Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> "mike gray, CID" > wrote in message
> ...
>> M. Pann wrote:
>
>> > 6. You said, "...There are really no people who would use $3000 a year
>> > in drugs." Are you ignorant or stupid? Do you have any idea how much
>> > drugs cost? I am diabetic, and I would spend over $5,000 a year on drugs
>> > if I bought them here in the US. But I smuggle them from Canada and pay
>> > only $1800 a year. This frigging government makes me a law breaker.
>>
>> Are you ignorant or stupid? I am diabetic and my drugs cost a small
>> fraction of what yer paying in Canada. Maybe ya need a new travel agent.
>
> No, you are. Add it up for long-term Type 1.
>
> 1: Glucometer and strips. 5 tests a day, $1/strip, that's $1800 right there.

Testing five times a day is a hobby, or maybe a fetish, but not a
necessity. And strips are 54 cents each in Boca Raton, Florida.
>
> 2: Insulin. Figure 50 units a day for an otherwise healthy adult, that's
> roughly 18 bottles a year not counting lossage, at $30/bottle that's about
> $550 right there.

35 units a day, $18/bottle in Florida.

> 3: Syringes (which are cheaper than pumps). Use 2 a day, figure $.25 each,
> that's another $180. Quintuple this price if you use an insulin pump, which
> take far more expensive bits and require regular replacement/upkeep.

Syringes get re-used 4 times, cost 18 cents each, that's a bit over 4
cents/shot.

> 4: Other medical drug costs, such as blood pressure meds, heart medicine,
> allergies, asthma, cholesterol or other circulator. This can easily cost
> more than the direct diabetes mediacal costs.

Don't use any of that stuff, but my rum bill runs about $30/month.


>> Bullshit. The Canadian and Mexican borders will reamin open. Yer just
>> sore because the money goes to poor folks.
>
> No, it doesn't. The money goes to the folks who can cleverly wend their way
> through the paperwork.

Yup. They're called "Medicare beneficiaries".

> The benefits of providing a modest level of basic
> health care as a national right are exactly for "the poor folks", and would
> devastate a lot of more expensive and sophisticated medical businesses and
> institutions that, oh my goodness, have lots of generous lobbyists! Even the
> membership of the AMA is getting fed up with the current insurance
> wackiness, though.

Maybe that's why the AMA, the drug companies, and the insurance
companies all contribute more to the Dems than to the Republicans (yes
they do, look it up!)
>
>> > 9., and final point: This country is the only industrial country in the
>> > world does not provide national health care. Everyone else does,
>> > including most non industrial countries, and their economy is just fine.
>> > And so are their citizens.
>>
>> Yup, that's true. And every national health system prioritizes care,
>> which the US refuses to accept. Ya can't have both.
>
> Strawman. Minus 3 points.

Every national health system proposed in the last twenty years has been
defeated because every proposal would have prioritized care. Most
recently, Hillary's proposal. The last significant reform of the
delivery system, the HMO Act of 1973 (PL 93-222), clearly demonstrated
the ability of prioritized, provider managed care to equitably
distribute health resources at far lower costs, but the bill and the
system was gutted by special interest groups that insisted on on-demand
care and services.

The refusal of US citizens to give up their tradition of deciding for
themselves their individual care regimens is the reason we will not have
national health service in our lifetime.

Strawman indeed.