Fishing - ot health care

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - ot health care (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=34666)

On Sep 18, 4:46*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 16:15:40 -0400, Giles said:

taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,

Taking bets on whether or not you're an asshole?

All those who think Wolfgoat is an asshole, raise your hand.

Wow. *Look at that sea of hands waving in the air.

****stain.

Moron.

g.

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 19:37:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

I had over $100,000 in surgery, health care, etc with my prostate
cancer. It didn't cost me anything except about $1000 in premiums. My
first wife had both of our children in military hospitals - not the best
of care, but it was at least free. My monthly medicine costs someone
several hundred dollars each month, but it costs me zip, nada, zilch.

Same for me, only I don't pay any premiums. You almost sound Canadian,
Dave! But, see Ken`s post earlier, that insurance wise, things didnt
work out so well for him.

Tim, most do NOT feel that way. Most do not want the Democrats running
it. Can you not see what a mess our government has made of Social
Security, the military, Amtrak, or anything else they touch with their
greedy little fingers? Government care might work in Canada with a
population of 33 million, but we have California with more than your
population. Throw in the entire country with a population almost ten
times that of Canada, and you have problems. Given that the UK, Canada,
France, and Germany do not have a combined population anywhere near what
we have, you have a problem. What works for you and the UK may not
work for us.

Exactly, so I dont understand why there is so much negaive press in the
US about the Canadian system, and why I continue to hear so many
negative comments from Americans about Canadian health care. .

And, does Canada and the UK have as much government corruption as we
have? Do you have lobbyists that make more money than our President?
Do you have ParliamentCritters that do not have to PAY taxes but WRITE
your taxes? WE DO. We have a third world government, full of
corruption on both sides of the aisle. Do you have all the money and
more that you made in the past 8 years? Have you ever had a Prime
Minister that did? We have. Turn over 1/6th of our economy to yet
another government agency to run and there will be insurmountable
problems, more bureaucracy than man has ever seen before, and all of
them will be Democrats so they can vote in more people like themselves.
Our government is already an animal in the process of eating itself.

So the problem is....you dont trust your government at all.That sucks.
Can`t say I love my elected officials, but the rank and file of the
civil service are pretty good. Oh yeah...I`m one of them.

Dave
You still haven't answer the question: Can you sue your health care
giver, your doctor, because he did what he thought was correct?

Sure we can sue. We have malpractice cases in Canada. I would presume,
but dont know for sure, that in almost malpractice cases the doctor did
what he thought was correct. If he did something he thought was
incorrect, I suspect it might become a criminal matter, but I am no lawyer.

here`s a link about malpractice cases in Canada:
http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth21_e.php

Tim Lysyk

On Sep 18, 8:48*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 19:37:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

David LaCourse wrote:

Uh, Tim, there is no such thing as a free lunch *Of course they pay,
through taxes, fees, etc. *If Obama has his way, my health care costs
will go through the roof. *Without tort reform (sorry Carolina guys),
the expense will always remain high. *Except for the obvious blunder
(removing the left leg when the right one was the intended one), can
Canadians sue for what they *think* was malpractice? *Do they? *Do the
laws in Canada discourage such actions? *They certainly don't in this
country.

I don't pay health care insurance premiums. I do pay taxes, and that's
what covers my health care. My taxes are not much higher, if at all,
than those in the US. *If I have to have an expensive procedure, it is
covered. *If I have surgery, I do not pay extra fees. If my wife has a
child, we do not pay extra fees. That's how it works for us. We think
governments should look after people's health care.It works well for
us, regardless of what you think and what propaganda you listen to.

I had over $100,000 in surgery, health care, etc with my prostate
cancer. *It didn't cost me anything except about $1000 in premiums. *My
first wife had both of our children in military hospitals - not the
best of care, but it was at least free. *My monthly medicine costs
someone several hundred dollars each month, but it costs me zip, nada,
zilch.

I really cannot understand the objection that many in the US seem to
have to making health care affordable for all its citizens.

'
Tim, most do NOT feel that way. *Most do not want the Democrats running
it. *Can you not see what a mess our government has made of Social
Security, the military, Amtrak, or anything else they touch with their
greedy little fingers? *Government care might work in *Canada with a
population of 33 million, but we have California with more than your
population. *Throw in the entire country with a population almost ten
times that of Canada, and you have problems. *Given that the UK,
Canada, France, and Germany do not have a combined population anywhere
near what we have, *you have a problem. *What works for you and the UK
may not work for us.

*And, does Canada and the UK have as much government corruption as we
have? *Do you have lobbyists that make more money than our President? *
Do you have ParliamentCritters that do not have to PAY taxes but WRITE
your taxes? *WE DO. *We have a third world government, full of
corruption on both sides of the aisle. *Do you have all the money and
more that you made in the past 8 years? *Have you ever had a Prime
Minister that did? *We have. *Turn over 1/6th of our economy to yet
another government agency to run and there will be insurmountable
problems, more bureaucracy than man has ever seen before, and all of
them will be Democrats so they can vote in more people like themselves.
*Our government is already an animal in the process of eating itself.

Dave
You still haven't answer the question: *Can you sue your health care
giver, your doctor, because he did what he thought was correct?-

Well, there it is boys and girls. Anyone care to discuss this matter
further? :)

g.

On 2009-09-18 21:38:29 -0400, "Fred" said:

On 18-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

Sure do. Ever heard of Fawn Lake in Montana? Ask Fortenberry about
it. He was there once.

Dave

We used to motor on our 17ft boat 15 or so miles up to where it hits the
Rapid and there was a great campsite right there
There was also a French woman who ran a hotel and rented cabins- in
Chesuncook Village pop 5

The Chesuncook is nowhere near the Rapid, Fred. You are thinking of
the West Branch of the Penobscott. Floated it last fall and took some
nice brook trout and landlocked salmon.

The Rapid flows into Umbagog Lake, as does the Magaloway. The output
of Umbagog is the Androscoggin River.

Ken- What about Fawn Lake??? - another inside joke?
Fred

Forty claims there is no Fawn Lake, that it is nothing but a weed bed
and totally unfishable. One of roff's more reliable sources of
information, Jeff Miller, hiked up to the lake and fished it. Took
pictures of it. (???) Trust Miller. d;o)

Dave

David LaCourse wrote:

Did I tell you I am very happy with my health care and I don't want your
swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?

So you don't want the government ****ing up your Medicare?

Sheesh.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:33:05 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:29:27 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:
Geez, dude - I had no idea your dad was such a mean ol' *******...

geez, I should have said, 'my entire adult life'. But, still, you dance
around the facts and, as Wolfie pointed out, the obvious method by which
insurance policies work.

Like I stated in a reply to jeff, I don't read most of Wolfie's stuff, so I
don't know what he said. IAC, since there are multiple types of "insurance
policies," there is no singular "method" by which they work that would seem
relevant to this discussion. Further, I'm not "dancing" around anything because
there is nothing to dance around - you haven't given any (substantive) yet. I
asked two simple questions: at what point to you feel your obligation to pay
for the healthcare of others ends and at what point to you feel others'
obligation to pay for yours ends? And while you were certainly free to answer
them or otherwise respond, I posed them to Lazarus.

OK - and to whom should the costs be passed on?

And I'm not disagreeing with the general concept that the "stronger" can
and
should help the "weaker" - or, if one prefers, the more able help the less
able
- I do take exception to the use of "fortunate" helping the
"less-fortunate"
because quite often "the fortunate" are so because of hard work and "the
less-fortunate" are so because of the lack of it. Which is one of my
points -
in this "social compact," do you feel any need to help, via your and your
family's hard work, those who simply won't work?

sorting out the extremely few who 'won't work' from those who cannot, or who
do work and cannot afford it would be a waste of time and money.

Why?

I know folks who have kept jobs that
they didn't particularly like (but could do without any negative effects
whatsoever) because of healthcare and retirement benefits.

as have I, and in most cases, it would seem to be a drag on overall
productivity, forcing folks to work in positions in which they are less than
ideal, to hold onto benefits. Can you at least concede that, in theory,
allowing folks to decide their careers based on interest and enthusiasm
might work better for a society than the current system?

No, I cannot and will not concede that. Further, "forcing" covers a lot of
ground - do I think putting a gun to someone's back and making them into slave
labor is OK? Of course not. OTOH, do I any sympathy for someone who quits a
decent job with good bennies they simply don't luv-L-O-V-E!!! and suffers
consequences for having made that choice? None - zero - nada - zip. And that's
my point about such folks - life isn't always "fair" - often, it's about
choices, and choices have consequences. And I don't think you, me, or anyone
else should have to bear the consequences, for those types of choices, for
others.

Now, if you simply want me to concede that in some mythical, completely
unrealistic place, filled with people who have mythical, completely unrealistic
traits (and few actual real-world human characteristics), allowing those
"people" to all pick and choose what they wish to do will make them all whistle
while they work, OK, sure - you're making this up, so I'll concede that you can
make it up however you wish. But while you're planning, I'd suggest that you
make damned sure that you match up desire with need absolutely perfectly - I
mean dead-nut, not even a blond ****hair off _PERFECT_ - or someone is gonna be,
um, less than ideally happy with the situation...

TC,
R

Tom

Tim, I just discovered something about health care in your country and
in the UK.

Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have
been incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times
that. Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with almost
all frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose, YOU pay.
If only those two systems could be implemented here in the States and
you would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT, it ain't
gonna happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much money to the
president and Congress.

Dave

David LaCourse wrote:
Tim, I just discovered something about health care in your country and
in the UK.

Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have been
incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times that.
Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with almost all
frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose, YOU pay. If
only those two systems could be implemented here in the States and you
would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT, it ain't gonna
happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much money to the
president and Congress.

Tort reform has been implemented in Texas and while it saves
doctors about $50 million a year in premiums it hasn't dropped
the health care costs of the consumer one friggin' whit, much
less drastically. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in
fact.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 19-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

he Chesuncook is nowhere near the Rapid, Fred. You are thinking of
the West Branch of the Penobscott. Floated it last fall and took some
nice brook trout and landlocked salmon.

You are right - Its been a long time
I read where the inn was sold and there is trouble in Chesuncook Village

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...03nemitz.shtml

The brook trout were beautiful and VERY tasty and the salmon were great also
and
I am leaving for Fawn Lake tomw

Fred

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:31:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

a collection of thoughts on the topic at hand:
First, it is truly comical the BS that passes for American views of other
nations healthcare in this debate. That is, it would be comical if it
weren't, at times, coming from elected officials sworn to be acting in the
public's interest.
Second, the US system is SO ****ed up as to be a truly daunting challenge to
rectify. A few key items:
1. We charge massive tuition for doctors to become educated in the field.
Other nations feel it to be in their national interest not to saddle
physicians with huge personal debts.

True, but "we" then allow "them" to "make up for it" by charging and making a
pretty penny. I realize not all doctors are "wealthy" and most don't start out
rolling in it, but damned few take chickens and farm products in trade nowadays,
too....most US doctors are pretty well-off (if they don't **** it away).

2. Our system of malpractice litigation leads to massive increases in costs
and further, to defensive medical practices that do little to benefit the
patient.

I've heard in this "debate," in/on the mass media, a neurosurgeon bemoan the
fact that malpractice insurance cost him 10% of his take-home income and he
expected it to increase to nearly 15%. He later stated that he felt that it was
ridiculous that he had to pay $200,000.00USD for malpractice insurance - I'll
allow the reader to do the math. Long story short, I know quite a few doctors,
and damned few of them are living in mobile home parks, driving old clunkers,
and eating free cheese on dry day-old bread.

3. Our insurance industry runs with huge overhead costs and generates
exceptional profits. Healthcare should never have been made a business in
the first place. As Jeff stated, basic, quality care should be a right of
everyone from birth, in this country.

Why? Now, I'd agree that "society" should help those who cannot help
themselves, within reason, but I do not agree that _everyone_ has the _right_ to
anything in this country, nor do I feel that those who can but won't help
themselves have a _right_ to health care.

4. We compensate providers on the basis of fee for service, rather than by
diagnosis and outcome. This nearly guarantees inflated services and
fraudulant billing. This applies to doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc.

and, those are just the high(or low) points. The problem, as I see it, is
that fixing the mess will require a VERY drastic overhaul, and I frankly do
not see any political will to change to the extent needed. Half-measures and
gradual measures will, as likely as not, actually make the problems of
undercoverage, price gouging and bad outcomes worse. Obama has it right when
he states that, left in the status quo, healthcare will bankrupt the Federal
and State budgets and impoverish many more citizens, as time goes on. Thus,
healthcare reform ought to be the nation's utmost domestic priority. To have
it sullied with the absolute nonsense, such as bogus claims of the
shortcomings of other nations, 'death panels', and the like is close to a
national disgrace. Folks like Louie cry that 'my taxes will go up!!', while
I sit here figuring mine probably wouldn't go up, under a single-payer
model, more than the $14,000-plus in premiums I am currently paying. Add in
out-of pocket debacles like Ken cites, and for many folks, such a system
would prove a godsend.
I despair that anything will come of the current debate other than a
half-baked compromise that the luddites can point to in 6 or 7 years and
say, "look! Healthcare reform is a failure". That saddens me.

....just one person's opinion. No, I haven't any personal experience will
the healthcare systems of other nations, but, I have spent the past 30 years
working in our healthcare system, and know something is very, very
wrong......
Tom

The real core issue is that "health care" has become VERY big business, yet many
want to treat it as primarily a social service (look no further than your and
jeff's feeling that "everyone has a right..." etc., etc.). Furthermore, damned
few are prepared to answer the questions I asked - "At what point do you feel
that obligations end?" Let's distill it down in an admittedly extreme example:

Suppose there are only 100 people in an imaginary little near-utopia. 3 are
doctors who are, magically, complete and total experts in every aspect of
medicine - they are the sum total of man's current medical knowledge. There is
a 5 room hospital with every possible medical device, lab, etc. - it represents
the sum total of man's medical "equipment." There is a single admin guy who can
do it all (you know, sort of a Wayne Knight type...) and 2 nurses who can handle
all those duties. The rest of the population consists of 85 people who work
hard and for the most part, meet all of our little society's needs, and they are
in a socio-economic hierarchy that roughly approximates that of the US -
occasionally a small number aren't needed, so they are temporarily unoccupied,
but they remain ready and willing to jump right back in and produce. There are
4 people who cannot produce anything (let's just say they are legitimately
unable, for whatever reason), but the bulk of the population wants to support
them reasonably but modestly. And then, there are 5 that just say, "**** it, I
don't want to work..." At first, the rest don't worry too much about it and
give them a little something - mere subsistence at best. But then, one of the
layabouts gets REALLY sick, and being a good little society, the producers
produce the extra it takes to fix them up. Then another gets sorta sick...and
the producers produce. And then, before you know it, the non-producers are
really taxing the system, and before you know it, one of the producers says,
"hey, ya know, I think I'll just say I don't want to work, too..." And then
another...

At what point do the producers get to say, "Hey, enough is enough..."?

Or, do you feel they don't have that right?

HTH,
R