jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:15:28 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> Sure and we get a lot better care for sophisticated procedures
    >> developed here too.
    >Not on a cost/benefit basis.

What cost/benefit analysis? You have so many hidden costs and
subsidies you couldn't begin to do an accurate one.

    >> Which is why so many Americans win Nobel Prizes
    >> for medicine virtually every year.
    >Too bad so few Americans can actually afford the results of that
    >research.

Really? Over 80% of Americans have healthcare coverage directly.
Everyone over 65. You have no clue what you are talking about do you?

    >> The rest of the world benefits
    >> from that research just as they do for the huge American taxpayer's
    >> subsidization of their drug prices ...
    >Examples?

Examples? Every country in the world that gets US drugs. Which is
all of them.

    >Drugs are very cheap to produce, as a general rule. No subsidization is
    >necessary.

Not all by any means are cheap to produce. Try the interferons for
starters and many advanced cancer treatments. That, however, is not
the main issue. The R and D and approval costs are. It costs, on
average, $900 million to bring a single drug to market here with the
vast percentage never making it for one reason or another. But then
if you don't know how to count in the first place, this is over your
head. You would think all of that is somehow free.

    >> You're just another example that statistics don't lie, liars
    >> use statistics.
    >What have you been using in your post?

Statistics, facts,, sources.

    >> And don't forget to add that we can get whatever care we need when we
    >> need it without all those European waiting lists.
    >Not if you can't pay for it

Bullshit. Read the other posts moron.

jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 12:29:37 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > The rest of the world benefits
    >> > from that research just as they do for the huge American taxpayer's
    >> > subsidization of their drug prices ...
    >>
    >> Examples?
    >>
    >> Drugs are very cheap to produce, as a general rule. No subsidization is
    >> necessary.
    >Should a music CD cost $.06 cents to buy at the store ?
    >jay
    >Sat Mar 06, 2004
    >mailto:[email protected]

If you count like these types do, it would. But, then, ignorance is
bliss isn't it?

jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:25:42 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 6/03/04 21:49, in article [email protected],
    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> yeah, count on your pensions in France which they are trimming as I
    >> speak.
    >Nope, that is for the distance future. You got something wrong, if you
    >are already retired nothing changes.

When I said your I meant those of French citizens in general of
course. And you live well while they are screwing your children.
Some social conscience you have.

jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:27:27 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 6/03/04 21:52, in article [email protected],
    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> You idea of free speech
    >My idea of free speech is that it is free. There is no paid
    >political advertising on French TV, each candidate gets equal
    >time to present their views.

It would be. Robbing those that are willing to pay to air their views
being banned. A real democrat you are. And you're system is so good
Chirac's buddy just got nailed (elected right and heir apparent to
Chirac?), 30,000 elderly die while your government is on vacation,
etc. etc.

    >Got it?

No problem. Everyone with a brain knows all about the French
government with its attacks on innocent civilians in Auckland harbour,
extortion, etc. That's what you get for free.

jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:29:46 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 6/03/04 21:53, in article [email protected],
    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> And yes, house calls
    >> do exist in the US.
    >The meaning of housecalls is that can you REALLY call your doctor and have
    >him come to your home.

Oh so now you redefine house calls to fit your purposes huh? Another
refuge of those who can't support their silly views. I suppose what
you really want is to sit on your ass at home and have the government
deliver you dinner, entertainment and all the rest as well.
    >Not some special service.

A house call is a special service ace. By definition.

jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:31:04 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 6/03/04 21:57, in article [email protected],
    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Complete nonsense as usual.
    >You keep strugglin and coming back with that!
    >You have been bled white, argumentatively, so thrashing is
    >the only thing left.
    >Earl

Yeah, like you do right here. Proven wrong again and again using your
own "evidence" you simply babble on.

jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 22:33:52 +0100, Magda <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 17:06:02 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, "Sjoerd"
    ><[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
    > ...
    > ... <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    > ... news:[email protected]...
    > ... >
    > ... > No pay? In Europe? HAHAHAHAHA. Try all those taxes you pay every
    > ... > day to pay for your healthcare.
    > ... >
    > ...
    > ... It is called "solidarity". A word you probably have to look up in a
    > ... dictionary.
    >He does not know what a dictionary is.

I know what a moron is and you amply qualify. Torn off any scarves
today?

jbk

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:36:03 +0000,
[email protected] (David Horne) wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> E. Why is this a superiority complex to point out? Maybe it is you
    >> with your inferiority complex that's the problem.
    >I lived for over a decade in the US with quite nice insurance, and now
    >live in the UK. I'm quite happy with the NHS- and I've certainly got
    >many complaints about it- but as a system of delivery, I do prefer it.

That's fine. But has nothing to do with your superiority complex
charge, does it?

    >
    >> F. What you say about infant mortality rates is correct. What you
    >> fail, of course, to point out is that a large part of these are
    >> illegal immigrants that don't belong here in the first place
    >Well, I thought I'd open up an opportunity for you to scrape the bottom
    >of your prejudices out into the open.

Oh, so now it's prejudice to point out facts? Too bad you like to
make stupid points then when the facts underlying your stupid points
are simply analyzed you start accusing others of prejudices. Another
refuge of a moron.

    >> and,
    >> being illegal, won't go to see a doctor and ignoramuses who won't go
    >> to see a doctor no matter what. Spending too much time on drugs, etc.
    >> If you are saying that you can't get top notch prenatal care here you
    >> are completely full of it. It is as good as anywhere in the world.
    >It's the best, probably, but not everyone has access to it, and you know
    >that.

Oh, try reading and pulling your head out of you ass will you? Or go
find those 30,000 elderly that died in France of heat exhaustion and
explain to them how they got access twit.

    >
    >> G. A lot of that healthcare expense goes to the development of drugs
    >> that twits like you benefit from at artificially low prices because
    >> drug companies here overcharge us, so you should keep your mouth shut
    >> before that get reversed which is, I hope, soon so morons like you
    >> will get exactly what you deserve.
    >For all I know, the amount my employer paid in health insurance while I
    >was in the US is probably subsidising _your_ medication, so I wouldn't
    >go down that route.

That's right. For all you know. Which is nothing as you amply prove
over and over. You don't want to go down that route because what I
posted is accurate and correct which anyone can verify by simply do an
internet search.

    >My, what a nasty piece of work you are.
    ><plonk>

Hopefully, you will plonk your silly posts as well.

jbk

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:53:27 -0000, "JohnT"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    ><snip>
    >> Not materially different from any of the above and, if you adjusted
    >> these statistics with their ethnic backgrounds (i.e. where they
    >> originally came from) I'm quite confident that you would find them
    >> comparable and the ones in the US significantly wealthier. Any other
    >> questions?
    >Only one? Do you have a Dictionary?
    >If so, do look up the word "bigot".

What for? For left wing morons like you that can't read statistics
and call them bigoted because they refute your stupid positions?

Miguel Cruz

John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Not some special service.
    > A house call is a special service ace. By definition.

Not where it's customary. By definition.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Miguel Cruz

John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Complete nonsense as usual. If you could read, which obviously you
    > can't, you would know that it is a plain fact, since it is Federal
    > law, that anyone needing healthcare can simply go to an emergency room
    > at a hospital and get it. That is universal healthcare period so what
    > you are saying is simply a provable lie.

1) You try going to an emergency room and asking to have a doctor spend half
an hour with you talking about lifestyle changes to keep cholesterol down.

2) People who have assets but not insurance will be bled dry by the visit.

Due to sloppy paperwork management on my part during a job transition, I was
without insurance for about 6 weeks recently. During that time I had a cold
with a persistent and annoying cough, and I tried to get to talk to a
doctor. I could write a book about the experience.

No hospital outpatient clinic would touch me with a ten-foot pole. No
insurance, no care. I even offered to pay cash in advance. They gave me
lists of phone numbers for free clinics, and let me use the phone. All of
the numbers were either out of service, or led to voice-mail systems that
wouldn't take messages because the mailbox was full.

I was reluctant to go to the emergency room and displace patients with real
emergencies, but I stopped by a couple times and when it looked pretty empty
I talked to the registration people. It was going to cost me several
hundred dollars to speak with a doctor.

I tried random doctors' offices from the phone book. They asked me over the
phone if I was insured, and when I said no, they invariably told me they
weren't taking on new patients at the moment.

Finally a friend's husband, who is a doctor, referred me to a city-run
health clinic where he works once a week. I went at 7:30am on Saturday
morning, and was seen at 11:45. It closed at noon, so pretty much everyone
who came after me was turned away. The very poor (I would have had to earn
less than $14,000/year to be eligible) can sign up for a city-funded health
insurance program that allows them free visits and prescriptions at the
clinic (and others like it scattered around DC). I do not qualify for that
so I supposedly had to pay full price, though it's been several months and I
haven't received a bill yet. I have actually gone back and tried to pay,
because I do not feel right about using a system which clearly can barely
provide for the people who really need it, but the accounting people never
seem to be there, and they don't return my calls.

Did I eventually get care? Yes (well, I was prescribed some things which
turned out to be available over-the-counter). Was it accessible? Not really.
If I hadn't had the personal connection, I never would have found out about
the city clinic, which understandably targets its outreach at low-income
communities and never really gets the message to the
basically-well-off-but-uncovered such as myself.

Comparing this to my experience in Europe and Australia, it's simply no
contest. In those places it was a no-nonsense experience, easy to find, easy
to work with.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Miguel Cruz

John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > In the aftermath of all their hypocrisy who possibly could care what they
    > think? BTW, I like how the vaunted French medical system saved those
    > 30,000 killed in the heatwave last summer while the government was on
    > vacation. Hmmm. What did that do to those longevity statistics?

Possibly not a whole lot, since according to many reports, most of the
victims were apparently teetering on the brink already.

To tell if this really turned out to be true, I guess we'd need to find the
stats for later in the year and see if there was a corresponding dip.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Miguel Cruz

John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > What for? For left wing morons like you that can't read statistics
    > and call them bigoted because they refute your stupid positions?

"Constantly drunk on wine which pickles and preserves them" is not much a
refutation.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Miguel Cruz

Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> So how do you explain the differences in life expectancy ?
    >> Iceland fem: 82,22 male: 77,54 total: 79,09
    >> France fem.: 83,11 male: 75,63 total:79,28
    >> Sweden fem 82,78 male: 77,31 total 79,97
    >> U.K fem:80,7 male : 75,74 total:78,16
    >> U.S fem: 80,05 male 74,37 total:77,14
    > Less than 2 years difference. The way some here talk, you would think
    > it's 10 years.

At the extremes, smaller differences are more interesting. At these ages,
there are strong limiting pressures outside of the influence of the
independent variable (social differences between countries); namely, human
physiology.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Miguel Cruz

John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Too bad so few Americans can actually afford the results of that
    >> research.
    > Really? Over 80% of Americans have healthcare coverage directly.

That makes 56 million people who don't, in the world's richest country and
the one that spends the most on healthcare.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/