Comparative French standard of living improvements
Mar 7th 2004, 5:49 am
#241
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On 7/03/04 18:44, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> When you normaized it against per capita medical costs, the US comes out
>> to be twice as expensive.
>>
>> For poorer results!
>>
>> Thos are the facts.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>
> Oh bullshit. What in the hell are you talking about? As if you
> yourself even know.
Try and find out how much per capita, Americans are paying for their
medical care system. Once you have that son, you can look at Europe
and see how much they spend. If you wish to argue that longevities
are about the same, 80 yr +/- 2 years, you have to turn
your attention to cost effectiveness.
The US has slightly poor result and pays a lot more.
Have fun in improving your personal efforts at scholarship. :-)
Earl
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> When you normaized it against per capita medical costs, the US comes out
>> to be twice as expensive.
>>
>> For poorer results!
>>
>> Thos are the facts.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>
> Oh bullshit. What in the hell are you talking about? As if you
> yourself even know.
Try and find out how much per capita, Americans are paying for their
medical care system. Once you have that son, you can look at Europe
and see how much they spend. If you wish to argue that longevities
are about the same, 80 yr +/- 2 years, you have to turn
your attention to cost effectiveness.
The US has slightly poor result and pays a lot more.
Have fun in improving your personal efforts at scholarship. :-)
Earl
Mar 7th 2004, 5:50 am
#242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On 7/03/04 18:45, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:45:03 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:14:55 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:37:23 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:54:00 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, guilty. And always will be when libellers like you go around
>>>>> posting complete lies, bullshit, half truths and all the rest about my
>>>>> country and its government. Tough shit you don't like it.
>>>>
>>>> Pot, kettle...
>>>
>>> Moron
>>
>> Thanks for making my point.
>
> No thanks for making mine.
You often make my day, :-)
earl
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:45:03 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:14:55 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:37:23 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:54:00 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, guilty. And always will be when libellers like you go around
>>>>> posting complete lies, bullshit, half truths and all the rest about my
>>>>> country and its government. Tough shit you don't like it.
>>>>
>>>> Pot, kettle...
>>>
>>> Moron
>>
>> Thanks for making my point.
>
> No thanks for making mine.
You often make my day, :-)
earl
Mar 7th 2004, 5:55 am
#243
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On 7/03/04 18:46, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:16:23 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/03/04 23:11, in article [email protected],
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Then why did some 30,000 elderly people
>>
>>
>> You still have the number wrong son. First get your facts straight.
>>
>> Earl
>
> Really? Go read USA Today that's what they report.
Nope, haven`t read it and you cited nothing.
But where did the 30,000 figure come from?
A short while ago I was 11,000.
Earl
PS
the main items were
***
Latest headlines
U.S. to make case vs. Saddam Team sifts evidence in Iraq.
Search on in water taxi accident 1 killed, 3 missing in Md.
Gay bishop set to lead diocese Assumes leadership today.
Israeli troops kill 14 Palestinians Conduct raid in Gaza Strip.
Explosion rips Moscow building Gas leak may be culprit.
***
I read none of them. Sounds like a diversion on your part.
The 30,000 please.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:16:23 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/03/04 23:11, in article [email protected],
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Then why did some 30,000 elderly people
>>
>>
>> You still have the number wrong son. First get your facts straight.
>>
>> Earl
>
> Really? Go read USA Today that's what they report.
Nope, haven`t read it and you cited nothing.
But where did the 30,000 figure come from?
A short while ago I was 11,000.
Earl
PS
the main items were
***
Latest headlines
U.S. to make case vs. Saddam Team sifts evidence in Iraq.
Search on in water taxi accident 1 killed, 3 missing in Md.
Gay bishop set to lead diocese Assumes leadership today.
Israeli troops kill 14 Palestinians Conduct raid in Gaza Strip.
Explosion rips Moscow building Gas leak may be culprit.
***
I read none of them. Sounds like a diversion on your part.
The 30,000 please.
Mar 7th 2004, 5:57 am
#244
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On 7/03/04 18:47, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well tell me, what you know about the change in the French pension
>> plans?
No answer as usual. Pinning your ass all the time does get amusing.
Earl
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well tell me, what you know about the change in the French pension
>> plans?
No answer as usual. Pinning your ass all the time does get amusing.
Earl
Mar 7th 2004, 5:59 am
#245
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On 7/03/04 18:47, in article [email protected],
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> That's why some 11,000 elderly died last summer it was so
>> good.
>
> They died from a lack of air conditioning, nothing more.
JBK still has the wrong number, but mostly they died of all age.
They even do more of it in January and February than last summer.
We lost one old lady on our block in February, around 90.
She was English, married to a Frenchman, a very happy couple.
All love affairs end tragically.
Earl
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> That's why some 11,000 elderly died last summer it was so
>> good.
>
> They died from a lack of air conditioning, nothing more.
JBK still has the wrong number, but mostly they died of all age.
They even do more of it in January and February than last summer.
We lost one old lady on our block in February, around 90.
She was English, married to a Frenchman, a very happy couple.
All love affairs end tragically.
Earl
Mar 7th 2004, 6:02 am
#246
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:00:08 -0500, jbk wrote:
>
>>> Utter and complete nonsense as usual. There are thousands of
>>> pharmaceutical companies all over the world, generics and otherwise,
>>> that compete in this market. And what company doesn't charge what
>>> they think they can get for their products or servcies ace?
>>That's not what free market means though.
>
> That's exactly what it means.
Disingenuous?
Why did you cut the sentence that I disagreed with?
>>If you want to be consistent and claim the benefits of a free market, you
>>need one to start with.
>>Guess what, free enterprise does not equate with free market. Do your
>>homework and go look at good old free market theory and what it assumes.
>
> Let me see. I have an MBA from Harvard but I need you to tell me what
> a free market is. That will be the day.
I would think if you did indeed have an MBA from Harvard, you might know.
That's the best argument you could find eh?
What about arguing honestly for a change?
>>> Complete and utter nonsense. That's what it was BEFORE HMOs. Now
>>> they actively compete for companies' business each year.
>>HMOs is just another side of the medical business. True that it's
>>having a negative impact on individual physicians. But it's somewhat
>>scary. I would rather trust my family doctor (and have the option of
>>going for a second opinion) than having to entrust my life to a for
>>profit organization whose interests necessarily often conflict with
>>mine.
>
> More complete nonsense. That's exactly what I have with my HMO ace.
> And, of course, doctors are doing what they are doing for money are
> they? They just work for free and starve.
That's not the point, is it? Are you really saying that you support a
system such that when they no longer can make money on you they should
drop you?
When you buy insurance you expect it when you'll need it. 90% of the
medical costs are in the last years of life. Will your money-making HMO
be there when you need it?
(Paying is not the issue. The issue is, what are you paying for, how
much, and where does the money end up.)
Incidentally, HMOs are mostly not about paying doctors. Rather the
opposite.
>>(If you get real sick, it's cheaper fro them to let you die quick than
>>keeping you alive for a long time.)
>
> Complete bullshit as usual. You have no proof whatsoever of this
> nonsense. You just spew it out your stupid mouth endlessly as if it
> were fact.
How is that? Where does the decision to go ahead with a rather expensive
procedure made, by whom? What do they tell you about it?
>>>>In contrast, in Canada, there is much more of a medical market, at
>>>>least when it comes to deal with your family doctor etc. What's
>>>>public is *insurance.*
>>>
>>> Oh how so? How do you have a medical market with a single system?
>>You don't. Medical practitioners are *private businesses.* The one
>>thing that's not is *insurance.*
>>Medical decisions are taken between you and your family doctor. Not by
>>money-making regulations. Free market at work.
>
> Oh? Then how do you explain the following report from Canada?
A piece of extreme right wing advocacy. Let's look at it and see where it
gets inaccurate.
> "VANCOUVER, BC — A recent report does not acknowledge the clear
> problems with Canada's current healthcare system and is based on largely
> anecdotal findings, says The Fraser Institute in response to a
> healthcare report issued today by the Tommy Douglas Research Institute.
> "This report does a great disservice to Canadians who want our
> healthcare system to provide the care they need," says Martin Zelder,
> director of health policy research. "Their hopeful anecdotes are no
> substitute for relevant evidence."
So they replace them by other ones more to their liking, eh.
> Waiting list data, presented annually by The Fraser Institute, and
> verified against estimates published in peer-reviewed academic medical
> journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the
> Ontario Medical Review, indicates that patients are waiting longer than
> ever — almost four months — between visiting a general practitioner
> (GP) and receiving treatment.
My wife was prescribed a mommogram by her GP on Tuesday. SHe has an
appointment tomorrow.
> Averaged across all 12 medical specialties and 10 provinces surveyed,
> total waiting time rose from 13.3 weeks in 1998 to 14 weeks in 1999, a
> 5.3 percent increase. Waiting times have increased a dramatic 51 percent
> since 1993, when the median total wait for Canadian patients to receive
> treatment was 9.3 weeks.
>
> "How can these authors say there is no crisis?" asks Zelder.
They would be more convincing if they would divide between emergency stuff
and elective stuff.
> The evidence also shows that Canadians are being deprived of access to
> vital high-technology medical equipment and procedures. In terms of
> technology per capita, Canada is clearly not a world leader. The country
> is generally ranked among the bottom third of countries in the
> Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for
> availability of medical technology. "
Nonsense.
You are quoting some ideologically-driven think tank who engages in
advocacy.
The bottom line is that while not perfect the Canadian system worksd well
and is quite cost-effective.
You can point out to some problems, sure. None of which can be solved by
proper funding. How that ought to be dealt with is the real issue.
Point remains that the demand and cost for health is increasing and will
continue to do so. That's what people want and one way or another they
need to pay for it. Arguments are all related to who pays and how. Then
you get right wing demagogues who try having it both ways: more services
while paying less. Their true goal being to restrict access to meduical
care in order to concentrate profit in the hands of concentrated medical
business.
> There's you vaunted socialized healthcare system described by Canadians
> for Canadians.
I am talking from personal experience. On both sides of the border.
>>>>(A much better situation to be in than HMOs.)
> Right. See above.
>
>
>>> About which you know absolutely nothing. Including the fact that the
>>> Canadian system is highly dependent on the US, on its drugs, on
>>> contracting for services it can't provide right across the border in
>>> the US, etc. etc.
>>I used to live in the US. You really want to hear about our share of
>>horror stories? (BTW, in my last stay in the US, I regularly made use
>>of an HMO, and arguably one of the better ones.) I'll take my local
>>Canadian outpatient facility any day.
>
> Right. Until you really need it. See above.
I do need it on a regular basis. Talking recent personal experience here.
>
>>> Utter and complete nonsense as usual. There are thousands of
>>> pharmaceutical companies all over the world, generics and otherwise,
>>> that compete in this market. And what company doesn't charge what
>>> they think they can get for their products or servcies ace?
>>That's not what free market means though.
>
> That's exactly what it means.
Disingenuous?
Why did you cut the sentence that I disagreed with?
>>If you want to be consistent and claim the benefits of a free market, you
>>need one to start with.
>>Guess what, free enterprise does not equate with free market. Do your
>>homework and go look at good old free market theory and what it assumes.
>
> Let me see. I have an MBA from Harvard but I need you to tell me what
> a free market is. That will be the day.
I would think if you did indeed have an MBA from Harvard, you might know.
That's the best argument you could find eh?
What about arguing honestly for a change?
>>> Complete and utter nonsense. That's what it was BEFORE HMOs. Now
>>> they actively compete for companies' business each year.
>>HMOs is just another side of the medical business. True that it's
>>having a negative impact on individual physicians. But it's somewhat
>>scary. I would rather trust my family doctor (and have the option of
>>going for a second opinion) than having to entrust my life to a for
>>profit organization whose interests necessarily often conflict with
>>mine.
>
> More complete nonsense. That's exactly what I have with my HMO ace.
> And, of course, doctors are doing what they are doing for money are
> they? They just work for free and starve.
That's not the point, is it? Are you really saying that you support a
system such that when they no longer can make money on you they should
drop you?
When you buy insurance you expect it when you'll need it. 90% of the
medical costs are in the last years of life. Will your money-making HMO
be there when you need it?
(Paying is not the issue. The issue is, what are you paying for, how
much, and where does the money end up.)
Incidentally, HMOs are mostly not about paying doctors. Rather the
opposite.
>>(If you get real sick, it's cheaper fro them to let you die quick than
>>keeping you alive for a long time.)
>
> Complete bullshit as usual. You have no proof whatsoever of this
> nonsense. You just spew it out your stupid mouth endlessly as if it
> were fact.
How is that? Where does the decision to go ahead with a rather expensive
procedure made, by whom? What do they tell you about it?
>>>>In contrast, in Canada, there is much more of a medical market, at
>>>>least when it comes to deal with your family doctor etc. What's
>>>>public is *insurance.*
>>>
>>> Oh how so? How do you have a medical market with a single system?
>>You don't. Medical practitioners are *private businesses.* The one
>>thing that's not is *insurance.*
>>Medical decisions are taken between you and your family doctor. Not by
>>money-making regulations. Free market at work.
>
> Oh? Then how do you explain the following report from Canada?
A piece of extreme right wing advocacy. Let's look at it and see where it
gets inaccurate.
> "VANCOUVER, BC — A recent report does not acknowledge the clear
> problems with Canada's current healthcare system and is based on largely
> anecdotal findings, says The Fraser Institute in response to a
> healthcare report issued today by the Tommy Douglas Research Institute.
> "This report does a great disservice to Canadians who want our
> healthcare system to provide the care they need," says Martin Zelder,
> director of health policy research. "Their hopeful anecdotes are no
> substitute for relevant evidence."
So they replace them by other ones more to their liking, eh.
> Waiting list data, presented annually by The Fraser Institute, and
> verified against estimates published in peer-reviewed academic medical
> journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the
> Ontario Medical Review, indicates that patients are waiting longer than
> ever — almost four months — between visiting a general practitioner
> (GP) and receiving treatment.
My wife was prescribed a mommogram by her GP on Tuesday. SHe has an
appointment tomorrow.
> Averaged across all 12 medical specialties and 10 provinces surveyed,
> total waiting time rose from 13.3 weeks in 1998 to 14 weeks in 1999, a
> 5.3 percent increase. Waiting times have increased a dramatic 51 percent
> since 1993, when the median total wait for Canadian patients to receive
> treatment was 9.3 weeks.
>
> "How can these authors say there is no crisis?" asks Zelder.
They would be more convincing if they would divide between emergency stuff
and elective stuff.
> The evidence also shows that Canadians are being deprived of access to
> vital high-technology medical equipment and procedures. In terms of
> technology per capita, Canada is clearly not a world leader. The country
> is generally ranked among the bottom third of countries in the
> Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for
> availability of medical technology. "
Nonsense.
You are quoting some ideologically-driven think tank who engages in
advocacy.
The bottom line is that while not perfect the Canadian system worksd well
and is quite cost-effective.
You can point out to some problems, sure. None of which can be solved by
proper funding. How that ought to be dealt with is the real issue.
Point remains that the demand and cost for health is increasing and will
continue to do so. That's what people want and one way or another they
need to pay for it. Arguments are all related to who pays and how. Then
you get right wing demagogues who try having it both ways: more services
while paying less. Their true goal being to restrict access to meduical
care in order to concentrate profit in the hands of concentrated medical
business.
> There's you vaunted socialized healthcare system described by Canadians
> for Canadians.
I am talking from personal experience. On both sides of the border.
>>>>(A much better situation to be in than HMOs.)
> Right. See above.
>
>
>>> About which you know absolutely nothing. Including the fact that the
>>> Canadian system is highly dependent on the US, on its drugs, on
>>> contracting for services it can't provide right across the border in
>>> the US, etc. etc.
>>I used to live in the US. You really want to hear about our share of
>>horror stories? (BTW, in my last stay in the US, I regularly made use
>>of an HMO, and arguably one of the better ones.) I'll take my local
>>Canadian outpatient facility any day.
>
> Right. Until you really need it. See above.
I do need it on a regular basis. Talking recent personal experience here.
Mar 7th 2004, 6:13 am
#247
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:03:18 -0500, jbk wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:02:02 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:22:17 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:52:21 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 17:21:20 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>>>> Everyone over 65. You have no clue what you are talking about do you?
>>>>The largest, most cost-ineffective and most poorly managed socialist
>>>>medicine exercise in the world.
>>>>It's just bribery by the medical mafia.
>>>
>>> Don't you ever tire of constantly demonstrating to the world how
>>> completely stupid you really are?
>>Which parts of my article do you disagree with? That Medicare is the
>>largest exercise of socialist medicine worldwide?
>
> Hardly. Medicare is simply a paying mechanism.. Has no doctors,
> hospitals, etc. providing care.
Wow. Are you truly saying that you actually agree with the single payer
concept?
>>Or that it's the most inefficient?
>
> Oh please. Go and read my post about what Canadians say about the
> Canadian system.
You can criticize a bunch of stuff about the Canadian system. Efficiency
is *not* one of them. Criticism is all about effects of cost control gone
too far.
Actually, the most cost-effective approach to medicine from the standpoint
of public policy is preventive medicine. Regular visits to your family
doctor. Proper regular checkups and the like. Works quite nicely, in
Canada. Just compare GNP fraction going to health acorss the border.
Incidentally, popular support for the single payer system in Canada is
*massive.*
>>Or that it's just a way to funnel your tax dollar into the hands of the
>>medical business mafia?
>
> Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Doesnt' even know the difference between
> organized crime and business. Just likes to stupidly libel everyone.
Personal experience. You wouldn't believe some bills we got. from
physicians whom we never saw or heard of.
Just shoot in all directions, and collect whatever you get pay for. And
if you get a few complains, just blame them on the computer. Personal
expirience, following a visit to an ophtalmologist on duty in an emergency
room. If it moves, bill.
>>Or perhaps you just don't like the truth and you just shoot as the
>>messenger to vent your frustration?
> Right. Go read the article moron.
Not one Canadian in ten would agree with the article. It's pure spin by a
right wing think tank.
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:02:02 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:22:17 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:52:21 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 17:21:20 -0500, jbk wrote:
>>>>> Everyone over 65. You have no clue what you are talking about do you?
>>>>The largest, most cost-ineffective and most poorly managed socialist
>>>>medicine exercise in the world.
>>>>It's just bribery by the medical mafia.
>>>
>>> Don't you ever tire of constantly demonstrating to the world how
>>> completely stupid you really are?
>>Which parts of my article do you disagree with? That Medicare is the
>>largest exercise of socialist medicine worldwide?
>
> Hardly. Medicare is simply a paying mechanism.. Has no doctors,
> hospitals, etc. providing care.
Wow. Are you truly saying that you actually agree with the single payer
concept?
>>Or that it's the most inefficient?
>
> Oh please. Go and read my post about what Canadians say about the
> Canadian system.
You can criticize a bunch of stuff about the Canadian system. Efficiency
is *not* one of them. Criticism is all about effects of cost control gone
too far.
Actually, the most cost-effective approach to medicine from the standpoint
of public policy is preventive medicine. Regular visits to your family
doctor. Proper regular checkups and the like. Works quite nicely, in
Canada. Just compare GNP fraction going to health acorss the border.
Incidentally, popular support for the single payer system in Canada is
*massive.*
>>Or that it's just a way to funnel your tax dollar into the hands of the
>>medical business mafia?
>
> Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Doesnt' even know the difference between
> organized crime and business. Just likes to stupidly libel everyone.
Personal experience. You wouldn't believe some bills we got. from
physicians whom we never saw or heard of.
Just shoot in all directions, and collect whatever you get pay for. And
if you get a few complains, just blame them on the computer. Personal
expirience, following a visit to an ophtalmologist on duty in an emergency
room. If it moves, bill.
>>Or perhaps you just don't like the truth and you just shoot as the
>>messenger to vent your frustration?
> Right. Go read the article moron.
Not one Canadian in ten would agree with the article. It's pure spin by a
right wing think tank.
Mar 7th 2004, 6:20 am
#248
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:24:53 +0000, Miguel Cruz wrote:
> John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Right. My son recently went to our doctor without insurance for an
>> exam and it cost him $80. Really bled dry wasn't he?
>
> I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, since he didn't go to an
> emergency room.
If you do, in our experience, name of the game is to be prepared to
contest standard charges that do not apply to you. You should be able to
get the cost down by 60 to 80%.
It's a case for RICO statutes.
In any event, $80 sounds low.
> John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Right. My son recently went to our doctor without insurance for an
>> exam and it cost him $80. Really bled dry wasn't he?
>
> I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, since he didn't go to an
> emergency room.
If you do, in our experience, name of the game is to be prepared to
contest standard charges that do not apply to you. You should be able to
get the cost down by 60 to 80%.
It's a case for RICO statutes.
In any event, $80 sounds low.
Mar 7th 2004, 9:22 am
#249
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
> Whose leaving them out? Only someone that doesn't understand anything
> about statistics (like you) knows that when you do overall averages,
> except in completely homogeneous places like Iceland, you end up
> completely missing the boat. Ever hear of demographics? Why do you
> think it exists?
Just for your information, Iceland is nowhere near complete homogenity
and has never been.
> Whose leaving them out? Only someone that doesn't understand anything
> about statistics (like you) knows that when you do overall averages,
> except in completely homogeneous places like Iceland, you end up
> completely missing the boat. Ever hear of demographics? Why do you
> think it exists?
Just for your information, Iceland is nowhere near complete homogenity
and has never been.
Mar 7th 2004, 10:33 am
#250
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:55:00 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 7/03/04 18:46, in article [email protected],
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:16:23 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/03/04 23:11, in article [email protected],
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then why did some 30,000 elderly people
>>>
>>>
>>> You still have the number wrong son. First get your facts straight.
>>>
>>> Earl
>>
>> Really? Go read USA Today that's what they report.
>Nope, haven`t read it and you cited nothing.
>But where did the 30,000 figure come from?
>A short while ago I was 11,000.
>Earl
Tryh a google search if that isn't beyond your capability.
wrote:
>On 7/03/04 18:46, in article [email protected],
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:16:23 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/03/04 23:11, in article [email protected],
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then why did some 30,000 elderly people
>>>
>>>
>>> You still have the number wrong son. First get your facts straight.
>>>
>>> Earl
>>
>> Really? Go read USA Today that's what they report.
>Nope, haven`t read it and you cited nothing.
>But where did the 30,000 figure come from?
>A short while ago I was 11,000.
>Earl
Tryh a google search if that isn't beyond your capability.
Mar 7th 2004, 10:35 am
#251
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:47:23 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> That's why some 11,000 elderly died last summer it was so
>> good.
>They died from a lack of air conditioning, nothing more.
It's called heat exhaustion ace. A perfectly medically treatable
condition if your vaunted French medical system worked worth a damn,
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> That's why some 11,000 elderly died last summer it was so
>> good.
>They died from a lack of air conditioning, nothing more.
It's called heat exhaustion ace. A perfectly medically treatable
condition if your vaunted French medical system worked worth a damn,
Mar 7th 2004, 10:36 am
#252
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:59:38 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 7/03/04 18:47, in article [email protected],
>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>> That's why some 11,000 elderly died last summer it was so
>>> good.
>>
>> They died from a lack of air conditioning, nothing more.
>JBK still has the wrong number, but mostly they died of all age.
>They even do more of it in January and February than last summer.
>We lost one old lady on our block in February, around 90.
>She was English, married to a Frenchman, a very happy couple.
>All love affairs end tragically.
>Earl
What a bunch of complete nonsense. They died of heat exhaustion at a
much, much higher rate than the rest of Europe experiencing the same
heat wave. A complete failure of both the medical system and
government. What bullshit.
wrote:
>On 7/03/04 18:47, in article [email protected],
>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>> That's why some 11,000 elderly died last summer it was so
>>> good.
>>
>> They died from a lack of air conditioning, nothing more.
>JBK still has the wrong number, but mostly they died of all age.
>They even do more of it in January and February than last summer.
>We lost one old lady on our block in February, around 90.
>She was English, married to a Frenchman, a very happy couple.
>All love affairs end tragically.
>Earl
What a bunch of complete nonsense. They died of heat exhaustion at a
much, much higher rate than the rest of Europe experiencing the same
heat wave. A complete failure of both the medical system and
government. What bullshit.
Mar 7th 2004, 10:46 am
#253
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
>That's not the point, is it? Are you really saying that you support a
>system such that when they no longer can make money on you they should
>drop you?
They can't just do that. It's illegal.
>When you buy insurance you expect it when you'll need it. 90% of the
>medical costs are in the last years of life. Will your money-making HMO
>be there when you need it?
Nope. Medicare will unless I also choose supplemental HMO coverage
which is also there.
>(Paying is not the issue. The issue is, what are you paying for, how
>much, and where does the money end up.)
>Incidentally, HMOs are mostly not about paying doctors. Rather the
>opposite.
Nonsense. No doctor would work with them if that were the case.
>How is that? Where does the decision to go ahead with a rather expensive
>procedure made, by whom? What do they tell you about it?
Never been denied for anything and there are all sorts of review
procedures to protect.
>
>>>>>In contrast, in Canada, there is much more of a medical market, at
>>>>>least when it comes to deal with your family doctor etc. What's
>>>>>public is *insurance.*
>>>>
>My wife was prescribed a mommogram by her GP on Tuesday. SHe has an
>appointment tomorrow.
Oh that's real evidence alright.
>
>> Averaged across all 12 medical specialties and 10 provinces surveyed,
>> total waiting time rose from 13.3 weeks in 1998 to 14 weeks in 1999, a
>> 5.3 percent increase. Waiting times have increased a dramatic 51 percent
>> since 1993, when the median total wait for Canadian patients to receive
>> treatment was 9.3 weeks.
>>
>> "How can these authors say there is no crisis?" asks Zelder.
>They would be more convincing if they would divide between emergency stuff
>and elective stuff.
A lot more convincing than your crap that's for sure.
>
>> The evidence also shows that Canadians are being deprived of access to
>> vital high-technology medical equipment and procedures. In terms of
>> technology per capita, Canada is clearly not a world leader. The country
>> is generally ranked among the bottom third of countries in the
>> Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for
>> availability of medical technology. "
>Nonsense.
>You are quoting some ideologically-driven think tank who engages in
>advocacy.
And you have WHAT proof of this? I simply did a google search and
this was the first thing that showed up.
>The bottom line is that while not perfect the Canadian system worksd well
>and is quite cost-effective.
Leeching off of US drugs and facilities across the border that
wouldn't be at all cost effective without them.
>You can point out to some problems, sure. None of which can be solved by
>proper funding. How that ought to be dealt with is the real issue.
Right. The technological deficit couldn't be solved by money. Right.
>system such that when they no longer can make money on you they should
>drop you?
They can't just do that. It's illegal.
>When you buy insurance you expect it when you'll need it. 90% of the
>medical costs are in the last years of life. Will your money-making HMO
>be there when you need it?
Nope. Medicare will unless I also choose supplemental HMO coverage
which is also there.
>(Paying is not the issue. The issue is, what are you paying for, how
>much, and where does the money end up.)
>Incidentally, HMOs are mostly not about paying doctors. Rather the
>opposite.
Nonsense. No doctor would work with them if that were the case.
>How is that? Where does the decision to go ahead with a rather expensive
>procedure made, by whom? What do they tell you about it?
Never been denied for anything and there are all sorts of review
procedures to protect.
>
>>>>>In contrast, in Canada, there is much more of a medical market, at
>>>>>least when it comes to deal with your family doctor etc. What's
>>>>>public is *insurance.*
>>>>
>My wife was prescribed a mommogram by her GP on Tuesday. SHe has an
>appointment tomorrow.
Oh that's real evidence alright.
>
>> Averaged across all 12 medical specialties and 10 provinces surveyed,
>> total waiting time rose from 13.3 weeks in 1998 to 14 weeks in 1999, a
>> 5.3 percent increase. Waiting times have increased a dramatic 51 percent
>> since 1993, when the median total wait for Canadian patients to receive
>> treatment was 9.3 weeks.
>>
>> "How can these authors say there is no crisis?" asks Zelder.
>They would be more convincing if they would divide between emergency stuff
>and elective stuff.
A lot more convincing than your crap that's for sure.
>
>> The evidence also shows that Canadians are being deprived of access to
>> vital high-technology medical equipment and procedures. In terms of
>> technology per capita, Canada is clearly not a world leader. The country
>> is generally ranked among the bottom third of countries in the
>> Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for
>> availability of medical technology. "
>Nonsense.
>You are quoting some ideologically-driven think tank who engages in
>advocacy.
And you have WHAT proof of this? I simply did a google search and
this was the first thing that showed up.
>The bottom line is that while not perfect the Canadian system worksd well
>and is quite cost-effective.
Leeching off of US drugs and facilities across the border that
wouldn't be at all cost effective without them.
>You can point out to some problems, sure. None of which can be solved by
>proper funding. How that ought to be dealt with is the real issue.
Right. The technological deficit couldn't be solved by money. Right.
Mar 7th 2004, 10:54 am
#254
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
>> Hardly. Medicare is simply a paying mechanism.. Has no doctors,
>> hospitals, etc. providing care.
>Wow. Are you truly saying that you actually agree with the single payer
>concept?
Never said I didn't. The payment mechanism itself is not the problem.
It's the government trying to RUN healthcare that is the problem.
Works as well as anything else it tries to run.
>>>Or that it's the most inefficient?
>>
>> Oh please. Go and read my post about what Canadians say about the
>> Canadian system.
>You can criticize a bunch of stuff about the Canadian system. Efficiency
>is *not* one of them. Criticism is all about effects of cost control gone
>too far.
Not what the article says.
>Actually, the most cost-effective approach to medicine from the standpoint
>of public policy is preventive medicine. Regular visits to your family
>doctor. Proper regular checkups and the like. Works quite nicely, in
>Canada. Just compare GNP fraction going to health acorss the border.
Big surprise. Exactly what every HMO promotes.
>Incidentally, popular support for the single payer system in Canada is
>*massive.*
>>>Or that it's just a way to funnel your tax dollar into the hands of the
>>>medical business mafia?
>>
>> Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Doesnt' even know the difference between
>> organized crime and business. Just likes to stupidly libel everyone.
>Personal experience. You wouldn't believe some bills we got. from
>physicians whom we never saw or heard of.
Funny. I have never seen any of this with my HMOs in over 25 years.
Must just be you.
>Just shoot in all directions, and collect whatever you get pay for. And
>if you get a few complains, just blame them on the computer. Personal
>expirience, following a visit to an ophtalmologist on duty in an emergency
>room. If it moves, bill.
Complete nonsense again. HCA was caught doing this and got to pay
several hundred million in fines just like any crook in any business.
Hardly means everyone does it.
>
>
>>>Or perhaps you just don't like the truth and you just shoot as the
>>>messenger to vent your frustration?
You don't know the truth. You just make up a lot of blather that is
not at all representative of the HMO system here.
>> Right. Go read the article moron.
>Not one Canadian in ten would agree with the article. It's pure spin by a
>right wing think tank.
I just love it when you blather on and then I post an article by
Canadians on just the subject you are blathering about after a 30
second google search and because it directly contradicts you they are
now a right wing think tank. Typical of the looney left. They are
completely ignorant of just about every they prattle on about and then
start the old paranoid delusional right wing conspiracy crap every
time they are exposed.
>> hospitals, etc. providing care.
>Wow. Are you truly saying that you actually agree with the single payer
>concept?
Never said I didn't. The payment mechanism itself is not the problem.
It's the government trying to RUN healthcare that is the problem.
Works as well as anything else it tries to run.
>>>Or that it's the most inefficient?
>>
>> Oh please. Go and read my post about what Canadians say about the
>> Canadian system.
>You can criticize a bunch of stuff about the Canadian system. Efficiency
>is *not* one of them. Criticism is all about effects of cost control gone
>too far.
Not what the article says.
>Actually, the most cost-effective approach to medicine from the standpoint
>of public policy is preventive medicine. Regular visits to your family
>doctor. Proper regular checkups and the like. Works quite nicely, in
>Canada. Just compare GNP fraction going to health acorss the border.
Big surprise. Exactly what every HMO promotes.
>Incidentally, popular support for the single payer system in Canada is
>*massive.*
>>>Or that it's just a way to funnel your tax dollar into the hands of the
>>>medical business mafia?
>>
>> Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Doesnt' even know the difference between
>> organized crime and business. Just likes to stupidly libel everyone.
>Personal experience. You wouldn't believe some bills we got. from
>physicians whom we never saw or heard of.
Funny. I have never seen any of this with my HMOs in over 25 years.
Must just be you.
>Just shoot in all directions, and collect whatever you get pay for. And
>if you get a few complains, just blame them on the computer. Personal
>expirience, following a visit to an ophtalmologist on duty in an emergency
>room. If it moves, bill.
Complete nonsense again. HCA was caught doing this and got to pay
several hundred million in fines just like any crook in any business.
Hardly means everyone does it.
>
>
>>>Or perhaps you just don't like the truth and you just shoot as the
>>>messenger to vent your frustration?
You don't know the truth. You just make up a lot of blather that is
not at all representative of the HMO system here.
>> Right. Go read the article moron.
>Not one Canadian in ten would agree with the article. It's pure spin by a
>right wing think tank.
I just love it when you blather on and then I post an article by
Canadians on just the subject you are blathering about after a 30
second google search and because it directly contradicts you they are
now a right wing think tank. Typical of the looney left. They are
completely ignorant of just about every they prattle on about and then
start the old paranoid delusional right wing conspiracy crap every
time they are exposed.
Mar 7th 2004, 10:57 am
#255
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Comparative French standard of living improvements
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:24:53 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
>John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
>>>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.
>>> 2) People who have assets but not insurance will be bled dry by the visit.
>> Right. My son recently went to our doctor without insurance for an
>> exam and it cost him $80. Really bled dry wasn't he?
>I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, since he didn't go to an
>emergency room.
>miguel
You wouldn't. You were saying you get bled dry when you go for
medical help here without insurance for something like a cold and that
is complete nonsense
>John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
>>>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.
>>> 2) People who have assets but not insurance will be bled dry by the visit.
>> Right. My son recently went to our doctor without insurance for an
>> exam and it cost him $80. Really bled dry wasn't he?
>I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, since he didn't go to an
>emergency room.
>miguel
You wouldn't. You were saying you get bled dry when you go for
medical help here without insurance for something like a cold and that
is complete nonsense
