A british woman came in the other day and said a tv stamp is around 300 pounds now. Perhaps one of our British friends can let us know more.

There's always google, it's £145.50 per year.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobb"y" (sorry, honest mistake, wasn't trying to insult you)

Your logical conclusion and my logical conclusion are two very different outcomes. Where do I begin? Yes, I consider it fair for you to receive the health care that you can afford. Of course, there will always be special exceptions to this due to the compassion within human nature. I just believe there are going to be too many special exceptions in this up and coming 2,000 page health care bill that will more than likely favor the rich.

Presumably all of the cases I mentioned would qualify as "special exceptions". I wonder how long that list is ...

Hmm, a health care bill that's designed to get coverage to those too poor to pay for their own is going to favor the rich more so than health care paid for directly (which, naturally, does not favor the rich, right?). Am I missing something?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

A british woman came in the other day and said a tv stamp is around 300 pounds now. Perhaps one of our British friends can let us know more.

There's always google, it's £145.50 per year.

what is this google you speak of

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

experience with how corporations handled health care when "allowed" free reign is shown to be a BAD idea. What happened?

They changed from covering extreme expense to specifically excluding extreme expense. Went from helping with major medical expense to helping out with the small stuff (some) and then either denying outright legitimate claims because some clerk gave "second opinion" that it was un-necessary, limiting how much total they would pay, or canceling people that needed it outright.

Doctor visits: they established a "co-pay" process. And insisted on cheaper visits. What happened? Doctors would only handle one thing per visit, and rescheduled you to come back over and over, each with their own "co-pay". Made the visits shorter to compensate. But in the mean time, anyone working for a living would have to take time off from work, jeopordizing their job(and therefore their coverage) due to attendance issues. Another way to make sure no one that got sick could get coverage. If they did hire on somewhere else.. well those pre-existing conditions would eliminate any coverage of them.

In other words, no one that needed coverage could get it. Or keep it.

Capitalism at its norm.

---

Janice

By Jove I think He's got it

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

not so tough dear. But one thing. How many guys do you know named Janice?

---

Janice

Skildude, Soft^spirit,

From what you both just said, it's obvious neither one of you read my post.

Let me put it in a one-liner: It's not *all* the insurance companies' fault.

But when insurance companies can provide nothing for the money, guess what they choose to do?

Not "all" their fault? No. They need tight government regulation. Obviously.
Consumers were given no choice. Even if they had a reasonable income. Of course to the rich, no problem. Just pay for what they want.

"And I say to myself, what a wonderful world"

---

Janice

Bobby,

When the rich don't like the rules, they change them. For example, if you buy the doctor who lives next door to you a new Volvo every year around Christmas, who do you think is going to be first one in line at the doctor's office in the middle of the year? My point is, if you think there's graft and corruption right now, wait until the federal government tries to force more rules and regulations on the public.

I have a healthy distrust in government. I used to work for the federal government. I know how they think.

And my point is that, even if one accepts that medics will behave as unethically as you suggest (any evidence that such corruption is endemic in, say, the NHS?), the poor will still be able to join that line, whereas today there's a significant minority (50 million?), that can't.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby,

When the rich don't like the rules, they change them. For example, if you buy the doctor who lives next door to you a new Volvo every year around Christmas, who do you think is going to be first one in line at the doctor's office in the middle of the year? My point is, if you think there's graft and corruption right now, wait until the federal government tries to force more rules and regulations on the public.

I have a healthy distrust in government. I used to work for the federal government. I know how they think.

And my point is that, even if one accepts that medics will behave as unethically as you suggest (any evidence that such corruption is endemic in, say, the NHS?), the poor will still be able to join that line, whereas today there's a significant minority (50 million?), that can't.

No. I've never heard of corruption in the NHS apart from some complaints a while ago that private companies where trying to push doctors to prescribe their products by giving doctors what amounted to bribes.

Now doctors are expected to prescribe generic medicines where ever possible.

I can't think of any motivation for NHS doctors to be corrupt. All of the ones I have been to have been extremely hard working and put the patient's needs first.

---

Reality Internet Personality

OK I'm not understanding why limiting healthcare coverage to within the states is important. I honestly don't know why it's a regulation now and why some want the instate only regulation.

I can see how removing this hindrance will allow national corporations to place all their workers under 1 umbrella account. I can also see that Insurance companies want to localize the insurance much like auto and home owners since they local conditions may cause rates to be higher than they are elsewhere.
case in point. I insured my former home in Wisconsin for about $150 annually. Here in Texas it would cost $1200-$1400 for the same home. Why? Tornadoes and hail are the first things. Termites and floods another. these seem to occur a great deal more down here than in Wisconsin

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Well, until you at least *acknowledge* the two limiting factors of a better health care system (1000s of federal mandates and individuals limited to buying health care coverage only within their state of residence), there's no point in me trying to further justify how we can truly make it better.

You have made it clear to me you believe the only way to make it better is to allow some third-party (government) to make all your decisons for you and to trust they will take care of everybody equally.

Of course, I believe no matter how health care is handled (more government control vs more individual choice), not everybody is going to get everything they want. I do believe one will lead to better services than the other.

My premise is, the bigger government gets, the more they try to do, the less they acutally do.

I think I've already made a pretty good case how to get more services, more quickly, more cheaply and more equally to everyone involved.

I guess the only thing left is the ballot box.

I grew up with the NHS. It's an awesome system.

The Canadian one is pretty damn good too, although sadly it isn't as comprehensive as the UK system. That is because they wish to keep costs down and I think they've done a very good job.

Both healthcare systems are excellent value for money though, you just wouldn't get the same coverage for the same cost with a private insurer.

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I'm thinking we won't in this country any time soon

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

You have made it clear to me you believe the only way to make it better is to allow some third-party (government) to make all your decisons for you and to trust they will take care of everybody equally.

Now where have I said anything of the sort? I ask for evidence that unethical behavior is a natural consequence of public funding, (a point you raised), and you respond with this!

The only beliefs I have expressed here are about the likelihood of wider health care coverage than exists today:

BTW, I am under no preconceived notion that socialized health care will lead to a utopian redistribution leaving nobody wanting, though I do believe that it may lead to a more equitable distribution than we currently have in the US. Sure there will be losers, though at the same time I believe they will be far outnumbered by the winners.

and my dependency on the well-being of a number of my fellow citizens. I'm still waiting to a reasoned argument that shows how this well-being is protected by the costs of health care being paid directly by the individual incurring them, though I'd argue that nothing I have said assumes that the only way to achieve this end requires government involvement.

FWIW, third-parties already make decisions for me when it comes to health care, for example, my employer chooses the insurers, the insurers decide what's covered, medics decide treatments. Only in the last of these do I have any meaningful direct input.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

all "socialized medicine" would accomplish is a baseline medical care. It will not stop the "haves" from getting additional, perhaps superior care. But at least it would not kick those trying to work for a living (the wage slaves?) to the curb as has been the case.

Something had to give. And I think more has to give, but at least there is some hope of REAL insurance for more. So.. progress.

---

Janice

It will not stop the "haves" from getting additional, perhaps superior care.

Indeed, though I'm not sure anybody here has been advocating that as an aim.

I wonder what the US medical establishment (doctors, dentists, nurses, &c. not the insurers) has to say on the matter ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I've already made a point about medical professionals wasting time with the constant run around we get from Insurance companies. We'd love to streamline the work

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I've already made a point about medical professionals wasting time with the constant run around we get from Insurance companies. We'd love to streamline the work

Just how fat is the book with all the procedure codes?

---