On 9/9/2016 3:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On 9/9/2016 3:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
>>>>>>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
>>>>>>> cannot have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
>>>>>> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
>>>>>> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
>>>>> on how rich you are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
>>>> decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
>>>> or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
>>>> those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
>>>> expenditures.
>>>
>>> Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
>>> or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
>>> as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
>>> can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
>>> healthcare for everybody.
>>>
>>
>> There's that "entitlement" word again!
>>
>> The only thing anyone is entitled to is honesty and fair treatment.
>>
>> You are not entitled to my money.
>
> Your country is entitled to part of your money. It's called tax. It's
> used for the public good.
>

And then they use that to deny my ability to spend more of my money on
more of my healthcare? That is not a public good at all.

On 2016-09-09 5:59 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:

>> It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
>> on how rich you are.
>>
>
> I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
> decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
> or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
> those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
> expenditures.
>
> This is not a zero sum game.

I guess that you have no problem with a for profit health care system
taking advantage of the desperation of the wealthy who are facing death.
Spare no expense to provide procedures that are not likely to extend or
improve the life of someone with a terminal condition. They have to
money to pay for it so there is no reason not to put it into the hands
of profiting from the system.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 9/9/2016 3:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 9/9/2016 3:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
> >>>>>>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
> >>>>>>> cannot have?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
> >>>>>> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
> >>>>>> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
> >>>>> on how rich you are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
> >>>> decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
> >>>> or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
> >>>> those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
> >>>> expenditures.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
> >>> or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
> >>> as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
> >>> can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
> >>> healthcare for everybody.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There's that "entitlement" word again!
> >>
> >> The only thing anyone is entitled to is honesty and fair treatment.
> >>
> >> You are not entitled to my money.
> >
> > Your country is entitled to part of your money. It's called tax. It's
> > used for the public good.
> >
>
> And then they use that to deny my ability to spend more of my money on
> more of my healthcare? That is not a public good at all.

You should get all the healthcare you need and so should everybody.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:03:50 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-09-09 2:42 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>
>> I was just told by a Canadian here that this is the reason people come
>> over the border to get medical care in the US.
>>
>> Sounds like the UK doesn't have SINGLE PAYER.
>
>I suppose there are some Canadians visiting or staying in the US that
>think they can get some brownie points with Americans by telling them
>about the flaws in our health care system. I remember there was a big
>stink here a few years ago when a professional athlete got bumped up the
>line for an MRI. I live close to the border. I have read about Canadians
>going to the US for treatment because of wait times here. I know a lot
>of people, but I don't know a single person who has done it.
>OTOH... I heard my SiL whining to her American in-laws about the wait
>time for her knee replacement. That sort of ****ed me off because I
>knew that she was supposed to get it done but she was the one who kept
>putting it off because she was afraid of the surgery. It would have been
>more honest for her to say that she could have had it done mush sooner
>had she not been so afraid of it.

You're leaving out the Ontario woman the US insurance companies used
with the brain tumour that docs wouldn't remove here. Turned out it
was deep in the brain, benign, and far too risky if she wanted to
remain herself, to remove. But they didn't advertise that bit. Common
sense said leave it and keep checking it, money said, let her have the
brain surgery she wants and can afford to pay for.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:07:43 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 9/9/2016 3:03 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-09-09 2:42 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>
>>> I was just told by a Canadian here that this is the reason people come
>>> over the border to get medical care in the US.
>>>
>>> Sounds like the UK doesn't have SINGLE PAYER.
>>
>> I suppose there are some Canadians visiting or staying in the US that
>> think they can get some brownie points with Americans by telling them
>> about the flaws in our health care system. I remember there was a big
>> stink here a few years ago when a professional athlete got bumped up the
>> line for an MRI. I live close to the border. I have read about Canadians
>> going to the US for treatment because of wait times here. I know a lot
>> of people, but I don't know a single person who has done it.
>> OTOH... I heard my SiL whining to her American in-laws about the wait
>> time for her knee replacement. That sort of ****ed me off because I
>> knew that she was supposed to get it done but she was the one who kept
>> putting it off because she was afraid of the surgery. It would have been
>> more honest for her to say that she could have had it done mush sooner
>> had she not been so afraid of it.
>>
>
>
>I have spoken to a number of Canadians on a number of cruises. The
>younger like their health care systems, as their minor problems and
>those of their kids get handled and they get no bills (I think). The
>older ones, with more complicated issues, complain about the inability
>to get prompt care or in a number of cases any care for their condition
>at all. Health care is, for them, rationed or limited. Why should they
>have to spend their retirement funds to travel to another country in
>order to spend their retirement funds on needed health care? Makes no
>sense. They should be able to spend their own money at home.
>
>This is not a zero sum game.

I'm old and have had a knee replaced, a thumb joint fixed with plastic
surgery and in neither case did I wait very long and was in the care
of skilled surgeons. I'd defy anyone to be able to see the scar on my
thumb, can't really spot it easily myself.

I play competitive bridge at a club and there are many seniors, many
ops, nobody saying they are being denied, or even thinking they are
being denied.

A friend recently had one of those heart valve replacements, that was
open heart surgery and I believe it was something like six weeks
between them deciding to do it and it being done. The doctor
apologized and pointed out, summer is the worst time as it is also
vacation time.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:09:03 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 9/9/2016 3:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
>>>>>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
>>>>>> cannot have?
>>>>>
>>>>> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
>>>>> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
>>>>> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
>>>>
>>>> It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
>>>> on how rich you are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
>>> decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
>>> or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
>>> those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
>>> expenditures.
>>
>> Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
>> or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
>> as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
>> can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
>> healthcare for everybody.
>>
>
>There's that "entitlement" word again!
>
>The only thing anyone is entitled to is honesty and fair treatment.
>
>You are not entitled to my money.

So you have lived all your life never requiring any health care?

On 9/9/2016 4:08 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:09:03 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
>> On 9/9/2016 3:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
>>>>>>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
>>>>>>> cannot have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
>>>>>> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
>>>>>> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
>>>>> on how rich you are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
>>>> decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
>>>> or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
>>>> those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
>>>> expenditures.
>>>
>>> Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
>>> or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
>>> as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
>>> can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
>>> healthcare for everybody.
>>>
>>
>> There's that "entitlement" word again!
>>
>> The only thing anyone is entitled to is honesty and fair treatment.
>>
>> You are not entitled to my money.
>
> So you have lived all your life never requiring any health care?
>

who said that? Healthcare is a number one priority for my work,
savings, and as needed, spending.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:47:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >says...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 04:48:21 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The problem with single payer is the SINGLE part. You cannot pay for
> >> >more, as you cannot be a payer - there is a SINGLE payer.
> >>
> >>
> >> come on now Taxed and Spent? You don't believe Doctors would be
> >> working "on the side" for those billionaires who wish to employ them?
> >>
> >> In the UK, it's happening now. If you don't want to wait in line, you
> >> can pay to move yourself ahead in the line.
> >
> > What you mean is, in Britain there is private health care and state
> >health care (The National Health Service) . People who don't want to be
> >treated by the NHS and have enough money, or private health insurance,
> >can pay for private treatment in the private health system, outside the
> >NHS.
> >
> > That has been the case ever since the NHS began in 1948; it's nothing
> >new.
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> That is why Canada opted to have across the board system, no private
> care. It's no good having doctors who do four days private work
> (because of the money) and one days public, for the poor. The system
> is not equal.

That's really not how private medicine works here. Doctors employed
in the NHS are contractually obliged that any private work they
undertake must not conflict with their NHS work.

Private health insurers are also imposing restrictive contracts on
doctors they employ. So combining NHS and private work is increasingly
unattractive.

http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...losing_its_app
eal%3F

Janet UK.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 16:16:11 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 9/9/2016 4:08 PM, wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:09:03 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/9/2016 3:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
>>>>>>>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
>>>>>>>> cannot have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
>>>>>>> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
>>>>>>> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
>>>>>> on how rich you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
>>>>> decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
>>>>> or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
>>>>> those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
>>>>> expenditures.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
>>>> or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
>>>> as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
>>>> can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
>>>> healthcare for everybody.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's that "entitlement" word again!
>>>
>>> The only thing anyone is entitled to is honesty and fair treatment.
>>>
>>> You are not entitled to my money.
>>
>> So you have lived all your life never requiring any health care?
>>
>
>who said that? Healthcare is a number one priority for my work,
>savings, and as needed, spending.

You seem to think anybody here is using other peoples money - well
they are but they also provide for other peoples illnesses.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 00:32:43 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:47:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 04:48:21 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The problem with single payer is the SINGLE part. You cannot pay for
>> >> >more, as you cannot be a payer - there is a SINGLE payer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> come on now Taxed and Spent? You don't believe Doctors would be
>> >> working "on the side" for those billionaires who wish to employ them?
>> >>
>> >> In the UK, it's happening now. If you don't want to wait in line, you
>> >> can pay to move yourself ahead in the line.
>> >
>> > What you mean is, in Britain there is private health care and state
>> >health care (The National Health Service) . People who don't want to be
>> >treated by the NHS and have enough money, or private health insurance,
>> >can pay for private treatment in the private health system, outside the
>> >NHS.
>> >
>> > That has been the case ever since the NHS began in 1948; it's nothing
>> >new.
>> >
>> > Janet UK
>>
>> That is why Canada opted to have across the board system, no private
>> care. It's no good having doctors who do four days private work
>> (because of the money) and one days public, for the poor. The system
>> is not equal.
>
> That's really not how private medicine works here. Doctors employed
>in the NHS are contractually obliged that any private work they
>undertake must not conflict with their NHS work.
>
> Private health insurers are also imposing restrictive contracts on
>doctors they employ. So combining NHS and private work is increasingly
>unattractive.
>
>http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...losing_its_app
>eal%3F
>
> Janet UK.
My aunt waited too long for her knee replacement because the local
surgeon was doing 4 days private, 1 days NHS.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:57:15 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> > So what you are saying is that, for example, is that if a rich man and a
> >> poor man both have identical (say) hernias, the rich man should take
> >> precedence and the poor man should be left to suffer.
> >
> > Wealth makes no difference to treatment priority by the NHS.

> > Janet UK
>
> so you contact one of those Doctors who work for NHS and request he
> come to your house when he gets off work...make sure he knows you have
> lots of cash to pay him

No need for cash. Where I live, NHS doctors and nurses do house calls
with no charge to the patient.

Janet UK.

In article >,
says...
> From:
> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 00:32:43 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> >
> >http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...losing_its_app
> >eal%3F
> >
> > Janet UK.
> My aunt waited too long for her knee replacement because the local
> surgeon was doing 4 days private, 1 days NHS.

Which NHS hospital doing knee replacements, had only one orthopaedic
surgeon?

Janet.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 13:18:36 -0600, graham > wrote:

> On 9/9/2016 12:42 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > On 9/9/2016 10:29 AM, William wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 04:48:21 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> The problem with single payer is the SINGLE part. You cannot pay for
> >>> more, as you cannot be a payer - there is a SINGLE payer.
> >>
> >>
> >> come on now Taxed and Spent? You don't believe Doctors would be
> >> working "on the side" for those billionaires who wish to employ them?
> >>
> >> In the UK, it's happening now. If you don't want to wait in line, you
> >> can pay to move yourself ahead in the line. That's Capitalism at it's
> >> finest!
> >>
> >> William
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I was just told by a Canadian here that this is the reason people come
> > over the border to get medical care in the US.
> >
> > Sounds like the UK doesn't have SINGLE PAYER.
>
> So what you are saying is that, for example, is that if a rich man and a
> poor man both have identical (say) hernias, the rich man should take
> precedence and the poor man should be left to suffer.

It's pretty easy to figure out. The poor man gets basic care, when
without single payer he would have NOTHING. If it means waiting in
line for surgery, then that's what he does. The rich man can afford
to pay extra, and goes elsewhere for his surgery and makes it happen
immediately. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem
with is denying basic, routine wellness healthcare fellow Americans.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 13:18:36 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 9/9/2016 12:42 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2016 10:29 AM, William wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 04:48:21 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with single payer is the SINGLE part. You cannot pay for
>>>>> more, as you cannot be a payer - there is a SINGLE payer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> come on now Taxed and Spent? You don't believe Doctors would be
>>>> working "on the side" for those billionaires who wish to employ them?
>>>>
>>>> In the UK, it's happening now. If you don't want to wait in line, you
>>>> can pay to move yourself ahead in the line. That's Capitalism at it's
>>>> finest!
>>>>
>>>> William
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was just told by a Canadian here that this is the reason people come
>>> over the border to get medical care in the US.
>>>
>>> Sounds like the UK doesn't have SINGLE PAYER.
>>
>> So what you are saying is that, for example, is that if a rich man and a
>> poor man both have identical (say) hernias, the rich man should take
>> precedence and the poor man should be left to suffer.
>
> It's pretty easy to figure out. The poor man gets basic care, when
> without single payer he would have NOTHING. If it means waiting in
> line for surgery, then that's what he does. The rich man can afford
> to pay extra, and goes elsewhere for his surgery and makes it happen
> immediately. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem
> with is denying basic, routine wellness healthcare fellow Americans.
>

If a poor man only gets "routine wellness coverage", he isn't waiting in
line for surgery, he isn't having it all.

--
jinx the minx

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 00:44:08 -0500, jinx the minx
> wrote:

>sf > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 13:18:36 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/9/2016 12:42 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>> On 9/9/2016 10:29 AM, William wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 04:48:21 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with single payer is the SINGLE part. You cannot pay for
>>>>>> more, as you cannot be a payer - there is a SINGLE payer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> come on now Taxed and Spent? You don't believe Doctors would be
>>>>> working "on the side" for those billionaires who wish to employ them?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the UK, it's happening now. If you don't want to wait in line, you
>>>>> can pay to move yourself ahead in the line. That's Capitalism at it's
>>>>> finest!
>>>>>
>>>>> William
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was just told by a Canadian here that this is the reason people come
>>>> over the border to get medical care in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like the UK doesn't have SINGLE PAYER.
>>>
>>> So what you are saying is that, for example, is that if a rich man and a
>>> poor man both have identical (say) hernias, the rich man should take
>>> precedence and the poor man should be left to suffer.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to figure out. The poor man gets basic care, when
>> without single payer he would have NOTHING. If it means waiting in
>> line for surgery, then that's what he does. The rich man can afford
>> to pay extra, and goes elsewhere for his surgery and makes it happen
>> immediately. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem
>> with is denying basic, routine wellness healthcare fellow Americans.
>>
>
>If a poor man only gets "routine wellness coverage", he isn't waiting in
>line for surgery, he isn't having it all.

I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.

Jeßus > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 00:44:08 -0500, jinx the minx
> > wrote:
>
>> sf > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 13:18:36 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2016 12:42 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>>> On 9/9/2016 10:29 AM, William wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 04:48:21 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with single payer is the SINGLE part. You cannot pay for
>>>>>>> more, as you cannot be a payer - there is a SINGLE payer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> come on now Taxed and Spent? You don't believe Doctors would be
>>>>>> working "on the side" for those billionaires who wish to employ them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the UK, it's happening now. If you don't want to wait in line, you
>>>>>> can pay to move yourself ahead in the line. That's Capitalism at it's
>>>>>> finest!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> William
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just told by a Canadian here that this is the reason people come
>>>>> over the border to get medical care in the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like the UK doesn't have SINGLE PAYER.
>>>>
>>>> So what you are saying is that, for example, is that if a rich man and a
>>>> poor man both have identical (say) hernias, the rich man should take
>>>> precedence and the poor man should be left to suffer.
>>>
>>> It's pretty easy to figure out. The poor man gets basic care, when
>>> without single payer he would have NOTHING. If it means waiting in
>>> line for surgery, then that's what he does. The rich man can afford
>>> to pay extra, and goes elsewhere for his surgery and makes it happen
>>> immediately. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem
>>> with is denying basic, routine wellness healthcare fellow Americans.
>>>
>>
>> If a poor man only gets "routine wellness coverage", he isn't waiting in
>> line for surgery, he isn't having it all.
>
> I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
> Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.
>

Agreed.

--
jinx the minx

In article >, Jeþus
> wrote:

> I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
> Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.

Bingo! It assuages the fears of the downtrodden with glibness, and
that's all that counts. There's a whole bunch of other garbage glibness
to assuage the rest of us. All one has to do is buy in to experience a
vision of someone else's Utopia

leo

In article >,
says...
>
> In article >, Jeþus
> > wrote:
>
> > I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
> > Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.
>
> Bingo! It assuages the fears of the downtrodden with glibness, and
> that's all that counts. There's a whole bunch of other garbage glibness
> to assuage the rest of us. All one has to do is buy in to experience a
> vision of someone else's Utopia

What about downtrodden, glibness and assuaging?

In article > , Bruce
> wrote:

> What about downtrodden, glibness and assuaging?

Google for the definitions. Form an opinion. Get back to me ASAP. The
world depends upon it!

leo

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >,
says...
>
> On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
> >>> not
> >>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
> >>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
> >>> cannot have?
> >>
> >> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
> >> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
> >> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
> >
> > It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
> > on how rich you are.
> >
>
> I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
> decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
> or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
> those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
> expenditures.

Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
healthcare for everybody.

=========

What kind of system do you have in Australia and how does it differ from
Netherlands?


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

In article >,
says...
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
> > >>> not
> > >>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
> > >>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
> > >>> cannot have?
> > >>
> > >> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
> > >> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
> > >> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
> > >
> > > It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
> > > on how rich you are.
> > >
> >
> > I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
> > decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
> > or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
> > those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
> > expenditures.
>
> Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
> or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
> as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
> can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
> healthcare for everybody.
>
> =========
>
> What kind of system do you have in Australia and how does it differ from
> Netherlands?

I'm not sure, but I think both have similar to the UK. Everybody's
covered for everything through one's taxes, but you can add private
insurance -we did- and that sometimes helps get better or at least
faster healthcare.

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
> >But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
> >not
> >available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
> >available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
> >cannot have?
>
> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping ahead
> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
> somewhere that money makes you more equal.

It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get, depends
on how rich you are.
=====

I suppose if you are very rich ... I have had both knees replaced. I had
private medicine from the company I worked for and was therefore treated
privately.

After the first op, I contracted a serious infection in the wound and ended
up in an NHS hospital because private hospitals don't do trauma.

Of course that didn't cost me or the Insurance company and my Surgeon didn't
get paid, but he visited me regularly in the NHS hospital. Before anyone
shouts, the infection wasn't his fault. I had a common infection that lives
on the skin.

I went to him for my second knee op and all was well.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >,
says...
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On 9/9/2016 2:16 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:42:05 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> But if "they" are going to say some procedure is not available, or
> > >>> not
> > >>> available in a timely manner, then I want the option of making it
> > >>> available to me if I can pay for it. Who are THEY to tell me what I
> > >>> cannot have?
> > >>
> > >> So in Canada if you feel you must be seen immediately by jumping
> > >> ahead
> > >> of other people, buy an air ticket and go elsewhere, you know,
> > >> somewhere that money makes you more equal.
> > >
> > > It's disgusting when the quality of the healthcare that you get,
> > > depends
> > > on how rich you are.
> > >
> >
> > I think at certain levels (low levels) that is true. But when "they"
> > decide there isn't enough money to provide certain types of healthcare,
> > or to certain groups (older), then they should step out of the way of
> > those that worked hard and saved their money for their choice of
> > expenditures.
>
> Yes, if you see healthcare like a commodity that you can either afford
> or not. Like a new car or a holiday to the Bahamas. But I see healthcare
> as something everybody's entitled to, whether they're rich or poor. I
> can't think of many better ways to spend tax payer's money than on good
> healthcare for everybody.
>
> =========
>
> What kind of system do you have in Australia and how does it differ from
> Netherlands?

I'm not sure, but I think both have similar to the UK. Everybody's
covered for everything through one's taxes, but you can add private
insurance -we did- and that sometimes helps get better or at least
faster healthcare.

=========

Yes, that is what we have!



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 01:33:43 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> From:
>> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 00:32:43 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >
>> >http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...losing_its_app
>> >eal%3F
>> >
>> > Janet UK.
>> My aunt waited too long for her knee replacement because the local
>> surgeon was doing 4 days private, 1 days NHS.
>
> Which NHS hospital doing knee replacements, had only one orthopaedic
>surgeon?
>
> Janet.

You will be surprised to learn it was near Carshalton, Surrey, an
affluent region - undoubtedly there were more but that was the case
with the one she was assigned to - and her son-in-law, a GP in the
same area, looked into it to discover why it was taking so long.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 03:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>And we get so little bang for our buck (as a society). Individual
>results may vary.
>
>Cindy Hamilton


Aircraft Carriers, B-2 Stealth Bombers, Trident Submarines...that's
enough bang to incinerate and wipe out our adversaries...and don't
forget our new X-47B mini-shuttle which will deliver an atomic bomb to
any point on the globe in 28 minutes...we invest more in the Military
Industrial Complex than any other country...



https://youtu.be/UxB11eAl-YE


https://youtu.be/LhqLn1wKJAw


https://youtu.be/L2bihncjy0U


William

On 9/10/2016 1:49 AM, Je�us wrote:

>>
>> If a poor man only gets "routine wellness coverage", he isn't waiting in
>> line for surgery, he isn't having it all.
>
> I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
> Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.
>

If you get an annual physical and your doctor catches something and
treats it you can avoid bigger problems later. Cheaper to treat high
blood pressure than a stroke. Cheaper to treat diabetes than food
amputations and blindness. Catch an infection before it does more
damage, etc.

William wrote:
>
> we invest more in the Military
> Industrial Complex than any other country...

That's why people rarely mess with the USA.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"

Gary wrote:
>
> William wrote:
> >
> > we invest more in the Military
> > Industrial Complex than any other country...
>
> That's why people rarely mess with the USA.
> "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

Note: We don't speak so softly anymore. This is why many countries
resent the USA. We meddle in other's politics way too much.

Air Show today.
At 3pm I'll have the Blue Angels buzzing my apartment. I live right
underneath the main flight path to Oceana Naval Air Station. Protected
night and day around here. heheh

On 9/10/2016 1:09 AM, sf wrote:

>> Speaking of pharmacies, it's wise to shop around. I checked the prices
>> for my Rx at every local pharmacy including Walgreens (a joke), CVS and
>> Rite Aid. Imagine my surprise to find the lowest price was at my
>> grocery store's pharmacy! Also a surprise, when the doctor called in an
>> antibiotic a couple of years ago Publix pharmacy didn't charge me
>> anything for it.
>>
> So basically they are overcharging the rest of us so you can go for
> free. Yippee.
>
>

That is the way our medical system works. In reality, even a single
payer system works like that. The more you earn the more tax you pay
and that subsidizes those paying little or nothing. The difference is
in other countries everyone get care, we skip over or charge high rates
to a group that can pay some, not all.

Spend some time at your local ER, especially on Saturday night. Many of
the people coming in get the emergency care they need but pay nothing.
The rest of us pay for it.

Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On 9/10/2016 1:49 AM, Je�us wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If a poor man only gets "routine wellness coverage", he isn't waiting in
>>> line for surgery, he isn't having it all.
>>
>> I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
>> Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.
>>
>
> If you get an annual physical and your doctor catches something and
> treats it you can avoid bigger problems later. Cheaper to treat high
> blood pressure than a stroke. Cheaper to treat diabetes than food
> amputations and blindness. Catch an infection before it does more
> damage, etc.
>

That's very true, however, the minute you are diagnosed with anything that
needs treatment it is no longer considered "basic medical care". In the
eyes of the medical and insurance world, it doesn't matter if it is high
blood pressure or a stroke.

--
jinx the minx

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:49:05 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

> I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
> Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.

Lack of routine wellness coverage is how poor people end up in
hospital emergency rooms. You aren't poor, never dealt with them, so
you know jack.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:52:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 9/10/2016 1:49 AM, Je?us wrote:
>
> >>
> >> If a poor man only gets "routine wellness coverage", he isn't waiting in
> >> line for surgery, he isn't having it all.
> >
> > I was about to ask what the hell "routine wellness coverage" meant.
> > Sounds like code for "total bullshit" to me.
> >
>
> If you get an annual physical and your doctor catches something and
> treats it you can avoid bigger problems later. Cheaper to treat high
> blood pressure than a stroke. Cheaper to treat diabetes than food
> amputations and blindness. Catch an infection before it does more
> damage, etc.

Thank you.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:52:21 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>William wrote:
>>
>> we invest more in the Military
>> Industrial Complex than any other country...
>
>That's why people rarely mess with the USA.
>"Speak softly and carry a big stick"

I prefer universal healthcare to the big stick!

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Spend some time at your local ER, especially on Saturday night. Many of
> the people coming in get the emergency care they need but pay nothing.
> The rest of us pay for it.

They pay nothing but many still get billed for the visits. They just
refuse to pay. I knew a guy like that. He had plenty of income left over
after the basic monthly bills. If there was a health problem...go to the
emergency room....get basic treatment...ignore bills. He had plenty of
spendable income and all of it and more went to drugs each week (illegal
and illegal prescription). He's about 41 now and I doubt he'll ever see
age 50. He's learned how to scam the system though. And from talking
to him (I used to work with him), all of his druggie friends do the same
thing.

On 9/10/2016 1:09 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 12:29:42 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of pharmacies, it's wise to shop around. I checked the prices
>> for my Rx at every local pharmacy including Walgreens (a joke), CVS and
>> Rite Aid. Imagine my surprise to find the lowest price was at my
>> grocery store's pharmacy! Also a surprise, when the doctor called in an
>> antibiotic a couple of years ago Publix pharmacy didn't charge me
>> anything for it.
>>
> So basically they are overcharging the rest of us so you can go for
> free. Yippee.
>
>
I thought *everyone* knew most prescription drugs are ridiculously
overpriced. I pay for my regular medication but I get it for less than
full price using one of the prescription discount cards or the
discounted rate the pharmacy itself offers. Most of them have such a
program.

The "free" antibiotic I got at Publix pharmacy applies to everyone. The
pharmacist said they offer several antibiotics at no cost, the
ciprofloaxacin hcl just happened to be one of them. But hey, if you
want to hand them a co-pay I'm sure they wouldn't complain.

Jill

On 9/10/2016 10:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Spend some time at your local ER, especially on Saturday night. Many of
> the people coming in get the emergency care they need but pay nothing.
> The rest of us pay for it.

I went to the ER at the end of 2014 and I'm *still* paying for it.
Ditto the bill for the subsequent colonoscopy, anesthsia, etc. Nothing
about my medical care (other than that one antibiotic I got at the
Publix pharmacy) is free.

Jill

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 00:44:08 -0500, jinx the minx
> wrote:

>sf > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 13:18:36 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/9/2016 12:42 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>> On 9/9/2016 10:29 AM, William wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 04:48:21 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with single payer is the SINGLE part. You cannot pay for
>>>>>> more, as you cannot be a payer - there is a SINGLE payer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> come on now Taxed and Spent? You don't believe Doctors would be
>>>>> working "on the side" for those billionaires who wish to employ them?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the UK, it's happening now. If you don't want to wait in line, you
>>>>> can pay to move yourself ahead in the line. That's Capitalism at it's
>>>>> finest!
>>>>>
>>>>> William
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was just told by a Canadian here that this is the reason people come
>>>> over the border to get medical care in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like the UK doesn't have SINGLE PAYER.
>>>
>>> So what you are saying is that, for example, is that if a rich man and a
>>> poor man both have identical (say) hernias, the rich man should take
>>> precedence and the poor man should be left to suffer.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to figure out. The poor man gets basic care, when
>> without single payer he would have NOTHING. If it means waiting in
>> line for surgery, then that's what he does. The rich man can afford
>> to pay extra, and goes elsewhere for his surgery and makes it happen
>> immediately. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem
>> with is denying basic, routine wellness healthcare fellow Americans.
>>
>
>If a poor man only gets "routine wellness coverage", he isn't waiting in
>line for surgery, he isn't having it all.

No, he'd be waiting in line, that's what socialized medicine is... and
it's rife with payola, nepotism, both. When I was a patient for a
week at Lennox Hill Hospital in Manhattan I met a half dozen patients
from Canada and from the UK who paid up front for care there. I paid
nothing, my medical insurance paid the entire bill and I didn't need
to wait any longer than the drive from Lung Guyland. Socializd
anything is the most unjust corrupt system possible... no system is
perfect but a system that promotes honest competition is the fairest.
My thinking is that those who live their lives squandering their
resources have no right to expect when the moment of need arrives to
receive the same treatment as those who lived more frugally...
socialism negates hard work and saving. Socialism is a system whereby
the lazy and wasteful expect those who work hard and save to bail out
the worthless. In this society everyone is born equal but over time
and by their own machinations people become less equal.

On 2016-09-10 11:02 AM, William wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 01:17:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>
> This situation was described to me a few years ago. A friend's Dad was
> too old to live by himself and was taken to an old folks home. The
> government required his Dad to give up all his assets before providing
> him with free care in the rest home. The man in the identical room
> next door had no assets, so his room was free.
>
> Is this fair or does this smack of Communism? It is happening in
> America every day. If you are smart enough to hire a ******* lawyer,
> you can transfer your assets to other people so that you do not have
> to surrender them to the government in your old age.



It is reasonably fair. The state should not have to provide for those
who have assets. I have a cousin who is/was/ is again on a disability
pension. I had PoA for her mother who had Alzheimers and had had
several strokes. Between her old age pension and two veterans widow's
pension her income far exceeded the care of her cost and when she died
she had close to $300K in the bank. My brother was the executor of the
estate and I was PoA and we tried to convince my cousin that we should
put the money in a trust account for her and then we could administer
the funds to buy things for her and, since she would not have money I
her name, she would not have to give up the disability pension.

I admit that I had qualms about it, since I don't like the idea of being
getting free money from the government when they already have more money
that most working people, but we thought it was in her best interests.

She wanted nothing to do with it and talked about how she wanted to get
off the pension and be self sufficient. It sounded good, but she does
have mental health problems. She could not get the money fast enough.
She was calling my brother weekly to try to speed up the probate
process. As soon as she got the money she went out and bought a car and
a house. It was actually a non-winterized cottage up near North Bay. It
had a wood stove for heat.

It turned out pretty much the way my brother and I expected it would.
She went on a manic spree and blew all the money, lost the pension and
she lost the house.

On 2016-09-10 12:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:

> I went to the ER at the end of 2014 and I'm *still* paying for it. Ditto
> the bill for the subsequent colonoscopy, anesthsia, etc. Nothing about
> my medical care (other than that one antibiotic I got at the Publix
> pharmacy) is free.

It was about 6 years ago today that I went to a walk in clinic to see
about a possible heart issue because my doctor was away on vacation. The
doctor I saw told me to go to the ER. I did and they ran a battery of
tests on me, kept me for the day and ran them again, said I had not had
an attack and to follow up with my family doctor.

When family doc got back I saw him. He sent me to a cardiologist who I
saw about two weeks later and cardiologist sent me for an angiogram,
about two weeks from that date. They found a major blockage and tried
to clean it out and I ended up having immediate emergency bypass
surgery. I was ICU for 4 days and in another room for another four
days. My wife wheeled me out and there was no bill.

Three years ago I went in to the ER at 6:30 on a Saturday morning
thinking I had stomach flu, was admitted and had emergency gall bladder
surgery and got out Tuesday afternoon.... no bill.

On 9/10/2016 12:18 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/10/2016 10:11 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Spend some time at your local ER, especially on Saturday night. Many of
>> the people coming in get the emergency care they need but pay nothing.
>> The rest of us pay for it.
>
> I went to the ER at the end of 2014 and I'm *still* paying for it. Ditto
> the bill for the subsequent colonoscopy, anesthsia, etc. Nothing about
> my medical care (other than that one antibiotic I got at the Publix
> pharmacy) is free.
>
> Jill

That is because you have assets, income, responsibility. Our local
hospital will send you a bill and if you pay $10 a month they accept it
but after a time (I think a year) they just write it off and send no
more bills. It is chartered as a "community hospital" and cannot refuse
anyone.