct step.

In article >,
Glenn Jacobs > wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:01:35 -0500, Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> Yes, If you get to Rome do take a blindfold, I once made the mistake of
> telling a taxi driver in Rome that I was in a hurry, he didn't even slow
> for red light.
>
> I agree that if you can get the health care it is fairly good. The problem
> is the lack of Universal access and the high cost.

Health care in the United States is also deeply mired in paperwork
and administrative overhead. Two days ago, I went to a private blood lab
to have blood work done. I do this every six months. This was at the
request of my doctor and my insurance will pick up the tab. This is the
first time that I have gone to this lab where I was in and out without a
long wait. This lab is almost ways packed with people waiting, but I
lucked out this time and I only waited five minutes. While the lab
technician was drawing my blood, I commented to her how slow business
was that day. She laughed and said it was unusual. She then told me that
on quiet days like that one, they spend the extra time doing paperwork.
This lab tech told me that the spend several hours each day doing
nothing but paperwork for insurance companies.

The same is also true of mental health care. My sister's a psychologist
in private practice. She has her own office and she's doing quite well.
She told me several times that a large amount of her time isn't spent
treating her patients, its doing paperwork for the insurance companies
and complaining on the phone to them repeatedly because they are slow to
send her payments for the patients these companies refer to her.

I don't have numbers to quantify this, but I suspect that medical care
in the United States would be a lot cheaper and more accessible if the
intense amount of administrative overhead could be pruned down a lot.

In article >,
Me > wrote:

> In article >,
> Glenn Jacobs > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:01:35 -0500, Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> > Yes, If you get to Rome do take a blindfold, I once made the mistake of
> > telling a taxi driver in Rome that I was in a hurry, he didn't even slow
> > for red light.
> >
> > I agree that if you can get the health care it is fairly good. The problem
> > is the lack of Universal access and the high cost.
>
> Health care in the United States is also deeply mired in paperwork
> and administrative overhead. Two days ago, I went to a private blood lab
> to have blood work done. I do this every six months. This was at the
> request of my doctor and my insurance will pick up the tab. This is the
> first time that I have gone to this lab where I was in and out without a
> long wait. This lab is almost ways packed with people waiting, but I
> lucked out this time and I only waited five minutes. While the lab
> technician was drawing my blood, I commented to her how slow business
> was that day. She laughed and said it was unusual. She then told me that
> on quiet days like that one, they spend the extra time doing paperwork.
> This lab tech told me that the spend several hours each day doing
> nothing but paperwork for insurance companies.
>
> The same is also true of mental health care. My sister's a psychologist
> in private practice. She has her own office and she's doing quite well.
> She told me several times that a large amount of her time isn't spent
> treating her patients, its doing paperwork for the insurance companies
> and complaining on the phone to them repeatedly because they are slow to
> send her payments for the patients these companies refer to her.
>
> I don't have numbers to quantify this, but I suspect that medical care
> in the United States would be a lot cheaper and more accessible if the
> intense amount of administrative overhead could be pruned down a lot.

which is why medicare is so much more efficient than private insurance
--

a single payer plan would cut out much of the $$ that now go to
duplicative complex insurance paperwork

>Her
>choices then would be to work, rely on the charity of others, or to starve.

She might also opt for brigandage. To reduce the expenses associated with that
option, we have created our welfare state, such as it is.

Neil

(WardNA) wrote in
:

>>Her
>>choices then would be to work, rely on the charity of others, or
>>to starve.
>
> She might also opt for brigandage. To reduce the expenses
> associated with that option, we have created our welfare state,
> such as it is.

Quite right. Most social bandaid solutions are the brigt idea of the
right that sees no way it can actually SOLVE the problem so itr seeks
to avoid social disorder by creating buffer solutions.

The real solution to poverty, criminality and homelessness would be
to guarantee everyone a living income. Whether they actually work or
not would be immaterial. The problem here is doing away with this
neo-fascist protestant holier than thou crap and acting in the best
interests of everyone concerned, not just their sacrosanct
pocketbook.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 01/24/2004 5:45 PM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
> opined:

> (WardNA) wrote in
> :
>
>>> Her
>>> choices then would be to work, rely on the charity of others, or
>>> to starve.
>>
>> She might also opt for brigandage. To reduce the expenses
>> associated with that option, we have created our welfare state,
>> such as it is.
>
> Quite right. Most social bandaid solutions are the brigt idea of the
> right that sees no way it can actually SOLVE the problem so itr seeks
> to avoid social disorder by creating buffer solutions.
>
> The real solution to poverty, criminality and homelessness would be
> to guarantee everyone a living income.


Wrong numbnuts. The real solution is everyone graduates high school and
doesn't get pregnant until they are married. Albeit married means something
different in canada.


Whether they actually work or
> not would be immaterial. The problem here is doing away with this
> neo-fascist protestant holier than thou crap and acting in the best
> interests of everyone concerned, not just their sacrosanct
> pocketbook.

--
================================================== ======
"Michael, we're bigger than U. S. Steel," Hyman Roth.
================================================== ======

Mike1 wrote:
> "Kal Alexander" > wrote:
>
>> moveeman1 wrote:
>>> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
>>
>> Without info to the contrary, why not?
>
>
> Why are you "without info", when Google is at your fingertips?
>
> For starters, the FDA is lying out its every orifice concerning
> ephedra.
>
> For seconds, the FDA is a US government alphabet soup bureaucracy, and
> if there is a case of one which hasn't lied, I'd like to hear of it.

I was speaking about info to the contrary concerning their statements
on generic drug pricing.

And they didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a great
many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe. The
FDA has the arrogant belief that if it hasn't been tested adequately
by them, it is too dangerous for us to use. Never mind that many
of the non-chemical (and non-patentable) medicines have been
used successfully for several hundred years. This empirical
evidence means nothing to them. Ephedra, when used properly,
has caused no recorded problems. Meanwhile, prescription
drugs (approved by the FDA), when used properly, has a
terrible history.


=========================================

Iatrogenic illness -- disease produced as a result of medical treatment
-- is now recognised as a health hazard of global proportions.
MEDLINE (the computerised medical research database of the United
States National Library of Medicine) includes over 7,000 articles, reports,
and scientific research papers since 1966 that show a substantial number
of patients suffer treatment-caused disorders and adverse drug reactions.
These harmful effects, which can be serious and even lethal, are associated
with every facet of modern medicine including drugs, other medical therapies,
diagnostic procedures, and surgery.

Massive Detrimental Effects

Detrimental effects have become so extensive as to prompt the use of the
term 'iatroepidemic2'. Reporting in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, Dr. Lucien Leape of Harvard School of Public Health, has
calculated that '180,000 people die in the U.S. each year partly as a result
of iatrogenic injury, the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days."
In another issue, the Journal of the American Medical Association points out
that injury from medical treatment in the U.S. 'dwarfs the annual automobile
accident mortality of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other
accidents combined'.



excerpt from...

Hazards of Modern Medicine

An Overview Based on a Selection of Findings from the More than
10,000 Articles, Reports, and Scientific Research Studies in the
Medical Literature

By Barry M. Charles, MD

===============================================


I don't have any faith, blind or otherwise, in any federal agency. But simple
number comparisons aren't worth trying to turn into propaganda.
--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ Conspiracy theories are just /
/ 'their' way of keeping our /
/ minds on other things. /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

"Kal Alexander" > wrote:

>[The FDA] didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a great
>many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe.


"The essence of lying is in deception, not in words; a lie may be told
by silence, by equivocation, by the accent on a syllable, by a glance of
the eyes attachng a peculiar significance to a sentence; and all these
kinds of lies are worse and baser by many degrees than a lie plainly
worded."

-- John Ruskin

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
>> "Kal Alexander" > wrote:
>>
>> >moveeman1 wrote:
>> >> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
>> >
>> >Without info to the contrary, why not?
>>
>>
>> Why are you "without info", when Google is at your fingertips?
>>
>> For starters, the FDA is lying out its every orifice concerning ephedra.
>
>Ephedra is the basis of crank.


No it isn't...


>FDA is doing the correct thing and banning the import of Canadian
>pseudo-ephedra is the next correct step.


...and you're a bonehead.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Those that thought it up at some think tank and then those that passed it
in congress and the senate and the President at the time.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0330, "moveeman1"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it to
> >succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to fail.
When
> >it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't work so may as well
> >have laissez faire capitalism again.
> >
> >
> >
> Would you do me a favor and name these capitalists that set up
> Medicare, so I know who you speaking about?
> Pan Ohco

"ikke" > wrote in message >...
> > America's health care the best in the world."

> The US health care may rank among the best.
> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.


FOR AN INSIGHT into the inadequacy of the president's health care
proposals put forward in his State of the Union speech last Tuesday,
look closely at a strike by supermarket workers in Southern
California. For more than three months, 70,000 people have been on
strike, protesting proposed dramatic reductions in their health care
benefits. Their employers, three large supermarket chains, say they
need the changes because they must compete with discount, nonunion
chains such as Wal-Mart, whose health-care packages are famously
stingy.

Some union organizers doubt the truth of this explanation. But
whatever the merits of this particular strike, it's significant
because it forms part of a growing trend. Analysts at the AFL-CIO say
that health care benefits, not wages, are now "at the center of every
labor dispute" and cite the California strike as only the latest
example of a "fundamental transformation" taking place in the
relationship between employers and employees -- a change that could
result in the eventual erosion of the traditional, employer-based
health care system. The economy alone is not to blame: Rising health
costs and the long-term shift from manufacturing to services and small
business are also helping reduce the numbers of Americans with
employer-provided insurance. True, some 65 percent of working-age
Americans were still insured by their employers in 2002, according to
the Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured. But this number represents a
reduction from 68 percent in 2000. Partly as a result, the number of
uninsured increased, between 2001 and 2002, by 2.4 million people --
the largest real increase since 1997, meaning that 17.3 percent of
Americans now have no insurance at all.

Labor leaders acknowledge that this is a national problem, one that
they cannot solve at the negotiating table, even if the supermarkets
ultimately improve their offer. But does the president acknowledge it?
From his speech, it was hard to tell. He acknowledged rising health
care costs and spoke of the need for greater computerization and
greater control of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. But he left
out one of the main sources of those rising costs: the burden that the
uninsured place on public hospitals and doctors. He spoke of giving
low-income people a tax credit to buy health care but failed to
explain why the working poor, for whom taxes represent a smaller part
of their expenditures in any case, would want to buy individual health
care accounts that would be more expensive than the group health care
plans employers now provide. He also talked about association health
plans, which would allow small businesses to band together to purchase
group health care. Yet such organizations exist already, not terribly
successfully. Current proposals on the table would allow them to
escape consumer regulation -- which could mean they destabilize the
current insurance markets and wind up hurting the consumers they are
intended to insure.

Mr. Bush did state that he remains opposed to a "government-run health
system." Fine -- but if he wishes to avoid that outcome, Mr. Bush
needs to think more creatively about how he is going to keep the
nation's private health care system viable. A peculiar jumble of old
ideas, long discussed but never acted upon, isn't going to do it.

Unhealthy, WP - Sunday, January 25, 2004; Page B06

>The real solution to poverty, criminality and homelessness would be
>to guarantee everyone a living income. Whether they actually work or
>not would be immaterial.

That you could propose such an assinine idea shows the extent to which our
society, even now, takes for granted an inert Government in which a nation's
wealth is supposed to repose. Economies, not states, are wealthy or poor.

The paternalist state which would make the "living income" guarantee you
suggest would run out of money very quickly, once the economy ceased to create
value. The economy would cease to create value, once people assimilated the
guarantee that money rains down regardless of "immaterial" work. With my
guaranteed $500/week wage, I would be unable to buy anything, because the
producers of the goods I desire would not be motivated to produce them, since a
"living wage" is guaranteed them without their working.

Neil

(WardNA) wrote in
:

>>The real solution to poverty, criminality and homelessness would
>>be to guarantee everyone a living income. Whether they actually
>>work or not would be immaterial.
>
> That you could propose such an assinine idea shows the extent to
> which our society, even now, takes for granted an inert Government
> in which a nation's wealth is supposed to repose. Economies, not
> states, are wealthy or poor.

So, you're not actually interested in finding solutions that would
work. Why am I not surprised by that?

I guess asking for a quantum change in your thinking is beyond your
capacity. Well, you have to live with yourself...

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> Mike1 wrote:
> > "Kal Alexander" > wrote:
> >
> >> moveeman1 wrote:
> >>> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
> >>
> >> Without info to the contrary, why not?
> >
> >
> > Why are you "without info", when Google is at your fingertips?
> >
> > For starters, the FDA is lying out its every orifice concerning
> > ephedra.
> >
> > For seconds, the FDA is a US government alphabet soup bureaucracy, and
> > if there is a case of one which hasn't lied, I'd like to hear of it.
>
> I was speaking about info to the contrary concerning their statements
> on generic drug pricing.
>
> And they didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a great
> many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe. The
> FDA has the arrogant belief that if it hasn't been tested adequately
> by them, it is too dangerous for us to use.

It is the brain hemorrages in Ephedra users that clued FDA.

In article >, Me
> wrote:

> I don't have numbers to quantify this, but I suspect that medical care
> in the United States would be a lot cheaper and more accessible if the
> intense amount of administrative overhead could be pruned down a lot.


http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623
*
Public Citizen * Physicians for a National Health Program*

Jan. 14, 2004

Study Shows National Health Insurance Could Save $286 Billion on Health
Care Paperwork:

Authors Say Medicare Drug Bill Will Increase Bureaucratic Costs, Reward
Insurers and the AARP

A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizen to be
published in Friday¹s International Journal of Health Services finds that
health care bureaucracy last year cost the United States $399.4 billion.
The study estimates that national health insurance (NHI) could save at
least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the
uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in
the United States.

The study was based on the most comprehensive analysis to date of health
administration spending, including data on the administrative costs of
health insurers, employers¹ health benefit programs, hospitals, nursing
homes, home care agencies, physicians and other practitioners in the
United States and Canada. The authors found that bureaucracy accounts for
at least 31 percent of total U.S. health spending compared to 16.7 percent
in Canada. They also found that administration has grown far faster in the
United States than in Canada.

The potential administrative savings of $286 billion annually under
national health insurance could:
1.
Offset the cost of covering the uninsured (estimated at $80 billion)

2.
Cover all out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs for seniors as well as
those under 65 (estimated at $53 billion in 2003)

3.
Fund retraining and job placement programs for insurance workers and
others who would lose their jobs under NHI (estimated at $20 billion)

4.
Make substantial improvements in coverage and quality of care for U.S.
consumers who already have insurance

Looked at another way, the potential administrative savings are equivalent
to $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million people uninsured in 2001 (the most
recent figure available for the uninsured at the time study was carried
out), more than enough to pay for health coverage. The study found wide
variation among states in the potential administrative savings available
per uninsured resident. Texas, with 4.96 million uninsured (nearly one in
four Texans), could save a total of $19.5 billion a year on administration
under NHI, which would make available $3,925 per uninsured resident per
year. Massachusetts, which has very high per capita health administrative
spending and a relatively low rate of uninsurance, could save a total of
$8.6 billion a year, which would make available$16,453 per uninsured
person. California, with 6.7 million uninsured, could save a total of
$33.7 billion a year, which would make available $5,016 per uninsured
person. (See accompanying chart for details on other states.)

Last week, the government reported that health spending accounts for a
record 15 percent of the nation¹s economy and that health care spending
shot up by 9.3 percent in 2002. Insurance overhead (one component of
administrative costs) rose by a whopping 16.8 percent in 2002, after a
12.5 percent increase in 2001, making it the fastest growing component of
health expenditure over the past three years. Hence the figures in the
Harvard/Public Citizen Report (which was completed before release of these
latest government figures), may understate true administrative costs.

The authors of the International Journal of Health Services study
attributed the high U.S. administrative costs to three factors. First,
private insurers have high overhead in both nations but play a much bigger
role in the United States. Second, The United States¹ fragmented payment
system drives up administrative costs for doctors and hospitals, who must
deal with hundreds of different insurance plans (for example, at least 755
in Seattle alone), each with different coverage and payment rules,
referral networks, etc. In Canada, doctors bill a single insurance plan,
using a single simple form, and hospitals receive a lump sum budget, much
as a fire department is paid in the United States. Finally, the increasing
business orientation of U.S. hospitals and insurers has expanded
bureaucracy.

The Medicare drug bill that Congress passed last month will only increase
bureaucratic spending because it will funnel large amounts of public money
through private insurance plans with high overhead.

"The recent Medicare bill means a huge increase in administrative waste
and a big payoff for the AARP," said study author Dr. David Himmelstein,
an associate professor of medicine at Harvard and former staff physician
at Public Citizen¹s Health Research Group. "At present, Medicare¹s
overhead is less than 4 percent. But all of the new Medicare money * $400
billion * will flow through private insurance plans whose overhead
averages 12 percent. So insurance companies will gain $36 billion from
this bill. And the AARP stands to make billions from the 4 percent cut it
receives from the policies sold to its members."

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a study author, associate professor of medicine
at Harvard and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, said
that. "Hundreds of billions are squandered each year on health care
bureaucracy, more than enough to cover all of the uninsured, pay for full
drug coverage for seniors and upgrade coverage for the tens of millions
who are underinsured. U.S. consumers spend almost twice as much per capita
on health care as Canadians who have universal coverage and live two years
longer. The administrative savings of national health insurance make
universal coverage affordable."

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen¹s Health Research Group
added: "This study, documents the state-by-state potential administrative
savings achievable with national health insurance. These enormous sums
could be used to provide health care for the more than 43 million
uninsured people in the United States and drug coverage for seniors. These
data should awaken governors and legislators to a fiscally sound and
humane way to deal with ballooning budget deficits. Instead of cutting
Medicaid and other vital services, officials could expand services by
freeing up the $286 billion a year wasted on administrative expenses. In
the current economic climate, with unemployment rising, we can ill afford
massive waste in health care. Radical surgery to cure our failing health
insurance system is sorely needed."

Dr. Himmelstein described the real-world meaning of the difference in
administration between the United States and Canada by comparing hospitals
in the two nations. Several years ago, he visited Toronto General
Hospital, a 900-bed tertiary care center that offered an extensive array
of high-tech procedures, and searched for the billing office. It was hard
to find, though; it consisted of a handful of people in the basement whose
main job was to send bills to U.S. patients who had come across the
border. Canadian hospitals do not bill individual patients for their
health care and so have no need to keep track of who receives each
Band-Aid or an aspirin.*

"A Canadian hospital negotiates its annual budget with the provincial
health plan and receives a single check each month to cover virtually all
of its expenses," Himmelstein said. "It need not fight with hundreds of
insurance plans about whether each day in the hospital was necessary, and
each pill justified. The result is massive savings on hospital billing and
bureaucracy."

Doctors in Canada face a similarly simple billing system. Every patient
has the same insurance. There is one simple billing form with a few boxes
on it. Doctors check the box indicating what kind of visit they provided
to the patient (i.e., how long and whether any special procedures were
performed) and send all bills to one agency.

Himmelstein returned to Boston and visited Massachusetts General Hospital,
which was similar to Toronto General in size and in the range of services
provided. Himmelstein was told that Massachusetts General¹s billing
department employed 352 full-time personnel, not because the hospital was
inefficient, but because this department needed to document in detail
every item used for each patient and fight with hundreds of insurance
plans about payment.

"U.S. doctors face a similar billing nightmare," Himmelstein said. "They
deal with hundreds of plans, each with different rules and regulations,
each allowing physicians to prescribe a different group of medications,
each dictating that doctors refer patients to different specialists.

"The U.S. system is a paperwork nightmare for doctors and patients, and
wastes hundreds of billions of dollars."

Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein are co-founders of*Physicians for a
National Health Program, an organization with over 12,000 members
advocating for single-payer national health insurance in the United
States. PNHP was founded in 1987 and has physician spokespeople across the
country. For a local spokesperson, call the national headquarters at
312-782-6006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Citizen is an independent voice for citizens in the halls of power.
We take NO government or corporate money.

>So, you're not actually interested in finding solutions that would
>work. Why am I not surprised by that?
>
>I guess asking for a quantum change in your thinking is beyond your
>capacity. Well, you have to live with yourself...

OK: you tell me why the misery you detect in the status quo is worse than the
hyperinflation which the cited proposal would quickly lead to.

Neil

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike1 wrote:
>>> "Kal Alexander" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> moveeman1 wrote:
>>>>> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
>>>>
>>>> Without info to the contrary, why not?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you "without info", when Google is at your fingertips?
>>>
>>> For starters, the FDA is lying out its every orifice concerning
>>> ephedra.
>>>
>>> For seconds, the FDA is a US government alphabet soup bureaucracy,
>>> and if there is a case of one which hasn't lied, I'd like to hear
>>> of it.
>>
>> I was speaking about info to the contrary concerning their statements
>> on generic drug pricing.
>>
>> And they didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a
>> great many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe.
>> The
>> FDA has the arrogant belief that if it hasn't been tested adequately
>> by them, it is too dangerous for us to use.
>
> It is the brain hemorrages in Ephedra users that clued FDA.

This is exactly what I am referring to. The number of people who
used ephedra based products as directed who developed brain
hemorrages is miniscule. Remember that people have been
using ephedra based medicines for years. Also, considering
aspirin causes the same effect when used in excess,
why not ban that too?

Hemorraging occurs in people who think "If one pill can help
me lose 5 pounds, then 5 pills can help me lose 25!". Now,
one might suggest that since the snake-oil salesmen of the
world were able to con people into buying the product, we
should put an end to that by banning the product. Aside
from the fact that banning a product has never been very
effective, I think education is a far more effective tool.

Just look at the effect lack of education has had on various
people in this newsgroup. :-)

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:09:30 -0330, "moveeman1"
> wrote:

>
> Those that thought it up at some think tank and then those that passed it
>in congress and the senate and the President at the time.
>
>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0330, "moveeman1"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it to
>> >succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to fail.
>When
>> >it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't work so may as well
>> >have laissez faire capitalism again.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Would you do me a favor and name these capitalists that set up
>> Medicare, so I know who you speaking about?
>> Pan Ohco
>
So in other words you don't know?
Thank you.
Pan Ohco

(WardNA) wrote in
:

>>So, you're not actually interested in finding solutions that would
>>work. Why am I not surprised by that?
>>
>>I guess asking for a quantum change in your thinking is beyond
>>your capacity. Well, you have to live with yourself...
>
> OK: you tell me why the misery you detect in the status quo is
> worse than the hyperinflation which the cited proposal would
> quickly lead to.

And why is this an issue? Solutions are not arrived at without
making fundamental changes, much as omelettes cannot be made without
breaking eggs. Think of the savings in not needing welfare, old age
pensions (I guess you call that Soshul Secyooridy)...police...many of
the various governmental services could be eliminated. There's a
good chunk of your money right there.

Selected nationalized industries would provide the bulk of revenues
and taxation of income from individuals and corporations over and
above the basic (non-taxable) amount would provide the rest. Oh, you
may have to arrest a few slimy landlords for overcharging on rent.
Too bad for you if you're one of them :-)

This does require a fundamental reworking of your "economies vs.
nations" concept, which is both false and goes against simple
observation.

How can I say that, you ask? Simple. Economies are not abstract
entities but rather nothing more than people and nations are not
abstract entities either but nothing more than people. And
sometimes, as in the case of the current ploutocrats in the WH, they
are the same people. Makes it easier to find them and hang them,
doesn't it :-)

If you're opposed to this one, feel free to propose a BETTER solution
(i.e. fair and sturdy) rather than just kvetching ad nauseam...

Unlike you, I seem to have an open mind on this subject :-)

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>Prior to government meddling health care was far more
>affordable than it is today.
>
>

Less medical technology and far fewer pills in the 1950's.

gld

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

>I think socialized medicine was one Bismarck's ideas in Germany in the
>late 19th century as a means to produce a healthy populace as a source
>for conscripts.
>
>

The socialists of the day opposed public health coverage as a conspiracy
by the owner classes to maintain industrial production.

Which major US political parties oppose rather than "Save Social
Security and Medicare"?

I'll be generous and include delusions-of-being-major parties. (-;

gld

>If you're opposed to this one, feel free to propose a BETTER solution
>(i.e. fair and sturdy) rather than just kvetching ad nauseam...
>
>Unlike you, I seem to have an open mind on this subject :-)

Since you haven't provided a proposal, really, but just a manifesto to the
effect that a bunch of criminals in power are manipulating the flow of wealth,
there's not much here to respond to. You seem to think that identifying and
eliminating waste will create enough wealth to support a welfare state
indefinitely, provided we can keep enough police enrolled to prevent monopolies
from filling the vaccuums. However, if Congress is unable to eliminate
waste--and it spends a great deal of time trying to do so--how do you think
your Leninish omelet-maker will go about it? You don't seem to have much
specific to propose other than arresting landlords, and a muddled reference to
identifying and hanging "ploutocrats."

All I'm getting from you is that the "people" in power should be replaced by
nicer "people"--and that economic models and nationhood models are just
smokescreens to come between justice/virtue and "the people."

But before we ask who is going to bell this cat, folks like you might do well
to understand that the bell and the cat exist in a dynamic relationship. Then
we can ask why "the people" wouldn't give Ralph Nader more than 3% of the vote
in 2000.

Neil

(WardNA) wrote in
:

>>If you're opposed to this one, feel free to propose a BETTER
>>solution (i.e. fair and sturdy) rather than just kvetching ad
>>nauseam...
>>
>>Unlike you, I seem to have an open mind on this subject :-)
>
> Since you haven't provided a proposal, really, but just a
> manifesto

A manifesto *is* a proposal. Perhaps you're not familiar with the
concept.

> You seem to think that identifying and eliminating waste will
> create enough wealth to support a welfare state indefinitely,
> provided we can keep enough police enrolled to prevent monopolies
> from filling the vaccuums.

It would be a starting point.

> However, if Congress is unable to
> eliminate waste--and it spends a great deal of time trying to do
> so--how do you think your Leninish omelet-maker will go about it?
> You don't seem to have much specific to propose other than
> arresting landlords, and a muddled reference to identifying and
> hanging "ploutocrats."

From the Greek "ploutô-" (wealth) and "kratein" (rule). Got a beef
with that? I can't help it if you don't know Greek.

And what in Hades (to remain in the greek mode) has Congress got to
do with it? Do you think this is about the US? You seem intent on
reducing this to your parish, whereas I'm proposing something that
would work on the global scale.

> All I'm getting from you is that the "people" in power should be
> replaced by nicer "people"--and that economic models and
> nationhood models are just smokescreens to come between
> justice/virtue and "the people."

Oh, heaven forfend that leaders should be anything but the basest of
criminals. After all, you know the adage: You get the type of
government you deserve. In the case of the US, I think that was far
too harsh a sentence.

> But before we ask who is going to bell this cat, folks like you
> might do well to understand that the bell and the cat exist in a
> dynamic relationship. Then we can ask why "the people" wouldn't
> give Ralph Nader more than 3% of the vote in 2000.

Fear. For the same reason that the New Democratic Party will never
be elected to power federally in Canada. Fear of being faced with an
effective democratic process instead of the usual pork-barrel
purchased cyphers. Better the cyphers you know...or so it seems.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message

>> And they didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a great
>> many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe. The
>> FDA has the arrogant belief that if it hasn't been tested adequately
>> by them, it is too dangerous for us to use.
>
>It is the brain hemorrages in Ephedra users that clued FDA.


*Cite*, you ridiculous cretin.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:15:19 -0500, Me wrote:

> Health care in the United States is also deeply mired in paperwork
> and administrative overhead. Two days ago, I went to a private blood lab
> to have blood work done. I do this every six months. This was at the
> request of my doctor and my insurance will pick up the tab. This is the
> first time that I have gone to this lab where I was in and out without a
> long wait. This lab is almost ways packed with people waiting, but I
> lucked out this time and I only waited five minutes. While the lab
> technician was drawing my blood, I commented to her how slow business
> was that day. She laughed and said it was unusual. She then told me that
> on quiet days like that one, they spend the extra time doing paperwork.
> This lab tech told me that the spend several hours each day doing
> nothing but paperwork for insurance companies.
>
> The same is also true of mental health care. My sister's a psychologist
> in private practice. She has her own office and she's doing quite well.
> She told me several times that a large amount of her time isn't spent
> treating her patients, its doing paperwork for the insurance companies
> and complaining on the phone to them repeatedly because they are slow to
> send her payments for the patients these companies refer to her.
>
> I don't have numbers to quantify this, but I suspect that medical care
> in the United States would be a lot cheaper and more accessible if the
> intense amount of administrative overhead could be pruned down a lot.

I am retired now but in the past I have done alot of consulting work a good
part of it for hospitals and Medical Centers. About six or seven years ago
I did a large study for a West Cost Medical Center. My study covered
several atreas but one area included the utilization of administrative
personel. The study did not specfically address insurance issues, but it
became important to the study, because of the great number of man hours
spent on insurnce matters. Based on my study at that time and in that
setting, at least 20% of the administrative staff's time was spent on
insurance paper work and interfacing with insurance companies. This of
course did not include what time doctors and nurses spent on insurance,
which was not something that I looked at.

--
JakeInHartsel

>From the Greek "ploutô-" (wealth) and "kratein" (rule). Got a beef
>with that? I can't help it if you don't know Greek.
>
>And what in Hades (to remain in the greek mode)

I know enough Greek to know that should be "Haides," Silly.

Neil

Jenn > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article .net>,
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "john" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
> > > > > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> > > > > that period?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > > > affordable than it is today.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > the overhead for medicare is tiny compared to private insurance companies
> >
> > False.
> >
> > Thanks for playing.
> >
> >
>
> this one is a no brainer and well documented -- private for profits and
> insurance companies divert money that could go for providing health care
> into bureaucracy and profit -- the 'efficiency' so touted by greedheads
> is actually just about denying care

OK - so Medicare is NOT a bureaucracy and opportunity cost of capital
is not something a government needs to worry about?

There are 4500 employees and an administrative budget of 2.5 billion
dollars. A third of this is paid to outsource contractors to manage
claims administration. The working capital alone to fund an
organization of that size is huge - but no problem for Medicare, that
comes out of someone elses pot of money, not theirs.

Second, the scope of Medicare is substantially less than the scope of
most private insurance plans - let's start with drug benefits and go
from there. Small plans spending on big ticket items (mostly
inpatient) with little adjudication of billing makes fr some pretty
low administrative costs.

Third, Medicare has no direct marketing expenses. Now, you might
think that this is a good thing - but the problem is, the government
has huge expenses for "marketing" of Medicare, they just take it out
of a different pot of money. Are you over 60? Have you gotten any
mailings from CMS?

A fourth factor is that Medicare is NOT an insurer. As such, it has
no underwriting activity and faces no risk. So, no cost.

Fifth, and foremost, and probably the most expensive part that
Medicare conveniently avoids is - PREMIUMS. CMS gets a budget from
Congress and never has to worry about where the money is coming from.
The whole premium collection costs are off their books completely.
Remember, that's the job of the IRS.

> a single payer plan would save 100s of billions now wasted in insurance
> company overhead

Yes - the magic of government - makes overhead disappear.

Pretty naive thinking.

js

In article > ,
(Jonathan Smith) wrote:

> Jenn > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article .net>,
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "john" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care
> > > > > > needs
> > > > > > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > that period?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > > > > affordable than it is today.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > the overhead for medicare is tiny compared to private insurance
> > > > companies
> > >
> > > False.
> > >
> > > Thanks for playing.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > this one is a no brainer and well documented -- private for profits and
> > insurance companies divert money that could go for providing health care
> > into bureaucracy and profit -- the 'efficiency' so touted by greedheads
> > is actually just about denying care
>
> OK - so Medicare is NOT a bureaucracy and opportunity cost of capital
> is not something a government needs to worry about?
>
> There are 4500 employees and an administrative budget of 2.5 billion
> dollars. A third of this is paid to outsource contractors to manage
> claims administration. The working capital alone to fund an
> organization of that size is huge - but no problem for Medicare, that
> comes out of someone elses pot of money, not theirs.

and yet the overhead admin costs for medicare is tiny compared to
insurance companies and HMOs --
>
> Second, the scope of Medicare is substantially less than the scope of
> most private insurance plans - let's start with drug benefits and go
> from there. Small plans spending on big ticket items (mostly
> inpatient) with little adjudication of billing makes fr some pretty
> low administrative costs.
>
> Third, Medicare has no direct marketing expenses. Now, you might
> think that this is a good thing - but the problem is, the government
> has huge expenses for "marketing" of Medicare, they just take it out
> of a different pot of money. Are you over 60? Have you gotten any
> mailings from CMS?
>
> A fourth factor is that Medicare is NOT an insurer. As such, it has
> no underwriting activity and faces no risk. So, no cost.
>
> Fifth, and foremost, and probably the most expensive part that
> Medicare conveniently avoids is - PREMIUMS. CMS gets a budget from
> Congress and never has to worry about where the money is coming from.
> The whole premium collection costs are off their books completely.
> Remember, that's the job of the IRS.
>
> > a single payer plan would save 100s of billions now wasted in insurance
> > company overhead
>
> Yes - the magic of government - makes overhead disappear.
>
> Pretty naive thinking.

so we should continue to not insure 20 percent of our population while
wasting up to 30% on overhead? good idea
>
> js

Jenn > wrote in message >...
> In article > ,
> (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> > Jenn > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article .net>,
> > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "john" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care
> > > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of
> > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > that period?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > > > > > affordable than it is today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the overhead for medicare is tiny compared to private insurance
> > > > > companies
> > > >
> > > > False.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for playing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > this one is a no brainer and well documented -- private for profits and
> > > insurance companies divert money that could go for providing health care
> > > into bureaucracy and profit -- the 'efficiency' so touted by greedheads
> > > is actually just about denying care
> >
> > OK - so Medicare is NOT a bureaucracy and opportunity cost of capital
> > is not something a government needs to worry about?
> >
> > There are 4500 employees and an administrative budget of 2.5 billion
> > dollars. A third of this is paid to outsource contractors to manage
> > claims administration. The working capital alone to fund an
> > organization of that size is huge - but no problem for Medicare, that
> > comes out of someone elses pot of money, not theirs.
>
> and yet the overhead admin costs for medicare is tiny compared to
> insurance companies and HMOs --

No, it is not tiny in comparison. The problem that you seem to be
having is that you insist on comparing apples with oranges. Do you
understand the difference between overhead, administrative costs, and
return on investment?

The administrative costs - claims administration - the part that CMS
touts as their evidence of streamlined efficiency - is outsourced to
Blue Cross. The efficiency in claims processing is derived from the
private insurance sector.

> > Second, the scope of Medicare is substantially less than the scope of
> > most private insurance plans - let's start with drug benefits and go
> > from there. Small plans spending on big ticket items (mostly
> > inpatient) with little adjudication of billing makes fr some pretty
> > low administrative costs.

Maybe you missed this - the breadth of the plan makes a difference in
how much it costs to administer it.

> > Third, Medicare has no direct marketing expenses. Now, you might
> > think that this is a good thing - but the problem is, the government
> > has huge expenses for "marketing" of Medicare, they just take it out
> > of a different pot of money. Are you over 60? Have you gotten any
> > mailings from CMS?

So? what - no rejoinder? I would have at least expected you to
mumble something about wasteful marketing.

> > A fourth factor is that Medicare is NOT an insurer. As such, it has
> > no underwriting activity and faces no risk. So, no cost.

Another apple versus orange, in case you missed it.

> > Fifth, and foremost, and probably the most expensive part that
> > Medicare conveniently avoids is - PREMIUMS. CMS gets a budget from
> > Congress and never has to worry about where the money is coming from.
> > The whole premium collection costs are off their books completely.
> > Remember, that's the job of the IRS.
> >
> > > a single payer plan would save 100s of billions now wasted in insurance
> > > company overhead
> >
> > Yes - the magic of government - makes overhead disappear.
> >
> > Pretty naive thinking.
>
> so we should continue to not insure 20 percent of our population while
> wasting up to 30% on overhead? good idea

We shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that by nationalizing
health care that savings miraculously appear sufficient to fund the
increased costs associated with the plans largess.

I am all for providing access to competitive insurance models to
everyone - I am not in favor of forcing everyone into a bureaucratic
single payer boondoggle.

Now - admit you were wrong or provide evidence that when like is
compared to like, Medicare is more efficient. This I gotta hear.

js

On 1/28/04 5:22 PM, in article
, "Jonathan Smith"
> wrote:


[ 100+ lines of 3 level quotes, unedited ]


No one reads an ugly page, dude.

Learn to snip!


-------
Jack
-------

Jack > wrote in message >...
> On 1/28/04 5:22 PM, in article
> , "Jonathan Smith"
> > wrote:
>
>
> [ 100+ lines of 3 level quotes, unedited ]
>
>
> No one reads an ugly page, dude.
>
> Learn to snip!
>
>
> -------
> Jack
> -------
>

If you are offended - don't reead it. Personally, I prefer context.
And who made you netnanny for a day anyway?

(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om>...
[snip]
> And who made you netnanny for a day anyway?

I did.

"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Mike1 wrote:
> >>> "Kal Alexander" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> moveeman1 wrote:
> >>>>> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
> >>>>
> >>>> Without info to the contrary, why not?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why are you "without info", when Google is at your fingertips?
> >>>
> >>> For starters, the FDA is lying out its every orifice concerning
> >>> ephedra.
> >>>
> >>> For seconds, the FDA is a US government alphabet soup bureaucracy,
> >>> and if there is a case of one which hasn't lied, I'd like to hear
> >>> of it.
> >>
> >> I was speaking about info to the contrary concerning their statements
> >> on generic drug pricing.
> >>
> >> And they didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a
> >> great many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe.
> >> The
> >> FDA has the arrogant belief that if it hasn't been tested adequately
> >> by them, it is too dangerous for us to use.
> >
> > It is the brain hemorrages in Ephedra users that clued FDA.
>
> This is exactly what I am referring to. The number of people who
> used ephedra based products as directed who developed brain
> hemorrages is miniscule.

Correct, but that does not mean that herbal E was not killing people.

> Remember that people have been
> using ephedra based medicines for years. Also, considering
> aspirin causes the same effect when used in excess,
> why not ban that too?

Asprin is the most common form of pill induced successful suicide, but
people don't get high on asprin.

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
>
> >> And they didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a great
> >> many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe. The
> >> FDA has the arrogant belief that if it hasn't been tested adequately
> >> by them, it is too dangerous for us to use.
> >
> >It is the brain hemorrages in Ephedra users that clued FDA.
>
>
> *Cite*, you ridiculous cretin.

Blow me, you gerbil infested loser.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:32:14 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> And they didn't actually lie about ephedra. They just left out a great
>> >> many facts that didn't back up what they wanted us to believe. The
>> >> FDA has the arrogant belief that if it hasn't been tested adequately
>> >> by them, it is too dangerous for us to use.
>> >
>> >It is the brain hemorrages in Ephedra users that clued FDA.
>>
>>
>> *Cite*, you ridiculous cretin.
>
>Blow me, you gerbil infested loser.

Now,now, girls, be nice!
>

In rec.food.cooking Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> It's the other way round. Free market competition keeps cost down and
> service up.

Not always. One of the biggest problems with the private health care
system in the states is that the overhead for preparing insurance forms
and paperwork is staggering. I just spoke with a tech at a blood lab
in my neighborhood and she said they spend hours every day just doing
paperwork after the doors close at night. My sister who's a psychologist
in private practice also echoed the same concern to me on several occassions,
the she spends hours doing insurance paperwork, which could better be
spent treating patients.