"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:KTA4m.2714$9l4.1840 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
I do understand the concept and its tendency to break down. Insurance company clerks make those types of decisions all the time. Now, hey have a profit motive instilled in them, where supposedly the government clerk only needs to weed out fraud.
Mark & Juanita wrote in news:doKdnY4-U5sYSc_XnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:
If aspirin can do the same thing as Vioxx (kill the pain) then I would like the rule that cost plays a role. Not the only role, for sure, but that is where the if comes in.
The trouble is that the insurance company clerk has the government clerk watching him. But who watches the government clerk?
You mom should have gotten on the list, even though she was probably correct in assuming she wouldn't live long enough to bubble to the top. Stranger things have happened.
I understand that abortions are free in Canada, but there's an eleven-month waiting list.
Is that so?
You make a good point. Inasmuch as some form of rationing is required, we need to look at the other effects of whatever scheme is being considered.
The current method of pay-to-play has, as a consequence, a built-in incentive to work, save, invest, be productive, and plan for contingencies. Only by pursuing these goals can one stand a good chance of choice in health care. It's social survival of the fittest. The dissolute and the slackers die off more quickly.
This sounds like it's Medicaid, which is a state run, federally funded welfare program. Like any such program, there is are a bunch of requirements, but the central one is poverty, or near poverty. If you have too many assets or too much income, you are out of luck. You also have to be old, disabled, on welfare, or a low income family with children -- at least in Texas. It is NOT available to everyone who needs it.
I included Medicaid in the list of privileged groups. It is a little odd to think of poor people as privileged, but when it comes to health care, they are.
Unless you are completely private pay, you do have such people making those decisions. They just work for the insurance company instead of the government. I think that is a distinction without a difference.
I'm heading towards Medicare at a rapid rate and will have government bureaucrats making those decisions for me. Keep your fingers crossed.
-- Doug
If we really wanted to get serious about Darwinism, we'd eliminate health care entirely. -- Doug
As voters, we do. But we've been doing a really piss-poor job of it.
On abortions, it's actually only 10 months, but only in the Catholic hospitals. :-)
My mother-in-law is not planning to die within the next 2-3 months (waiting time for knee surgery where she lives).
Luigi
If you *Really* wanted to get serious about Darwinism, you'd eliminate all social programs, works programs, government and anything else that brings people together. The only industry would be club making.
But then, what would we do for beer?
Precisely.
For profit insurance companies have grunts on the payroll whose total job is to find ways to weasel out of meeting their contractual obligations to their customers.
That's a private not a governmental happening.
Lew
Brian Henderson wrote in news:LoM4m.2782$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
I really think that due to a poorly understood provision (separation of powers) you always have recourse through the courts. Whether a principle is worth the expense is another thing. And I am afraid it is your money that is used first. That is the case whether the insurance agent is an insurance company clerk, or a government clerk.
Government has grunts on the payroll whose total job is to justify their job. They have no customers.
...and that's the good part.
Do you really believe Vioxx and aspirin are equivalent?
Back to smoking the good stuff?
Lew
He didn't say one way or the other. But of course they are not equivalent. In many cases aspirin is safer and more effective. -- Doug
Unfortunately, no. We're both going to be smoking "hope and change", whether we like it or not.
... snip
While this is somewhat true, there is a huge difference and distinction -- there are competing insurance companies that have to keep the majority of their clients satisfied or they lose business to other insurance companies. They are also subject to lawsuits and redress for grievances through the legal system. When the government takes over, no such mechanisms exist unless one is independently wealthy and can go private pay (if that will even be legal).
Further, once the government takes over, this gives a tremendous foothold in not just rationing health care, but using the fact that taxpayers are paying for it as an excuse to regulate every portion of one's life. Again, not hyperbole -- it's being done in Great Britain. Overweight? No hip replacement for you. Smoke? Forget about treatment for heart disease, you brought it upon yourself.
Think about the ramifications -- woodworking is a semi-dangerous hobby, it would not be far-fetched to see the government banning various hobbies because of the "burden" on the public health care system.
He did.
In what case is asperin more effective?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.