ot health care

On Sep 18, 4:43*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 15:48:08 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

David LaCourse wrote:

If your health care is so great, Tim, and I have no recent experiences
to claim it is not, why do so many Canadians come to the US for
treatment. *Could it be John Hopkins, Sloan Kettery, Mass General, Mass
Childrens, Mayo, etc.?

Most care is done within the country. Some folks go to the US for
procedures that cannot be done here either due to equipment or
personelle shortages, or the procedure isn't available where they live.
Canada is a big place, with not many people. If people go to the US for
legimate treatments, the costs are still covered by the provincial
governments, not the patients themselves. They still get the care, they
don't bear the direct costs.

Uh, Tim, there is no such thing as a free lunch

Right! Well, not in Canuckistan.....um.....I s'pose. Murrica is a
great land. I had a free lunch here just yesterday!

Of course they pay, through taxes, fees, etc.

Unlike......uh.....hm.....o.k.,I confess, I'm a bit lost here. Just
who is and who is not paying through taxes, fees, surcharges, user
fees, levees, assessments, co-pays, insurance premiums, and whatnot
alls?

If Obama has his way, my health care costs will go through the roof.

Solution? Die. Win/win situation.

Without tort reform (sorry Carolina guys),

Jeff, Wayno, pay him no heed.....some people are just born
pottymouths.

the expense will always remain high.

One of those point of view thingies. Most people, in most situations,
consider consider "expense" to be high by definition.....unless it
belongs to someone else.

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?

Like when the doctors told your parents that you were born alive?

Do they?

I'd wager a large some (hey! how about that, huh.....dicklet?!!) that
suing for medical malpractice is a concept WAY beyond the intellectual
(let alone legal) capacity of the average Canuckistani.

Do the laws in Canada discourage such actions?

Actually, that is precisely what we were hoping you'd tell us. :
(

They certainly don't in this country.

Well, I hope I am not alone in asserting that you have irrevocably
convinced me that somebody or other doesn't somethin' or other in this
country. I pity the poor fools who think otherwise!

Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

Poor map reading skills?

Because they are reaching for hope,

Oh.

And does their reach exceed their grasp.....or ainna?

because that is all they have.

Goddamn shame. What they SHOULD have is a decent medical care system.

Hope.

Lange! What do I win?

They aren't cured in Mexico either.

True. Generally, they are cold-smoked.

g.
GOD! how i love learning!!

David LaCourse wrote:
I don't want your
swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?



hmmmm...now i think that was an idiotic, moronic, imbecilic statement...
but i don't think dave is a ****ing creep, a goat turd, or a piece of
****. g

jeff

On 2009-09-18 17:04:30 -0400, Bill Grey said:

In message 2009091807474016807-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
writes
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be
done NOW and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.



Pirates get the best - if they take off their eye patches first :-)

Shhhhhhhhh, Bill. Fortenberry doesn't like to hear about success
stories in the US, unless they are linked to Obama or some other commie.

d;o)

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? ...
snip
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 2009-09-18 18:19:56 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? ... snip
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

Certainly will, tyvm. You, however, are pretty sick from what I hear.
Hope you called it right.

And, your reaction is exactly as I thought it would be. You have
become too easy.

Davey

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.

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.

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?

Tom

"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2009091808295675249-dplacourse@aolcom...
Richard, without a doubt, you are a bigger asshole than Fortenberry.


ahhh, we're all assholes. I doubt the size difference between the two is all
that significant.
bsegTom

On 2009-09-18 18:11:11 -0400, jeff said:

David LaCourse wrote:
I don't want your swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?



hmmmm...now i think that was an idiotic, moronic, imbecilic
statement... but i don't think dave is a ****ing creep, a goat turd, or
a piece of ****. g

jeff

Well, thank you, counselor. The statement was made to incite and abet
Ken's ire. And it did. Far better than I thought it would.

I appologize to you and all other fair minded roffians.

Dave

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).
HOLY ****!! THAT IS AMAZING!! Um....why?

I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - USA or Cuba'?

Lazarus

michael moore's "sicko" made the point quite well... brilliantly
even...i thought.

while i have no problem with the rich having full and free access to
their cadillac health insurance and pricey docs... my friend louie seems
to ignore that, unlike him, millions of folks have no choices, can't
afford anything, or can't afford what's offered. they deserve decent
health care. decent is all i ask, not the super-duper best doc money can
buy.

decent health care is probably near the top two or three things a
populace should expect of our government.

but then...i also think kevorkian's services should have been covered in
a basic health plan with a $30 co-pay.

jeff

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? ... snip
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

Certainly will, tyvm. You, however, are pretty sick from what I hear.
Hope you called it right. ...

There is a guy at Mayo who is the best in this country. I saw him
early on at my expense because the Mayo Clinic is "out of network"
and my health insurance didn't cover it. He recommended a course of
treatment which has been the standard in Europe for the last five
years. I paid for that myself too because my insurance company
decided the treatment was "experimental". In other words I've got
gold-plated, topnotch health insurance that ain't worth a ****.
I've paid over a quarter of a million dollars for my own health care
since I contracted this disease in April of 2006 and allegedly I have
health insurance. A once rosy looking retirement is starting to look
like "you want fries with that ?" if I live that long.

If I had called it right I'd have gone straight to Italy in 2006.
All the nephrology cases in Italy are seen by the same small group
of nephrologists at the same hospital so they see more of this disease
in a year than most American specialists see in a career. And I'd have
saved a bundle.

--
Ken Fortenberry