Fuck its silent in here.......

[CT III]

I can't even tell who's serious and who's joking. Except for Eli.

I'm mostly just in an all-caps kind of mood.  This thread lends itself well to that.

I probably should have kept to myself.

I'm sure my points will get misinterpreted. All I'm saying is this:

Doctors can be good and bad regardless of the healthcare system they work under. I pay a lot for 80% coverage plus a deductible. I do not know how universal health care would change what I pay. They pay less per capita in other countries.

Those are facts from where I sit.

I was just pointing out that being paid more money is not necessarily an INCENTIVE to be a better doctor, simply to be a doctor.

One might say that a better monetary INCENTIVE for being a good doctor is working in a system where patients have the ability to sue your ass for malpractice if you fuck up.

NEW ARGUMENT TIME!

[morpheus]

I can't even tell who's serious and who's joking. Except for Eli.

I'm mostly just in an all-caps kind of mood.  This thread lends itself well to that.

I probably should have kept to myself.

I'm sure my points will get misinterpreted. All I'm saying is this:

Doctors can be good and bad regardless of the healthcare system they work under. I pay a lot for 80% coverage plus a deductible. I do not know how universal health care would change what I pay. They pay less per capita in other countries.

Those are facts from where I sit.

I was just pointing out that being paid more money is not necessarily an INCENTIVE to be a better doctor, simply to be a doctor.

One might say that a better monetary INCENTIVE for being a good doctor is working in a system where patients have the ability to sue your ass for malpractice if you fuck up.

NEW ARGUMENT TIME!

You know, you're being awfully descript today.  You should be careful - you've got a rep to protect.

[Wheezer]

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

Again, the hydraulic argument.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe.  

My uncle-in-law is on the board of a county healthcare district thing in the Joliet area
and he's talked several times about how hard they are working to get donations and
funding for effective birth control for their poverty to lower class patient base.  There's
a whole lot of women that want to take the shot or pill based birth control that can't
afford it and end up pregnant because their boyfriends or husbands don't want to
wear rubbers.  I know that's a single example, but "I find that hard to believe" isn't
exactly a counter example.

This is key.

Contraception is much more effective when women can control it themselves rather than having to rely on a man (who may not be around to face the consequences after the fact) to take care of it for her.

Which brings us back to...

Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe.  

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

[R-V]

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

But what about the rugged MikeCs who wish to forgo the ho$pital $y$tem, just rub some dirt on it and go on bein' American?

[morpheus]

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

[Waco Kid]

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Would you settle for better or equal aggregate outcomes at half the aggregate cost?

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html

(Someone else, likely RV, God rest his soul, posted the graphic at this link around here before, though I can't recall how far back.)

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?

[morpheus]

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Would you settle for better or equal aggregate outcomes at half the aggregate cost?

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html

(Someone else, likely RV, God rest his soul, posted the graphic at this link around here before, though I can't recall how far back.)

No, because there are many things that affect health outcomes.  U.S. lifestyles are awful, awful from a health standpoint, which surely has a greater effect on life expectancy than what doctors do.

[Chuck to Chuck]

No, because there are many things that affect health outcomes.  U.S. lifestyles are awful, awful from a health standpoint, which surely has a greater effect on life expectancy than what doctors do.

Can we ban high fructose corn syrup in the bill?

What would Archer Daniels Midland say about that?

[morpheus]

Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?

I read this as a direct comparison between Norway's $5k per capita spending and the U.S.'s $7k.  But I see what you did there.

[Waco Kid]

Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?

I should have added if he's old enough. It's just funny hearing about the evils of this socialistic government run single payer health care when one exists right now that plenty of people don't want touched or altered in any way.

[Gilgamesh]

Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?

I should have added if he's old enough. It's just funny hearing about the evils of this socialistic government run single payer health care when one exists right now that plenty of people don't want touched or altered in any way.

The AARP is crazy good at the whole lobbyin' thing.