I think it matters who sent those people, actually. And I say this as someone is who is a skeptic of the Canadian and British systems, mind.
But people who like what they have don't get that angry, sorry. I just don't believe it. The American public is nothing if not apathetic. It smells like Harry and Louise made over for an age of Rush Limbaugh. A couple of side notes: -- "socialized medecine" -- give it a rest. The improved outcomes in other countries are demonstrated. -- "death panels" -- give me a break. Note that I say this as someone who thinks Terry Shiavo was murdered. Next we'll be banning discussion of living wills to calm the nutsos down. -- experienced-based medecine -- thumbs up, thumbs down = maybe thumb sideways? You only have to have or know someone who has a diagnosis that's a little unusual to see the flaws in this. On the other hand, if my doctor says to me "we could do surgery x but you'll be in more pain for six months for sure and there's only a fifty-fifty chance you'll be doing better than you are now after that," is this valuable information? Yepper. So there *are* savings to be had in considering outcome. As another example, why are we doing chemo on people who clearly aren't being cured and are being made more ill by it? None of this is being discussed, as far as I can tell. All I see are news stories about how angry the American public is. I don't see anyone angry myself. On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sam wrote: > > What does not having a solution to a health care system most people > > like have to do us being screwed? > > > > But unfortunately "most people" are also ignorant to the forces and > trends at work in health care. > > anEverybody has a villain. The true villain is, however, congress. > They've failed to properly regulate the market and now we've got a > huge market failure since no individual was incented or empowered to > fix it. > > So Congress can do 2 things now: properly regulate the market or, I > guess, take over the industry. > > I am baffled by those who in face of Congress' massive failure of > leadership to regulate now want to give them the whole industry. > > What's the logic there? Giving congress money is a time-proven way to > eliminate special interests? People just aren't thinking. > > It's pretty simple to me: > > (1.) Private market: doctors charge bills patients can't afford so > patients finance it via insurance. > > But since doctors, clinics, labs, hospitals, etc are spending > insurance's money they've no incentive to keep costs down and a LOT of > incentive to jack them up: profits! > > The best-meaning doctor in the World, when faced with lawsuits, is > going to order those 5 tests. What's he care? It's not his nickle. > And what's the patient care? She's insured. > > Until premiums go up. But even then the patient doesn't connect those > 5 test to her higher premium. I wonder how that would be different if > the patient had to pay the bills directly? Hmmm ... > > > (2.) Public. Medicare is able to avoid administrative costs through 2 > standard claims forms (vs. the 10,000 in public space). However > Medicare doesn't cover much (e.g., no annual physical, no coverage > after 90 days, etc). That's where you get the genius imo part C plans > - they cover what medicare doesn't but that's public again. Plus > Medicare processing is bidded privately. > > So, in the end, while Medicare works well, it's going broke and even > if it weren't claims are still privately processed. > > > CONCLUSION: All healthcare systems in the US are going broke. > Changing the private financier to public and thinking that'll lower > costs, is nuts. Since when does giving Congress more money lower > admin costs, reduce special interests, and create efficiency? I mean > isn't that almost laugh out loud funny? > > The ONLY solution is well regulated healthcare market, period. > Medicare Advantage plans seem to work quite well in this space. And > Holland and Switzerland's system work this way and work quite well. > > You've seen the town halls. > > "Socialized medicine" will NOT WORK IN THE US. I get the logical > point about Medicare. But we've seen the Town Halls no matter who > sent those people. > > When you've got the AMA opposing it on one side and patients opposing > it on the other ... na. ga. doit. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:302015 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
