Brent P

In article <3FCDF446.9C67820E@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:

> my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
> how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
> government.

Some do, some don't.

Brent P

In article <3FCDF446.9C67820E@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:

> my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
> how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
> government.

Some do, some don't.

Brent P

In article <3FCDF446.9C67820E@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:

> my stomach. I don't know about Doctors, but I am pretty sure the hospitals know
> how to work the medicare system to extort as much money as possible from the
> government.

Some do, some don't.

C. E. White

Jerry McG wrote:

> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > > So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> genders
> > > can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> > It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
> > Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
> > of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
> > --- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
> > that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
> > commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
> > trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
> > and serves no useful purpose.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

Then pass a law that creates the same benefits for same --- unions, but don't
try to call it a marriage. It is not. Besides, I keep hearing that there is a
marriage penalty in the tax code.

Ed

C. E. White

Jerry McG wrote:

> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > > So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> genders
> > > can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> > It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
> > Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
> > of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
> > --- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
> > that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
> > commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
> > trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
> > and serves no useful purpose.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

Then pass a law that creates the same benefits for same --- unions, but don't
try to call it a marriage. It is not. Besides, I keep hearing that there is a
marriage penalty in the tax code.

Ed

C. E. White

Jerry McG wrote:

> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > > So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> genders
> > > can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> > It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
> > Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
> > of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
> > --- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
> > that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
> > commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
> > trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
> > and serves no useful purpose.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

Then pass a law that creates the same benefits for same --- unions, but don't
try to call it a marriage. It is not. Besides, I keep hearing that there is a
marriage penalty in the tax code.

Ed

Brent P

In article <fftrsvsu8cekch5j9bu9frqkvibo33igbt@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:

>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.

>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
> To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
> The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
> that for free, for example.") is right.
> In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
> cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
> hospital.

While I only quoted one line from Dr. Parker for the sake of bandwidth
and readability, I am responding to his greater arguements. By using
this example, he has put the spot light on an area where the
government system hurts the quality of care. He has greatly weakened
his overall arguement.

BTW, Hospitals typically don't provide dialysis as an on going treatment,
maybe as an emergency treatement or for a patient that is there for
something else, but the dialysis is the business of dialysis clinics.

Brent P

In article <fftrsvsu8cekch5j9bu9frqkvibo33igbt@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:

>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.

>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
> To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
> The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
> that for free, for example.") is right.
> In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
> cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
> hospital.

While I only quoted one line from Dr. Parker for the sake of bandwidth
and readability, I am responding to his greater arguements. By using
this example, he has put the spot light on an area where the
government system hurts the quality of care. He has greatly weakened
his overall arguement.

BTW, Hospitals typically don't provide dialysis as an on going treatment,
maybe as an emergency treatement or for a patient that is there for
something else, but the dialysis is the business of dialysis clinics.

Brent P

In article <fftrsvsu8cekch5j9bu9frqkvibo33igbt@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:

>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.

>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis. In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
> To be fair, Lloyd can get something right once in a while.
> The quoted line above ("Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do
> that for free, for example.") is right.
> In your response, you show that the government pays for it, in many
> cases. In such cases, the dialysis is not provided for free by the
> hospital.

While I only quoted one line from Dr. Parker for the sake of bandwidth
and readability, I am responding to his greater arguements. By using
this example, he has put the spot light on an area where the
government system hurts the quality of care. He has greatly weakened
his overall arguement.

BTW, Hospitals typically don't provide dialysis as an on going treatment,
maybe as an emergency treatement or for a patient that is there for
something else, but the dialysis is the business of dialysis clinics.

Brent P

In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.

>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.

>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?

>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>system cost less than the current private one?

> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead of
> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.

So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
in the USA.