If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
Oelewapper wrote:
GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world." - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should either be in prison or in a mental health care institution. Even worse than that was his own acknowledgement that, three years into his own regime, there are now 4.3 million more Americans without health insurance than there were when he was sworn in. What the hell was he doing about our health care system during those three years other than letting it atrophy and die. Maybe his daily PT regime used up all of his available time needed to solve that little problem. George Z. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Even worse than that was his own acknowledgement that, three years into his own regime, there are now 4.3 million more Americans without health insurance than there were when he was sworn in. What the hell was he doing about our health care system during those three years other than letting it atrophy and die. What should he have been doing about our health care system during those three years? Please show the Constitutional support for your answer. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Oelewapper wrote: GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world." - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should either be in prison or in a mental health care institution. Even worse than that was his own acknowledgement that, three years into his own regime, there are now 4.3 million more Americans without health insurance than there were when he was sworn in. LOL! The population growth rate for the US in 2000-2001 was 1.2%. Given a population of about 280 million, that is somewhere close to 3.4 million residents per year of his presidency. Which means the US population grew by some 10 million persons during that three years you are concerned with. Let's see, if the population grew by 10 million and the number of persons uninsured only grew by 4.3 million, what does that tell you? What the hell was he doing about our health care system during those three years other than letting it atrophy and die. Oh, please... Let's see, when your hero Clinton took office in 1992, the percentage of the population that was completely uninsured was 84.9%, and by the time he left office in 2000 it had jumped to 85.7%. Where were your screams of atrophy and death *then*? Between 2000 and the end of 2002 (the last year data was available from the Census Bureau), that rate had climbed a whopping...get this... .1%! Yep, it was at 85.8% (and I had to round the calculation up to get *that* jump out of it). Which means that under Clinton the rise was an average of about a tenth of a percent per year, and under Bush it was half that. So I guess you will agree that Bush is doing better in this regard than your hero did? Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/h.../hihistt1.html Maybe his daily PT regime used up all of his available time needed to solve that little problem. Well according to the numbers he is doing pretty good--maybe your theory should instead state, "Presidents who devote a portion of their time to PT experience a smaller annual growth rate in the number of uninsured than do Presidents who devote their time to their inters and cigars"? Brooks George Z. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Oelewapper wrote: GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world." - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should either be in prison or in a mental health care institution. Even worse than that was his own acknowledgement that, three years into his own regime, there are now 4.3 million more Americans without health insurance than there were when he was sworn in. LOL! The population growth rate for the US in 2000-2001 was 1.2%. Given a population of about 280 million, that is somewhere close to 3.4 million residents per year of his presidency. Which means the US population grew by some 10 million persons during that three years you are concerned with. Let's see, if the population grew by 10 million and the number of persons uninsured only grew by 4.3 million, what does that tell you? What the hell was he doing about our health care system during those three years other than letting it atrophy and die. Oh, please... Let's see, when your hero Clinton took office in 1992, the percentage of the population that was completely uninsured was 84.9%, and by the time he left office in 2000 it had jumped to 85.7%. Where were your screams of atrophy and death *then*? Between 2000 and the end of 2002 (the last year data was available from the Census Bureau), that rate had climbed a whopping...get this... .1%! Yep, it was at 85.8% (and I had to round the calculation up to get *that* jump out of it). Which means that under Clinton the rise was an average of about a tenth of a percent per year, and under Bush it was half that. So I guess you will agree that Bush is doing better in this regard than your hero did? Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/h.../hihistt1.html Maybe his daily PT regime used up all of his available time needed to solve that little problem. Well according to the numbers he is doing pretty good--maybe your theory should instead state, "Presidents who devote a portion of their time to PT experience a smaller annual growth rate in the number of uninsured than do Presidents who devote their time to their inters and cigars"? Brooks George Z. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Even worse than that was his own acknowledgement that, three years into his own regime, there are now 4.3 million more Americans without health insurance than there were when he was sworn in. What the hell was he doing about our health care system during those three years other than letting it atrophy and die. What should he have been doing about our health care system during those three years? Please show the Constitutional support for your answer. I'll take that as a you don't know. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Even worse than that was his own acknowledgement that, three years into his own regime, there are now 4.3 million more Americans without health insurance than there were when he was sworn in. What the hell was he doing about our health care system during those three years other than letting it atrophy and die. What should he have been doing about our health care system during those three years? Please show the Constitutional support for your answer. I'll take that as a you don't know. Steve knows it like any libertarian, by rote. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Go Fig
wrote: In article , Guy wrote: If this money could be saved, think of what the U.S. could do with it. It could be used to insure the estimated 40 million people presently uninsured third have an automatic dishwasher. Do you think any of those 41 million may have opted to roll the dice and have a new 42" Plasma TV versus paying for a health insurance policy ? Some indeed may. But there are also some, such as myself, that were slammed simultaneously by the tech crash and a financially messy divorce, and are uninsurable through private plans due to preexisting conditions. A good deal of my work has been with healthcare, and I see cost shifting and cherry picking as major problems with a profit-based health payment system, especially one dependent on employers. There are several basic economic problems with the current system. First, there's no classic free market. In a classic free market, prices come as a result of interaction between provider and consumer. In the American system, however, the market interaction is between employers, for which healthcare is a cost of business (dare I even suggest an implicit tax), and third-party payors, who have multiple incentives to cut their costs and prices: shareholder value, and price competition to the employers. Add to this unfunded mandates like EMTALA, and drastic differences in what people pay to providers based on the payor negotiation. As a personal example, my cardiac pacemaker had a "list price" of $24,000. Between provider reimbursement and my co-pay, the hospital got $1600. As an individual, I would have been charged the full $24K. I am a diabetic, dependent for control on oral medications. The last year was bad enough financially that I could not afford reasonable laboratory monitoring. Now, I've run out of refills, and am scrambling to get a discount plan in place so I can get prescriptions for a new supply. Uncontrolled blood sugar is an invitation to even more expensive complications. But unless I can get the discount soon, the options are to wait three months for a clinic, and gamble I don't go into complications that an emergency room WILL have to accept, even though they won't be reimbursed. Now, I'm not a general believer in uncontrolled self-prescribing, even though that stings in my own case -- I have sufficient medical training to know what to do and when to call for help. Last Friday, I tripped and thoroughly banged my knee. The last time I did this (damaged the knee worse, true, but was also in diabetic control), I wound up with three weeks of a painful and expensive leg infection. Even now, I know that a reasonable standard of practice might be to reduce the risk of secondary infection with an inexpensive antibiotic (and, obviously, the more expensive diabetic control drugs would help), but I can't get the medication. I have built hospital information systems where we had to maintain 400 different contract prices for the same procedure, obviously meaning that the hospital had had to do 400 negotiations with different providers. How that makes for administrative efficiency is beyond my ken I think a 100% tax deduction for a catastrophic coverage is a very good idea, as well and a true Medical tax free savings account. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:45:08 +0000, Dick Locke wrote:
On 22 Jan 2004 06:19:10 -0800, (Pat Norton) wrote: Interesting. I've lived in Japan and by US standards their health care practice has some appalling aspects. I wonder though, to what extent the low US life expectancy reflects the health care system and to what extent it reflects a higher chance of dying young due to violence. Does WHO have any stats, say, on the life expectancy of 40 yr olds in various countries? That would reduce the violent-death factor. Infant mortality which is I believe high in the US has a significant contribution to these figures. So does diet. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Dick Locke" wrote in message ... Interesting. I've lived in Japan and by US standards their health care practice has some appalling aspects. I wonder though, to what extent the low US life expectancy reflects the health care system and to what extent it reflects a higher chance of dying young due to violence. Personally I don't consider 77.3 years that low! Jarg |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|