|
Quote:
|
Quote:
maybe they're afraid it'll take forever to get reimbursed? you know, like the dealers and the cash for clunkers program. |
Quote:
The Post Office is far from the disaster you say it is. They compete very well. You put a stamp on a letter, they pick it up, and in 3-7 days it's exactly where you wrote on the envelope it should go.[/quote] lol the post office would have gone tits up years ago if it wasn't a federal program. how far in the hole are they now? 3-7 days...i sent a check 'overnight' thru the post office, it took almost a week to get there. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
more govt employees. as for me being relaxed about it, has no effect on me other than adding to our debt. but i guess that's just not a big deal. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
(My family has been extremely lucky as we were able to talk to an attending and other physicians REPEATEDLY each time a family member died) Can't believe that isn't common practice. |
Quote:
Yeah, the same provision they are bitchin' about now. Hypocrites, aren't they? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Familiar with both the WHO and CF reports Both pretty embarrassing for the current U.S. system... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
makes you wonder what they'll fall behind on now, if they're doing other work. but you're just not getting my point, the main part being that our govt is already too large, too wasteful, and too eager to spend. of course with people turning a blind eye to the budgetary mess while painting a rosy view of how things suddenly will get better-even tho it's the same govt doing the same stuff-you can understand why they are able to continue to drive us deeper into debt. here in arkansas, the average govt salary is higher than the average worker salary-i don't think that's the way it should be. |
Quote:
But I'm hard-pressed to think that the WHO reports are really interested in measuring the healthcare system based on what a multi-millionaire/King/Health Minister can buy. The "system" is more than whether rich people can get the best health care. If that's what we're debating here, then congratulations you win! The rich get great health care in the United States!!!!!! And this, Dell, is the age-old gap between the two very different ways that we (meaning left and right -- and you and me, I guess -- at this point in time) view the world, and they're completely irreconcilable. You on the right care that you are taken care of and once that's done, everyone else can go f*ck themselves because you've already got yours and that's all that matters. We on the left think that there is something to the idea that everyone gets taken care of, and that it's not all about us as individuals being well-off because the better off we are as a group, the better off we are as individuals. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So wrong, as usual,Brian! It's you on the left that want everbody in the same mudhole, whereas we on the right feel it's OK to rise above the rest with our skill and ambition! |
Quote:
It's a positively irreconcilable conflict in worldviews. I'm just glad to not be on the side perpetuating that sick and selfish pipe dream. |
Quote:
PS I'm working on my 'Adopt an Amigo' health/immigration bi-partisan plan which allows the bi-partisn panel appointees to 'locate' that huge amount of wasted Medcaid $$$ and apply it to a managed health care plan for illegals and with every insured illegal an illegal gets to go home. The negatives are none and the possitives are huge. Give it a year!!!! |
:tro:
Quote:
viva dell |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And really if most of the uninsured looked like this...  I would totally be for free mammograms. |
Quote:
|
Stupid is as stupid does.
|
Ah the Postal Service, fine govt institution.
http://www.augustagazette.com/opinio...s-for-survival http://www.usps.com/communications/n...9/pr09_066.htm Another govt run blackhole, Amtrack http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consum.../amtrakawg.htm |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I love where Obama compared the USPS to Fedex and UPS and how much better Fedex and UPS was as compared to the USPS. It is amazing how private businesses actually work? By making this point isn't private health care the way to go? The government run agency is failing, but the private ones are profitable and paying dividends to shareholders. Also for those of you who believe that you need to be rich or have a high paying job to have good health care are completely incorrect. My wife's company (privately owned advertising agency) has employees making as little as $18k annually receiving health care benefits. This plan that they receive required us to pay $100 deductible for medical bills of over $125,000 for the birth of my daughter. The problem is employees don't always see the benefit of health care as part of total compensation until they use it. |
I love when he says this will somehow save money. And we're going to use the misspent money on Medicaid/Medicare and somehow make a larger programme with no wasted money or fraud?
Here in Chicago the big news has been inferior students being put on a list to the U of I Champaign and the Chicago Magnet High Schools (that are near the top in the nation) and admitted much to the chagrin of qualified students who were out.. Of course you needed to know 'a guy' who knows a politician or Board Member. Will you have to know 'a guy' for a hip replacement of stress test? |
Quote:
Not like our private insurance system has set the bar real high ... I mean, dead last overall in that Commonwealth Fund report ... and a laughable 37th-place finish in the WHO report. What an EMBARRASSMENT for the world's most powerful economy... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
where you going? |
I've been to both and got much better care at the former. Studies have shown that most people think the more expensive something is, the better it is, but, as horseplayers, we SHOULD all know that is not ALWAYS the case.:D
|
Quote:
Here's a list of awards given to NW Memorial show me what Stroger has done.. http://www.nmh.org/nmh/aboutus/aandw.htm |
an op-ed from the wall street journal on obama's sagging popularity:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...543314054.html Despite the vote in November, it is clear that when Americans are not in an abject panic, we dislike government fiscal promiscuity. The president's sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration's free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president's economic policies was, literally, "spending too much." 70% of respondents agree that, "people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time." There is no evidence that more than a minority of Americans accept the idea that a $17 trillion national debt, greater reliance on government for jobs and health, and hyper-progressive taxation offer the hope they deserve for themselves and their children. |
and this, on obama and rationing of health care...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...780260914.html The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers." The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost. In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive." 'Like virtually every economist I know, I believe the right approach to limiting health spending is by reforming the tax rules. But if that is not going to happen, let's not destroy the high quality of the best of American health care by government rationing and misplaced egalitarianism. ' |
Sounds like another case of a Govt. trying to usurp power away from the People. Reel in the lawyers! That would be change we could all believe in! That won't happen while we are ruled by lawyers. Pay for 2/3 of this by eliminating fraud and waste? Why not just eliminate fraud and waste? Then we (the Govt.), could afford to put anyone who needs it on Medicaid or Medicare and give the rest of the $$ back to the taxpayers to buy insurance of their choice ( remember freedom of choice?). That's where it all came from in the 1'st place. These elected officials will say or do anything to stay in power and ignore the constitution. I'm dismayed by those who fought the previous administration for infringement of constitutional rights, yet turns a blind eye as this one does pretty much anything it wants, mostly with no regard for the constitution... all for our collective good.
|
Quote:
And now we're supposed to trust the government with our health? Don't think so! How about a Hillary Obama House for the uninsured? If this is as popular and necessary as the left portrays surely the donations will come flying in.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have typed that.... I know what I heard, what do you know? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.