On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:05:08 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Possibly not, but a claim of twenty-four weeks as a common occurrence
is a completely misleading statement. Surely it happens on occasion,
but it's not the commonplace situation that Heybub claims.
And as well, the availability of public funds to pay for such
procedures is a consideration, but that's a necessary limitation in
such a system.
If you're middle class in the US needing a hip replacement costing in
the range of $30,000 - $40,000, have no insurance and don't have the
funds on hand, what do you do? As I understand it, you'll never get
treatment at all unless you become indigent. If that's wrong, then
please correct my belief. At least in Canada, you'd get the needed
surgery eventually, difficult as the wait might be.
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:40:41 -0700, Doug Winterburn
Yeah right! At what rate ~ $10 per week? Mortgage payments or rent,
food, current car payments, supporting the in law in nursing care, one
of the family breadwinners off work for at least a month assuming
problem free healing. And, you'd have everybody believe that the basic
middle class family is solvent enough to take on a $40,000 debt
without extreme difficulty.
You're naive a best, woefully ignorant at worst. Which is it?
I set up a $10 per month plan for one of my aunts in Michigan. Sat there
across the table from the apoplectic bean counters, one of them sputtering
that it would take 573 years for her to pay the bill at that rate. I told
them that, if she lived that long they'd get all of it. Had her $10 check on
the desk and asked them whether they wanted that, or nothing. They opted for
the payment plan and she paid for the rest of her life.
That immediately makes me think of your housing boom that went bust.
People taking on debt that they can't ever realistically pay off, yet
the bean counters authorized the transaction anyway. Of course, that
debt wasn't for paltry small sums such as your aunt took on, but it's
a debt that should never have been authorized anyway.
Neither, I've had to negotiate with doctors and dentists because I
couldn't pay the lump sum. In one case, it took 3 years to pay off the
total. And if it had been $10/month that was my limit, I would be
considered indigent and been on one of the multitude of support programs.
I went in the emergency room once, and was seen by the doctor in about
20 minutes. He had the nurse draw some blood for a test, and said he'd
be back. I waited 3 hours, sick as a dog and decided fuck it, I'm
leaving. I about crawled out of there and an emergency room nurse came
running saying you can't leave, the doctor has to see you yet. I said
I've been waiting 3 hours, I'm gone...
When I got home, the phone was ringing, it was the doctor, who
apologized and gave me the diagnosis and he phoned in a prescription for
30 days indeed....
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:21:47 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Isn't it amazing that the only examples opponents come up with are
England and Canada? Yes, England's plan is screwed up. But I've spent a
lot of time talking to Canadians about their plan and all of them, while
admitting it could stand improvement, are on the whole quite pleased with
I'll see your Canada and raise you Japan:
Let me know what you think after (if?) you read it.
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:45:50 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
That scenario applies to a lot more than health care. And to a lot more
countries than Japan. What happens to all those seniors who are unable
to work and are not independently wealthy when a government stops paying
Social Security or it's equivalent?
IOW, the "graying population" is indeed a problem, but is independent of,
and more serious than, any health care program.
So once again I ask, what's your opinion of Japan's health care plan?
If Japan's doesn't appeal to you, try Germany:
I did note the following from that article:
"Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose
to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations,
but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP)."
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Great Britain, France, many of the European countries have birthrates
below replacement rate. Russia has the same problem. All of these
countries have birthrates below replacement rate with the exception of a
certain population of middle-eastern immigrants with strong religious
affiliations toward a philosophy diametrically opposed to tolerance,
freedom, and liberty.
In addition, China is also deliberately pushing a population reduction
policy as well with their one-child policy. Due to the culture in that
country that places a high value on boys and very little on girls, the
desire for a son has led to widespread abortion and even infanticide. The
other side effect of this is that they have a lopsided gender-gap skewed
toward males. This is going to create very interesting problems in the not
very distant future.
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
About damn time! ...but it's already too late. I give the human
species less than 25 yrs on this rock. We've already screwed it up
beyond saving, I truly believe. So, eat, drink, screw, and be merry
and buy a new Ford Incursion or HoaxHummer2 to squander even more gas.
I'll be dead by then, anyway. Toodles! ;)
A birth rate in decline is not the same as being below replacement rate.
Without immigration one leads to the other, but not immediately. It may take
50 years for the snake to digest its meal. With immigration all bets are off.
That's where the Europeons are going. Japan's immigration is about zero.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.