Rationing and long lines

[Damocles]

"Please find me" where I said you would do nothing. The check is only one of a line of MY experiences, this one pleasant. I don't know LadyT's story and I did not say she was lying. I'm sure many have had worse experiences than mine. The false premise is in your mind.
I listed but a few of the reasons I question our system based on MY OWN experience, you reply with only the suggestion of a third party anecdote and nothing of your own. I mention waiting times, bankruptcy as a result of ill health, high costs, drug price variations between venues and you come back with nothing at all.
I support a single pay system as a result of my experiences and what I see and have learned from my children of other, what I consider better systems than ours. I'm sorry if that bothers you. Profit and the resulting greed do not belong as part of a basic right. That's an opinion, I have mine, you have yours, that's what makes horse racing.
("Adult" is as "adult" does.)

In the post I quoted you talked about how "happy" I was, etc. Stop being disingenuous and we can begin to have a healthy discussion rather than one filled with one-upping each other on straw men. "I'm sorry if that bothers you." Please. You do it in this post here where you start with how you never did it... Silly and childish inferences notwithstanding my opinion follows.

I personally support a reasonable test period either state-by-state, or regionally for less wealthy states, where we can test out different ideas and select the best idea to implement across the board. There is no reason we should emulate any other place when we can see and understand some of their problems and work to ensure those same problems are not repeated here, borrowing the good, avoiding the bad, coming up with wholly new ideas, compromises between parties in closer held areas, D states, R states each with their own plan set forth where we can see the results and find the best. This is the strength of the US.

Your anecdote was much like mine, an anecdote. I am unconvinced that we should implement that program because you had a good time while others aren't having such a good time. Waiting periods are very real, and not something I want to start with here. Age rationing like they do in Germany is also real and something, again, that I do not want to repeat. In France there are people who are officially "covered" yet cannot access the system because they cannot afford the high copay or the supplemental insurance that would set aside some of those high copays. Since we know about this, there is no reason that we cannot see if a different system could fix that as well.

There is no reason to rush into an untested crappy system, or even an untested 'good' system, that will come with easily foreseen as well as unforeseen problems when we have the ability to test and figure out a system that will be the best of the best. I think we should lead, not follow, by not acting in "crisis" mode for every single thing that comes along and saddling ourselves with a system we will never get rid of as we all know that there is nothing made by mankind more infinite than a government program. By letting them convince us of the "crisis" we too often let our government get away with making stupid laws with foreseeable problems (drug laws are a good example). We can make the best system available on the planet, but instead what we'll get is just another wholly implemented infinite program that will need constant "fixing" in the future and will never be adequate enough to satisfy.

 

[belme1201]

In the post I quoted you talked about how "happy" I was, etc. Stop being disingenuous and we can begin to have a healthy discussion rather than one filled with one-upping each other on straw men. "I'm sorry if that bothers you." Please. You do it in this post here where you start with how you never did it...

I personally support a reasonable test period either state-by-state, or regionally for less wealthy states, where we can test out different ideas and select the best idea to implement across the board. There is no reason we should emulate any other place when we can see and understand some of their problems and work to ensure those same problems are not repeated here.

Your anecdote was much like mine, an anecdote. I am unconvinced that we should implement that program because you had a good time while others aren't having such a good time. Waiting periods are very real, and not something I want to start with here. Age rationing like they do in Germany is also real and something, again, that I do not want to repeat. In France there are people who are officially "covered" yet cannot access the system because they cannot afford the high copay or the supplemental insurance that would set aside some of those high copays. Since we know about this, there is no reason that we cannot see if a different system could fix that as well.

There is no reason to rush into an untested crappy system that will come with problems when we have the ability to test and figure out a system that will be the best of the best.

You are defending our system so I assumed you are happy with it. Now that I know you aren't happy with it, let's discard the word "happy" and discuss what it is that you think makes our system better than what I favor.
Some of my points have already been laid out, but I might add that your guys, the GOP, would like nothing better than no changes at all, particularly if the credit might go to a Democratic President and Congress, the People be damned. Knowing their duped followers, my guess is that most would also follow that line.
I know nothing about the French system, but somewhere on this board it was mentioned today that the supplemental is complementary to 92% of the subscribers. I know of nothing complementary in our system, even the destitute are dunned for money due.
We already have a "crappy" system, the problem is that it IS tested and, at the same time, the most costly on earth with less than middling outcome.

 

[Damocles]

You are defending our system so I assumed you are happy with it. Now that I know you aren't happy with it, let's discard the word "happy" and discuss what it is that you think makes our system better than what I favor.
Some of my points have already been laid out, but I might add that your guys, the GOP, would like nothing better than no changes at all, particularly if the credit might go to a Democratic President and Congress, the People be damned. Knowing their duped followers, my guess is that most would also follow that line.
I know nothing about the French system, but somewhere on this board it was mentioned today that the supplemental is complementary to 92% of the subscribers. I know of nothing complementary in our system, even the destitute are dunned for money due.
We already have a "crappy" system, the problem is that it IS tested and, at the same time, the most costly on earth with less than middling outcome.

What part of that post was defending the current system? Are you a functional illiterate who can write but not read?

Man you are thick as a post!

I made a joke based on "it was the first time I got a check, I was sold"... You would be "sold" by my coverage then, if you overpay you are reimbursed. Sometimes the doctors overcharge and I get checks. It's as simple as that. There was no defense. I made a sarcastic comment based on your comment.

Now read my opinion and comment or continue in this inane straw man. It hasn't stood up yet, maybe a thicker post to stand it on would help.

Yes, we have a system that could be improved, hence my opinion we should improve it rather than implement what could be even worse. You have to be retarded to think that supporting testing out different systems means I think nothing should be done. It's a preposterous straw man built on nothing.

In your next post are you again going to say that you didn't infer that my opinion was that we do nothing? Do I have to bold the portion that infers it here?

And finally, will you actually read what I posted so we can begin to have that adult conversation that I crave or do you want to continue along this vein and just be heaped with childish abuse? I have no problem either stooping to or rising to whatever level you want the debate to progress at.

As for "complimentary" that is simply an untruth. They pay for their supplemental insurance, some cannot afford it and also cannot afford the 10% to 40% copay and therefore cannot access the system that "covers" them. It is beyond stupid to ignore a foreseeable problem because you believe we need to improve ours. We need to look at and see what causes those issues and work to resolve them, not ignore them.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

What part of that post was defending the current system? Are you a functional illiterate who can write but not read?

Man you are thick as a post!

I made a joke based on "it was the first time I got a check, I was sold"... You would be "sold" by my coverage then, if you overpay you are reimbursed. Sometimes the doctors overcharge and I get checks. It's as simple as that. There was no defense. I made a sarcastic comment based on your comment.

Now read my opinion and comment or continue in this inane straw man. It hasn't stood up yet, maybe a thicker post to stand it on would help.

Yes, we have a system that could be improved, hence my opinion we should improve it rather than implement what could be even worse. You have to be retarded to think that supporting testing out different systems means I think nothing should be done. It's a preposterous straw man built on nothing.

In your next post are you again going to say that you didn't infer that my opinion was that we do nothing? Do I have to bold the portion that infers it here?

And finally, will you actually read what I posted so we can begin to have that adult conversation that I crave or do you want to continue along this vein and just be heaped with childish abuse? I have no problem either stooping to or rising to whatever level you want the debate to progress at.

As for "complimentary" that is simply an untruth. They pay for their supplemental insurance, some cannot afford it and also cannot afford the 10% to 40% copay and therefore cannot access the system that "covers" them. It is beyond stupid to ignore a foreseeable problem because you believe we need to improve ours. We need to look at and see what causes those issues and work to resolve them, not ignore them.

I see you are finally wising up to Belme's MO. SIGH!!

 

[belme1201]

What part of that post was defending the current system? Are you a functional illiterate who can write but not read?

Man you are thick as a post!

I made a joke based on "it was the first time I got a check, I was sold"... You would be "sold" by my coverage then, if you overpay you are reimbursed. Sometimes the doctors overcharge and I get checks. It's as simple as that. There was no defense. I made a sarcastic comment based on your comment.

Now read my opinion and comment or continue in this inane straw man. It hasn't stood up yet, maybe a thicker post to stand it on would help.

Yes, we have a system that could be improved, hence my opinion we should improve it rather than implement what could be even worse. You have to be retarded to think that supporting testing out different systems means I think nothing should be done. It's a preposterous straw man built on nothing.

In your next post are you again going to say that you didn't infer that my opinion was that we do nothing? Do I have to bold the portion that infers it here?

And finally, will you actually read what I posted so we can begin to have that adult conversation that I crave or do you want to continue along this vein and just be heaped with childish abuse? I have no problem either stooping to or rising to whatever level you want the debate to progress at.

As for "complimentary" that is simply an untruth. They pay for their supplemental insurance, some cannot afford it and also cannot afford the 10% to 40% copay and therefore cannot access the system that "covers" them. It is beyond stupid to ignore a foreseeable problem because you believe we need to improve ours. We need to look at and see what causes those issues and work to resolve them, not ignore them.

Apparently you would rather pass judgment on me than discuss anything I say about the system. Your first post in reply to my reply to someone else was a "joke". In subsequent posts you put more emphasis on my single use of the word "happy" than any substance, then you dream that I said you wanted to do nothing, or that I inferred LadyT is a liar which I did not. If my desire to do something about the system in your mind implies that you would do nothing, that's your problem, particularly since you have mentioned nothing you see as problems in the US system. In the meantime I mentioned several problems I see in our system which you have ignored. Finally, I said I knew nothing about the French system but read on this board about a phase of it and that is the one thing you reply to directly. Perhaps you can tell me how many posts it took you to say the US system needs improvement(but suggested none) which was the subject of my first post. Cost, bankruptcy, delays, poor results apparently are your "straw men" because I can find no other comment you made about them.
Sir, if it is your tactic to domineer or bully those with whom you disagree or who disagree with you, or those who don't follow your "sarcasm", try it somewhere else, it won't work with me, the "retarded", "thick as a post" one.

 

[belme1201]

I see you are finally wising up to Belme's MO. SIGH!!

When you put your 2 cents into any subject, to be fair, you should get
1 cent change.

 

[apple0154]

There is no reason to rush into an untested crappy system, or even an untested 'good' system, that will come with easily foreseen as well as unforeseen problems when we have the ability to test and figure out a system that will be the best of the best.

The problem is if Obama waits and elections in two years changes the make-up of the "houses" no medical change will happen. Nothing happened in 15 years!

That's what Obama has been saying all along. The time for talk is over. We waited too long. And he knows, just like we all know, that if something isn't implemented now nothing is going to happen later.

How do we know that? We know that because nothing happened for 15 years.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In the post I quoted you talked about how "happy" I was, etc. Stop being disingenuous and we can begin to have a healthy discussion rather than one filled with one-upping each other on straw men. "I'm sorry if that bothers you." Please. You do it in this post here where you start with how you never did it... Silly and childish inferences notwithstanding my opinion follows.

I personally support a reasonable test period either state-by-state, or regionally for less wealthy states, where we can test out different ideas and select the best idea to implement across the board. There is no reason we should emulate any other place when we can see and understand some of their problems and work to ensure those same problems are not repeated here, borrowing the good, avoiding the bad, coming up with wholly new ideas, compromises between parties in closer held areas, D states, R states each with their own plan set forth where we can see the results and find the best. This is the strength of the US.

Your anecdote was much like mine, an anecdote. I am unconvinced that we should implement that program because you had a good time while others aren't having such a good time. Waiting periods are very real, and not something I want to start with here. Age rationing like they do in Germany is also real and something, again, that I do not want to repeat. In France there are people who are officially "covered" yet cannot access the system because they cannot afford the high copay or the supplemental insurance that would set aside some of those high copays. Since we know about this, there is no reason that we cannot see if a different system could fix that as well.

There is no reason to rush into an untested crappy system, or even an untested 'good' system, that will come with easily foreseen as well as unforeseen problems when we have the ability to test and figure out a system that will be the best of the best. I think we should lead, not follow, by not acting in "crisis" mode for every single thing that comes along and saddling ourselves with a system we will never get rid of as we all know that there is nothing made by mankind more infinite than a government program. By letting them convince us of the "crisis" we too often let our government get away with making stupid laws with foreseeable problems (drug laws are a good example). We can make the best system available on the planet, but instead what we'll get is just another wholly implemented infinite program that will need constant "fixing" in the future and will never be adequate enough to satisfy.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, we have a system that could be improved, hence my opinion we should improve it rather than implement what could be even worse. You have to be retarded to think that supporting testing out different systems means I think nothing should be done. It's a preposterous straw man built on nothing.

But that's just the point. The current system is worse than any of the others. Otherwise, the people in those countries that have the supposedly worse system would be clamoring for a return to the old "Pay or Suffer" system.

No system is perfect and we'll never find one but let's not keep the system we know is the worst, the current one, while we debate and negotiate and bicker and scrap over which one is the best.

We've done that for generations. Negotiations finally break down or an election comes along and .......that's it. Then we start all over again.

It's time to implement a system and then tweak it to suit US needs. The "Pay or Suffer" system can't be tweaked. Every operation, every procedure, will have to be negotiated. Every possible exception considered.

That's exactly what has happened over the years. To keep a "Pay or Suffer" system with an exclusion here and an exception there will be a boondoggle.

Rather than the premise being a pay system with certain exceptions we have to take the opposite view. A universal system with certain exceptions and the only way we can do that is to implement a universal system and then work from there. That way the onus will be on why a person should pay for a certain medical procedure as opposed to why they shouldn't.

The advocates for a universal system are constantly on the defensive and with so many procedures and rules it's a never-ending negotiation. It's time to turn the tables. It's time to acknowledge a universal system is the norm and anything that requires a patient to pay should be the exception and require justification.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What part of that post was defending the current system? Are you a functional illiterate who can write but not read?

Man you are thick as a post!

I made a joke based on "it was the first time I got a check, I was sold"... You would be "sold" by my coverage then, if you overpay you are reimbursed. Sometimes the doctors overcharge and I get checks. It's as simple as that. There was no defense. I made a sarcastic comment based on your comment.

Now read my opinion and comment or continue in this inane straw man. It hasn't stood up yet, maybe a thicker post to stand it on would help.

Yes, we have a system that could be improved, hence my opinion we should improve it rather than implement what could be even worse. You have to be retarded to think that supporting testing out different systems means I think nothing should be done. It's a preposterous straw man built on nothing.

In your next post are you again going to say that you didn't infer that my opinion was that we do nothing? Do I have to bold the portion that infers it here?

And finally, will you actually read what I posted so we can begin to have that adult conversation that I crave or do you want to continue along this vein and just be heaped with childish abuse? I have no problem either stooping to or rising to whatever level you want the debate to progress at.

As for "complimentary" that is simply an untruth. They pay for their supplemental insurance, some cannot afford it and also cannot afford the 10% to 40% copay and therefore cannot access the system that "covers" them. It is beyond stupid to ignore a foreseeable problem because you believe we need to improve ours. We need to look at and see what causes those issues and work to resolve them, not ignore them.

 

[Damocles]

Apparently you would rather pass judgment on me than discuss anything I say about the system. Your first post in reply to my reply to someone else was a "joke". In subsequent posts you put more emphasis on my single use of the word "happy" than any substance, then you dream that I said you wanted to do nothing, or that I inferred LadyT is a liar which I did not. If my desire to do something about the system in your mind implies that you would do nothing, that's your problem, particularly since you have mentioned nothing you see as problems in the US system. In the meantime I mentioned several problems I see in our system which you have ignored. Finally, I said I knew nothing about the French system but read on this board about a phase of it and that is the one thing you reply to directly. Perhaps you can tell me how many posts it took you to say the US system needs improvement(but suggested none) which was the subject of my first post. Cost, bankruptcy, delays, poor results apparently are your "straw men" because I can find no other comment you made about them.
Sir, if it is your tactic to domineer or bully those with whom you disagree or who disagree with you, or those who don't follow your "sarcasm", try it somewhere else, it won't work with me, the "retarded", "thick as a post" one.

Except I wouldn't. Hence I posted my opinion rather than continuing to 'splain a joke to a functional illiterate.

My opinion is a critique of your insistence that we should immediately enact something because you had a good day in the system of another nation AND what we should do about it (you know ideas).

If you believed I "suggested none" it is because you are, as I said, a functionally illiterate idiot savant who can write but not read, or you are deliberately disingenuous and incapable of reading any idea that comes from somebody not of your political bent.

I suggested direct action that we could use to come up with the best system on the planet.

 

[Damocles]

But that's just the point. The current system is worse than any of the others. Otherwise, the people in those countries that have the supposedly worse system would be clamoring for a return to the old "Pay or Suffer" system.

No system is perfect and we'll never find one but let's not keep the system we know is the worst, the current one, while we debate and negotiate and bicker and scrap over which one is the best.

We've done that for generations. Negotiations finally break down or an election comes along and .......that's it. Then we start all over again.

It's time to implement a system and then tweak it to suit US needs. The "Pay or Suffer" system can't be tweaked. Every operation, every procedure, will have to be negotiated. Every possible exception considered.

That's exactly what has happened over the years. To keep a "Pay or Suffer" system with an exclusion here and an exception there will be a boondoggle.

Rather than the premise being a pay system with certain exceptions we have to take the opposite view. A universal system with certain exceptions and the only way we can do that is to implement a universal system and then work from there. That way the onus will be on why a person should pay for a certain medical procedure as opposed to why they shouldn't.

The advocates for a universal system are constantly on the defensive and with so many procedures and rules it's a never-ending negotiation. It's time to turn the tables. It's time to acknowledge a universal system is the norm and anything that requires a patient to pay should be the exception and require justification.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Again, while none is "perfect" we can make one that is the envy of the planet by tapping into the ingenuity inherent in our society.

We'd have the best of the best rather than a cheap copy of those we know have issues.

 

[charver]

Again, while none is "perfect" we can make one that is the envy of the planet by tapping into the ingenuity inherent in our society.

We'd have the best of the best rather than a cheap copy of those we know have issues.

Any idea when you'll get round to, you know, actually completing the thinking bit and get on to the doing part?

Just wondering, like.

 

[Damocles]

Any idea when you'll get round to, you know, actually completing the thinking bit and get on to the doing part?

Just wondering, like.

I'd like to get started now. Instead what we'll get is that cheap copy that I mentioned earlier, implemented in increments as we find "issues" with the system that was set up while we were in "crisis" mode (we always are nowadays, everything is a crisis). We'll constantly have the next "crisis" with the system that we'll never simply change and implement something new, it will be permanent and a mess.

I'd like to see what the different states would come up with. I would limit it, I would set goals that if they weren't met a different system that is meeting the goals in a different area would have to be implemented, I would have a set time (decade maybe) where we would choose and implement the best program on a Federal basis.

 

[belme1201]

Except I wouldn't. Hence I posted my opinion rather than continuing to 'splain a joke to a functional illiterate.

My opinion is a critique of your insistence that we should immediately enact something because you had a good day in the system of another nation AND what we should do about it (you know ideas).

If you believed I "suggested none" it is because you are, as I said, a functionally illiterate idiot savant who can write but not read, or you are deliberately disingenuous and incapable of reading any idea that comes from somebody not of your political bent.

I suggested direct action that we could use to come up with the best system on the planet.

You are full of words and devoid of ideas which is the reason you resort to the tactics you use.
You say you want to do something? Tell us what you find in the current system that you think needs change, isnt that a starting point? You have offered nothing as an alternative idea to a public plan or any other including the current plan, yet you go into a tiz at the suggestion that you would do nothing or are happy with what you have so everyone else be damned.
If you can't define even a hint of an improvement outside of faith in good ol' American ingenuity, then maybe the truth is that, in your mind, along with your GOP fellows in Congress, the best thing that can happen is nothing at all and I was right all along even with all your protestation.
Talk about "disingenuous"?. You are the king.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh You are learning our Damo. However he is slick he can make disengenuous become obscured in muddle in his posts.
He IS a better debator than some of his causes though.

And Stubborn? Ohh so stubborn.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

When you put your 2 cents into any subject, to be fair, you should get
1 cent change.

Ah, but I have been through with you the same as Damo is experiencing. You twist things around and don't read what we are saying to you. It gets old very quickly, fella.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Sans the Washington Examiner's and Tu-Tu (Blabba's) hyperbole.....the WTA report shows progess but states the various points of much need improvement. I didn't see any report that the current Canadian Health system caused the death of anyone due to a waiting list (no mention of denial of emergency care). Unfortunately, that has been documented by our current HMO dominated system.

And the question remains....who is saying that the Single Payer option that our congressional reps are keeping off the table would be an exact duplicate of the Canadian system? Or that the YET-TO-BE-DETAILED & DETERMINED plan envisioned by Obama will do the same?

 

[belme1201]

Ah, but I have been through with you the same as Damo is experiencing. You twist things around and don't read what we are saying to you. It gets old very quickly, fella.

Simple, 2 cookies from the same cutter trying to muddle the topic. This is your thread, where have you come aboard to defend it or offer better solutions?................girl???
I'm sure in this case you've got yours, everybody else go to Hell.

 

[christiefan915]

Apparently you would rather pass judgment on me than discuss anything I say about the system. Your first post in reply to my reply to someone else was a "joke". In subsequent posts you put more emphasis on my single use of the word "happy" than any substance, then you dream that I said you wanted to do nothing, or that I inferred LadyT is a liar which I did not. If my desire to do something about the system in your mind implies that you would do nothing, that's your problem, particularly since you have mentioned nothing you see as problems in the US system. In the meantime I mentioned several problems I see in our system which you have ignored. Finally, I said I knew nothing about the French system but read on this board about a phase of it and that is the one thing you reply to directly. Perhaps you can tell me how many posts it took you to say the US system needs improvement(but suggested none) which was the subject of my first post. Cost, bankruptcy, delays, poor results apparently are your "straw men" because I can find no other comment you made about them.
Sir, if it is your tactic to domineer or bully those with whom you disagree or who disagree with you, or those who don't follow your "sarcasm", try it somewhere else, it won't work with me, the "retarded", "thick as a post" one.

 

[christiefan915]

Except I wouldn't. Hence I posted my opinion rather than continuing to 'splain a joke to a functional illiterate.

My opinion is a critique of your insistence that we should immediately enact something because you had a good day in the system of another nation AND what we should do about it (you know ideas).

If you believed I "suggested none" it is because you are, as I said, a functionally illiterate idiot savant who can write but not read, or you are deliberately disingenuous and incapable of reading any idea that comes from somebody not of your political bent.

I suggested direct action that we could use to come up with the best system on the planet.

If you truly "crave adult conversation", you might want to rethink that pompous condescension that's so often the hallmark of your posts.

 

[TuTu Monroe]