In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is infinity. How is that better?
True, but there aren't generics for everything.
So the answer is, what, dozens of insurance companies, each with their own different sets of forms?
Sorry, it wasn't you that made the original statements, although I do welcome you to come up with a better metric. BTW: WHO, the UN, EU, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund all compare tax rates between countries as part of their regular work. You might want to clue them on your findings.
As I said, they have a history of distorting things, not mentioning things or redefining things to the benefit of whomever it is who is paying their bills (ie Corporations).
A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non- economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care. According to the report, "[M]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to
30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."And when the Republicans in Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug law, they protected their friends in the pharmaceutical industry by expressly forbidding negotiating for low drug costs. Thanks, fellows!
And the costs associated with having for-profit insurers looking for ways to deny claims.
And ithas been that way for at least the last 15 years I have been following it.
Actually your wait time is until you get really sick and then the law says the hospitals HAVE to treat you. Never said it was better. I am merely pointing out that if we accept the Canadian(or Brit or Japanese or any other model) we are merely changing one set of nasty things for another. And 80% of the population is still covered.
True, never said otherwise. Merely that much of the money saved by the price controls on name brands is spent on higher prices for the generics. In both cases, the percentage of the total health care expenditures that goes to pharmaceuticals is pretty much the same. So,
Far-far-right-wing think tank. Really out on the fringe.
Totally false. Most new drugs are simply repackaging or minor changes in ingredients to get that all-important patent and have exclusive rights for years.
Life expectancy is directly tied to that. Anyway, he cited a source for his claim; other than your dislike for the evil "socialism" (which you cannot define), what's your source?
tion patented medications do not fully
Frazier lies.
Insurance, by its very nature, is a subsidy. In a month in which you don't use your insurance, you subsidize those who do.
Try going out of network here.
So who would you say are the people to talk to on this matter? Or are you just naysing.
In article , Lloyd wrote:
There is another CBO study (as well as a couple in JAMA, one from Center for Medicare/Medicaid studies, and others) that suggest the impact from "defensive" medicine is much more than that. If you cut back the malpractice there would be other savings. However, I have yet to see one that convinces me that even with added costs, it would be a percent change over all. Although it might help.
Actually they only said that Medicare couldn't negotiate. The companies who actually run the programs can and have. Medicare's prescription drug program is structured so that insurance companies must compete for customers, which results in more choices and lets seniors search for the best value. In 2003, lawmakers estimated seniors would pay an average monthly premium for prescription drug coverage in 2009 of more than $44. According to government officials, their average monthly premium next year for the standard plan will be just $28. Compared to original projections, the cost to the taxpayers of the new drug benefit is $243.7 billion, or 39%, lower over 10 years than original estimates. Despite the fact that in the first year Part D was actual under budget and cheaper than forecast, it was still successful. A study by IMS Health and independent consulting firm that examines the impact of Medicare's prescription drug program on issues such as out-of-pocket spending, generic drug usage, access to therapy, and rates of compliance. Key findings: ? Previously uninsured seniors benefited the most from the program, decreasing their out-of-pocket costs by 60% and increasing their use of pharmaceuticals by 26%. ? Beneficiaries who switched from other third-party coverage to Medicare's prescription drug program decreased their out-of-pocket costs by 17% and increased their prescription use by 10%. ? After reaching the initial coverage limit, only 6% of beneficiaries entered the "donut hole," nearly half (45%) of whom did not enter until the last quarter of 2006. Under budget, cheaper and doing pretty much what it was supposed to do.
Of course even the government plans don't cover a lot of things. You have to be in a condition that meets the government definition of "medical necessity" before treatment will be paid for under Mcare or MCaid.
One reason cost is so high is the people that do not have insurance are still treated. Don't take my word for it, stop by your local ER on a Saturday night and watch the crowds.
And you have the balls to rip on the Frazier people for one sidedness,
Totally wrong. Long line of studies showing that "me too" drugs aren't. For instance if one SSRI antidepressant doesn't work, another one might. Same with heart and some other medications. If one of a class doesn't work, there are a number of drugs where another one might. The "minor" changes are often therapeutic changes.
Find a single place in this where I said anything at all about socialism. That is a lousy word with little meaning.
So there they are equivalent.
What are we talking about again? Wait times?
It is the deficiencies in our school system that encourages mediocrity in the guise of "fairness." The answer to that is always 'we need more money.' The most expensive school system in the US is Washington DC. The cost per student would send others to some colleges, yet it has the worst academic record. To hell with political correctness. Keep the kids back untill their parents realize THEY need to get involved or they reach sixteen. Educate those that want to be educated so they can move up in the world and to hell with those that do not want to be educated. Some of my great grand-children play soccer in a league that does not keep score, so as nto to offend those that lose. Ask any one of them who one and they will tell you who won. The world is full of competition and the kids know it but many forget that fact when they go out into the world it seems. Those are the ones our government sends a check to buy their vote and the rest of us pay the "price."
I'm having a hard time understanding how my parents could become completely literate during the depression and yet the city of Detroit has a functional illiteracy rate near 50% due to underfunding. Do they have less money to spend than schools did during the depression?
Mike Hunter wrote:
No argument with that.
That's all very well in principle, but how does a single parent (deserted by spouse) working two poorly paid jobs to keep roof over their heads and food on the table have time to become *adequately* involved in the children's education?
What about children who leave the house, ostensibly for school, but never show up? Or the kids that show up at school but walk the hallways instead of going to class? (Both situations shown in a recent documentary about an inner-city school in Baltimore, MD.)
What about schools that can't retain teachers for more than a few months, so that students have substitute after substitute, many of whom are not qualified to teach what they are assigned to teach and may not be good teachers at all?
What about a system where schools depend for their finances on property taxes that dwindle further and further as industry and commerce flee the area?
Perce
Funding and literacy are only loosely connected. The USA spends the highest per pupil, yet we are ranked #10 for literacy. It takes high standards and hard work by the three main components of education. The teacher, the parents, the students.
Too many parents warehouse their kids in day care centers rather that spend time checking on their education, helping at school, and too many teachers are more interested in their pension, not to mention that strict discipline is not allowed and the kids just want to take the easy way out to get by.
Reward the great teachers, dump the crappy ones, allow some discipline, demand A's and B's, not lower the passing grade five points.
That is because many of those new drugs and procedures can not pass muster with the FDA. They, in essence, are "tested" on socialist healthcare patients like those in Canada, before they can earn approval of the FDA. Still others never earn approval of the FDA.
The fact is over 70% of all the drugs developed around the world are developed IN the US, even those of foreign owned drug companies. Seven of the top ten hospitals in the world are in the US. That should tell you WHY we should not want a government healthcare system'
If you think YOU do you were never in the military and if you were, you were never in a VA hospital ;(
It appears to me you answered your own question. I was educated by my parent during the depression, we were not allowed to go to school in southern Georgia back then ;)
The same things other parents do, check their homework, look at their report cards and HELP you kids learn.
Hell my on grand son has a daughter who just turned three in September. She knows how and when to go to the bathroom, knows the colors, knows how to hold a pencil and can write more than half the letters in the alphabet, knows her right hand from the left and car ride a two wheel bicycle.
Two of my daughters are teachers, a first grade teacher friend told me she has kids that have been >
Sounds great but the teachers are not permitted to do that by the system ;)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.