American Third Position Political Party
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
Next: Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
From: tony cooper on 24 Jan 2010 08:12 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:35:36 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <68qml5128fvmmbghtbb6p7sdh2ot7sitmh(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:31:05 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>wrote: >> >>>In message <4b5b0a58$0$30934$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter >>><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes >>>>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:sdzdhdCBKvWLFAjF@p >>>>haedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>> >>>>> As I discovered this morning (and from the last 50 years of personal >>>>> experience) it is not rationed. The "rationed" and "death panels" is a >>>>> myth concocted by the US anti-Obama people. It is not something Brits >>>>> would recognise. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Basically true, >>> >>>It is true. I am British, living in the UK and had cause to use the NHS >>>this morning. >>> >>>>but many myths are based upon some fact. Health care is rationed, to >>>>some extent. I know of no system that gives unlimited treatment to all >>>>comers. >>> >>>The UK tries to as do many other systems. It does fall over sometimes in >>>practice. >>> >>>> Common sense tells us that is fiscally impossible. Here in the US, >>>>under our current system rationing is partially based upon ability to >>>>pay. >>> >>>Quite so. >>> >>>>No one really believes that the medical treatment given to our poverty >>>>level patients is the same as for those who can afford to pay. >>> >>>In the UK there is no difference. >> >>If there is no difference, then how can for-pay hospitals and doctors >>stay in business? No one would pay for private treatment if free >>treatment was equal to for-pay treatment. > >The *medical* treatment is the same. The environment is more like a >hotel and fits in around your schedule. For many in business they want >what the want when they want it. SO they pay for a nice room, at a time >convenient to them with visiting hours of when they want etc. The medical treatment is not the same if the for-pay choice means choosing your own doctor instead of taking some NHS doctor that may or may not be as good as the for-pay doctor. The medical treatment is not the same if the for-pay hospital has advanced equipment that the NHS hospital does not have. >>You have a fairly good system over there. Don't over-egg the cake, >>though. > >It does have many problems. It is not perfect. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 24 Jan 2010 08:23 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:37:26 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <4b5b6002$1(a)news.x-privat.org>, rendition <ren(a)stimpy.org> >writes >>Ray Fischer wrote: >>> rendition <ren(a)stimpy.org> wrote: >>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>> Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>>>>> According to an in depth discussion in another group The UK actually >>>>>>> spends less per person on health care (including dental) in the UK than >>>>>>> the USA spends per person. Also it covers EVERY person in the UK, not >>>>>>> just 80% as per the USA. >>>>>> Where do you get your 80% figure? Everyone in the US is covered by >>>>>> some sort of health care program. >>>>> Nope. >>>> See: emergency room. >>> See: Idiot rightard who doesn't realize that emergency room bills >>>must be paid. >>> >> >>Well of course they must, but then I never made such a statement, did I >>lying Ray? >> >>You're a real bucket of barf. > >So who has to pay the emergency room bills? When an indigent patient is treated in an Emergency Room in the US, the hospital may present them with a bill, but the hospital knows it will not be able to collect the bill from the patient. The hospital then writes off the outstanding amount. An indigent patient is one who has no money and no assets. They just walk away from any bills. The person without insurance who has a real problem in the US is the ordinary citizen who does have some money, owns a house, or owns other assets. The hospital will pursue this person for the money. They will go to court and get a judgement for the amount. Our system penalizes the working class person who has done well for himself, but not well enough to be able to afford medical insurance or a medical insurance policy with good coverage. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Frank Sereno on 24 Jan 2010 08:30 On 1/23/2010 9:16 PM, ceviche wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:37:49 -0600 > Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> >> One thing to point out is that the source that keeps being quoted >> for the dental problems in the UK is a member of the opposition >> party. He is going to make every effort to make things look bad >> because it is beneficial to his political party. I've come to the >> point where I believe all politicians are liars and crooks. > > Can you deny factually, or merely shoot the messenger? Shooting the messenger works for me. It's probably true that someone in the UK pulled 14 of his own teeth. Did he need 14 teeth pulled? Did he have a clue what he was doing or is he suffering from mental illness? It's even possible he was paid money to yank his teeth in order to create an unfavorable story about the British dental/health care system. I don't have the time or money to research the many questions that need to be asked, but I do know that anything that comes out of a politician's mouth is self-serving and usually less than the whole truth. To base a debate on such a statement is folly.
From: Chris H on 24 Jan 2010 08:44 In message <mkhol5ltv70lb77v31mm2ligbvkebecmk8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>The *medical* treatment is the same. The environment is more like a >>hotel and fits in around your schedule. For many in business they want >>what the want when they want it. SO they pay for a nice room, at a time >>convenient to them with visiting hours of when they want etc. > >The medical treatment is not the same if the for-pay choice means >choosing your own doctor Who may be as good or worse than the NHS doctor. > instead of taking some NHS doctor that may or >may not be as good as the for-pay doctor. Or a hell of a lot better. Nothing says the best doctors are private. >The medical treatment is >not the same if the for-pay hospital has advanced equipment that the >NHS hospital does not have. Or vice versa. Given the cost of the equipment it is usually the NHS hospitals that have the equipment not the private ones. More to the point the NHS can move you to another NHS hospital that does have the specialised kit and doctors if required. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 24 Jan 2010 08:47
In message <hjhi1j$bbu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Frank Sereno <fsereno(a)domain.invalid> writes >On 1/23/2010 9:16 PM, ceviche wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:37:49 -0600 >> Frank Sereno<fsereno(a)domain.invalid> wrote: ><snip> >>> >>> One thing to point out is that the source that keeps being quoted >>> for the dental problems in the UK is a member of the opposition >>> party. He is going to make every effort to make things look bad >>> because it is beneficial to his political party. I've come to the >>> point where I believe all politicians are liars and crooks. >> >> Can you deny factually, or merely shoot the messenger? > >Shooting the messenger works for me. It's probably true that someone in >the UK pulled 14 of his own teeth. I would expect to find that patient had other (mental) problems as well. >Did he need 14 teeth pulled? Did he have a clue what he was doing or is >he suffering from mental illness? Also it is not normal. I expect we can find some similar freaks in the US and extrapolate in a similar manner. >It's even possible he was paid money to yank his teeth in order to >create an unfavorable story about the British dental/health care >system. Not likely. >I don't have the time or money to research the many questions that need >to be asked, but I do know that anything that comes out of a >politician's mouth is self-serving and usually less than the whole >truth. To base a debate on such a statement is folly. Especially over the next 6 moths. We have a General election. (Like the US changing both houses and the president at the same time) You can't trust anything (even more than usual ) -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |