A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st 04, 05:45 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 21st 04, 05:50 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 21st 04, 07:36 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 21st 04, 07:44 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 21st 04, 08:02 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 21st 04, 08:07 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 21st 04, 10:29 PM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #8  
Old January 22nd 04, 04:45 PM
Dick Locke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 22 Jan 2004 06:19:10 -0800, (Pat Norton)
wrote:

nobody wrote
Why then does a country such as Cuba have significantly
higher life expectancy ?


http://www.who.int/health-systems-pe...ce/whr2000.htm
Life expectancy (years)
81.9 Japan
81.2 Monaco
80.6 San Marino
80.6 Switzerland
80.4 Australia
80.4 Sweden
80.3 Andorra
80.1 Iceland
79.8 Canada
79.7 France
79.7 Italy
79.6 Singapore
79.6 Spain
79.4 Austria
79.4 Israel
79.1 Norway
78.9 New Zealand
78.8 Luxembourg
78.7 Germany
78.6 Netherlands
78.4 Belgium
78.4 Greece
78.2 Finland
78.2 United Kingdom
78.1 Malta
77.3 Cyprus
77.3 United States of America
77.2 Denmark
77.1 Costa Rica
77.1 Cuba



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.
  #10  
Old January 22nd 04, 06:05 PM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.