Time For Single Payer System

"Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Guy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Captain Compassion" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snippage>

Quoted message said:

You must convince me of three things.

I am self insured. You must convince me of three things.

1. My health costs, including payments to government health schemes, will be cheaper.

According to an article this year in the New England Journal of

Medicine,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Americans collectively pay $200 billion *more* in administrative costs

each

Quoted message said:

year compared to Canadians because of the extra paper shuffling due to

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

myriad complex rules due to the multiple insurers, both private and government. This $200
billion contributes NOTHING to health care, but

makes

Quoted message said:

lots of insurance and HMO executives very, very wealthy.

So, let's shut them down and throw some 300,000 more people out of work?

We could retrain them to become part of the health *care* system rather than the parasites they
already are. We will need more people actually delivering health care if more people are able to
access the health care system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Think of what could be done with $200 billion per year:

a) reduce your costs as well as your employer's costs

and/or

b) provide broader coverage, including the 40 million persons not

presently

Quoted message said:

covered

and/or

c) finance the invasion of one or two more countries 🙂

Here's a link to the article abstract:

content.nejm.org768Open ↗

Quoted message said:

2. That health care offered to me and my family will be of the same quality that I can recieve
now.

Under single payer, only the insurance is supplied by the government.

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

health care continues to be delivered by private health care providers.

Quoted message said:

3. I will be able to chose which doctor treats me.

No reason why this cannot be part of a single payer system. It's

certainly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the case in Canada. Contrast that with many HMOs here in the US.

Quoted message said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle
is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

"Julian D." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mic Chek 123 said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>[email hidden] wrote: Well, you beggars can't be choosey.

But YOU elitist fascists CAN be choosey. Think about it. Why should our Congressmen have a
government run health care plan, which is incidentally the best in the world, while at the same
time these very Congressmen vote against letting the rest of us have any kind of health care
plan at all?

Hypocracy, thy name is Republican.

>If you need a government handout to keep you afloat, maybe Canada should be your destination.

And let the fascists take over this great country? No way! Because some of us would rather stay
here and make it a better country, that's why. Some of us would rather stay and fight, because
we REALLY do love our country, unlike those who think they do.

No. We will not run to Canada, or anywhere else, no matter how much the fascist monsters
destroy our country. We will stay right here and

fight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

these Devils to the bitter end.

Because some of us really do love America, and our fellow American citizens. And we don't go
around pretending that we are patriotic just so that we can screw our fellow citizens with that
false agenda and a phony flag. That's why.

You can call it a "government handout" if you want. But what do you call it when the rich and
the powerful are given a "government

handout"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such as our Congressmen, and other government workers, who enjoy the best health care system in
the world. Do you call THAT a "government handout"?

This is what is so evil about the fascist mindset, they think that God is on their side, and
then they completely overlook an obvious evil, they consider it a perfectly normal thing for
our money to go to subsidize those who are already rich and powerful, but then they will raise
and stink and a holler that will reach all the way up to the earth's stratosphere if any money
at all goes to help the poor and the powerless.

Abel Malcolm

So, stay here and be miserable then. But you ain't gonna' change nothin'.

Liberals just LOVE being miserable. They're always in misery. They're the most angry, miserable,
frustrated people. Ever wonder why liberal talk shows don't succeed? It's always doom-n-gloom, blame-
America, liberal-inspired guilt trips. But their guilt trips arent working so well anymore. That's
what is pissing them off more. Liberal-inspired guilt-trips where the US is to blame for
everything is dead. Bush 2004!

JD

So we have miserable liberals and venom spewing conservatives What a country.

Quoted message said:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda members..." ---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when

have terrorists and

Quoted message said:

tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before

they strike?

Quoted message said:

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all

words and all recriminations

Quoted message said:

would come too late." -President George W. Bush January 28, 2003 (Another liberal lie exposed.)

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and

degrade our critics.

Quoted message said:

When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi

or anti-Semitic

Quoted message said:

.... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the

public mind."

Quoted message said:

--Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943

"This time, I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not Clinton. I think this is the end."

- Uday Hussein

Steven Litvintchouk said:

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
medical care to boot.

Not to those who ALREADY get generous health coverage from their employers: eyewear coverage,
dental coverage, mental health coverage, chiropractic coverage, membership in exercise & fitness
centers, etc.

You mean both of them?

I don't think too many people get that sort of coverage.

I think we should consider the system as a whole.

We are burning up several hundred billion dollars a year for needless administrative waste in our
current system. Deploying those resources to other economic activities could by a lot of icing on
top of the cake.

Quoted message said:

Single-payer will never be able to provide such generous benefits to everyone in the country,
without bankrupting the country.

But it would come closer, since with the huge savings we could go out and buy much of those
services, if we preferred them to the alternatives.

Hence those

Quoted message said:

who already have generous benefits from their employer's plan are going to be forced to accept
less. And that's why this idea is a political non-starter--neither Dean or Kerry nor Lieberman nor
Gephardt have endorsed it.

Excellent point. Otherwise our persistance with a system costing far more,delivering far less, was
hard to understand.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system,

The advocates of single-payer do NOT claim that it can be paid for thru administrative
savings alone.

Rather, they have called for a whole slew of new taxes, including these two:

- Implement a modest payroll tax of 3.3% on all public and private employers, while eliminating
employer premiums for private health plans. ("All" means "all"--even some tiny dry-cleaning store
or convenience store.)

- Anyone who buys or sells a stock will pay a transaction tax equal to one quarter of one percent
of the purchase price. For example, a $100 stock purchase will be taxed a total of 50 cents.
["Anyone" means "anyone"--including folks who carry out transactions inside IRAs and
401(k) plans. That means the Government will have broken its promise to keep those tax-free. Also,
the proponents of single-payer either don't know or don't care that a mutual fund buys and
sells stocks and bonds from its portfolio all the time. If it has to pay taxes every time it
does that, it's going to be much harder to provide an adequate return to its shareholders.]

pnhp.orgnhi financing.htmlOpen ↗

-- Steven L.

Mic Chek 123 said:

These people don't care because they don't pay any taxes. Hell, if any of them even work, chances
are, they work for some government bureaucracy.

That's not just false, it's obviously false.

You are either a liar or a moron.

Which is it?

Quoted message said:

--

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mic Chek 123 said:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.

If

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

>poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches

and

Quoted message said:

>charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

>finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source

instead

Quoted message said:

>of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
more medical care to boot.

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.

If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.

Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?

Well, you beggars can't be choosey. If you need a government handout to

keep

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you afloat, maybe Canada should be your destination. So, if it is all

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

great, why do you stay here and suffer this injustice? I know, you need single payor
transportation, right?

Canadians pay for their medical care. They simply have to pay about a third less than we do. And
get about thirty percent more doctors visits than we do.

And are far happier with their health care system than we are.

Please tell us why you want us to pay more, for less, in a system proven to be inferior by ratings
of its consumers.

I miss your logic.

So what's holding you back? Go there.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Captain Compassion) said:

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.

If a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some

of the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source

instead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
more medical care to boot.

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.

If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.

Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?

The ratings of medical consumers?

If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
doctors.

I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
advertisers, the accoutants, all that.

So, instead of paying for your healthcare, you want us all to pay for their unemployment. You got
one hell of an outlook on life there.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mic Chek 123 said:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Let's take whatever it is that you do for a living. You do work for a

living

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

don't you?

I own my own business.

Quoted message said:

Let us assume that a bunch of us think you are charging too much for your product and we think
you are making too much money. How long would you be willing to provide your labor at prices me
and some of my friends set for you?

Why talk around the issue? We have a system with a single payer, and it works. It demonstrably
costs a lot less than our own system. You can not deny that. It delivers thirty percent more
visits to the doctor per person than our system does. You can not deny that. Its consumers are far
happier with their system than our consumers are happy with our system I think. You could deny
that with data which contradicts my memory on that point.

So instead of making up dumb irrelevant hypotheticals, why don't you just look at the real world
instead?

Oh, I get it. If it's your sacred cow getting gored, it's dumb. Well, maybe I'm in the healthcare
field so your [censored] is just as dumb.

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123

Mic Chek 123 said:

"bushmustlose.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We were not born with the guarantee of a new car every year, a new house when we want it and
good healthcare whenever

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

want it.

Fine. Believe that if you will. Just know that the vast majority of Americans and citizens of the
world disagree with you. I assume you feel the same way about court-appointed lawyers, poor
people shouldn't have access to them either.

Just understand that despite what Rush tells you, you are HEAVILY in the minority on this one.

Rush don't tell me [censored] because I haven't listened to a radio in 20 years. But, if you think you
were born with all those guarantees, what are you [censored]' about? All you need do is talk to your
service advisor, right?

Canadians pay for their health care. They just pay a lot less than we do. For more care.

Jeffrey Turner said:

Captain Compassion said:

Jeffrey Turner said:

Captain Compassion wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>>>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it,
>>>they have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source
>>>instead of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>>
>>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>>more medical care to boot.
>>
>>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>>
>>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>>
>>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>>
>>The ratings of medical consumers?
>
>If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
>with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
>doctors. If the service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force
>doctors, hospitals and a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.

When they're perfectly happy in HMO servitude! Your idea doesn't leverage the much lower overhead
costs involved in single payer.

A doctor or consumer can always chose another HMO. It's more difficult to chose another
government.

One of the problems is that most doctors belong to too many HMOs already, and each HMO has its own
rules on what treatments and procedures are allowed - and each has its own paperwork.

Allowed? You mean pay for.

Quoted message said:

If they are lucky, each patient may be able to choose another HMO or PPO at some time during the
next twelve months and then they may or may not get the doctor they really wanted. Single payer
would mean less paperwork, I thought that's something the right wing and the Libertarians wanted.

--Jeff

Steven Litvintchouk said:

Quoted message said:

Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is
that a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care.

But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
programs are VERY generous:

- Dental insurance
- Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
- Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
- and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center

You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.

Nope, you're wrong. You could provide everything you listed for the entire country, with no limits
or co-pays, and it would *still* cost less than the current for-profit system. The Kucinich plan, in
fact, has all of the above except for the fitness center membership.

Quoted message said:

Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous
benefits from their employer, to accept less.

And that's why it won't fly.

Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.

Gary Kleppe garykleppe.orgpolitics.htmlOpen ↗ execpc.com~ajrcOpen ↗

So-called president G. W. Bush: POT WTC attackers, whoever they are or were: KETTLE Murdered
civilians in New York and Afghanistan -- and now, Iraq: BLACK

Jeffrey Turner said:

Steven Litvintchouk said:

Quoted message said:

Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is
that a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care.

But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
programs are VERY generous:

- Dental insurance
- Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
- Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
- and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center

You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.

Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous
benefits from their employer, to accept less.

And that's why it won't fly.

Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.

Maybe we can make a deal with those fifty employees.

America's biggest corporations offer such generous plans. I know. I worked for them.

Have a look at the health care plans offered by Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Northrop-Grumman, and
other huge corporations--for their salaried (non-unionized) white collar work force.

In fact, during the go-go years of the 1990's economy, some corporations actually started offering
health care coverage for employees' PETS (I think it was limited to dogs and cats only). The company
would pay for visits to a veterinarian plus any medications needed by the pet.

I'm not making this up.

-- Steven L.

"Guy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Guy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Captain Compassion" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snippage>

> You must convince me of three things.
>
> I am self insured. You must convince me of three things.
>
> 1. My health costs, including payments to government health schemes, will be cheaper.
>
According to an article this year in the New England Journal of

Medicine,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Americans collectively pay $200 billion *more* in administrative costs

each

Quoted message said:

year compared to Canadians because of the extra paper shuffling due to

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

myriad complex rules due to the multiple insurers, both private and government. This $200
billion contributes NOTHING to health care, but

makes

Quoted message said:

lots of insurance and HMO executives very, very wealthy.

So, let's shut them down and throw some 300,000 more people out of work?

We could retrain them to become part of the health *care* system rather

than

Quoted message said:

the parasites they already are. We will need more people actually

delivering

Quoted message said:

health care if more people are able to access the health care system.

Then all you want is price controls. Fine, let's apply it to whatever you earn as well. I get to
decide how much you will be making. Fair enough?

--
A famous person once said:

"I can't hear my damn monitor!"

Mic Chek 123

Guy said:

"Julian D." <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mic Chek 123 said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> >[email hidden] wrote: Well, you beggars can't be choosey.
>
> But YOU elitist fascists CAN be choosey. Think about it. Why should our Congressmen have a
> government run health care plan, which is incidentally the best in the world, while at the
> same time these very Congressmen vote against letting the rest of us have any kind of health
> care plan at all?
>
> Hypocracy, thy name is Republican.
>
> >If you need a government handout to keep you afloat, maybe Canada should be your destination.
>
> And let the fascists take over this great country? No way! Because some of us would rather
> stay here and make it a better country, that's why. Some of us would rather stay and fight,
> because we REALLY do love our country, unlike those who think they do.
>
> No. We will not run to Canada, or anywhere else, no matter how much the fascist monsters
> destroy our country. We will stay right here and

fight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> these Devils to the bitter end.
>
> Because some of us really do love America, and our fellow American citizens. And we don't go
> around pretending that we are patriotic just so that we can screw our fellow citizens with
> that false agenda and a phony flag. That's why.
>
> You can call it a "government handout" if you want. But what do you call it when the rich and
> the powerful are given a "government

handout"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Such as our Congressmen, and other government workers, who enjoy the best health care system
> in the world. Do you call THAT a "government handout"?
>
> This is what is so evil about the fascist mindset, they think that God is on their side, and
> then they completely overlook an obvious evil, they consider it a perfectly normal thing for
> our money to go to subsidize those who are already rich and powerful, but then they will raise
> and stink and a holler that will reach all the way up to the earth's stratosphere if any money
> at all goes to help the poor and the powerless.
>
> Abel Malcolm
>

So, stay here and be miserable then. But you ain't gonna' change nothin'.

Liberals just LOVE being miserable. They're always in misery. They're the most angry, miserable,
frustrated people. Ever wonder why liberal talk shows don't succeed? It's always doom-n-gloom,
blame-America, liberal-inspired guilt trips. But their guilt trips arent working so well anymore.
That's what is pissing them off more. Liberal-inspired guilt-trips where the US is to blame for
everything is dead. Bush 2004!

JD

So we have miserable liberals and venom spewing conservatives What a country.

It's not venom. It's an astute observation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda members..." ---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when

have terrorists and

Quoted message said:

tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before

they strike?

Quoted message said:

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all

words and all recriminations

Quoted message said:

would come too late." -President George W. Bush January 28, 2003 (Another liberal lie exposed.)

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and

degrade our critics.

Quoted message said:

When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi

or anti-Semitic

Quoted message said:

.... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the

public mind."

Quoted message said:

--Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943

"This time, I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not Clinton. I think this is the end."

- Uday Hussein

JD

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
members..." ---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants
announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is pe-
rmitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too
late."
- President George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
(Another liberal lie exposed.)

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When
obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic .... The
association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind." --Communist Party,
Moscow Central Committee 1943

"This time, I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not Clinton. I think this is the end."

- Uday Hussein

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

Steven Litvintchouk said:

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
medical care to boot.

Not to those who ALREADY get generous health coverage from their employers: eyewear coverage,
dental coverage, mental health coverage, chiropractic coverage, membership in exercise & fitness
centers, etc.

You mean both of them?

My former employer offered such a plan. And so do other major corporations.

See for yourself. Ask folks who work for huge corporations like Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard and
Northrop-Grumman.

Also, the National Association for the Self-Employed offers a very generous plan for self-employed
people (perhaps that's what "Captain Compassion" has).

I remember that Raytheon, where I worked in the early 1980's, started offering an eyewear coverage
plan 20 years ago.

Quoted message said:

Hence those

Quoted message said:

who already have generous benefits from their employer's plan are going to be forced to accept
less. And that's why this idea is a political non-starter--neither Dean or Kerry nor Lieberman nor
Gephardt have endorsed it.

Excellent point. Otherwise our persistance with a system costing far more,delivering far less, was
hard to understand.

Thank you. One more thing: The much-maligned HMOs offer generous coverage for a lot of different
things (including prescription drugs for a minimal co-pay). People's main gripe about HMOs is the
way they micro-manage the delivery of care services--NOT that they don't offer enough services. So
again, folks are going to look at what their HMO or PPO or POS or fee-for-service plan gives them
now, do an itemized comparison against single-payer, and they're going to say that either single-
payer gives them at least as much as their current plan or it's no sale.

-- Steven L.

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

(Captain Compassion) said:

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they
>have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of
>piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.

Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot more
medical care to boot.

We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.

If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.

Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?

The ratings of medical consumers?

If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
doctors.

I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
advertisers, the accoutants, all that.

You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.

In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.

Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?

Quoted message said:

If the

Quoted message said:

service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors, hospitals and a
population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.

To get more care, for all, at far less cost.

In a system proven by conusmer ratings to be superior.

Why exactly do you want a system which costs more, does less, and which consumers have many more
complaints about?

Are you a masochist or what?

As I said I'm self insured so as far as I'm concerned there is 0nly one single payer for medical
care... Me. I'm also one of the 40 million uninsured. A couple of years ago I had to go to Emergency
with a possible bowel obstruction. They poked and proded and x-rayed they said it was a combination
of the flu and bad chickin. The bill was 1,400 dollars. I got a 35% cash discount. Many doctors in
private or small practices are willing to give you even more.

The high costs of medical care is due to HMOs, Medicare and high legal costs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

Steven Litvintchouk said:

Jeffrey Turner said:

Steven Litvintchouk said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Let me add one more thing. According to the article in my original post, "The overhead for
> Medicare is only 2 percent; for private insurance it is up to 25 percent". What this means is
> that a single payer, stream lined system would save up to 23% of the cost of medical care.

But today, lots of people ALREADY have private insurance from their employers. And some of those
programs are VERY generous:

- Dental insurance
- Eyewear coverage (glasses & contacts)
- Mental-health benefits (therapist, psychiatrist, hospital, etc.)
- and even a free membership in an exercise and fitness center

You can't provide all those benefits to everyone in the country without bankrupting the country.

Therefore, single-payer will NECESSARILY have to force people who already get such generous
benefits from their employer, to accept less.

And that's why it won't fly.

Because people who already have good health care coverage from their employers, aren't going to
support single-payer if it causes their health care coverage and benefits to get worse.

Maybe we can make a deal with those fifty employees.

America's biggest corporations offer such generous plans. I know. I worked for them.

Have a look at the health care plans offered by Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Northrop-Grumman, and
other huge corporations--for their salaried (non-unionized) white collar work force.

In fact, during the go-go years of the 1990's economy, some corporations actually started offering
health care coverage for employees' PETS (I think it was limited to dogs and cats only). The
company would pay for visits to a veterinarian plus any medications needed by the pet.

I'm not making this up.

I don't see why these corporations couldn't offer some kind of supplemental insurance. If it's for
services not covered by single payer then the paperwork wouldn't burden "regular" care providers.
Just because the government provided basic health care insurance doesn't mean private insurance
companies couldn't provide automobile or pet or hangnail insurance. I think you introduced a
conflict of interest where there wasn't one.

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."

Captain Compassion said:

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

(Captain Compassion) said:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they
>>have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of
>>piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>
>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>more medical care to boot.
>
>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>
>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>
>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>
>The ratings of medical consumers?

If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
doctors.

I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
advertisers, the accoutants, all that.

You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.

In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.

Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?

The "marketplace" remember? Jeez.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the

Quoted message said:

service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors, hospitals and
a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.

To get more care, for all, at far less cost.

In a system proven by conusmer ratings to be superior.

Why exactly do you want a system which costs more, does less, and which consumers have many more
complaints about?

Are you a masochist or what?

As I said I'm self insured so as far as I'm concerned there is 0nly one single payer for medical
care... Me. I'm also one of the 40 million uninsured. A couple of years ago I had to go to
Emergency with a possible bowel obstruction. They poked and proded and x-rayed they said it was a
combination of the flu and bad chickin. The bill was 1,400 dollars. I got a 35% cash discount.
Many doctors in private or small practices are willing to give you even more.

The high costs of medical care is due to HMOs, Medicare and high legal costs.

It doesn't sound like you were even hospitalized. I'm glad it wasn't anything serious, but if it had
been... Does Ms. Compassion have recipes for dog food handy? Still, there are plenty of people who
would have had problems coming up with even $1400 (vast understatement).

--Jeff

--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are
instituted among Men, deriving their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just powers from the consent of
the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."

Mic Chek 123 said:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Captain Compassion) said:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>single person in my case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours.

If a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>poor person needs help, that's what we give tax deductions to churches

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they have some

of the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source

instead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>of piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>
>
>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>more medical care to boot.
>
>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>
>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>
>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>
>The ratings of medical consumers?
>
If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
doctors.

I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
advertisers, the accoutants, all that.

So, instead of paying for your healthcare, you want us all to pay for their unemployment. You got
one hell of an outlook on life there.

Fewer workers doing the same job is the route to wealth.

It used to take three of five of us to provide the food we need to survive. Now it takes
one of fifty.

You are free to long for the good old impoverished days.

I prefer a higher standard of living.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:00:34 GMT, [email hidden] (Captain

Compassion) said:

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. said:

(Captain Compassion) said:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:42:10 -0800, George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:22:28 GMT, "Mic Chek 123" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>I'm all for a single payor system. I, and no other person, making me the single person in my
>>case will pay for my care, and you pay for yours. If a poor person needs help, that's what we
>>give tax deductions to churches and charities for. It is a great system, many poor use it, they
>>have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, so why not use that source instead of
>>piling up more money for the crooks in DC to steal.
>
>
>Because a single payer system would cost a lot less than we pay now, and would deliver a lot
>more medical care to boot.
>
>We're burning up an incredible amount of wasted money with our inefficient system, plus tens of
>millions live in fear that they might have to call an ambulance - and then file for bankruptcy.
>
>If you ask Canadians how they like their system, and ask Americans the same thing - I bet the
>Canadians would be incredibly more satisfied.
>
>Isn't that pretty much proof that their system is better?
>
>The ratings of medical consumers?
>
If this is such a good idea why doesn't the government offer a health care plan in competition
with the private plans. The government can use VA hospitals or build their own. Hire their own
doctors.

I am not proposing that the government provide health care. Only that it - or something else - be
the single payer. To get rid of all those armies of needless workers - the marketers, the
advertisers, the accoutants, all that.

You have confused socialized medicine with the single payer system.

In a single payer system private parties provide health care, but are paid by just one source.

Does the "one source" decide what to pay for procedures or does the medical provider?

They reach an agreement, just as I reach an agreement with my clients about what they pay me for
what I do.

I agree that the single payer has enormous power in that relationship.

The important question is - how does that work out in practice?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the

Quoted message said:

service is cheaper and better then the people will flock to it. Why force doctors, hospitals and
a population who really doesn't want it into state servitude.

To get more care, for all, at far less cost.

In a system proven by conusmer ratings to be superior.

Why exactly do you want a system which costs more, does less, and which consumers have many more
complaints about?

Are you a masochist or what?

As I said I'm self insured so as far as I'm concerned there is 0nly one single payer for medical
care... Me.

Your standard of living is reduced because such a large share of our economy goes for medical care.
Were we able to move several million workers out of the health care management business into other
areas then there would be more goods and services produced for you and I to share.

That's why a single payer system would be good for you. even if you never get sick and just drop
dead one day.

I'm also one of the 40

Quoted message said:

million uninsured. A couple of years ago I had to go to Emergency with a possible bowel
obstruction. They poked and proded and x-rayed they said it was a combination of the flu and bad
chickin. The bill was 1,400 dollars. I got a 35% cash discount. Many doctors in private or small
practices are willing to give you even more.

It would be better if the cost was less. If you didn't have to worry that calling an ambulance will
force you into bankruptcy.

Quoted message said:

The high costs of medical care is due to HMOs, Medicare and high legal costs.

Legal costs? That's absurd. Even President Bush, the smart one, not the current guy, only claimed,
when he ran on that stupid claim, that malpractice costs altogether, including legal costs and
awards, came to twenty billion dollars a year.

That's about two percent.

And that was what he claimed when he had an incentive to exaggerate the cost.

I aslo think HMOs lower costs, but I don't know what the implications of medicare are.

Quoted message said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is
always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Selfish.

Hah!, my money is mine! Not yours, the government or anyone elses.

Quoted message said:

Bull, Republicans would rather see thier fellow human beings provide for themselves, period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If that's true, then how do you explain the fact that the unemployment rate almost always goes up
whenever a Republican is in the White House?

Slipping here..........the slopes's gettin steeper.........oop's....there you go.....

Quoted message said:

That's one hellava lot more compassionate than paying for others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You miss the point. You've obviously never been poor, or if you have, you have forgotten where you
came from.

Nope, never have been poor before. I was makin a whoppin $63 a week under that great President
Jimmuh Cahtuh. Now I'm making real money, paying my own way. Just like when ol' Jimmy was our
leader. I paid then and pay now for my own health care.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For those who already do have health insurance, thru an employer, or if they are rich enough to
have their own, then good for them.

Companies don't offer free health care expenses anymore. Where have you been the last 20 years?
Emplyees PAY for the health insurance. It ain't free.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More people were insured when Clinton was President, because more people were employed, and so
therefore they acquired health insurance from their

employer.

Now you've gone and done it. You now have to explain to me and the rest of us nasty Republicans why
Hillary attempted to take over the nations health care industry back then if things were damned good
then. WHY did she do it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me quote Ruth Rosen's quite prescient words, it's a very powerful

statement

I read it again and it still smacks of 'take the money from those who are working to better
themselves and pay for those are make no effort to pay thier own way'. In other words you want to
take the money *I* spend on my health care and give free health care to someone else who will make
no effort to pay thier own way. Yet, they'll damn sure have a new DVD player, DVD's and a new car
sitting in the driveway all the while taking MY dollars to pay thier health costs. WHY? WHAT GIVES
liberals the 'RIGHT' to demand such drivel?