On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:13:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 4/12/2016 4:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>
>> So sorry to hear that, $8000 pa is a lot of money to pay out annually
>> for just one person. Our system is quite different here - although of
>> course there are shysters who would love to emulate your system here
>> in Australia. It may well happen here yet. In the meantime, it is also
>> the middle class in Aus that gets hit hardest with taxes, etc.
>>
>I had lunch today with one of our machine suppliers in Denmark so I
>asked him about healthcare in his country. He had some interesting
>comments about it.
>
>First, like others have said, he is happy that he is fully covered.
>
>He has no idea of the actual cost. It is paid for by a 25% VAT tax on
>purchases. He did say that the car tax is reduced and is now down to
>150%. No, that is not a typo, it is 150%.

Not much point bringing up indirect comparisons like that without
analysing their entire taxation system, along with other benefits
received (or not received). Comparing standards of living may give a
better indication.

>Getting treatment can take a while, elective surgery is 6 months or
>more. What is worse though, he says people don't value the benefit and
>think nothing of it to just not show up for the operation even though
>the staff is ready.
>
>Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
>about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.
>
>Extra insurance is available and you can get treatment from private
>doctors and get better appointment times. Not a perfect system that he
>says is getting worse.

I read Bruce's reply, which echos mine. You won't find many people
_anywhere_ who are happy with their health system, but few outside the
U.S have pay such a crippling amount just for insurance.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:13:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 4/12/2016 4:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
>
>>
>> So sorry to hear that, $8000 pa is a lot of money to pay out annually
>> for just one person. Our system is quite different here - although of
>> course there are shysters who would love to emulate your system here
>> in Australia. It may well happen here yet. In the meantime, it is also
>> the middle class in Aus that gets hit hardest with taxes, etc.
>>
>
>
>I had lunch today with one of our machine suppliers in Denmark so I
>asked him about healthcare in his country. He had some interesting
>comments about it.
>
>First, like others have said, he is happy that he is fully covered.
>
>He has no idea of the actual cost. It is paid for by a 25% VAT tax on
>purchases. He did say that the car tax is reduced and is now down to
>150%. No, that is not a typo, it is 150%.

Normal VAT type tax here on vehicles, but it does increase with luxury
vehicles, not unreasonable.
>
>Getting treatment can take a while, elective surgery is 6 months or
>more. What is worse though, he says people don't value the benefit and
>think nothing of it to just not show up for the operation even though
>the staff is ready.

Have to say I have not heard of that happening here thankfully.
>
>Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
>about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.

I'm surprised, I would have thought the Danish would be more like us,
our doctors are generally attentive and very good. My granddaughter
took her little 2 year old to the emergency at the Childrens Hospital
a few weeks ago and they couldn't seem to pin it down. She got a
telephone call about four days later from the doc to explain she
should bring her back in because he had been checking out his books
and felt sure he had nailed it, but needed some tests to be certain.
>
>Extra insurance is available and you can get treatment from private
>doctors and get better appointment times. Not a perfect system that he
>says is getting worse.

When our system came in 1968, they had done a huge study of the
British system. The main fault they didn't want to repeat was a mix
of private and public treatment. When my aunt in the UK needed a knee
replacement she waited a considerable time because her surgeon did
four days private treatment and only one day public.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:45:31 -0300, wrote:

>When our system came in 1968, they had done a huge study of the
>British system. The main fault they didn't want to repeat was a mix
>of private and public treatment. When my aunt in the UK needed a knee
>replacement she waited a considerable time because her surgeon did
>four days private treatment and only one day public.

There are situations in Australia where those with private health
cover can actually be worse off than those relying solely on the
public system. A few cracks in the system there...

On 4/12/2016 5:04 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:58:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2016 4:16 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. That's why I'm grateful to have my husband's employer pay half
>>>> the cost.
>>>>
>>>> The insurance company makes out like a bandit on me, since I consume
>>>> virtually no health care services. They don't do as well with my husband,
>>>> who has multiple prescriptions and numerous doctor visits per year.
>>>
>>> Yes, clearly it works out well for the insurance companies, overall.
>>> I assume there are a chain of middle-men within the system who are
>>> really reaping the financial benefits... the bulk of the money is
>>> going somewhere other than clinics and hospitals, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say that? Evidence?
>
> Because where does all the money go? Why is the cost of medication and
> treatment in the U.S so astronomical (2-3 times higher) compared to
> elsewhere? No doubt legal liability is a factor, but it in no way
> accounts for such a price disparity.
>

So your supposition is a handful of people are taking it. I don't see
where insurance company employees benefit from high prices from the
companies that make the drugs. You need a better hypothesis. While I
agree the prices are much higher than they need to be I don't see the
insurance company as the beneficiary.

On 12/04/2016 1:13 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:18 -0600, carnal asada >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2016 10:41 PM, sf wrote:
>>> To prove my point, all you need to do is Google which states TAKE the
>>> most Federal "handout" dollars vs how much they contribute in taxes
>>> and how many of them are red (Republican dominated) states.
>>
>>
>> Because of course Dems _never_ cease to hand out other peoples' money to
>> one and all - they're equal opportunity redistributors, always.
>
> Red states never fail to have their hands out to take a Federal
> handout. Typical hypocrites.
>
Farmers, the world over, are almost inevitably RW, often far RW,
espousing independence from government interference - but they are the
first in line for government handouts:-(

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:06:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 4/12/2016 5:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:58:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2016 4:16 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. That's why I'm grateful to have my husband's employer pay half
>>>>> the cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> The insurance company makes out like a bandit on me, since I consume
>>>>> virtually no health care services. They don't do as well with my husband,
>>>>> who has multiple prescriptions and numerous doctor visits per year.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, clearly it works out well for the insurance companies, overall.
>>>> I assume there are a chain of middle-men within the system who are
>>>> really reaping the financial benefits... the bulk of the money is
>>>> going somewhere other than clinics and hospitals, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you say that? Evidence?
>>
>> Because where does all the money go? Why is the cost of medication and
>> treatment in the U.S so astronomical (2-3 times higher) compared to
>> elsewhere? No doubt legal liability is a factor, but it in no way
>> accounts for such a price disparity.
>>
>
>So your supposition is a handful of people are taking it.

Huh?

>I don't see
>where insurance company employees benefit from high prices from the
>companies that make the drugs.

Wha?

>You need a better hypothesis. While I
>agree the prices are much higher than they need to be I don't see the
>insurance company as the beneficiary.

I referring to a whole lot more than just insurance companies... and
where do their employees enter into it anyway? Never mind.

On 4/12/2016 1:10 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:56:55 -0600, carnal asada >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2016 8:12 AM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> It's just too ironic how ALL the Kennedy potential president
>>>> candidates
>>>> met an untimely death or scandal.
>>>
>>> If you're going to be a conspiracy theorist, at least be complete.
>>> You forgot Joe Jr (the one Joe Sr wanted to be president) who died in
>>> WWII. http://www.history.com/topics/joseph-kennedy-jr
>>>
>>
>> Bootleggers' woes...
>>
> I don't think subsequent family history has anything to do with that
> other than the convenience of what money (illegal or not) can buy.
>

It's the company they started with - tends to hang around and not for
the better.

On 4/12/2016 1:11 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:55:02 -0600, carnal asada >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2016 7:46 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> He could not have been too badly disgraced. He was driving drunk and
>>
>>
>> Do you have ANY of your own politicians to whinge about?
>>
>> How about Rob Ford tribute, eh bully boy?
>
> That's what gets me. They have plenty of their own problems to be
> concerned about.
>

Canuckleheads are OBSESSED with blaming America for ALL their problems!

Always have been, always will be.

It's classic little brother syndrome.

On 4/12/2016 1:13 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:18 -0600, carnal asada >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2016 10:41 PM, sf wrote:
>>> To prove my point, all you need to do is Google which states TAKE the
>>> most Federal "handout" dollars vs how much they contribute in taxes
>>> and how many of them are red (Republican dominated) states.
>>
>>
>> Because of course Dems _never_ cease to hand out other peoples' money to
>> one and all - they're equal opportunity redistributors, always.
>
> Red states never fail to have their hands out to take a Federal
> handout. Typical hypocrites.



And they only have red people in them?

Those are the only people getting federal aid?

Do tell...

Btw, is their political polarity at present the defining trait of those
states?

Or are there perhaps other demographic traits that are a bit more relevant?

On 2016-04-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> While I (or my employer)

BINGO!

Are you kidding me? Who is still on a corporation health plan?

When I got laid off in '98, I couldn't GET health insurance, even
when I offered to pay double! Then I discovered COBRA.

What is COBRA? Basically, it's a govt program that forces the health
carrier you had when your were still employed to cover yer ass. Hey,
ya' gotta pay the full monty, but yer covered. Fer awhile. After 18
mos, yer back out on the street and no-one will touch you.

nb

On 4/12/2016 3:45 PM, wrote:
> Normal VAT type tax here on vehicles, but it does increase with luxury
> vehicles, not unreasonable.

Typical statist rape victim mentality!

On 4/12/2016 3:45 PM, wrote:
> I'm surprised, I would have thought the Danish would be more like us,
> our doctors are generally attentive and very good.

Bullshit LIE!

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/08/...for-americans/

I was born in the same year that my government adopted socialized
healthcare in Canada. I am an educated, middle-class woman and I have
never known any kind of healthcare but the kind that is provided by our
government-run system. It has been a nightmare for my family and me. The
following stories, told in second person and based on my personal
experiences with socialized healthcare in Canada, constitute my personal
warning to Americans.

Imagine that you and your spouse, and three children under the age of
six move to a new city and must find a family doctor. You are told at
the local clinic that the doctors there are not accepting any new
patients. (Canadian price controls have created shortages of everything
when it comes to healthcare). The receptionist suggests that you go
through the yellow pages and try to find a physician whose practice is
not "full." You spend days, and weeks, doing this, and are repeatedly
told "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients." You put your name on
several waiting lists and persist in calling doctors' offices.

Finally, a receptionist tells you that, while the doctor is still
accepting new patients, he requires a full medical history and an
interview with each family member before you can be added to his roster
of patients. Based on the questions asked during the interviews, you
come to understand that he is screening out sick or potentially sick
people. You are all healthy, fortunately, so he takes you on as
patients. Others are just out of luck.

There is a chronic shortage of doctors in Canada because price controls
on doctors' salaries have resulted in a "brain drain" where the best and
brightest practice medicine in the U.S. and elsewhere, after being
educated in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government cut medical
school enrollment in half in the 1990s as a "cost-cutting measure,"
making the problem of doctor shortages much worse.

Next, imagine that all of a sudden your six-year-old begins showing what
seems to be signs of an appendicitis attack, shortly after recuperating
from chicken pox. You take him to a hospital emergency room and carry
him in because he is unable to walk. There is no one to help you as you
enter the building, so you must lumber along to the reception area. A
nurse interviews you for a couple of minutes, asks you for the reason
for your visit, and then takes your son's government health card and
asks you to fill out paperwork while your son writhes in pain in your lap.

You tell the nurse that your son must be seen by a doctor immediately —
it's an emergency! — as his condition is worsening by the minute. The
nurse tells you, stone-faced, to go and sit in the waiting room to wait
for a triage nurse. Having no choice, you do what you are told and join
twenty or so others in line in front of you. You are given nothing to
help make your son more comfortable — no damp facecloth, no bedpan for
the vomit, nothing.

When a triage nurse finally strolls in a half hour later your son is too
weak to respond to her and you begin to panic. Finally, a doctor appears
and says it's just a "bug" and that you should not be playing "armchair
doctor" by "diagnosing" appendicitis. He orders some time-consuming
tests anyway, because you have shown him that you are very, very angry.
Six hours later the test results come back positive for appendicitis.

Your son is whisked away for an emergency appendectomy, after which the
surgeon tells you that, had the surgery been delayed by another few
minutes, he would probably have died. Your son's appendix was gangrenous
and on the verge of bursting. It reminds you of reading in the local
news of three other people who were sent home from the emergency room,
only to have their appendices burst and die. You are grateful that you
were much more persistent and ornery than they apparently were.

Our Soviet-style emergency rooms have waiting rooms equipped with hard
metal chairs, vending machines that sell junk food, and maybe a
television in one corner. There is no access to any medical equipment,
beds, or even stretchers. In the emergency room everyone passes through
triage and is given a code based on a nurse's cursory evaluation of
their affliction. If you are not satisfied with the "care" that is
provided there is nowhere else to go, except to an American hospital if
you are close enough to the border and can afford to pay cash. Canadians
know that if you call an ambulance you can bypass the 10–12 hour wait in
the emergency room, but this drives up the costs of healthcare even further.

If there ever was a good fight, Americans, this is it. As we say in
Canada, "Youse guys just gotta give 'er, eh!

August 11, 2009

Cathy LeBoeuf-Shouten lives in Hudson, Quebec, Canada.



http://www.dickmorris.com/a-health-c...y-from-canada/

There are howls of outrage coming from the liberal community in Alberta,
Canada. It seems that some doctors, desperate to protect their patients
from the overcrowded and failing socialized medical system in their
country, have set up private clinics to treat them. To circumvent
Canadian laws, which prohibit charging for medical care, they have set
up private, membership clinics where, for $2,000 a year, patients can
access well staffed and equipped clinics and avoid the long waits and
compromised care of the public system.
The leading Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reports that
“critics say that the clinics are taking physicians away from the public
system making it even harder…to find a family doctor.” David Eggen,
executive director of a group that supports the Canadian socialized
system, Friends of Medicare, said that it’s already hard to find a
family physician in Canada and that clinics like these, springing up in
several Canadian cities, could make it even harder.
It does not seem to have occurred to defenders of socialized medicine
that the system itself is causing the doctor shortage. Cuts in medical
fees, overcrowding of facilities, shortages of equipment and space, and
bureaucratic oversight have all combined to drive men and women out of
family medical practice. Now, with a critical shortage looming, those
who can afford to pay for adequate care are opting out of the public
system and, literally, taking their lives into their own hands.
But it is illegal to make patients “have to pay a fee to gain access to
health services” that are provided free by the government system. So
patients and doctors are forming membership-only groups to avoid the
legal penalties that could potential stop them from getting or giving
the care that they need.
This is where the United States is headed. Socialism dries up the supply
of medical care and forces ever stricter rationing of the available
resources. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “Eventually socialism
runs out of other peoples’ money.”

On 4/12/2016 3:45 PM, wrote:
> When our system came in 1968, they had done a huge study of the
> British system. The main fault they didn't want to repeat was a mix
> of private and public treatment.


That's why your provinces are PRIVATIZING now, you dizzy old shrew.

Wake up = smell reality!

https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1679

Privatization by Stealth: Canadian Health Care in Crisis
— Milton Fisk

THE RECENT GROWTH of obstacles to getting health care here in the United
States has led to a renewed interest in Canada's system of universal
access, called Medicare. Premium inflation has accelerated after
stabilizing in the mid-1990s.

Employers, who had trusted Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) to
limit their expenses for employee health care, are either limiting
employee coverage or simply not contributing to it. The steady rise in
the number of uninsured in this country is a reminder that a robust
economy doesn't mean generalized affluence.

It is ironic though that, just when interest in the United States is
rising, the Canadian system itself has become more vulnerable. Emergency
room overcrowding has reached crisis proportions in Ontario and Quebec;
hospital closings have devastated rural communities in Saskatchewan and
Alberta; the provinces are begging for federal health care cuts to be
restored to prevent a collapse of the system.

For the past fifteen years, Canada has been ruled by neoliberal
governments that have cut back the overall social security system, and
Medicare with it. Still, in Canada, Medicare gets approval from 80% or
more, and 60% reject the idea of replacing it with a two-tier system in
which the government insures those who can't afford private insurance.

he Onset of Privatization

There has come to be more to the neoliberal program for Canadian health
care than federal cuts. There are other opportunities to be opened up
for capital by limiting government. The subtext of the cuts has become
getting a greater share of the $(C)75 billion health care industry into
the hands of profit-making outfits. The cuts have proven merely a
convenient indirect means toward such a privatization. It may, though,
be U.S. multinational health corporations, rather than Canadian capital,
that get to take advantage of privatization within Canadian health care.
Privatization takes many forms, and in Canada's health care system one
isn't faced now with privatization by sale to for-profit firms. Rather,
one is faced with a growth of competitors to Medicare. Thus one has a
growth in business for private health insurers, and as well a growth in
business for providers whose services aren't covered under Medicare.

These forms of competitor privatization are politically more expedient
than a sell-off of what Medicare “owns,” which is almost exclusively the
human bodies insured under provincial plans. Yet these privatizations
are promoted by the cuts and do threaten Medicare's ability to carry out
its mission of universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness,
portability, and public accountability, as defined in the 1984 Canada
Health Act.

Private insurance is getting a boost in several ways. As a result of
underfunding, some services have been taken off the provincial lists of
covered services. Thus in Manitoba and Quebec free dental services for
children were dropped. Other provinces have dropped coverage for eye
examinations. Moreover, in many provinces listed services have not been
updated to include non-physician services that can reasonably be
considered necessary for health, such as home and rehabilitative care.

Those who favor making private insurance available for coverage of as
many services as possible appeal to the fact that the Canada Health Act
itself requires coverage only of “medically necessary” hospital and
physician care. Such an appeal accompanies efforts, like those
spearheaded by Alberta premier Ralph Klein, to get around the legal
restriction that a service paid for by the provincial plan—“listed” by
it—cannot be billed to a patient and hence cannot be covered by private
insurance.

Can, for example, a service that a provincial plan pays for be covered
by a private insurer when it is performed in a clinic that announces it
has cut its ties with Medicare? Physicians sometimes leave hospitals,
complaining of low compensation, to offer services only to those willing
to pay for them without relying on their provincial health plan. If
their work is rehabilitation, they can argue that it is perhaps not
“medically necessary” and thus need not have been listed in the first place.

Recently this minimalist view of medical necessity has been pushed to an
absurd limit. Physicians have been successful in court against an
Ontario Ministry of Health challenge to their billing patients for
preoperative tests that under any reasonable interpretation are
constituent parts of procedures insured under the provincial plan. In
these various ways, private insurance is given the opportunity to fill
in a growing number of holes in provincial plans.

The provincial health ministries with which hospitals funded by
provincial plans have to negotiate their global budgets are to act as
the guardians of the principles of Medicare. This discourages the
handful of for-profit hospitals funded under those plans from having
ambitious goals for increasing market shares or attracting profit-hungry
investors. Thus far, then, for-profit privatization tends to work around
the edges rather than to increase the number of for-profit hospitals
working within provincial plans.

Here are some of the ways privatization is growing. With cuts in
hospital nursing staffs and with the employment of hospital therapists
not keeping up with demand, numerous for-profit extended care and
rehabilitation centers have sprung up. Often their services are not
covered by provincial plans—not because they are delivered in for-profit
centers but because the service is both non-physician and non-hospital care.

Cuts in hospital laboratory staffs cause long waits for test results
financed out of hospitals' budgets. For-profit laboratories provide
quicker service, at least for those who can afford to pay for it either
out of pocket or with private insurance. In some cases, hospitals form
joint ventures with for-profit laboratories, using the revenue to offset
inadequate global budgets. In New Brunswick, four for-profit
multinational firms have taken over the administration of the provincial
health plan, in violation of the public-administration condition of
Medicare.

Finally, hospital funding itself is being privatized. In Ontario,
continuing support for hospitals became incompatible with the desire of
its Tory premier Mike Harris to slash taxes. His government wants
Toronto's hospitals renovated through a hospital bond issue rather than
with funds from taxes.

This method of “renovation” begins to modify the goals of the hospitals
to conform to the interests of lenders rather than to the public
interest in having a healthy society. These and similar privatizations
lead toward a health care system with a public outer shell covering
for-profit functioning parts.

On 4/12/2016 4:17 PM, graham wrote:

> Farmers, the world over, are almost inevitably RW,


Wow.

Do you even have a brain?

You are one of the most ****ed up, deceitful, hateful little ass warts
in this group.

DROP DEAD!

On 4/12/2016 5:44 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-04-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> While I (or my employer)
>
> BINGO!
>
> Are you kidding me? Who is still on a corporation health plan?

Glad you asked:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p60-253.pdf

Employer plans still reside in the mid 50% range.

> When I got laid off in '98, I couldn't GET health insurance, even
> when I offered to pay double! Then I discovered COBRA.
>
> What is COBRA? Basically, it's a govt program that forces the health
> carrier you had when your were still employed to cover yer ass. Hey,
> ya' gotta pay the full monty, but yer covered. Fer awhile. After 18
> mos, yer back out on the street and no-one will touch you.
>
> nb
>

True.

On 2016-04-12 5:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/12/2016 4:12 PM, Je�us wrote:
>
>>
>> So sorry to hear that, $8000 pa is a lot of money to pay out annually
>> for just one person. Our system is quite different here - although of
>> course there are shysters who would love to emulate your system here
>> in Australia. It may well happen here yet. In the meantime, it is also
>> the middle class in Aus that gets hit hardest with taxes, etc.
>>
>
>
> I had lunch today with one of our machine suppliers in Denmark so I
> asked him about healthcare in his country. He had some interesting
> comments about it.
>
> First, like others have said, he is happy that he is fully covered.
>
> He has no idea of the actual cost. It is paid for by a 25% VAT tax on
> purchases. He did say that the car tax is reduced and is now down to
> 150%. No, that is not a typo, it is 150%.


No wonder he is happy. That is a big drop. I have been to Denmark
several times and I heard about their 180% sales tax on new cars very
shortly after arriving there. I was picked up by someone with his brand
new car. He told me about the tax and said they pay for three cars but
only get one. I also heard about it from just about every Dane I talked
to. Bear in mind that the the tax money covers a lot of other things
other than medical care. They have generous welfare and unemployment
benefits, likes close to $2000 per month for up to two years. They also
retrain the unemployment and provide job counselling, free education,
daycare and a great pensions.

>

On 4/12/2016 10:03 PM, Bruce wrote:

>>>> Given the choice, I'd rather pay my insurance and drive a nice car
>>>> than have free medical and drive an Econobox.

> Only based on what you said earlier about preferring a bigger car to
> nation wide healthcare.
>

No, that is not what I said. I'd rather pay my own insurance than pay
excessive tax on a car. It does not mean you cannot have nationwide
healthcare. Many ways to pay for it.

On 4/12/2016 7:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Did I mention that my car has every possible option? yes, including the
> Ultra Package and I still help pay for others medical


Um Ed...the nancy-boy is just trolling you, ya know?

On 4/12/2016 10:11 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> No wonder he is happy. That is a big drop. I have been to Denmark
> several times and I heard about their 180% sales tax on new cars very
> shortly after arriving there. I was picked up by someone with his brand
> new car. He told me about the tax and said they pay for three cars but
> only get one. I also heard about it from just about every Dane I talked
> to. Bear in mind that the the tax money covers a lot of other things
> other than medical care. They have generous welfare and unemployment
> benefits, likes close to $2000 per month for up to two years. They also
> retrain the unemployment and provide job counselling, free education,
> daycare and a great pensions.
>
>>

He did mention that if you cannot work while waiting 6 to 12 months for
an operation they will give you money. Think of the savings just
cutting the wait time.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:38:40 -0600, carnal asada >
wrote:

> On 4/12/2016 1:11 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:55:02 -0600, carnal asada >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/12/2016 7:46 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >>> He could not have been too badly disgraced. He was driving drunk and
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you have ANY of your own politicians to whinge about?
> >>
> >> How about Rob Ford tribute, eh bully boy?
> >
> > That's what gets me. They have plenty of their own problems to be
> > concerned about.
> >
>
> Canuckleheads are OBSESSED with blaming America for ALL their problems!
>
> Always have been, always will be.
>
> It's classic little brother syndrome.
>
Canadians are the least of the problem.

--

sf

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:40:38 -0600, carnal asada >
wrote:

> On 4/12/2016 1:13 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:18 -0600, carnal asada >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/11/2016 10:41 PM, sf wrote:
> >>> To prove my point, all you need to do is Google which states TAKE the
> >>> most Federal "handout" dollars vs how much they contribute in taxes
> >>> and how many of them are red (Republican dominated) states.
> >>
> >>
> >> Because of course Dems _never_ cease to hand out other peoples' money to
> >> one and all - they're equal opportunity redistributors, always.
> >
> > Red states never fail to have their hands out to take a Federal
> > handout. Typical hypocrites.
>
>
>
> And they only have red people in them?
>
> Those are the only people getting federal aid?
>
> Do tell...
>
> Btw, is their political polarity at present the defining trait of those
> states?
>
> Or are there perhaps other demographic traits that are a bit more relevant?
>

As far as money going to the state far outstripping what the state
contributes in taxes. Yes, absolutely.

--

sf

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/12/2016 4:12 PM, Je�us wrote:
>
>>
>> So sorry to hear that, $8000 pa is a lot of money to pay out annually
>> for just one person. Our system is quite different here - although of
>> course there are shysters who would love to emulate your system here
>> in Australia. It may well happen here yet. In the meantime, it is also
>> the middle class in Aus that gets hit hardest with taxes, etc.
>>
>
>
> I had lunch today with one of our machine suppliers in Denmark so I asked
> him about healthcare in his country. He had some interesting comments
> about it.
>
> First, like others have said, he is happy that he is fully covered.
>
> He has no idea of the actual cost. It is paid for by a 25% VAT tax on
> purchases. He did say that the car tax is reduced and is now down to
> 150%. No, that is not a typo, it is 150%.
>
> Getting treatment can take a while, elective surgery is 6 months or more.
> What is worse though, he says people don't value the benefit and think
> nothing of it to just not show up for the operation even though the staff
> is ready.
>
> Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
> about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.
>
> Extra insurance is available and you can get treatment from private
> doctors and get better appointment times. Not a perfect system that he
> says is getting worse.

That sounds dreadful!! Ours isn't perfect but I wouldn't want to change it.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:45:31 -0300, wrote:
>
>>When our system came in 1968, they had done a huge study of the
>>British system. The main fault they didn't want to repeat was a mix
>>of private and public treatment. When my aunt in the UK needed a knee
>>replacement she waited a considerable time because her surgeon did
>>four days private treatment and only one day public.
>
> There are situations in Australia where those with private health
> cover can actually be worse off than those relying solely on the
> public system. A few cracks in the system there...

In which case I would expect the private health system to go out of
business. Why pay for worse treatment?

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:13:46 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> I had lunch today with one of our machine suppliers in Denmark so I
>>> asked
>>> him about healthcare in his country. He had some interesting comments
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> First, like others have said, he is happy that he is fully covered.
>>>
>>> He has no idea of the actual cost. It is paid for by a 25% VAT tax on
>>> purchases. He did say that the car tax is reduced and is now down to
>>> 150%. No, that is not a typo, it is 150%.
>>>
>>> Getting treatment can take a while, elective surgery is 6 months or
>>> more.
>>> What is worse though, he says people don't value the benefit and think
>>> nothing of it to just not show up for the operation even though the
>>> staff
>>> is ready.
>>>
>>> Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
>>> about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.
>>>
>>> Extra insurance is available and you can get treatment from private
>>> doctors and get better appointment times. Not a perfect system that he
>>> says is getting worse.
>>
>>That sounds dreadful!! Ours isn't perfect but I wouldn't want to change
>>it.
>
> That's one Dane I bet we can find a disgruntled American or
> Englishman too. Heck, maybe even an Australian.

Never ... !!!

;-)


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:54:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...

> > To set the record straight. To an outsider, it can be easy
> > to think that all Americans are doing without or paying through
> > the nose, when the plain fact is that many Americans have
> > excellent insurance through their employers.
>
> I'm gl;ad to hear that. However, there are many reasons employment
> can terminate through no fault of the worker. What happens if the
> employer folds; or someone develops a health condition incompatible with
> continuing that particular job?

I never said our system was perfect (or even fair). I said it's probably
not as bad as it looks from the outside. Since I don't really know what
"here" looks like to people who are "there", I have to conjecture based
on what I read in the press and elsewhere.

I was thinking a little bit about insurance this morning. The whole idea
is to spread risk across a big group. When people (or employers) buy
insurance, they are not just paying for themselves, they are paying for
everyone in the insurance pool who uses more than they pay. Funny how
that's acceptable to most people when they think about buying insurance
(and that their employer's part of the premiums is actually part of their
"pay"), but the prospect of spreading the risk across the entire
country's population and funding it out of their taxes gets a lot of
people's panties in a wad. Oh, well. People aren't consistent or
even very rational.

Ed asked for evidence that health care costs are mostly going to insurance
companies. I don't have evidence, but I do have an anecdote: my friend's
wife is a doctor who recently was retired from her job at the University
of Michigan and set up her own practice. It was several years before
the office broke even, and they're not exactly making money hand over
fist, but she loves what she does. She spends a ton of money processing
insurance claims, and says that Medicare is the easiest to deal with.
I'm not at all sure that the market is more efficient than the government;
it's just resting the inefficiencies on the doctors.

What I actually think about where the "profits" from health care wind up
is this: they wind up a lot of places. Some in the pockets of doctors
and their staff, some with insurance companies (including malpractice
insurance), some with lawyers (who have their fingers in every pie), and
some with drug companies. There's no one place you can point and say,
"That's where the profiteering is." It's everywhere throughout the
system, including criminals like the guy about 60 miles from here who was
giving cancer treatments to people who didn't have cancer, just for the
money.

Here's another anecdote: my husband would like a shoulder replacement.
He had surgery last summer that was unable to repair his infraspinatus
tendon, and now he's left with a lot of pain, weakness in the joint,
and lack of mobility. The insurance company said it won't pay for the
replacement until he's 65 (we're guessing it's so he won't outlive the
parts that they put in). I don't see as it's any different to have a
faceless bureaucrat in an insurance company or a faceless bureaucrat
in the government make that decision for him.

Would I like to see socialized medicine in the U.S.? Maybe. I haven't
seen anybody really run the numbers. It would amount to socializing the
health insurance industry, and I don't think that's going to happen
anytime soon. That certainly would be deemed an unconstitutional taking
by the government. In a few years, I'll be participating in our experiment
in socialized medicine, when I start using Medicare.

Cindy Hamilton

In article >,
says...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4/11/2016 9:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> 10 GRAND a year, just for insurance? 10 thousand dollars? For just ONE
> >>>> year?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Insurance can run anywhere from about $3500 to $12,000 depending on
> >>> coverage, copays, deductibles. There are some people that get full
> >>> coverage for free, subsidized by those that pay the higher rates.
> >>
> >> What's the point of living in a rich western country if they don't
> >> even try to organise affordable healthcare for everybody? Unless
> >> you're rich, you could just as well live in Bangladesh.
> >>
> >
> > There are some disparities,but many people don't pay the premium, or at
> > least all of it. Traditionally, at least the past 50+ years, employers
> > pay all or most of it. Other countries tax people. If you have nothing,
> > you can get free coverage. There are a lot of people stuck in the middle
> > though, earn too much to qualify for free care, not enough to afford paid
> > care.
> >
> > No matter where you live it is not "free".
>
> We pay 'National Insurance' when we are working. Anyone not working gets it
> all 'free'!

Rubbish. 80 % of NHS expenditure, is derived from UK general taxation,

VAT contributes the same amount to general taxation, as NCI does.

There's nobody in the UK, working or not, who doesn't make a hefty
contribution to general taxation through VAT (up to 20 percent on goods
and services).
Or through road and fuel taxes (which we all pay indirectly in the price
of anything that's transported).

Janet UK

In article >, lid


> Not much point bringing up indirect comparisons like that without
> analysing their entire taxation system, along with other benefits
> received (or not received). Comparing standards of living may give a
> better indication.

Americans might like to see this; it shows UK taxpayers how their tax
is allocated .

http://www.one.org/international/act...our-taxes-are-
spent-by-the-uk-government/

The average employment salary in UK is 26,500 UKPounds. Enter that
into the calculator and you will see that an average earner pays 5,500
UKP a year in direct taxes (income tax plus National Insurance
Contributions)

Of that tax paid, 1022 UKP is allocated to health care.(the NHS)

That's (roughly) one fifth of their tax bill, or one twenty sixth of
their gross income.

Janet UK

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:13:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 4/12/2016 4:12 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So sorry to hear that, $8000 pa is a lot of money to pay out annually
> >> for just one person. Our system is quite different here - although of
> >> course there are shysters who would love to emulate your system here
> >> in Australia. It may well happen here yet. In the meantime, it is also
> >> the middle class in Aus that gets hit hardest with taxes, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> >I had lunch today with one of our machine suppliers in Denmark so I
> >asked him about healthcare in his country. He had some interesting
> >comments about it.
> >
> >First, like others have said, he is happy that he is fully covered.
> >
> >He has no idea of the actual cost. It is paid for by a 25% VAT tax on
> >purchases. He did say that the car tax is reduced and is now down to
> >150%. No, that is not a typo, it is 150%.
>
> Normal VAT type tax here on vehicles, but it does increase with luxury
> vehicles, not unreasonable.
> >
> >Getting treatment can take a while, elective surgery is 6 months or
> >more. What is worse though, he says people don't value the benefit and
> >think nothing of it to just not show up for the operation even though
> >the staff is ready.
>
> Have to say I have not heard of that happening here thankfully.
> >
> >Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
> >about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.


?? A simple google search shows examples of doctors and nurses in
Denmark being fired for misdemeanours at work.

Janet UK

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 4/11/2016 9:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 10 GRAND a year, just for insurance? 10 thousand dollars? For just
>> >>>> ONE
>> >>>> year?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Insurance can run anywhere from about $3500 to $12,000 depending on
>> >>> coverage, copays, deductibles. There are some people that get full
>> >>> coverage for free, subsidized by those that pay the higher rates.
>> >>
>> >> What's the point of living in a rich western country if they don't
>> >> even try to organise affordable healthcare for everybody? Unless
>> >> you're rich, you could just as well live in Bangladesh.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There are some disparities,but many people don't pay the premium, or at
>> > least all of it. Traditionally, at least the past 50+ years, employers
>> > pay all or most of it. Other countries tax people. If you have
>> > nothing,
>> > you can get free coverage. There are a lot of people stuck in the
>> > middle
>> > though, earn too much to qualify for free care, not enough to afford
>> > paid
>> > care.
>> >
>> > No matter where you live it is not "free".
>>
>> We pay 'National Insurance' when we are working. Anyone not working gets
>> it
>> all 'free'!
>
> Rubbish. 80 % of NHS expenditure, is derived from UK general taxation,
>
> VAT contributes the same amount to general taxation, as NCI does.
>
> There's nobody in the UK, working or not, who doesn't make a hefty
> contribution to general taxation through VAT (up to 20 percent on goods
> and services).
> Or through road and fuel taxes (which we all pay indirectly in the price
> of anything that's transported).

Had you ever worked, you would have seen, on your pay, a deduction for
National Insurance.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:54:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>
>> > To set the record straight. To an outsider, it can be easy
>> > to think that all Americans are doing without or paying through
>> > the nose, when the plain fact is that many Americans have
>> > excellent insurance through their employers.
>>
>> I'm gl;ad to hear that. However, there are many reasons employment
>> can terminate through no fault of the worker. What happens if the
>> employer folds; or someone develops a health condition incompatible with
>> continuing that particular job?
>
> I never said our system was perfect (or even fair). I said it's probably
> not as bad as it looks from the outside. Since I don't really know what
> "here" looks like to people who are "there", I have to conjecture based
> on what I read in the press and elsewhere.
>
> I was thinking a little bit about insurance this morning. The whole idea
> is to spread risk across a big group. When people (or employers) buy
> insurance, they are not just paying for themselves, they are paying for
> everyone in the insurance pool who uses more than they pay. Funny how
> that's acceptable to most people when they think about buying insurance
> (and that their employer's part of the premiums is actually part of their
> "pay"), but the prospect of spreading the risk across the entire
> country's population and funding it out of their taxes gets a lot of
> people's panties in a wad. Oh, well. People aren't consistent or
> even very rational.

the US "health insurance" system has nothing (or very little) to do with
insurance.

"taxed and spent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:54:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>
>>> > To set the record straight. To an outsider, it can be easy
>>> > to think that all Americans are doing without or paying through
>>> > the nose, when the plain fact is that many Americans have
>>> > excellent insurance through their employers.
>>>
>>> I'm gl;ad to hear that. However, there are many reasons employment
>>> can terminate through no fault of the worker. What happens if the
>>> employer folds; or someone develops a health condition incompatible with
>>> continuing that particular job?
>>
>> I never said our system was perfect (or even fair). I said it's probably
>> not as bad as it looks from the outside. Since I don't really know what
>> "here" looks like to people who are "there", I have to conjecture based
>> on what I read in the press and elsewhere.
>>
>> I was thinking a little bit about insurance this morning. The whole idea
>> is to spread risk across a big group. When people (or employers) buy
>> insurance, they are not just paying for themselves, they are paying for
>> everyone in the insurance pool who uses more than they pay. Funny how
>> that's acceptable to most people when they think about buying insurance
>> (and that their employer's part of the premiums is actually part of their
>> "pay"), but the prospect of spreading the risk across the entire
>> country's population and funding it out of their taxes gets a lot of
>> people's panties in a wad. Oh, well. People aren't consistent or
>> even very rational.
>
> the US "health insurance" system has nothing (or very little) to do with
> insurance.

Pretty much here too, but in all the years I have worked, I have had
National Insured deducted from my pay.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 4/13/2016 4:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>

>>
>> There are situations in Australia where those with private health
>> cover can actually be worse off than those relying solely on the
>> public system. A few cracks in the system there...
>
> In which case I would expect the private health system to go out of
> business. Why pay for worse treatment?
>
We have that too. May poor people are eligible for full coverage. I
wrote about someone I know that has had some serious operations, needs
insulin, etc and has 100% coverage for everything.

Then you have the low to mid income people that have insurance that
qualified under present rules but you can have thousands of dollars in
copays and deductibles if you need medical care. That is where we need
to make changes.

If you work for most any government agency, a position in the healthcare
industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good coverage
at little or no cost.

People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
employers.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:14:26 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 03:25:42 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 5:55:27 PM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:58:10 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Jeßus" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd still like to see a real black person win office. Methinks that is
> > > > > > > still a long, long way off yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I find that comment interesting. I vote for the most qualified, not
> > > > > > because the candidate is black, white, male or female.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not a fashion show.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hopefully most Americans have that frame of mind. Who cares what an
> > > > > outsider thinks?
> > > >
> > > > Suppose it were not our old friend Jeßus talking, but (for example)
> > > > Malala Yousafzai. Would you perhaps care about her opinion?
> > > >
> > > Why would I? We sink or swim on our own.
> >
> > Perhaps my example was ill-chosen. Would you dismiss the opinion
> > of an intelligent person simply because they are not a U.S. citizen?
> >
> I think we have enough intelligent citizens here who share their
> thoughts. If we think we need outside advice, we'll ask for it.

No wonder Donald Trump "loves uneducated people".

It would appear, that Americans who support Donald Trump and believe
he has the statuis, gravitas and judgement to be POTUS, are entirely
unaware of his proven track record outside the USA.

Janet UK

On 2016-04-12 11:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/12/2016 10:11 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> No wonder he is happy. That is a big drop. I have been to Denmark
>> several times and I heard about their 180% sales tax on new cars very
>> shortly after arriving there. I was picked up by someone with his brand
>> new car. He told me about the tax and said they pay for three cars but
>> only get one. I also heard about it from just about every Dane I talked
>> to. Bear in mind that the the tax money covers a lot of other things
>> other than medical care. They have generous welfare and unemployment
>> benefits, likes close to $2000 per month for up to two years. They also
>> retrain the unemployment and provide job counselling, free education,
>> daycare and a great pensions.
>>
>>>
>
> He did mention that if you cannot work while waiting 6 to 12 months for
> an operation they will give you money. Think of the savings just
> cutting the wait time.

They do look after their people there. That is one of the reasons that
so many "refugees" are leaving their safe havens in places like Lebanon,
Jordan and Turkey. They are looking for the better life that the Danes
and Swedes have been working for all these years.

On 4/13/2016 7:06 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:


>
> Ed asked for evidence that health care costs are mostly going to insurance
> companies. I don't have evidence, but I do have an anecdote: my friend's
> wife is a doctor who recently was retired from her job at the University
> of Michigan and set up her own practice. It was several years before
> the office broke even, and they're not exactly making money hand over
> fist, but she loves what she does. She spends a ton of money processing
> insurance claims, and says that Medicare is the easiest to deal with.
> I'm not at all sure that the market is more efficient than the government;
> it's just resting the inefficiencies on the doctors.

Medicare is easy. They also pay a fixed fee for services. The doctor
can bill $1000 for popping a zit, but Medicare will only pay $7 for it
if that is what is listed. Medicare also runs out of money sometimes
and while you will get paid, you may have to wait for next budges
season. BCBS and United Healtchare are good payers too.

>
> What I actually think about where the "profits" from health care wind up
> is this: they wind up a lot of places. Some in the pockets of doctors
> and their staff, some with insurance companies (including malpractice
> insurance), some with lawyers (who have their fingers in every pie), and
> some with drug companies. There's no one place you can point and say,
> "That's where the profiteering is." It's everywhere throughout the
> system, including criminals like the guy about 60 miles from here who was
> giving cancer treatments to people who didn't have cancer, just for the
> money.

Absolutely. Everyone get a piece of it as they must. They have to make
a wage to live by. Unfortunately, there is fraud and doctors have been
caught billing for services not needed or never performed. Malpractice
insurance is very expensive in our litigious society.

>
> Here's another anecdote: my husband would like a shoulder replacement.
> He had surgery last summer that was unable to repair his infraspinatus
> tendon, and now he's left with a lot of pain, weakness in the joint,
> and lack of mobility. The insurance company said it won't pay for the
> replacement until he's 65 (we're guessing it's so he won't outlive the
> parts that they put in). I don't see as it's any different to have a
> faceless bureaucrat in an insurance company or a faceless bureaucrat
> in the government make that decision for him.

IMO, it should not be up to the insurance company, it should be up to
the doctor. This is sort of like saying, you car is banged up, but it
is only the passenger door so we won't pay until it won't open any more.
>
> Would I like to see socialized medicine in the U.S.? Maybe. I haven't
> seen anybody really run the numbers. It would amount to socializing the
> health insurance industry, and I don't think that's going to happen
> anytime soon. That certainly would be deemed an unconstitutional taking
> by the government. In a few years, I'll be participating in our experiment
> in socialized medicine, when I start using Medicare.
>
With Medicare and a good supplement you will have excellent coverage. i
had good coverage before, this is better and slightly cheaper than what
we had. For the two of us it is $748 a month. Only copay is for
prescriptions, everything else is 100%. There are cheaper plans with
lesser coverage.

On 4/13/2016 8:42 AM, Janet wrote:

>>>
>>> Michael also said that doctors and nurses are indifferent and don't care
>>> about patients like they do in other countries. They can't be fired.
>
>
> ?? A simple google search shows examples of doctors and nurses in
> Denmark being fired for misdemeanours at work.
>
> Janet UK
>

Misdemeanor is a crime. Bitchiness is not. They don't get fired for
being surly and the like. Here, you can fire someone just because of a
crappy attitude.

On 2016-04-13 7:06 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3:54:42 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:

> Would I like to see socialized medicine in the U.S.? Maybe. I haven't
> seen anybody really run the numbers. It would amount to socializing the
> health insurance industry, and I don't think that's going to happen
> anytime soon. That certainly would be deemed an unconstitutional taking
> by the government. In a few years, I'll be participating in our experiment
> in socialized medicine, when I start using Medicare.


The numbers are out there. Our government pays less per person for
health care than the US. Everyone is covered, and we live longer.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/13/2016 4:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>
>>> There are situations in Australia where those with private health
>>> cover can actually be worse off than those relying solely on the
>>> public system. A few cracks in the system there...
>>
>> In which case I would expect the private health system to go out of
>> business. Why pay for worse treatment?
>>
> We have that too. May poor people are eligible for full coverage. I
> wrote about someone I know that has had some serious operations, needs
> insulin, etc and has 100% coverage for everything.

I am very pleased to read that, because there are so many horror stories
about your health service and the insurance costs. Poor people here
(those on low wages or those not in work at all) are covered exactly the
same as the workers who are paying into the NI.

Of course the gov gets money from other places too because I doubt the
workers could cover it all, but without the workers paying NI there would be
a huge hole in the budget.

I was very lucky in that my company paid for private insurance for me. I
still had to pay the National Insurance from my salary though even though I
wasn't using it. During that time I had a lot of surgery etc so as I say, I
was very lucky. Of course that payment for private health was part of my
salary. Companies don't give free gifts)


> Then you have the low to mid income people that have insurance that
> qualified under present rules but you can have thousands of dollars in
> copays and deductibles if you need medical care. That is where we need to
> make changes.


Yes, it sounds very frightening. What happens if someone is seriously ill,
has no insurance and no money? Surely they are not just left to die???


> If you work for most any government agency, a position in the healthcare
> industry, an upper middle class job, chances are you have good coverage at
> little or no cost.
>
> People working in food service, hotels, retail, have some of the worst
> situations. They are making low wages and are offered little from the
> employers.

How do they get health cover when they are paid so poorly?



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 4/12/2016 10:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
> 1. Denmark: high tax on cars, nation-wide health insurance

Denmark - population 5,707,251 - largely homogenous demographics,
refugees sent packing - to Sweden!

> 2. US: no high tax on cars, no nation-wide health insurance

US - vibrant domestic and foreign assembly car industry, population 325
million and growing, 11 million illegals.

> 3. Western Europe: no high tax on cars, nation-wide health insurance

Liar.

http://www.acea.be/publications/arti...axes-in-the-eu

The 20 EU countries that levy passenger car taxes partially or totally
based on the cars’ CO2 emissions and/or fuel consumption a Austria,
Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The European automobile industry welcomes this trend towards CO2-related
car taxation.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs...t_rates_en.pdf

List of VAT rates applied in the Member States (in %)

Member States Code Super Reduced
Rate
Reduced
Rate
Standard
Rate
Parking
Rate

Belgium BE - 6 / 12 21 12
Bulgaria BG - 9 20 -
Czech Republic CZ - 10 / 15 21 -
Denmark DK - - 25 -
Germany DE - 7 19 -
Estonia EE - 9 20 -
Ireland IE 4,8 9 / 13,5 23 13,5
Greece EL - 6 / 13 23 -
Spain ES 4 10 21 -
France FR 2,1 5,5 / 10 20 -
Croatia HR - 5 / 13 25 -
Italy IT 4 5 / 10 22 -
Cyprus CY - 5 / 9 19 -
Latvia LV - 12 21 -
Lithuania LT - 5 / 9 21 -
Luxembourg LU 3 8 17 14
Hungary HU - 5 / 18 27 -
Malta MT - 5 / 7 18 -
Netherlands NL - 6 21 -
Austria AT - 10 / 13 20 13
Poland PL - 5 / 8 23 -
Portugal PT - 6 / 13 23 13
Romania RO - 5 / 9 20 -
Slovenia SI - 9,5 22 -
Slovakia SK - 10 20 -
Finland FI - 10 /14 24 -
Sweden SE - 6 / 12 25 -
United Kingdom UK - 5 20 -

https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/...pdf?sequence=1


Yuro-PEON gas taxes:

30-44%

> What would you choose?
>
> -- Bruce

Anything BUT your goddamned lying false equivalelncy, you mincing little
face-sitting nancy-boy!

DROP DEAD!

On 4/12/2016 11:46 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:38:40 -0600, carnal asada >
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2016 1:11 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:55:02 -0600, carnal asada >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2016 7:46 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>> He could not have been too badly disgraced. He was driving drunk and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have ANY of your own politicians to whinge about?
>>>>
>>>> How about Rob Ford tribute, eh bully boy?
>>>
>>> That's what gets me. They have plenty of their own problems to be
>>> concerned about.
>>>
>>
>> Canuckleheads are OBSESSED with blaming America for ALL their problems!
>>
>> Always have been, always will be.
>>
>> It's classic little brother syndrome.
>>
> Canadians are the least of the problem.
>

That's a limpid rejoinder.

They are KEY problem in this group, followed by the two miserable
Auztards and some assorted UK gripers.