A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did you catch every Bob Hope appearance on TV, right up to the end?

huh?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You can pull your kid out of public school and pay a little (or a lot) more for private education and get more for your buck. Why can't you do the same with your healthcare?

Well you can't anymore in Canada, not sure why. But the question is why should I have to?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It is a tiny percentage of what universal health care would be across the United States. Smaller is easier.

Perhaps the biggest thing for me is that any national healthcare program would require limits on what would be covered. I fear those limits would be stricter than I would for my healthcare.

Your current health plan no doubt has limits on what is covered. How is that any different?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Your current health plan no doubt has limits on what is covered. How is that any different?

Other than when I asked if I adopted SS, would they pay for sex reassignment surgery, cite me one thing they turned down.

edit: oh, and the penis extension I was going to get.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Other than when I asked if I adopted SS, would they pay for sex reassignment surgery, cite me one thing they turned down.

edit: oh, and the penis extension I was going to get.

Well, what that you have wanted do you know would not be available to you in Canada or GB? If your health plan covered everything, they wouldn't have to have those pesky little booklets that set out what they do and don't cover, with long-ass definitions of weird things.

Silly boy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well, what that you have wanted do you know would not be available to you in Canada or GB? If your health plan covered everything, they wouldn't have to have those pesky little booklets that set out what they do and don't cover, with long-ass definitions of weird things.

Silly boy.

I wouldn't do this for anyone else. Several months ago I already posted what I will now post.

Coming out of law school I interviewed in Toronto. It was the basis for my Juan the marine's best work on Greedy Canada, but I digress. I thought Toronto would be a wonderful place to live. Problem is I would have to live an hour outside because it was too expensive. When I said to the interviewing Partner "at least I won't have health care costs," he said anyone who can afford it pays extra to go to private.

Since then I've heard that private medical has been banned(or something). Still we hear all kinds of anecdotes about Canadians coming here for procedures that would attract an overly long wait under Canadian Health.

I have many Canadian clients. One has only 1 leg. He has this rant about waiting to see a Docter about this lump on his leg. by the time his appointment came up (7 or 8 months) his leg was too far gone and needed to be chopped off.

I grew up lower middle class. We always had prompt access to docs and we never had to forego treatments. If you want to talk about expanding a safety net okay- don't fuck with a system that takes really good care of the majority of the country though.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Smaller isn't easier. Records get lost in small systems, because people keep on moving from doctor to doctor. Every single record in the VA system is electronic, and can be easily accessed from any VA hosptial if a patient moves or gets in an accident away from home. There's no continuity of care in smaller systems, because people's coverage changes from year to year as the plans drop some physicians and keep others. It's easier to find epidemeological trends in larger systems, with larger populations numbers to study for variances. It's easier to share information in a single large system than in several hundred smaller systems.

this reads like an American Splendor rant.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you want to talk about expanding a safety net okay- don't fuck with a system that takes really good care of the majority of the country though.

For a moment there I thought you were talking about Social Security.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
For a moment there I thought you were talking about Social Security.

Can you just imagine that's true or do you have evidence?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well, what that you have wanted do you know would not be available to you in Canada or GB? If your health plan covered everything, they wouldn't have to have those pesky little booklets that set out what they do and don't cover, with long-ass definitions of weird things.

Silly boy.

So your argument is supported by what's in instruction books? You are really out of touch with how men operate.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you just imagine that's true or do you have evidence?

Beyond the words in your post, Hank, I can only speculate what makes your wheels turn.




Oh. You meant evidence that SocSec works for most people? I hadn't really considered that the efficiency of the system and the fact that recipients get benefits from it would be in doubt. Is that what you're really asking?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So your argument is supported by what's in instruction books? You are really out of touch with how men operate.

Uh,



whatever.



Are you willing to pay to expand the safety net to people whose employers have been more successful than your parents' employers in keeping unions out? Because it's getting to the point that the only lower-middle-class employed people with benefits are those whose unions negotiate them.

I have a headache, and I suspect I am, with this post, inviting it to get much much worse.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh,



whatever.



Are you willing to pay to expand the safety net to people whose employers have been more successful than your parents' employers in keeping unions out? Because it's getting to the point that the only lower-middle-class employed people with benefits are those whose unions negotiate them.

I have a headache, and I suspect I am, with this post, inviting it to get much much worse.

Oh dearest! I don't have a problem if some realistic plan was in place to pay health care for those w/o. I'm not saying this as a come-on, but I am one well paid mug. But there are millions of people who have really good health care and can't afford to pay for extra once you guys "fix" the system. But either way, my sweet, our kids will have braces/ shots/ etc.

Edit- pls. get spellcheck

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh dearest! I don't have a problem if some realistic plan was in place to pay health care for those w/o. I'm not saying this as a come-on, but I am one well paid mug. But there are millions of people who have really good health care and can't afford to pay for extra once you guys "fix" the system. But either way, my sweet, our kids will have braces/ shots/ etc.

Edit- pls. get spellcheck

My lmc comment was in response to this comment of yours:

"I grew up lower middle class. We always had prompt access to docs and we never had to forego treatments. If you want to talk about expanding a safety net okay- don't fuck with a system that takes really good care of the majority of the country though."

What, your parents weren't in unions?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you want to talk about expanding a safety net okay- don't fuck with a system that takes really good care of the majority of the country though.

Is this where the idea that because 51 percent of the population voted for something a mandate has been set forth comes from? 44 million people in this country do not have health insurance. No system takes care of them, except thanks to EMTALA, they can go to the very expensive ERs and not be turned away by the hospitals. They'll have to mortgage their houses and businesses to pay for the care they receive, but what they hey, right?

Look, what I'm saying is that the bitch for years has always been that you get lower quality if you try any state-sponsored healthcare may be invalidaed by a (peer reviewed academic) study that says that the VA system meets or exceeds private insurance in every measure of quality out there. The VA system had previously been a joke for years (both of my grandfathers died in VA hospitals, I have personal as well as professional experience with them), but with healthcare information technology finally developing AND a system that can easily identify health problems on a macro level, the reputation of the VA has improved dramatically in the last ten years. This study validates a lot of what the rumor mill had been talking about with regard to the VA system over the last five years.

But it's hard to duplicate the system in the private sector. First, it's nationwide. With the exception of Kaiser Second, the people in the VA system are in it for life, so it's easier to identify and actually treat the problems that may come up, even decades later. Third, the system is closed, whereas in the private sector it's a bit more piecemeal. That cardiology group, with this hospital, with a third physical therapy contractor, and a separate nursing service. Different in-patient than out-patient care.

Anecdotally, which means absolutely nothing, most of the Canadians and Brits that I know love their respective healthcare systems. Friends and family whose insurance ran out here in the US weren't so enamoured.

What I'm suggesting is that it's time to take another look at the VA system, because managed care in the early 1990s only slowed the rising healthcare costs, and they're back up to pre-managed care rates of inflation. This is a situation that someone's going to have to address sooner or later, and the VA may be a good model for a healthcare system that delivers very good quality care.