XPost: talk.politics.misc, or.politics, seattle.politics 
 XPost: ca.politics 
 From: lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net 
  
 hlillywh@juno.com (Hal Lillywhite) wrote: 
  
 > Lobby Dosser  wrote in message 
 > news:... 
 >> hlillywh@juno.com (Hal Lillywhite) wrote: 
 >> 
 >> > Lobby Dosser  wrote in message 
 >> > news:... 
 >> > 
 >> > ... 
 >> > 
 >> >> > Of course the complete, tax funded system encourages overuse and 
 >> >> > long lines at the doc's office too. 
 >> > 
 >> > 
 >> >> The insurance funded option doesn't do this? Read what I said: We 
 >> >> Are Paying Right Now! We are paying higher insurance premiums and 
 >> >> we are paying higher medical costs. 
 >> > 
 >> > Not to the same extent, and especially not the plans that call for 
 >> > significant copayment or cover only catestrophic events.  If my 
 >> > insurance only pays 80% of the cost, that remaining 20% is a 
 >> > deterrent to my making frivolous visits to the doc. 
 >> 
 >> Your premiums are higher than they would be if you were not also 
 >> paying for those who do not have insurance! It doesn't matter if you 
 >> have 50% co-pay. If you pay everything yourself, you are paying more 
 >> than you would if indigents were covered by some type of insurance. 
 >> Why is this so hard for you to understand? 
 > 
 > OK, there is that aspect of it, law forces hospitals to take anyone at 
 > the ER.  And most non-HMO docs have some charity patients.  However I 
 > doubt that is as expensive as the Canadian system. 
  
 Glad you brought up Canada. Why do you suppose drugs manufactured in the 
 US and imported by Canada are cheaper there than they are here? Let's 
 assume that the US has ten times the population of Canada and that drugs 
 are used on the same per capita basis. Assume also that a manufacturer 
 wants to get $100.00 for a particular drug and there are ten Canadian 
 patients and 100 US patients. The Canadians will only pay $50.00 per 
 patient so the manufacturer is short $500.00. Where do you think they'll 
 find the $500.00? Wait for it! ... why they'll charge the US patients 
 $105.00 each - or more, depending on how many other Socialized Medicine 
 systems we're subsidizing! 
  
  
 You 'doubt that it is as expensive', yet you say the following: 
  
 > And if you have a 
 > non-HOM doc, you may not subsidize the deadbeats if he refuses to do 
 > so.  At least he will have the right to send away the patient with the 
 > minor cold.  In a socialized system that patient will eat up more of 
 > the doc's time. 
  
 And what do you think the patient will do? Why, they'll go straight to 
 the ER where it will be more expensive to treat them and you'll eat the 
 cost in insurance premiums, higher co-pay, or direct costs if you visit a 
 hospital. Does this sound sensible to you? 
  
 > And having a choice of insurance companies allows us 
 > to deal with those that do a better job of controlling costs. 
  
 Oh really? There are three hundred million patients to choose from. How 
 many insurance companies do you suppose there are? How many insurance 
 purchasers read the insurance company's annual reports? How many can 
 understand them? How many annual reports give the true costs? 
  
 > 
 >> >> You also might go look at what Kerry is proposing. It is NOT a 
 >> >> submit a bill to the government program. It is NOT government 
 >> >> employed health care workers. 
 >> > 
 >> > Who brought up Kerry's plan?  This thread is a discussion of 
 >> > accusations that the current US plan (and by implication, Bush) 
 >> > caused the current vaccine shortage. 
 >> 
 >> It diverged. Sometimes threads do that. Look at your own statement 
 >> re: encouraging overuse. 
 > 
 > Guilty as charged. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)