Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Easy to say when you're one of the elite.

If you've managed to save. Lots of low-income workers haven't. Their only
recourse is to lose their house, or go bankrupt perhaps.

 

And that's how, for example, the sodomy laws just recently got overturned.
That's how the MA supreme court overturned their state's marriage law.

 

But again, since Canada and western Europe spend less per capita for health
care, why wouldn't that be true here? If everybody's covered, more people get
preventative care, for example, which is less expensive than waiting to treat
a sick person. That would also translate into less lost work days for
businesses. Less turnover of employees too, as benefits wouldn't vary so
much.

 

For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?

 

Yet another crossposting doofus.

 

Dear Mike:

I, personally, don't see this as abuse. We are bringing together people
from different groups on a topic that is obviously interesting to those
participating.

I cannot tell which groups the people whom are participating are working
from, so I respond to all groups.

So, I'll continue until someone is able to identify all of the
participants home group.

I'm at r.a.m.Chrysler

Dan

 

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
from outside the fishbowl for a change.

Dan

 

They certainly must, because to listen to any number of Americans, life
is so tough up here what with the cold and snow and the high taxes and
the low dollar and the poor productivity and the poor democracy, our
lives are much harder to live, we should have much poorer life expectancies.

The figures cited are pretty standard measures of health care efficacy.
Since the US and Canada are so similar, demographically, health care
must be the difference.

Dan

 

I explained earlier that I was reading the incorrect Appendix, which
appears to have a different base value.

Sorry

 

My Dad was a Veteran Lloyd, he died because the VA cared more about slashing
costs than providing quality care. Easier, and cheaper, to make an off the
shoulder diagnosis than to run expensive tests. When he was admitted for
pnuemonia they finally decided to run some test to see what was causing it
and found he was riddled with cancer, which any good hospital would have
detected years earlier. He died 8 days later, at home, even though he begged
them to let him stay in the hospital. Hospital beds cost money, and they had
to cut costs, so a dying man was sent home. That is the kind of low quality,
one kind treats all health system you want Lloyd, and it stinks. Now shut up
and stop posting your lies and crap on this or any group.

 

I am really sorry to hear about your father, but the problem here is
not one of private versus public payment. An insurance company would
do the same -- as happened to my own father.

The problem is causing the health care system to focus on costs rather
than care. This is not inherently the case with single payer systems,
whether that is a facility based private HMO, like Kaiser, or a
facility-based government system like VA. But cost-cutting as the
sole value is the ONLY value in our current insurance system.

I am a republican and a free-market conservative. However, for the
same reasons that I don't want the street in front of my house -- a
natural monopoly -- to be privatized, I don't think health care
payment should be either. Doctors should decide care -- not with the
insurance company's gun at their head and hand in their pocket -- but
with good medical practice. That might have saved your father; I am
quite sure it would have mine.

One way to do this, and I am sure there are others, is to have
government payment, but of private doctors who are not government
employees. Political pressure can be put on the system to provide
care, not just cost-cutting.

There is no current way to to do the same to the HMO"s and insurers.

As a side note, because your message was about care, not money, this
also would probably cost society a lot less, maybe even in taxes but
certainly in total societal costs, than is currently the case, and it
would make our businesses more competitive on a global scale. (The
cost reductions come from lower pension, court, worker's compensation,
insurance overhead, hospital and doctor billing and related expenses.)

Once again, I am sorry to hear about your father's passing from poor
health care -- as a fellow sufferer from the same thing, I empathize.
One may disagree with Lloyd on a lot of things, but on the potential
benefits of government payment to health care he is right.

 

Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
being waged.

 

Are there any studies that compare the northern teir of US States with Canada? I
think there are pretty wide health differences between the northern and southern
US states.

Ed

 

Why not get this stupid thread (and yourself) out of the Jeep newsgroup,
bub?

 

Of that I am not aware. But the further North you get, the more social
you get too, I think, although I don't follow the popular politics of
one state vs another. I think it has to do with not really being
comfortable watching your neighbour freeze to death in a snowbank.

It takes a real hard-hearted bastard to not care when that occurs with
regularity.

It is easier to be un-concerned when your neighbour can't afford to buy
steak but can pick fresh fruit from the tree in the park!

Dan

 

Well, my father had exactly the same experience in Canada. Was checked
into the hospital immediately, directly from the doctor's office, got
a pacemaker a few days later. That answer your question?

Well, some people are getting care that's worse than nothing. Look at
Michael Jackson, for instance.

 

Who? Where? I can't afford an angioplasty without a health plan paying
for it, can you? Why are there so many Canadians who can? Are they
that much richer than Americans? I've been asking this question for a
year and nobody can come up with anything concrete. It's just another
rightwing myth.
On the other hand, there are certainly Americans going to Canada to
get pharmaceuticals, and in some cases cheaper medical care; and also
to Mexico.

Yes, in the US, if you have unlimited funds or a gun, you can always
get whatever medical treatment you want, whether or not the health
plan will pay.

Everyone has care available in Canada, if they need it.