FPGA Central

[email protected] wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. I am wondering if this is your own project or the
>
> The school thing? No, that's really my project though my wife
> supports it. The grand master plan for world domination, of which
> the school thing is a part, that's inspired but not exactly
> prompted by my wife.
>
>> result of prodding from your recently added wife. I believe she
>
> Recent???? I'll be celebrating my seventh wedding anniversary in
> four months...

Oh my. The years seem to just be slipping away.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>> James Arthur wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Boy am I glad to live in a country where health care for everyone is 2.25%
>>>>>> of earned income.
>>> Have you any support for that figure? European countries
>>> pay roughly 8% of GDP, which would be a much larger % of
>>> their earned income.
>>
>> The bulk of the Canadian health care is paid for as a payroll tax paid for by
>> the employer that is based on 2.25% of earned income. There is some gray
>> area's in some of the capital expenditures and medical research and education.
>>
>>> By quality measurements (outcomes for a given condition), America's
>>> care is better, albeit pricier ever since the gov. started
>>> subsidizing it.
>>
>> America's care is better than?
>> I am not being argumentative, the question is the very best there is or the care
>> that is available to 90% of the population. I am not arguing that good care
>> is not available in the US, it is especially for chronic illnesses.
>>
>> Canada has developed some very good health practices in dealing with
>> outbreaks of communicable diseases and disease prevention.
>>
>> w..
>
>I'm an USAer considering moving to Canada just for the healthcare.
>Its a long time from 50 to 65 to wait for medicare while no one
>will no longer hire you. I could retire in Canada.

Bye.

>What are the laws regarding foreigners and healthcare in Canada?

Why would Canuckistan want someone who is unemployable? They might
just as well take Slowman.

On Jun 5, 7:22*pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Recent???? I'll be celebrating my seventh wedding anniversary in
> > four months...
>
> Oh my. *The years seem to just be slipping away.

That's exactly what I said when I recently had to photocopy my birth
certificate. So much has changed, and in little way for the better...
I guess modern certificates say "FIRST NAME" not "CHRISTIAN NAME", and
I'm quite sure Hamburg is no longer in WEST-GERMANY.

Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:35:35 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Interesting. I'm currently a junior at a ferociously expensive, third-
>>>> rate private college in NY (paying for a misspent youth by having to
>>>> finish my EE degree at the ripe old age of 35). I'm wondering how they
>>>> will assign projects here. I have a fairly good communications channel
>>>> to the dean of engineering and I might use this to try to sidestep any
>>>> canned projects to do my own - I have lots of R&D projects on the boil
>>>> at any given time, and I'd rather not try and slot in a toy school
>>>> project as well.
>>> It seems that you're ahead of me in the delay department. I graduated at
>>> age 30. There was a kid on the way when I went full time, and another
>>> just born when I graduated 3 years later. (It was all worth it.)
>>>
>> My #1 daughter was born when I was in grad school. Good financial
>> training for when they hit college--"Don't panic, it's not as bad as
>> when...."
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Our #1 daughter was born end of January of my senior year at MIT ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson

I was in school for another 20 months afterwards.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

krw wrote:
>
> Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >
> >I'm an USAer considering moving to Canada just for the healthcare.
> >Its a long time from 50 to 65 to wait for medicare while no one
> >will no longer hire you. I could retire in Canada.
>
> >What are the laws regarding foreigners and healthcare in Canada?
>
> Why would Canuckistan want someone who is unemployable? They might
> just as well take Slowman.


I'm sure Australia has already warned them not to let him in.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Jon Kirwan wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:59:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> A report from the WHO, now several years old, ranked US overall health
>> care 29th in the world, just behind Costa Rica.
>
> My uncle is a doctor who has, as well, worked within WHO for a few
> decades now. Most of his years have been abroad, though he spends a
> lot of time with his children who live here in the US (near me.) He
> has a broad picture to work from and agrees roughly with the WHO
> ranking (perhaps having participated in its methodology, one may
> expect as much.)
>
> Jon

How does one quantify such a multidimensional thing with a single
number?

To answer this I just scanned the WHO report. It's an advocacy piece
for socialized medicine. For example, chapter two, "Advancing and
Sustaining Universal Coverage."

Their ranking system weighs four components, three of which relate
to how completely socialized your system is: Universality, Fairness
(must be paid for by the rich), and Equality (the rich must not be
able to purchase better care).

Their fourth factor, Health-Adjusted Life Expectancy, is a nearly
useless gauge of healthcare quality.

(For example, when murder and suicide are excluded, the United
States has the longest life expectancy of any western nation. If
you were to assume (wrongly, like WHO) that care determines
lifespan, then the USA should rate the best.)

Their rankings prize equality, not quality. The plane needn't
fly, just as long as first class isn't too much nicer than coach.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:40:18 GMT, James Arthur
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:59:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> A report from the WHO, now several years old, ranked US overall health
>>> care 29th in the world, just behind Costa Rica.
>>
>> My uncle is a doctor who has, as well, worked within WHO for a few
>> decades now. Most of his years have been abroad, though he spends a
>> lot of time with his children who live here in the US (near me.) He
>> has a broad picture to work from and agrees roughly with the WHO
>> ranking (perhaps having participated in its methodology, one may
>> expect as much.)
>>
>> Jon
>
>How does one quantify such a multidimensional thing with a single
>number?

I agree. Any summary like this grossly eliminates all kinds of useful
knowledge, distilling it into a single thing. I just remember him
talking to me about it and saying that, with very broad brush strokes,
the number poses worries when the US falls that far down the list.

Not having been involved in any of this, I suppose it is kind of like
measuring stock market performance by looking at the DJIA or the
S&P500.

>To answer this I just scanned the WHO report. It's an advocacy piece
>for socialized medicine. For example, chapter two, "Advancing and
>Sustaining Universal Coverage."

The use of the term 'socialized' is your own, I gather.

Regarding universal health care itself, I'm all for it. So don't
argue with me about this. My personal physician is all for it, as
well. In fact, so are ALL of my doctors -- which includes a
neurosurgeon, a neurologist, my dentist of 35 years, and a variety of
others (I have two disabled children, one with grand mal seizures, and
I am currently working on developing a residence/retreat for dental
care for disabilities, so I have a lot of regular contact that is much
broader than most people have.. and.... well, you get the idea. They
ALL want universal health care in the US and they want it sooner than
later. I'm trying hard to recall any medical professional in my
sphere who doesn't want it. I'll have to keep asking. So far, my
recollection can't come up with one.

>Their ranking system weighs four components, three of which relate
>to how completely socialized your system is: Universality, Fairness
>(must be paid for by the rich), and Equality (the rich must not be
>able to purchase better care).
>
>Their fourth factor, Health-Adjusted Life Expectancy, is a nearly
>useless gauge of healthcare quality.
>
>(For example, when murder and suicide are excluded, the United
>States has the longest life expectancy of any western nation. If
>you were to assume (wrongly, like WHO) that care determines
>lifespan, then the USA should rate the best.)
>
>Their rankings prize equality, not quality. The plane needn't
>fly, just as long as first class isn't too much nicer than coach.

I can't speak for all this. I'm sure all you've done is gloss quickly
over it. I know he (my uncle) spent something on the order of 20
years and more dealing with health care issues around the world, and
in the US (he had both a private practice here as well as a business
selling products to dentists, which is how he became a multi-
millionaire, I suppose.) He's pretty sharp, has more than a lifetime
of experience across a very wide range of circumstances, so I'll just
leave it there.

All I can tell you is that I have a lot of respect for him and his
opinions in this area and he has more knowledge here, due to a long
period of time worrying about such things, than most doctors only in
private practice.

I suspect, but don't know, that if you were to spend a few months
digging into the methodology leading to the design of the ranking
system itself, as well as into the practice used in applying it later
on, you'd find it fairly robust and as well-designed as can be. The
goals leading towards the design may certainly be biased in your
opinion, but I suspect that they are probably as good as any that
could be used. I'm guessing that they were something along the lines
of the principles of human rights, generally. But I don't know.

I think we (the US) deserves some criticism and needs to work harder
to achieve health care for more than the few. I remember talking with
another doctor, some years ago. He had lived in New York City for
quite some time, earlier in his life. He said, "New York is a great
place to live, if you are wealthy." Health care in the US is the best
to be had, "if you are wealthy." I work with people who are poor
because they are significantly developmentally disabled -- these are
people in group homes, foster homes, and the like. They don't have
access to attorneys, for example, because no attorney would wreck
their own lives by dedicating themselves to a group of people without
money. Try finding one who knows the ADA and its modification,
lately, and will work for an individual. I have. They don't exist.
They work for the State or else they work for the tiny groups that are
paid for by federal funds (in Oregon, this is Disability Rights Oregon
or DRO) who cannot afford to spend any time on anything that doesn't
affect a lot of people -- namely, class actions. Similarly, dentists
don't want the business. The State systems pay too little, when they
pay; and patients are very often "no shows," even then. There are
perhaps a tiny handful who dare to hang out their shield for this kind
of business and they are overwhelmed.

I'll make this personal, James. My daughter had a grand mal seizure a
short while back. She broke her front teeth out, down to the gum
line. I took her in to see her dentist (there are a very few, by the
way, in our area of 1.5 million people willing to specialize in people
like my daughter who requires general anesthesia for work) who looked
her over and told me it would be 10 months before he could get her in
to the hospital setting where they could work on her. 10 months in an
emergency situation!! I said, "Perhaps I should find another
dentist?" And before he could speak, his assistant chirped in and
said, "If you find another who can do this faster, let US know. We
don't know anyone in the area, ourselves, who can get in quicker. So
that would help us, too." He nodded, affirmatively. I called around
for a few months, found no difference, at all.

For those who are the least in this society, the US society, it is NOT
the best place to be.

The doctors know this, James.

This is what started my own mission to set up a place for this kind of
thing. I'm working with several groups now, from a teaching hospital
to groups specializing in providing indigent health care around the
world, to providing care here in the US where it is sadly missing.
Many people in DD, you can't even see their teeth. That's the level
of care they get, today. There are classes, regularly, on a subject
called the "Fatal Four" which talks about the 4 primary affectable
causes of death in the DD community. Choking is one of those 4 and
the primary reason is due to completely removing their teeth at an
early age, because of the lack of care.

This is the US, James, for those who aren't at the pinnacle in it.

I've no doubt that the US ranking is painted with a broad brush, but
there is truth in it, too.

Jon

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:18:21 GMT, I wrote:

><snip>
>spent something on the order of 20
>years and more dealing with health care issues around the world
><snip>

Before you misunderstand this, James, I meant more than 20 years
purely on this subject of global health care issues. He's been a
doctor for more than 50 years. It's just that his work as a
consultant with WHO started a few decades back. Don't imagine he only
has 20 years total professional experience.

Jon

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:

> contact me offline

"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Walter Banks wrote:
>>>
>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Boy am I glad to live in a country where health care for everyone is
>>>>>>> 2.25%
>>>>>>> of earned income.
>>>> Have you any support for that figure? European countries
>>>> pay roughly 8% of GDP, which would be a much larger % of
>>>> their earned income.
>>>
>>> The bulk of the Canadian health care is paid for as a payroll tax paid
>>> for by
>>> the employer that is based on 2.25% of earned income. There is some gray
>>> area's in some of the capital expenditures and medical research and
>>> education.
>>>
>>>> By quality measurements (outcomes for a given condition), America's
>>>> care is better, albeit pricier ever since the gov. started
>>>> subsidizing it.
>>>
>>> America's care is better than?
>>> I am not being argumentative, the question is the very best there is or
>>> the care
>>> that is available to 90% of the population. I am not arguing that good
>>> care
>>> is not available in the US, it is especially for chronic illnesses.
>>>
>>> Canada has developed some very good health practices in dealing with
>>> outbreaks of communicable diseases and disease prevention.
>>>
>>> w..
>>
>>I'm an USAer considering moving to Canada just for the healthcare.
>>Its a long time from 50 to 65 to wait for medicare while no one
>>will no longer hire you. I could retire in Canada.
>
> Bye.
>
>>What are the laws regarding foreigners and healthcare in Canada?
>
> Why would Canuckistan want someone who is unemployable? They might
> just as well take Slowman.

You can't retire unless you have alot of money. I have alot of money.
Thought canada might like me to spend it all there, in return for
healthcare.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]. .
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Walter Banks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boy am I glad to live in a country where health care for everyone is
>>>>>>>> 2.25%
>>>>>>>> of earned income.
>>>>> Have you any support for that figure? European countries
>>>>> pay roughly 8% of GDP, which would be a much larger % of
>>>>> their earned income.
>>>>
>>>> The bulk of the Canadian health care is paid for as a payroll tax paid
>>>> for by
>>>> the employer that is based on 2.25% of earned income. There is some gray
>>>> area's in some of the capital expenditures and medical research and
>>>> education.
>>>>
>>>>> By quality measurements (outcomes for a given condition), America's
>>>>> care is better, albeit pricier ever since the gov. started
>>>>> subsidizing it.
>>>>
>>>> America's care is better than?
>>>> I am not being argumentative, the question is the very best there is or
>>>> the care
>>>> that is available to 90% of the population. I am not arguing that good
>>>> care
>>>> is not available in the US, it is especially for chronic illnesses.
>>>>
>>>> Canada has developed some very good health practices in dealing with
>>>> outbreaks of communicable diseases and disease prevention.
>>>>
>>>> w..
>>>
>>>I'm an USAer considering moving to Canada just for the healthcare.
>>>Its a long time from 50 to 65 to wait for medicare while no one
>>>will no longer hire you. I could retire in Canada.
>>
>> Bye.
>>
>>>What are the laws regarding foreigners and healthcare in Canada?
>>
>> Why would Canuckistan want someone who is unemployable? They might
>> just as well take Slowman.
>
>You can't retire unless you have alot of money. I have alot of money.

I retired once. Didn't like it. Engineering is too much fun.

>Thought canada might like me to spend it all there, in return for
>healthcare.

If you have enough that it would "interest" the Canuckistanis, why
don't you just spend your money on your health care. Why should
everyone else pay your way? Typical limousine leftist loon.

"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]..
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected] ..
>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Walter Banks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Boy am I glad to live in a country where health care for everyone
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> 2.25%
>>>>>>>>> of earned income.
>>>>>> Have you any support for that figure? European countries
>>>>>> pay roughly 8% of GDP, which would be a much larger % of
>>>>>> their earned income.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bulk of the Canadian health care is paid for as a payroll tax paid
>>>>> for by
>>>>> the employer that is based on 2.25% of earned income. There is some
>>>>> gray
>>>>> area's in some of the capital expenditures and medical research and
>>>>> education.
>>>>>
>>>>>> By quality measurements (outcomes for a given condition), America's
>>>>>> care is better, albeit pricier ever since the gov. started
>>>>>> subsidizing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> America's care is better than?
>>>>> I am not being argumentative, the question is the very best there is
>>>>> or
>>>>> the care
>>>>> that is available to 90% of the population. I am not arguing that good
>>>>> care
>>>>> is not available in the US, it is especially for chronic illnesses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada has developed some very good health practices in dealing with
>>>>> outbreaks of communicable diseases and disease prevention.
>>>>>
>>>>> w..
>>>>
>>>>I'm an USAer considering moving to Canada just for the healthcare.
>>>>Its a long time from 50 to 65 to wait for medicare while no one
>>>>will no longer hire you. I could retire in Canada.
>>>
>>> Bye.
>>>
>>>>What are the laws regarding foreigners and healthcare in Canada?
>>>
>>> Why would Canuckistan want someone who is unemployable? They might
>>> just as well take Slowman.
>>
>>You can't retire unless you have alot of money. I have alot of money.
>
> I retired once. Didn't like it. Engineering is too much fun.
>
>>Thought canada might like me to spend it all there, in return for
>>healthcare.
>
> If you have enough that it would "interest" the Canuckistanis, why
> don't you just spend your money on your health care. Why should
> everyone else pay your way? Typical limousine leftist loon.

You draw conclusions from three sentences.
Typical arrogant moron.

Its a gamble. If I croak without getting ill, canada wins.
If I get sick, and cost alot of money, I win.
Canada is garanteed I'll spend money, I get security of healthcare.

Healthcare can easily wipeout a life savings in weeks in US.
That is my motivation. I have 15 years till covered by US medicare.

Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past
promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.

Nothing special about Canuckistanis, or everyone would have gone there.

>> If you have enough that it would "interest" the Canuckistanis, why
>> don't you just spend your money on your health care. Why should
>> everyone else pay your way? Typical limousine leftist loon.
>
> You draw conclusions from three sentences.
> Typical arrogant moron.

Yep, I thought he was even going to say the popular American chant -
"Healthcare is for Commies!"
Watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" and learn something, it will surprise you in
places.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:45:15 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]. .
>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Walter Banks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Boy am I glad to live in a country where health care for everyone
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> 2.25%
>>>>>>>>>> of earned income.
>>>>>>> Have you any support for that figure? European countries
>>>>>>> pay roughly 8% of GDP, which would be a much larger % of
>>>>>>> their earned income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bulk of the Canadian health care is paid for as a payroll tax paid
>>>>>> for by
>>>>>> the employer that is based on 2.25% of earned income. There is some
>>>>>> gray
>>>>>> area's in some of the capital expenditures and medical research and
>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By quality measurements (outcomes for a given condition), America's
>>>>>>> care is better, albeit pricier ever since the gov. started
>>>>>>> subsidizing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> America's care is better than?
>>>>>> I am not being argumentative, the question is the very best there is
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> the care
>>>>>> that is available to 90% of the population. I am not arguing that good
>>>>>> care
>>>>>> is not available in the US, it is especially for chronic illnesses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada has developed some very good health practices in dealing with
>>>>>> outbreaks of communicable diseases and disease prevention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> w..
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm an USAer considering moving to Canada just for the healthcare.
>>>>>Its a long time from 50 to 65 to wait for medicare while no one
>>>>>will no longer hire you. I could retire in Canada.
>>>>
>>>> Bye.
>>>>
>>>>>What are the laws regarding foreigners and healthcare in Canada?
>>>>
>>>> Why would Canuckistan want someone who is unemployable? They might
>>>> just as well take Slowman.
>>>
>>>You can't retire unless you have alot of money. I have alot of money.
>>
>> I retired once. Didn't like it. Engineering is too much fun.
>>
>>>Thought canada might like me to spend it all there, in return for
>>>healthcare.
>>
>> If you have enough that it would "interest" the Canuckistanis, why
>> don't you just spend your money on your health care. Why should
>> everyone else pay your way? Typical limousine leftist loon.
>
>You draw conclusions from three sentences.
>Typical arrogant moron.

You're the arrogant asshole who wants someone else to pay for his
medical care.

>Its a gamble. If I croak without getting ill, canada wins.
>If I get sick, and cost alot of money, I win.
>Canada is garanteed I'll spend money, I get security of healthcare.

Either way, you win. Yep, typical leftist loon.

>Healthcare can easily wipeout a life savings in weeks in US.

Not much of a life's savings. You really don't have enough money to
retire. Forget Canuckistan, they wouldn't be impressed.

>That is my motivation. I have 15 years till covered by US medicare.

So, you'll go to Canuckistan and steal from them until you can steal
from the US taxpayer. You are a real piece of work.

>Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past
>promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.

....and this has to do with your wish to steal from the Canuckistani
taxpayer, how?

>Nothing special about Canuckistanis, or everyone would have gone there.

It seems you have a thing about their money.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 20:06:59 +0100, "Duplic" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>> If you have enough that it would "interest" the Canuckistanis, why
>>> don't you just spend your money on your health care. Why should
>>> everyone else pay your way? Typical limousine leftist loon.
>>
>> You draw conclusions from three sentences.
>> Typical arrogant moron.
>
>Yep, I thought he was even going to say the popular American chant -
>"Healthcare is for Commies!"
>Watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" and learn something, it will surprise you in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>places.

Now we know your IQ.

"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:45:15 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected] ..
>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected] m...
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past
>>promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.
>
> ...and this has to do with your wish to steal from the Canuckistani
> taxpayer, how?
>

If you do not like canada's immigration policy ... protest.

While I file for residency.

CBFalconer wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>> Boy am I glad to live in a country where health care for everyone
>>> is 2.25% of earned income.
>> Is there any chance of keeping this sort of discussion in
>> sci.electronics.design, and out of comp.arch.embedded (don't know
>> much about comp.dsp)?
>
> It is dead simple. If you don't like it, simply PLONK the thread.
> Then you will never see anything further. This is not like the
> foolish arguments or sales pitches that keep appearing.
>

I don't want to kill the whole thread - I want to kill a *branch* of the
thread. This is what the "followup-to" header was invented for. The
original thread was (somewhat) relevant to all three newsgroups, and
thus cross-posted. A branch about countries' health services, or lack
thereof, is only of interest in sci.electronics.design, so should have
had a followup-to set.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:36:57 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]. .
>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:45:15 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news[email protected] ...
>>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected] om...
>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past
>>>promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.
>>
>> ...and this has to do with your wish to steal from the Canuckistani
>> taxpayer, how?
>>
>
>If you do not like canada's immigration policy ... protest.

I have no interest in Canada's immigration policy, idiot. I'm not the
one who wants to screw their taxpayers.

>While I file for residency.

Common leftist thief.

"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:36:57 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:4ngl25lb8b6pldkr65beip4qpeu5e108ld@4ax.[email protected] ..
>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:45:15 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news[email protected] m...
>>>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:keaj2555dt8l5rvfj2lk9ffs5t721kqcb4@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past
>>>>promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.
>>>
>>> ...and this has to do with your wish to steal from the Canuckistani
>>> taxpayer, how?
>>>
>>
>>If you do not like canada's immigration policy ... protest.
>
> I have no interest in Canada's immigration policy, idiot.

Then quit whining.

Throw one on the barbi for me ... or whatever it is you do up there.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:08:58 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]. .
>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:36:57 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:45:15 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news[email protected] om...
>>>>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:keaj2555dt8l5rvfj2lk9ffs5t721kqcb4@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past
>>>>>promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.
>>>>
>>>> ...and this has to do with your wish to steal from the Canuckistani
>>>> taxpayer, how?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you do not like canada's immigration policy ... protest.
>>
>> I have no interest in Canada's immigration policy, idiot.
>
>Then quit whining.

Whining? I'm just showing you what a leftist thief you really are.

>Throw one on the barbi for me ... or whatever it is you do up there.

Up?

krw wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:08:58 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]. .
> >> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:36:57 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected] ...
> >>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:45:15 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news[email protected] om...
> >>>>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:42:05 -0700, "Rumpelstiltskin"
> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:keaj2555dt8l5rvfj2lk9ffs5t721kqcb4@4ax .com...
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Better deal than the open door policy canada had in the past
> >>>>>promising any dirt poor indian who would go there citizenship.
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and this has to do with your wish to steal from the Canuckistani
> >>>> taxpayer, how?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>If you do not like canada's immigration policy ... protest.
> >>
> >> I have no interest in Canada's immigration policy, idiot.
> >
> >Then quit whining.
>
> Whining? I'm just showing you what a leftist thief you really are.
>
> >Throw one on the barbi for me ... or whatever it is you do up there.
>
> Up?


Its obvious he wants to scam them out of mental health care.




--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Jon Kirwan wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:40:18 GMT, James Arthur
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:59:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> A report from the WHO, now several years old, ranked US overall health
>>>> care 29th in the world, just behind Costa Rica.
>>> My uncle is a doctor who has, as well, worked within WHO for a few
>>> decades now. Most of his years have been abroad, though he spends a
>>> lot of time with his children who live here in the US (near me.) He
>>> has a broad picture to work from and agrees roughly with the WHO
>>> ranking (perhaps having participated in its methodology, one may
>>> expect as much.)
>>>
>>> Jon
>> How does one quantify such a multidimensional thing with a single
>> number?
>
> I agree. Any summary like this grossly eliminates all kinds of useful
> knowledge, distilling it into a single thing. I just remember him
> talking to me about it and saying that, with very broad brush strokes,
> the number poses worries when the US falls that far down the list.
>
> Not having been involved in any of this, I suppose it is kind of like
> measuring stock market performance by looking at the DJIA or the
> S&P500.
>
>> To answer this I just scanned the WHO report. It's an advocacy piece
>> for socialized medicine. For example, chapter two, "Advancing and
>> Sustaining Universal Coverage."
>
> The use of the term 'socialized' is your own, I gather.
>
> Regarding universal health care itself, I'm all for it. So don't
> argue with me about this. My personal physician is all for it, as
> well. In fact, so are ALL of my doctors -- which includes a
> neurosurgeon, a neurologist, my dentist of 35 years, and a variety of
> others (I have two disabled children, one with grand mal seizures, and
> I am currently working on developing a residence/retreat for dental
> care for disabilities, so I have a lot of regular contact that is much
> broader than most people have.. and.... well, you get the idea. They
> ALL want universal health care in the US and they want it sooner than
> later. I'm trying hard to recall any medical professional in my
> sphere who doesn't want it. I'll have to keep asking. So far, my
> recollection can't come up with one.
>
>> Their ranking system weighs four components, three of which relate
>> to how completely socialized your system is: Universality, Fairness
>> (must be paid for by the rich), and Equality (the rich must not be
>> able to purchase better care).
>>
>> Their fourth factor, Health-Adjusted Life Expectancy, is a nearly
>> useless gauge of healthcare quality.
>>
>> (For example, when murder and suicide are excluded, the United
>> States has the longest life expectancy of any western nation. If
>> you were to assume (wrongly, like WHO) that care determines
>> lifespan, then the USA should rate the best.)
>>
>> Their rankings prize equality, not quality. The plane needn't
>> fly, just as long as first class isn't too much nicer than coach.
>
> I can't speak for all this. I'm sure all you've done is gloss quickly
> over it. I know he (my uncle) spent something on the order of 20
> years and more dealing with health care issues around the world, and
> in the US (he had both a private practice here as well as a business
> selling products to dentists, which is how he became a multi-
> millionaire, I suppose.) He's pretty sharp, has more than a lifetime
> of experience across a very wide range of circumstances, so I'll just
> leave it there.
>
> All I can tell you is that I have a lot of respect for him and his
> opinions in this area and he has more knowledge here, due to a long
> period of time worrying about such things, than most doctors only in
> private practice.
>
> I suspect, but don't know, that if you were to spend a few months
> digging into the methodology leading to the design of the ranking
> system itself, as well as into the practice used in applying it later
> on, you'd find it fairly robust and as well-designed as can be. The
> goals leading towards the design may certainly be biased in your
> opinion, but I suspect that they are probably as good as any that
> could be used. I'm guessing that they were something along the lines
> of the principles of human rights, generally. But I don't know.
>
> I think we (the US) deserves some criticism and needs to work harder
> to achieve health care for more than the few. I remember talking with
> another doctor, some years ago. He had lived in New York City for
> quite some time, earlier in his life. He said, "New York is a great
> place to live, if you are wealthy." Health care in the US is the best
> to be had, "if you are wealthy." I work with people who are poor
> because they are significantly developmentally disabled -- these are
> people in group homes, foster homes, and the like. They don't have
> access to attorneys, for example, because no attorney would wreck
> their own lives by dedicating themselves to a group of people without
> money. Try finding one who knows the ADA and its modification,
> lately, and will work for an individual. I have. They don't exist.
> They work for the State or else they work for the tiny groups that are
> paid for by federal funds (in Oregon, this is Disability Rights Oregon
> or DRO) who cannot afford to spend any time on anything that doesn't
> affect a lot of people -- namely, class actions. Similarly, dentists
> don't want the business. The State systems pay too little, when they
> pay; and patients are very often "no shows," even then. There are
> perhaps a tiny handful who dare to hang out their shield for this kind
> of business and they are overwhelmed.
>
> I'll make this personal, James. My daughter had a grand mal seizure a
> short while back. She broke her front teeth out, down to the gum
> line. I took her in to see her dentist (there are a very few, by the
> way, in our area of 1.5 million people willing to specialize in people
> like my daughter who requires general anesthesia for work) who looked
> her over and told me it would be 10 months before he could get her in
> to the hospital setting where they could work on her. 10 months in an
> emergency situation!! I said, "Perhaps I should find another
> dentist?" And before he could speak, his assistant chirped in and
> said, "If you find another who can do this faster, let US know. We
> don't know anyone in the area, ourselves, who can get in quicker. So
> that would help us, too." He nodded, affirmatively. I called around
> for a few months, found no difference, at all.
>
> For those who are the least in this society, the US society, it is NOT
> the best place to be.
>
> The doctors know this, James.
>
> This is what started my own mission to set up a place for this kind of
> thing. I'm working with several groups now, from a teaching hospital
> to groups specializing in providing indigent health care around the
> world, to providing care here in the US where it is sadly missing.
> Many people in DD, you can't even see their teeth. That's the level
> of care they get, today. There are classes, regularly, on a subject
> called the "Fatal Four" which talks about the 4 primary affectable
> causes of death in the DD community. Choking is one of those 4 and
> the primary reason is due to completely removing their teeth at an
> early age, because of the lack of care.
>
> This is the US, James, for those who aren't at the pinnacle in it.
>
> I've no doubt that the US ranking is painted with a broad brush, but
> there is truth in it, too.
>
> Jon

I know you're an intensive user of medical services, and that
you'd rather someone else paid for it. You might be surprised
that in your case I agree. Yours is not the usual case though,
and doesn't convince me to socialized medicine in general.

My main reservation is efficiency--our government isn't. It already
spends as much to cover ~1/3rd of our population as other governments
spend for universal care. If ours could do the same with the same
money, heck, I think I'd be for it! "Go ahead, do it," I say.
"You've already got the money, so get us the care. Put up or
shut up."

But that's asking a lot from a government that's squandered all
the rest of the dough they've collected, borrowed even more, and
is obviously horrible with the healthcare money we give them.

I'm a doctor's kid. My dad saw poor people, cared for them, and was
paid in apple pies and thank-you notes. My mom's a practicing
nurse; I grew up in hospitals, debating treatments with Dad; I've
dated and known ER & ICU nurses all my life. I've seen lots of poor
people getting great, free care. And I've seen lots of not-sick people
abusing the ER and ICU, taking advantage of them. Freeloaders.

At the moment I'm thinking that having people handle their small
stuff directly, out their pockets, and having a socialized safety
net for disasters might work. People don't fake cancer, for
example, and aren't likely to abuse their visitation rights on
spurious stuff. Spending their own money, they might not run to
the ($$$) emergency room for a cold. Maybe. Dunno.

Personally, I'm in the throes of helping someone dear in a desperate
life-and-death struggle, a crisis presently brought on by deficient
healthcare. But, it's not money or healthcare per se that's to
blame. The care is excellent, the problem is delay. Bureaucracy.

I read other countries' discussions & controversies, in their own
forums, last night. ISTM they handle the small stuff pretty well,
with quick appointments & care, but the big stuff was rationed;
parceled out slowly.

This particular setup is very much like foreign services--geared toward
servicing everyday things beautifully, but exceptions not so well. When
leagues of specialists are needed to handle complex patients--like this
one--communication fails, and delay is the result. Ironically, too many
cooks, not too few. Bureaucracy kills. It has grievously harmed, and
may yet kill this person, soon.

I can say this though--but for months of my and other interested
outsiders' vigorous intervention this year, this battle would've been
lost already. And we always have the option of going wherever we want,
whenever we want, and fixing this situation, if need be, because there
are still competing systems here in the US. That's a valuable option.
I'd hate to lose it.

So, I'm skeptical of delays and rationing, and bureaucrats directing
care, and that's my stake in it.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:28:00 GMT, James Arthur
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:40:18 GMT, James Arthur
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:59:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> A report from the WHO, now several years old, ranked US overall health
>>>>> care 29th in the world, just behind Costa Rica.
>>>> My uncle is a doctor who has, as well, worked within WHO for a few
>>>> decades now. Most of his years have been abroad, though he spends a
>>>> lot of time with his children who live here in the US (near me.) He
>>>> has a broad picture to work from and agrees roughly with the WHO
>>>> ranking (perhaps having participated in its methodology, one may
>>>> expect as much.)
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>> How does one quantify such a multidimensional thing with a single
>>> number?
>>
>> I agree. Any summary like this grossly eliminates all kinds of useful
>> knowledge, distilling it into a single thing. I just remember him
>> talking to me about it and saying that, with very broad brush strokes,
>> the number poses worries when the US falls that far down the list.
>>
>> Not having been involved in any of this, I suppose it is kind of like
>> measuring stock market performance by looking at the DJIA or the
>> S&P500.
>>
>>> To answer this I just scanned the WHO report. It's an advocacy piece
>>> for socialized medicine. For example, chapter two, "Advancing and
>>> Sustaining Universal Coverage."
>>
>> The use of the term 'socialized' is your own, I gather.
>>
>> Regarding universal health care itself, I'm all for it. So don't
>> argue with me about this. My personal physician is all for it, as
>> well. In fact, so are ALL of my doctors -- which includes a
>> neurosurgeon, a neurologist, my dentist of 35 years, and a variety of
>> others (I have two disabled children, one with grand mal seizures, and
>> I am currently working on developing a residence/retreat for dental
>> care for disabilities, so I have a lot of regular contact that is much
>> broader than most people have.. and.... well, you get the idea. They
>> ALL want universal health care in the US and they want it sooner than
>> later. I'm trying hard to recall any medical professional in my
>> sphere who doesn't want it. I'll have to keep asking. So far, my
>> recollection can't come up with one.
>>
>>> Their ranking system weighs four components, three of which relate
>>> to how completely socialized your system is: Universality, Fairness
>>> (must be paid for by the rich), and Equality (the rich must not be
>>> able to purchase better care).
>>>
>>> Their fourth factor, Health-Adjusted Life Expectancy, is a nearly
>>> useless gauge of healthcare quality.
>>>
>>> (For example, when murder and suicide are excluded, the United
>>> States has the longest life expectancy of any western nation. If
>>> you were to assume (wrongly, like WHO) that care determines
>>> lifespan, then the USA should rate the best.)
>>>
>>> Their rankings prize equality, not quality. The plane needn't
>>> fly, just as long as first class isn't too much nicer than coach.
>>
>> I can't speak for all this. I'm sure all you've done is gloss quickly
>> over it. I know he (my uncle) spent something on the order of 20
>> years and more dealing with health care issues around the world, and
>> in the US (he had both a private practice here as well as a business
>> selling products to dentists, which is how he became a multi-
>> millionaire, I suppose.) He's pretty sharp, has more than a lifetime
>> of experience across a very wide range of circumstances, so I'll just
>> leave it there.
>>
>> All I can tell you is that I have a lot of respect for him and his
>> opinions in this area and he has more knowledge here, due to a long
>> period of time worrying about such things, than most doctors only in
>> private practice.
>>
>> I suspect, but don't know, that if you were to spend a few months
>> digging into the methodology leading to the design of the ranking
>> system itself, as well as into the practice used in applying it later
>> on, you'd find it fairly robust and as well-designed as can be. The
>> goals leading towards the design may certainly be biased in your
>> opinion, but I suspect that they are probably as good as any that
>> could be used. I'm guessing that they were something along the lines
>> of the principles of human rights, generally. But I don't know.
>>
>> I think we (the US) deserves some criticism and needs to work harder
>> to achieve health care for more than the few. I remember talking with
>> another doctor, some years ago. He had lived in New York City for
>> quite some time, earlier in his life. He said, "New York is a great
>> place to live, if you are wealthy." Health care in the US is the best
>> to be had, "if you are wealthy." I work with people who are poor
>> because they are significantly developmentally disabled -- these are
>> people in group homes, foster homes, and the like. They don't have
>> access to attorneys, for example, because no attorney would wreck
>> their own lives by dedicating themselves to a group of people without
>> money. Try finding one who knows the ADA and its modification,
>> lately, and will work for an individual. I have. They don't exist.
>> They work for the State or else they work for the tiny groups that are
>> paid for by federal funds (in Oregon, this is Disability Rights Oregon
>> or DRO) who cannot afford to spend any time on anything that doesn't
>> affect a lot of people -- namely, class actions. Similarly, dentists
>> don't want the business. The State systems pay too little, when they
>> pay; and patients are very often "no shows," even then. There are
>> perhaps a tiny handful who dare to hang out their shield for this kind
>> of business and they are overwhelmed.
>>
>> I'll make this personal, James. My daughter had a grand mal seizure a
>> short while back. She broke her front teeth out, down to the gum
>> line. I took her in to see her dentist (there are a very few, by the
>> way, in our area of 1.5 million people willing to specialize in people
>> like my daughter who requires general anesthesia for work) who looked
>> her over and told me it would be 10 months before he could get her in
>> to the hospital setting where they could work on her. 10 months in an
>> emergency situation!! I said, "Perhaps I should find another
>> dentist?" And before he could speak, his assistant chirped in and
>> said, "If you find another who can do this faster, let US know. We
>> don't know anyone in the area, ourselves, who can get in quicker. So
>> that would help us, too." He nodded, affirmatively. I called around
>> for a few months, found no difference, at all.
>>
>> For those who are the least in this society, the US society, it is NOT
>> the best place to be.
>>
>> The doctors know this, James.
>>
>> This is what started my own mission to set up a place for this kind of
>> thing. I'm working with several groups now, from a teaching hospital
>> to groups specializing in providing indigent health care around the
>> world, to providing care here in the US where it is sadly missing.
>> Many people in DD, you can't even see their teeth. That's the level
>> of care they get, today. There are classes, regularly, on a subject
>> called the "Fatal Four" which talks about the 4 primary affectable
>> causes of death in the DD community. Choking is one of those 4 and
>> the primary reason is due to completely removing their teeth at an
>> early age, because of the lack of care.
>>
>> This is the US, James, for those who aren't at the pinnacle in it.
>>
>> I've no doubt that the US ranking is painted with a broad brush, but
>> there is truth in it, too.
>>
>> Jon
>
>I know you're an intensive user of medical services, and that
>you'd rather someone else paid for it. You might be surprised
>that in your case I agree. Yours is not the usual case though,
>and doesn't convince me to socialized medicine in general.

Actually, I pay my own way. 100%. Always have. I've provided other
posts (long ones) about my experiences negotiating -- which I do
regularly.

>My main reservation is efficiency--our government isn't. It already
>spends as much to cover ~1/3rd of our population as other governments
>spend for universal care. If ours could do the same with the same
>money, heck, I think I'd be for it! "Go ahead, do it," I say.
>"You've already got the money, so get us the care. Put up or
>shut up."
>
>But that's asking a lot from a government that's squandered all
>the rest of the dough they've collected, borrowed even more, and
>is obviously horrible with the healthcare money we give them.

You are on about something entirely different, as though it matters to
what I'm talking about. It doesn't. You can talk about all the costs
you want, it changes nothing. Other societies manage quite well to do
this and at less cost per capita.

No child in the US should have to depend upon their parents' choices
for their health care. You can blame parents for their circumstances,
but you cannot blame their children. The wonderful fact is, it's
possible to provide access to everyone and do it effectively. Part of
the puzzle is removing insurance companies from the pie. I've watched
as they raised rates to doctors for liability, then within two years
jacked up rates they also charged to corporations for the rising
health care costs that were, in part, being passed on by doctors
paying those 10X rate hikes. Smiling all the way to the bank, too.
For them, it's about handling money and taking a piece on every
pathway taken.

>I'm a doctor's kid. My dad saw poor people, cared for them, and was
>paid in apple pies and thank-you notes.

Yeah. My family is also doctors and dentists, nurses, etc. My wife's
grandpa would literally run from the office to help someone with a
broken leg. Today, if you can't make it into the office on your own
power, they won't lift a finger. Then, he also was paid in furnature,
food, you name it. So I know at least a little what you are talking
about.

>My mom's a practicing
>nurse; I grew up in hospitals, debating treatments with Dad; I've
>dated and known ER & ICU nurses all my life. I've seen lots of poor
>people getting great, free care. And I've seen lots of not-sick people
>abusing the ER and ICU, taking advantage of them. Freeloaders.

Yeah. I've seen that, too. So you want to throw the baby out with
the bathwater? There are people who deserve fair medical treatment.
And other countries which demonstrate that it is achievable on a
society wide basis.

>At the moment I'm thinking that having people handle their small
>stuff directly, out their pockets, and having a socialized safety
>net for disasters might work.

Frankly, I'm in agreement here. But perhaps that's because I've been
self-employed all my life and paying all my own bills. I negotiate
with the office personnel on every visit, except emergencies. These
days, you have to. The charges they make include a huge fake amount
just to cover themselves for what they know the insurance companies
don't pay them (for the so-called 80% part.) Which, if I don't take
the time to negotiate, means I wind up paying them a handsome extra
dividend at a minimum.

I wish more people worried about when and if to take advantage of
services. (Some aren't able to make those judgments, though. Not all
are as smart about this as I am.)

I've looked for insurance that I could buy that provided only for the
exceptional case in my life. In short, I wanted insurance which let
me pay the first $10000 of any event. In other words, they stayed
completely out of it, unless the event resulted in billings totalling
more than $10k. Then I wanted them to step in for the rest. Up to
some negotiable limit.

It doesn't exist. I looked. Hard. No one is selling it. At least,
not to individuals.

Instead, they always want some part of the routine action. Which
means all I do is pay them to pay someone else, and they take
something from me for the privilege. And I didn't want that. And
they wanted way too much, besides.

I'm still looking. If you find it, let me know.

I really think the reason is simple. They don't really want to be in
the insurance business, medicine-wise, but in the money handling and
negotiation business. They want to be in the middle of every single
transaction and take a piece each and every moment. It pays their
bills.

Frankly, I want them the hell out of that part of the business and get
back to doing REAL insuring. As you mentioned and as I agree.

However, I stil stand on the fact that children are NOT responsible
for their existence. They were hauled into this world without asking
for it. No one can blame them. And they deserve access. Period. No
questions. No ifs. No ands. No buts. No debate. Every child
should have access, universally, to health care.

We can get into a debate about adults and their choices and whether or
not they should only have access to exceptional circumstances and if
they want something more they need to pay for it. There is lots of
gray area in there. Some things you and I will agree about, some not.
But I'll grant there is room for negotiation.

But not with children.

>People don't fake cancer, for
>example, and aren't likely to abuse their visitation rights on
>spurious stuff. Spending their own money, they might not run to
>the ($$$) emergency room for a cold. Maybe. Dunno.

I understand. There needs to be something in the system so that
people are encouraged to make wiser choices. There is no way that
300+ million people can be managed by some green-visor boys in a back
room, and done well. Just like the free market system establishing,
almost automatically, the fair price for a loaf of bread -- by choices
each of us make from day to day, here and there, all the time -- so
there needs to be something in the medical system that causes some
"pain" if it is accessed so that people going after it are making
those decisions on the ground, at the time. Each one of us filtering
these decisions will help the whole system.

One possibility that crossed my mind is that we keep an insurance
system that people pay into and when the bill arrives, they are
allowed to simply let the green-visor boys use their rules and ways
and means to pay whatever they pay and then each of us pays our part
of what remains. Like what we already have, kind of, except that
everyone must have reasonable access to the insurance program. (By
reasonable, I mean that poorer people get it way less than cost.) But
if any of us wants to negotiate with the hospital or the doctor for
the amount, we are free to do so. And if we manage to reduce the
charged amount, we get to pocket half of the savings. That will
motivate folks to push on pricing -- something that is almost absent
in the current system. (You and I both know that most people don't go
in and negotiate prices. I do. But I know I'm unusual because the
people I negotiate with tell me so. I posted some months back the
fact that I got a $850 MRI done for $185, after talking to the billing
centers, while waiting for the service!) But if people get something
back for the trouble, some will do more of it. And it will put
pressure on pricing, which is decidedly needed.

>Personally, I'm in the throes of helping someone dear in a desperate
>life-and-death struggle, a crisis presently brought on by deficient
>healthcare. But, it's not money or healthcare per se that's to
>blame. The care is excellent, the problem is delay. Bureaucracy.

I was willing to pay out of pocket for my daughter. I couldn't find
anyone who could do it sooner for any amount I could afford. (I
didn't open a briefcase of a million dollars to see if that would
help, I admit.) Delay, in this case, was due to too many people
needing service, too many professionals needing to coordinate, and
scarse metering of hospital privileges for dentists. Among other
things. It wasn't about bureacracy, at all. And this is in the US. I
simply had NO access. I had to go out of the US to get the work done,
quickly. It was as simple as that.

>I read other countries' discussions & controversies, in their own
>forums, last night. ISTM they handle the small stuff pretty well,
>with quick appointments & care, but the big stuff was rationed;
>parceled out slowly.

This was big stuff for our family. Couldn't get it done, here. Had
to go elsewhere. Much quicker, that way. And frankly just as good. I
was an outsider, too.

>This particular setup is very much like foreign services--geared toward
>servicing everyday things beautifully, but exceptions not so well. When
>leagues of specialists are needed to handle complex patients--like this
>one--communication fails, and delay is the result. Ironically, too many
>cooks, not too few. Bureaucracy kills. It has grievously harmed, and
>may yet kill this person, soon.

I've not been exposed to what you are talking about here. My personal
experiences differ profoundly with this claim. You may be right in
some cases, but frankly my daughter's teeth being broken to the gum
line is an emergency situation. And there is NO EXCUSE possible for a
10 month waiting period. None. It simply shouldn't be this way in
the US. And I was paying the bills, too. Our system really sucks bad
in some ways, James. Seriously bad.

>I can say this though--but for months of my and other interested
>outsiders' vigorous intervention this year, this battle would've been
>lost already. And we always have the option of going wherever we want,
>whenever we want, and fixing this situation, if need be, because there
>are still competing systems here in the US. That's a valuable option.
>I'd hate to lose it.
>
>So, I'm skeptical of delays and rationing, and bureaucrats directing
>care, and that's my stake in it.

I'm also skeptical. My take is simple.

Anything that isn't watched becomes a problem. It doesn't matter if
it is publicly run or privately run. Every single activity that isn't
monitored and watched like a hawk will go wrong, someday, sometime.
There is no panacea of just saying "let private business do it" or
saying "this is best handled as a public service." No matter what it
is, if we aren't watching it, it will go wrong.

The banking system, of late, is a class example of an unwatched pot.
But governments go awry. So do privately run businesses. They all go
bad if we, as citizens, don't stay vigilent and watchful.

I'm skeptical of ANYTHING that isn't getting our collective attention.
Turn your head away from something and someone will reach into the
till. Private or public. The only solution is that all of us stay
engaged, all the time, everywhere. It hurts, it drains our time, but
that's the only solution. Everything unwatched will stab you in the
back, someday. Because there are always people looking for some new
scam, public or private.

I also don't know what the answer is, here. I think whatever it is,
it will bear constant vigilence. However, one thing I'm certain
about. Children have an absolute right to access to health care,
without regard to their parents' circumstances. Adults we can debate
about and try and design something that will encourage their vigilence
in the system. I do feel that adults also have a right to health care
access, though. Just that the lines drawn are negotiable and I agree
that I'd like some way to encourage individuals to make rational
decisions and not just go waste resources because it gets them a free
coke to drink, for example (diabetes test?) If there is going to be
something like that built it, it must be about money to make it
personal. This means either there is a price to pay for each event
(perhaps means tested) which puts some pressure on them or else
provides some cash back for reducing costs to the system my active
negotiation efforts. Or both.

My daughter's case, though, is inexcusable. Our system is very, very
bad in this case. I cannot tell you what it put us through and for no
good reason I can imagine, either. Luckily, other places in the world
do a LOT BETTER at it, it seems. It's just very sad that I faced that
kind of choice. We are better than this, James. I know we are.

Jon

In article <ObXVl.684$[email protected]>,
James Arthur <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Life expectancy is horrible measure for the effectiveness of health
>care. Apart from servicing the very basics, like infection,
>extreme, super-deluxe, ultra-quality health care measures don't much
>cure the things that kill people in America.

You must be kidding. Life expectancy is *the* measure for effectiveness
of health care, second only maybe to child mortality rate.

>By quality measurements (outcomes for a given condition), America's
>care is better, albeit pricier ever since the gov. started
>subsidizing it.

A bizar stand. US care is better because the economic system
puts the population in health conditions nowhere to be seen elsewhere.
Then gigantic expenses are due to overcome those uh..
"interesting" problems.

If you define healt care efficiency by something unrelated to
my health, you're welcome. But you must not expect that I
draw conclusions or act upon such theories.

For me health care is what results in healthy lives.
In China, once doctors where paid for how healthy their patients
were, not for treatments. How is that for a change?

>
>Cheers,
>James Arthur

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

In article <6jnWl.918$[email protected]>,
James Arthur <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:59:12 -0400, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> A report from the WHO, now several years old, ranked US overall health
>>> care 29th in the world, just behind Costa Rica.
>>
>> My uncle is a doctor who has, as well, worked within WHO for a few
>> decades now. Most of his years have been abroad, though he spends a
>> lot of time with his children who live here in the US (near me.) He
>> has a broad picture to work from and agrees roughly with the WHO
>> ranking (perhaps having participated in its methodology, one may
>> expect as much.)
>>
>> Jon
>
>How does one quantify such a multidimensional thing with a single
>number?

Life expectancy, child mortality.
Those figures stand little tampering.
That is probably why you dislike them.

>
>Cheers,
>James Arthur

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst