Replying to a message of JIM WELLER to BILL SWISHER:

Quoting Bill Swisher to Jim Weller <=-

I visit a PPO the co-pay changes significantly

PPO? Why on earth would you visit a Parole and Probation
Officer with your health problems? (I checked out
www.acronymfinder.com later for alternatives and finally
figured out what you meant.)

Preferred Provider Organization - first cousin to the HMO (Health
Maintenance Organization).

That's another aspect of health care that is foreign to me.
I can choose any doctor who is allowed to practise
medicine.

Fee for service model. Way back when I was working for an Omaha
hospital they used that model - although they much preferred that employees seek help in-house. Since I'm retired USAF I used the AF hospital at Offutt AFB (Bush minor closed that hospital in 2004, I'm sure it wasn't the only military hospital that's been closed); when the hospital switched to the PPO model I dropped the coverage, because the military facility was not in their group of preferred providers (although it was by far the lowest-cost provider), I suppose because its use was restricted to active and retired military.

In 1995 I had a radical prostatectomy at the Offutt hospital, 7 days inpatient, serious surgery etc. etc.; the total bill for all of it was $3,500 (not to me, that's what the insuror was billed, since I'm retired enlisted I didn't even have
to pay for the meals). Around the same time I was admitted to the hospital I worked in for chest pains (which eventually turned out to be gastric reflux); 3 days inpatient, the hospital bill alone was over $3,000, and the ER physicians and cardiac specialists billed separately.

The only restraint is, if I'm sent out to see a
specialist it is always in Edmonton the closest
destination. If I wanted to go to Calgary or Vancouver, say
because I had relatives there for support, they would only
pay the airfare as far as Edmonton.

Cheers

YK Jim

... Doctors bury their mistakes; architect can only plant
ivy on theirs.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
-!- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
! Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com
(1:123/140)

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

JIM WELLER (1:123/140) wrote to THEODORE NIKODEM at 20:36 on 12 Jan 2010:

I'm getting a headache. It's all too complicated. In Canada the
employer remits 1.95% of his total payroll, I get a health card, I
show it, I don't get a bill. Period. I pay for my own drugs and
dental care until I'm 60 and then they get covered too. Nice and
simple.

Jim,

I read the American posts and I not only get a headache but get nausea to boot.
Like you, I have a health care card which has included pharmacare for some years now and my group health and dental plans covered 80% of my dental and drug costs before pharmacare clicked in.

I spent six weeks in hospital last summer recovering from a rare neurological disease; my treatment included spinal taps, cat scans, an EEG and MRI and flyouts for three neurological consults in Vancouver. All I paid was $4 and change for a prescription which pharmacare did not cover and up front charge for my last consult which I recovered.

Simple, sane, and no headache or nausea.

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven.horn@northwestel.net)
Moderator emeritus, ALASKA_CHAT
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: North_of_60, Whitehorse, Yukon (1:17/67)

Bob Ackley (1:300/3) wrote to Steven Horn at 06:13 on 18 Jan 2010:

Why? If you assume - usually correctly - that the media and the politicians are lying out their collective *sses whatever they say shouldn't bother you at all. In point of fact, people in this
country are not dying in the streets for lack of health care -
drive-by shootings, hypothermia, starvation, yes, but not for lack
of health care.

No one suggests that people in the United States are dying in the streets. But
do you have an email address? I am in a position to forward an article from The Economist but can't do it unless I have an email address for you.

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven.horn@northwestel.net)
Moderator emeritus, ALASKA_CHAT
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: North_of_60, Whitehorse, Yukon (1:17/67)

On 1/4/2010 11:15 AM, Roy Witt wrote:

A Medicare patient can go to any specialist recommended by his regular doctor. A PPO or HMO patient must use the insurance company's plan doctors and specialists.

While I agree with HMO, at least that's how it worked when I was with
Kaiser back in the 70's. My current health insurance only "penalizes"
us for not using a PPO.

As an aside for the medicare. In Anchorage the newspaper reported less
than 80 GP's willing to take "new" medicare patients, and most were
willing to grandfather their "old" patients in if they could. The
excuse was that medicare payments were inadequate for them to maintain
their practice, and as you know medicare providers aren't allowed to
directly bill patients to cover that deficit. Which is why we've
developed a patient relationship with some specialists, which almost exclusively exclude new medicare patients. At least I've not heard of
one that would. Here in Arizona it was reported last week that the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale was going to start refusing medicare patients.
That's the future of medical care in the US: If you have medical
insurance or cash you get service.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

On 1/4/2010 10:16 PM, JIM WELLER wrote:

Quoting Bill Swisher to Roy Witt<=-

BS> As an aside for the medicare. In Anchorage the newspaper reported
BS> less than 80 GP's willing to take "new" medicare patients

I misremember the numbers, I put a positive spin on them. I chased the article down and according to it:

"Only 13 of 75 primary care doctors surveyed in Anchorage are willing to accept new Medicare patients, according to a study by the Institute of
Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

And only five primary care doctors here who accept new Medicare patients
are in private practice. The rest work in publicly supported health care centers or limited service urgent-care clinics."

Here are the links to the newspaper article and the referenced study: www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/story/736149.html www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/researchsumm/UA_RS14.pdf

As a result of reading the article, when it was published back in March,
I spent a lot of time examining what my options were regarding Medicare.
As a result I've decided NOT to participate in most of Medicare. They
can't drop my coverage at age 65, I suspect a lot of private industry insurance packages do, to force me into a situation where Medicare is
the primary policy and they are the secondary. Part A is automatic and
at no cost. Part D is for prescription drugs and GEHA, my medical
insurance, says in their booklet that I'm just as well/better off
staying with them for prescriptions. Plus, because I robbed the cradle,
I'd be almost 75 before I could drop the GEHA because of Connie.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Replying to a message of Steven Horn to JIM WELLER:

I'm getting a headache. It's all too complicated. In Canada
the employer remits 1.95% of his total payroll, I get a
health card, I show it, I don't get a bill. Period. I pay
for my own drugs and dental care until I'm 60 and then
they get covered too. Nice and simple.

I read the American posts and I not only get a headache but
get nausea to boot.

Why? If you assume - usually correctly - that the media and the politicians are lying out their collective *sses whatever they say shouldn't bother you at all. In point of fact, people in this country are not dying in the streets for lack of health care - drive-by shootings, hypothermia, starvation, yes, but not for lack of health care.

The demand for health care is infinite and resources are limited. In the US, the limitation has historically been done by price and/or availability. In countries with socialized medicine it's done by bureaucratic fiat - which includes waiting lines, but it's done. In point of fact in the US, emergency care is not denied to anybody because they can't pay for it - the fact that
so many people are not paying for it in some areas has caused several hospitals to either close their emergency departments or close completely.

Like you, I have a health care card
which has included pharmacare for some years now and my
group health and dental plans covered 80% of my dental and
drug costs before pharmacare clicked in.

I had that promised to me, too. And by the US government. Free medical and dental care for life if I served at least 20 years active duty in the US military.
That free dental care went away in the 1970s and that free medical care went away in the 1990s (I retired in 1983). Y'see, providing all that free medical care - and for a very limited population - is expen$ive, and congress has decided
it simply isn't going to pay for it (note that active duty members now have to pay
for the medical care their dependents receive, that used to be free too). The same
is true for Medicare, which controls a much larger population; in December the government announced that it would reduce its reimbursement rates for Medicare patients (which is why providers have been - usually quietly - dropping out of
the
system, they can't recover their costs); note that hospitals *already* lose money on
Medicare patients and have been for years (but they'd lose more money if those beds
were empty) - and Medicare patients make up about 60% of a general hospital's inpatient population.

Another of the US government's dirty little secrets is that it has quietly been
closing
the military hospitals at active duty bases (and during a shooting war). The AF
hospital at Offutt AFB closed in 2004 and reopened as a walk-in clinic; anything
more serious than a hangnail is referred to a local civilian hospital (and note
that
Omaha's University of Nebraska Medical Center is nearly finished building a brand
new inpatient facility about one mile north of the former military hospital - specifically
to handle those military patients formerly seen at the base hospital).

And some people want to put these crooks in charge of the whole medical system.

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Hi Steven,

All I paid was $4 and
change for a prescription which pharmacare did not cover and up front charge for my last consult which I recovered.

Simple, sane, and no headache or nausea.

Wah.. I want it!

:)

And hope all is well now for you :)

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Replying to a message of Steven Horn to JIM WELLER:

I'm getting a headache. It's all too complicated. In Canada
the employer remits 1.95% of his total payroll, I get a
health card, I show it, I don't get a bill. Period. I pay
for my own drugs and dental care until I'm 60 and then
they get covered too. Nice and simple.

I read the American posts and I not only get a headache but
get nausea to boot.

Why? If you assume - usually correctly - that the media and the politicians
are lying out their collective *sses whatever they say shouldn't bother you at >all. In point of fact, people in this country are not dying in the streets fo >lack of health care - drive-by shootings, hypothermia, starvation, yes, but no
for lack of health care.

You obviously don't know how some people live in this country, Bob.. My daughter has no insurance for herself, her 3 sons or her husband. If something hits them beyond their 'day-to-day' expenses, they are SUNK. My son has Cobra coverage right now but that's only be we are paying for it.. (the company he worked for just had no work for him so they had to let him go). How long we'll be able to do that is unknown.. we're hoping even though Ron was just diagnosed
with a good one, that he'll be able to work (looks like he will now, but who knows).

Be real.. this country needs an overhaul.. Our own coverage is 80%.. but that meant for instance that I had to pay over $2000.00 for a week long hospital stay 2 years ago.. and that f'n hurt.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Roger Nelson (1:3828/7) wrote to Steven Horn at 08:04 on 23 Jan 2010:

Normally I try to avoid political discussions (that's what this is,
isn't it?), but my comment on the thread is that it's both a smoke
screen and NWO plot. [...]

Roger,

As President Obama does not appear to have given up on his attempt to reform the U. S. health care system, I thought I should add an additional comment.

to begin with, this is not a political discussion. It is instead a philosophical one. Canada made the decision several decades ago that every citizen was entitled to a reasonable standard of basic health care. The delivery of that health care was entrusted to a single pay system administered by the governments of ten provinces and three territories backstopped by the financial resources of our federal government according to standards set by the
government of Canada and the 13 governments who administer the plan. The coverage is mobile, portable and comprehensive.

What you appear to have in the United States suggests that health care is considered to be a service which must be purchased. There are exceptions, most
notably the care given to veterans, but normally each citizen is expected to get his or her care by paying for it or by getting some form of coverage through HMOs, Kaiser plans or other coverage agents.

In the result, U.S. coverage of its citizens is less comprehensive than Canadian coverage of its citizens and costs more to run (10.5% of GDP as opposed to 9.5% of GDP which our scheme costs.)

Canada made the decision that the U.S. scheme was unacceptable both because it lacked universality and was expensive to administer. We also found it undesirable that insurance companies benefitted financially from providing a service considered to be essential.

You don't have to like the Canadian scheme and we don't have to like yours -- every Canadian citzens who travels or visits the United States buys supplementary health insurance to pay for what our scheme would normally pay. But there is no point in discussing any scheme unless you understand its underlying philosophy.

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven.horn@northwestel.net)
Moderator emeritus, ALASKA_CHAT
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: North_of_60, Whitehorse, Yukon (1:17/67)

Replying to a message of bill swisher to Roy Witt:

On 1/4/2010 11:15 AM, Roy Witt wrote:

A Medicare patient can go to any specialist recommended by
his regular doctor. A PPO or HMO patient must use the
insurance company's plan doctors and specialists.

While I agree with HMO, at least that's how it worked when I
was with Kaiser back in the 70's. My current health
insurance only "penalizes" us for not using a PPO.

As an aside for the medicare. In Anchorage the newspaper
reported less than 80 GP's willing to take "new" medicare
patients, and most were willing to grandfather their "old"
patients in if they could.

Looks like Medicare's dirty little secret is finally getting out. Providers have quietly been dropping out of the Medicare system for years - more
rapidly and in greater numbers in recent months.

The excuse was that medicare
payments were inadequate for them to maintain their
practice, and as you know medicare providers aren't allowed
to directly bill patients to cover that deficit.

That's not an excuse, it's a reason. If the providers can't cover their costs they go bankrupt. Medicare doesn't cover the cost of treating elderly patients
-
and hasn't for years. If the providers go bankrupt then nobody gets care.

You want to get providers back into the Medicare system? Simply require that Medicare pay the bills, as presented, in full and within 30 days of presentation.
As it is now, Medicare disallows all the charges it thinks it can get away with,
writes itself humongous discounts the remaining charges, and hangs on to the money for at least 90 days. In fact, require that *all* insurors do that - pay
in
full within 30 days, no discounting. You'll see the overall - and individual -
cost
of care come down.

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of JIM WELLER to BILL SWISHER:

As an aside for the medicare. In Anchorage the newspaper
reported less than 80 GP's willing to take "new" medicare
patients

The excuse was that medicare payments were inadequate for
them to maintain their practice, and as you know medicare
providers aren't allowed to directly bill patients to
cover that deficit.

the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale was going to start refusing
medicare patients. That's the future of medical care in
the US: If you have medical insurance or cash you get
service.

I see that as a major flaw in your system. Universal health
care IS expensive and I know you guys hate taxes but it is
the humane and civilized route to take.

Then figure out how to get the American people to accept a fifty percent or more
hike in their income taxes.

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

On 1/6/2010 4:20 PM, Roy Witt wrote:

05 Jan 10 05:38, Bob Ackley wrote to bill swisher:

Apparently it isn't so bad.

Your message didn't arrive to me. Having said that, as I said to Jim:

"Only 13 of 75 primary care doctors surveyed in Anchorage are willing to accept new Medicare patients, according to a study by the Institute of
Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

And only five primary care doctors here who accept new Medicare patients
are in private practice. The rest work in publicly supported health care centers or limited service urgent-care clinics."

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/story/736149.html http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/researchsumm/UA_RS14.pdf

For a city of around 300,000 people, what do you want it to be before
you upgrade to "pretty bad"?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Roger Nelson (1:3828/7) wrote to Steven Horn at 08:04 on 23 Jan 2010:

Normally I try to avoid political discussions (that's what this is, SH>RN> isn't it?), but my comment on the thread is that it's both a smoke SH>RN> screen and NWO plot. [...]

Roger,

As President Obama does not appear to have given up on his attempt to reform the U. S. health care system, I thought I should add an additional comment.

to begin with, this is not a political discussion. It is instead a philosophical one. Canada made the decision several decades ago that
every citizen was entitled to a reasonable standard of basic health care. The delivery of that health care was entrusted to a single pay system administered by the governments of ten provinces and three territories backstopped by the financial resources of our federal government
according to standards set by the government of Canada and the 13 governments who administer the plan. The coverage is mobile, portable
and comprehensive.

What you appear to have in the United States suggests that health care is considered to be a service which must be purchased. There are
exceptions, most notably the care given to veterans, but normally each citizen is expected to get his or her care by paying for it or by getting some form of coverage through HMOs, Kaiser plans or other coverage
agents.

In the result, U.S. coverage of its citizens is less comprehensive than Canadian coverage of its citizens and costs more to run (10.5% of GDP as opposed to 9.5% of GDP which our scheme costs.)

Canada made the decision that the U.S. scheme was unacceptable both
because it lacked universality and was expensive to administer. We also found it undesirable that insurance companies benefitted financially from providing a service considered to be essential.

You don't have to like the Canadian scheme and we don't have to like
yours -- every Canadian citzens who travels or visits the United States buys supplementary health insurance to pay for what our scheme would normally pay. But there is no point in discussing any scheme unless you understand its underlying philosophy.

Thank you for that rather lengthy explanation, Steven. You're guilty of being verbose, which is a state I'm normally in while asleep. When awake, I'm terse.
The proposed health care "system", for lack of a better word since that document is over 1,000 pages in length, is way too political for me. I don't know offhand, but I don't remember our Constitution being that long. I'll have
to check.

Have you attempted to read one of its many incarnations? Last time I checked, there were 5 of them on the net and I think I managed to get one of the first ones, if I still have it.

I'm getting back into BASIC and Assembley language (again) and after a 25 year absense, everything appears new to me. The stuff I was cutting my teeth on was
written for the x86 processor. This is going to be a tough row to hoe.


Regards,

Roger

... I was walking on water, or was that *under* water?
--- D'Bridge 3.52
* Origin: NCS BBS (1:3828/7)

On 12/31/2009 3:07 PM, JIM WELLER wrote:

treatments (not necessarily by expensive medivac as most patients
are able to fly commercially. That cost is picked up by government
health care too.)

I'm a retired Fed. Which means I have that wonderful retirement package
that everyone points to, GEHA in my case. While it doesn't require that
I visit a PPO the co-pay changes significantly if I don't. Anchorage
has no cardiac doctors which are PPO, no dermatologists, no GI docs, no
ENTs, basically if they aren't a nurse practitioner or a GP we get
nailed because they're not a PPO. Connie asked them once point blank if
they would cover the airfare to Seattle, the nearest town in America
with a direct flight. Want to guess what the answer was? Right now
we're in discussions with them over flu shots. Last fall we got a
letter from them saying they'd cover the cost of a H1N1 shot. We drove
over to Walgreens and got the standard flu shot, paid our portion of the charges with the rest covered by GEHA. On November 27th the Walgreens
here in Lake Havasu indicated that "at risk" people were being given the
H1N1 injections. We went in and got our shots. When Walgreens tried to
run it through GEHA it failed. We paid the full amount. We applied for reimbursement and after a month I called. They were going to reject the
claim because "while the pharmacy is a PPO they are not a PPO medical facility". Connie looked closely at the GEHA site and noticed they'd
changed the 2010 benefits to exclude it. If they reject it again I'll
have to point out that the service was done in 2009 and why did they pay
for the standard shot. The saga continues over a $36.00 charge.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Replying to a message of bill swisher to JIM WELLER:

As a result of reading the article, when it was published
back in March, I spent a lot of time examining what my
options were regarding Medicare. As a result I've
decided NOT to participate in most of Medicare.

You don't have an awful lot of choice as to whether or not to participate. Medicare is not about providing health care to the elderly (those of us over age 64), it's about *controlling* the providing of health care to the elderly. Some years back Medicare wanted to jail a physician that it discovered was treating Medicare eligible patients and *not* billing either Medicare or the patients; the doctor had decided that dealing with Medicare was too much of
a hassle, so he kept treating his patients but didn't bill Medicare.

In any case, I turned 65 last month, and I was advised that in order to continue
receiving retired military medical care I was *required* to sign up for Medicare
parts A and B. If I didn't sign up my Tricare-for-Life coverage would cease at age 65 (never mind that way back when I enlisted in 1963 and continuing up until
I retired in 1983 the military was promising *FREE* medical care to anybody who stayed on active duty for 20 years or longer, that care hasn't been free for over a
decade now). Note that the Medicare premium is not quite five times higher than
what I've been paying to Tricare. I suspect other insurors work the same way.
So
far, I do not have to enrol in Part D, but I'm sure that's coming.

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

On 1/6/2010 3:24 AM, Bob Ackley wrote:

You don't have an awful lot of choice as to whether or not to participate.

Actually I don't believe I do have to join. Nothing in my health care insurance company, or the feds plan, require me to join. Spent quite a
bit of time reading brochures, calling OPM, GEHA, and a series of emails
to a friend of mine who happens to have been a personnel director at a
largish Forest Service office. The biggest problem will, most likely,
be the inability of the medical industry to realize it. :-)
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Replying to a message of Janis Kracht to Bob Ackley:

I read the American posts and I not only get a headache but
get nausea to boot.

Why? If you assume - usually correctly - that the media and
the politicians are lying out their collective *sses
whatever they say shouldn't bother you at all. In point of
fact, people in this country are not dying in the streets fo
lack of health care - drive-by shootings, hypothermia,
starvation, yes, but no for lack of health care.

You obviously don't know how some people live in this
country, Bob.. My daughter has no insurance for herself,
her 3 sons or her husband. If something hits them beyond
their 'day-to-day' expenses, they are SUNK.

Uh, yes I do Janis. My mother contracted polio in the 1948 epidemic
and spent three *years* in a hospital, six months of that in an iron
lung. Another couple of years in physical rehab (she never did recover
the use of her legs). My dad had major medical coverage (at the time
and up until about the 1970s most folks didn't have comprehensive health insurance, now folks expect insurance to pay for hangnails and sniffles)
but it still took them until 1960 to pay off the hospital and doctor bills.

My point was simply that people are *not* dying in the streets of this
country for want of health care.

Note also that air, water and food are all far more necessary for survival
than health care is. Air is free only because governments haven't figured
out a way to control its distribution and tax it. Water - at least potable water - isn't free, if you think it is try not paying your water bill; and
note in most areas the government is supplying the water, and they'll cut
it off in a New York second if you don't pay that bill.

My son has
Cobra coverage right now but that's only be we are paying
for it.. (the company he worked for just had no work for
him so they had to let him go). How long we'll be able to
do that is unknown.. we're hoping even though Ron was just
diagnosed with a good one, that he'll be able to work
(looks like he will now, but who knows).

I've been unemployed since Nevember of 2008. Of course, my situation is different because (a) I'm retired military and get a monthly check for that and (b) I'm old enough to get Socialist Security and Medicare (not by choice, BTW, but if I didn't sign up for Medicare Part B then Tricare would cut me off - and my health care should be free anyway because that's what the government was promising from long before I enlisted until after I retired, it was only after I
retired that they changed the rules).

Be real.. this country needs an overhaul.. Our own coverage
is 80%.. but that meant for instance that I had to pay over
$2000.00 for a week long hospital stay 2 years ago.. and
that f'n hurt.

No doubt it did. Health care is expensive. But if folks - and their
insurors don't pay those bills then the providers go bankrupt and shut
down. Then nobody gets any care, it's not available at any price.

The fact that the government can and will dictate what prices providers
may charge does not control the costs that provider incurs. If the costs exceed revenues for very long the provider goes away. That's why providers
are dropping out of Medicare, it no longer covers their costs of providing care;
note that Medicare announced last month that it was reducing the reimbursement rate it pays to providers.

Another little known factoid you might ponder: For at least two decades physicians have been advising their children to *not* go into the health care profession. You might also note the numbers of foreign-born physicians who
are practicing in this country (one of my recent primary care physicians is Vietnamese, one of my cardiologists is from India and the other cardiologist is from the Middle East, Syria, I think).

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of JIM WELLER to BOB ACKLEY:

Re-read your own words. How can you defend the current
system?

so many people are not
paying for it in some areas has caused several hospitals to
either close their emergency departments or close
completely.

closing the military hospitals at active duty bases (and
during a shooting war).

Easily. I've had to deal with government health care in this country.
In most cases it was adequate. In some cases it was maddeningly
slow (as in waiting hours in the former base hospital's emergency
room; now that the hospital's been closed the now 'Urgent Care Center'
walk-in clinic is usually deserted - and now you have to make an
appointment to be seen there). As I noted, the government is quietly
closing military hospitals because hospitals are expensive to run.

You - and a LOT of other people - are confusing the insurance system
in this country with the health care system. In point of fact there is
not a health care crisis in this country and there never has been, despite
all the caterwauling.

And you're also confusing the price of health care with the cost of health care. If the costs don't get covered the provider goes under, period.

Cheers

YK Jim

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
-!- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
! Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com
(1:123/140)

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of JIM WELLER to BOB ACKLEY:

The demand for health care is infinite and resources are
limited. In the US, the limitation has historically been
done by price and/or availability. In countries with
socialized medicine it's done by bureaucratic fiat - which
includes waiting lines

We may have waits but EVERYONE gets taken care of.

I had that promised to me, too. And by the US government.
Free medical and dental care for life if I served at least
20 years active duty in the US military. That free dental
care went away in the 1970s and that free medical care
went away in the 1990s (I retired in 1983).

We don't get broken promises; we get universal free health
care and we have for decades.

Y'see, providing all
that free medical care - and for a very limited population
- is expen$ive, and congress has decided it simply isn't
going to pay for it

the employer remits 1.95% of his total payroll, I get a
health card, I show it, I don't get a bill. Period.

Is that too much too pay? I think not.

Here Socialist Security (including Medicare) takes about 13% of one's
paycheck (6.5% from the person and 6.5% more from the employer, and
the employer's percentage doesn't show up on the employee's pay stub.
Of that 13% Medicare gets about 5% (I'm not sure).

The employer 'contributes' 1.95% of the total payroll. How much does
the Canadian taxpayer fork over?

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Red Tape is a byproduct of man's misunderstanding and inhumanity toward his fellow man.


Regards,

Roger

--- D'Bridge 3.43
* Origin: NCS BBS (1:3828/7)

Replying to a message of bill swisher to Bob Ackley:

On 1/6/2010 3:24 AM, Bob Ackley wrote:

You don't have an awful lot of choice as to whether or not to
participate.

Actually I don't believe I do have to join. Nothing in my
health care insurance company, or the feds plan, require
me to join. Spent quite a bit of time reading brochures,
calling OPM, GEHA, and a series of emails to a friend of
mine who happens to have been a personnel director at a
largish Forest Service office. The biggest problem will,
most likely, be the inability of the medical industry to
realize it. :-)

At one time it was - and it may still be - illegal for a provider to
care for a Medicare eligible patient without submitting a claim - or
at least notifying - Medicare of the fact. Whether the patient is
enrolled in Medicare or not doesn't seem to be a consideration.

As I've noted, Medicare is not about providing medical care for the
elderly, it's about *controlling* the providing of medical care for the elderly.

---
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Janis Kracht (1:261/38) wrote to Steven Horn at 15:55 on 19 Jan 2010:

All I paid was $4 and
change for a prescription which pharmacare did not cover and up
front charge
for my last consult which I recovered.

Simple, sane, and no headache or nausea.

Wah.. I want it!

But your congresscritters think it's a Commie plot. :-)

And hope all is well now for you :)

I'm waiting for my neurologist's final report but I think so. I trust all is well with Ron.

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven.horn@northwestel.net)
Moderator emeritus, ALASKA_CHAT
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: North_of_60, Whitehorse, Yukon (1:17/67)

Hi Steven,

All I paid was $4 and
change for a prescription which pharmacare did not cover and up
front charge
for my last consult which I recovered.

Simple, sane, and no headache or nausea.

Wah.. I want it!

But your congresscritters think it's a Commie plot. :-)

Don't I know it :) :) Both parties will never get together for anything around
here it seems.. Sure, Congress has a great plan already <g> They don't need anything more :)

And hope all is well now for you :)

I'm waiting for my neurologist's final report but I think so.

That's great. Good to hear.

I trust all is
well with Ron.

He's doing ok.. neuro visit won't be until Feb. 24th.. this area has a very bad
shortage of Dr's. so it's like that with about all of them unless you have already seen the particular doc.. :( From what I understand there are several meds they use for his problem.. some I've taken myself ..yeck.. prognosis seems
positive though, so we're figuring it won't be a big deal to us. We hope <grin>

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

[...]

Simple, sane, and no headache or nausea.

Wah.. I want it!

But your congresscritters think it's a Commie plot. :-)

Normally I try to avoid political discussions (that's what this is, isn't it?),
but my comment on the thread is that it's both a smoke screen and NWO plot. [...]


Regards,

Roger
... Shut up, or I'll nail your other foot to the floor

--- D'Bridge 3.47
* Origin: NCS BBS (1:3828/7)