Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <4g5Ab.431038$HS4.3399802@attbi_s01>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't have to be elite to get great healthcare in the US.
>>
>>> You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.
>>
>>The question should really be not one of wether canada is better or not,
>>or who can afford the insurance or not. But what is more affordable, the
>>insurance or the taxes that would be applied in a _US government_ run
>>system?
>>
>>Now the person who can afford decent insurance in the USA is woried that
>>he won't be able to afford the taxes for the same or lesser coverage from
>>the government.
>
> But again, since Canada and western Europe spend less per capita for health
> care, why wouldn't that be true here?

Look at the newest perscription drug bill, tell me how that's cost
effective. As a flaming liberal, Dr. Parker, you should know all the
reasons it isn't.

> If everybody's covered, more people get
> preventative care, for example, which is less expensive than waiting to treat
> a sick person. That would also translate into less lost work days for
> businesses. Less turnover of employees too, as benefits wouldn't vary so
> much.

And keep right except to pass, 85th percentile speed limits, and proper
yellow signal timing all lead to fewer collisions on the road, but yet
these things don't happen. ECE automotive lighting standards are vastly
superior to USDOT standards, but the US regulators just say 'look away
from the glare'. In europe roads are built for long life, in the USA
they are built by the lowest bidder and redone often. A pyramid scheme
called social security, existing medical care systems that are ripped off
left and right by fraud but can't provide care to those who really need it
because of buracratic red tape for those that follow the rules. Tell me,
why should I expect anything *DIFFERENT* from government in the USA
because it's a national health care for all?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Dan Gates wrote:

> Let's not kid ourselves. Would it were that the collective governments
> of the Excited States decided that wholesale health insurance is a good
> idea, the physicians, particularly the specialists, would not allow it.
>
> There is no way that they would be able to make the kind of money they
> do now under a government-run fee-for-service system.

Exactly, so any "government-run fee-for-service system" would have to
be created such that it is more profitable for big business in sum
total. Don't forget there are large corporations like Ford and GM
that would gladly offload the costs of their empolyees and retirees
health care onto the taxpayers.

That's why it is my conclusion that any system that would realistically
be put in by the US government would be inferior to what we have now.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The
Doctor
> >> >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into
the
> >> >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
> >long
> >> >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >> >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived
that
> >> >long? How could he have been sure?
> >>
> >> That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> >> that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> >> have been performed.
> >
> >And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> >procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6
months
> >for it in Canada.
>
> You are lying.

Brandon has just confirmed it with his reply to the same post, they do
indeed come here for treatment to avoid the wait in Canada. No one believes
a word you say Parker, so stop your lying.

>
>
> >Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> >receiving the free care you boast of.
>
> Because you're quoting an urban legend.

Nope, scientific fact. Your lies don't change that.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To
me,
> >that
> >> >is important.
> >>
> >> Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> >> mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
> >
> >Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck
through
> >taxes, I pay insurance.
>
> A huge % have no insurance.

They can receive free care here when they need it, even the homeless get
free hospital care when needed. Sure improvements need to be made, but
scapping the system for a new one is not the answer.

>
>
> >If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
> >options available that would still let me get treated immediately.
>
> Spoken like someone who's never been poor.

Been poor my whole life Lloyd, even now I'm barely scraping by week by week,
and I have more money now than ever before in my life. You drive a Mercedes
I here, I can't afford to, my newest vehicle is a 1991 I bought this summer
for $2500.00, a fortune to me. I still reject your "free" health care
because it reduces the quality and availability of care. As soon as The
Budget becomes the deciding factor in health care everyone loses.

>
>
> >The only
> >true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because
there
> >is not enough money in the budget.
>
> You would if there's not enough money in your pocket.

There is nothing in the US Constitution to guarantee me health care, if I
get in a position where I can not get needed health care it is my fault,
because even now free care is available for those who need it.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >>
> >> Then why are you running it down?
> >
> >Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to
see
> >it.
>
> Prove it. By all data, it's superior -- life expectancy, infant
mortality,
> etc. And it costs less.

The only way to cut cost is to cut service and quality Lloyd, even you know
that. There is no Data to support your opinion, any reduction in Life
expectancy is the result of the American lifestyle, working to much,
sleeping to little, eating wrong. It is as high as it is because our heaqlth
care system is the worlds finest, unlike you, who is the worlds worst lier
and fool.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which
would
> >> >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> >Canadians.
> >>
> >> It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> >> effectively no care at all.
> >
> >Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
>
> Total, flat-out LIE.

Yes, your statement is. Even the homeless, with zero money in their pockets,
can get treatment when they need it.




 


Dan Gates wrote:

> It is too late for the US of A to go down that road. There is too much
> big business involved now. When Canada went there and, I think, the UK
> went there, hospitals were run by churches and community groups, you
> know, for the good of the people. Doctors worked in exchange for a pig
> or a dozen eggs, or at least everyone remembered when that was the case,
> a government run and paid for system looked really good to everyone
> still does from where I sit), and I and everyone I know can afford to
> pay for it if I had to.

It is my opinion that very few US doctors are overpaid when the stress
and work hours are considered and when you deduct the money they must
spend on malpractice insurance. Much of the money we Americans spend on
health care disappears into the hands of insurance companies,
administrators, and trial lawyers. The point I think everyone is missing
is that we already have a national health care system. Unfortunately it
is just about the worst combination of private payments, private
insurance, workplace insurance, charity, and government programs that
could be concocted. I suspect that a properly structured national health
system could actually lead to an increase in the average doctor's net
salary. Of course any such system would have to include limits on
liability and controls to prevent abuses by people trying to take
advantage of the system. It doesn't even need to be directly run by the
government. In my opinion, the greatest single group who will oppose a
comprehensive national health system are trial lawyers. They are the
ones that stand to lose the most. And since many legislator come from a
background in law and/or insurance, I think it is highly unlikely we
will see a reasonable system anytime soon.

Ed
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dan Gates wrote:
>
>
>>Let's not kid ourselves. Would it were that the collective governments
>>of the Excited States decided that wholesale health insurance is a good
>>idea, the physicians, particularly the specialists, would not allow it.
>>
>>There is no way that they would be able to make the kind of money they
>>do now under a government-run fee-for-service system.
>
>
> Exactly, so any "government-run fee-for-service system" would have to
> be created such that it is more profitable for big business in sum
> total. Don't forget there are large corporations like Ford and GM
> that would gladly offload the costs of their empolyees and retirees
> health care onto the taxpayers.
>
> That's why it is my conclusion that any system that would realistically
> be put in by the US government would be inferior to what we have now.
>
>


But here, those big corporations still pay healthcare costs, both
through taxes and extended benefits packages. I work in a small firm
(10 people) and we have an extended health insurance package. We
contribute to that and receive some drug benefits (not part of "free"
health care), semi-private hospital rooms, dental benefits (not part of
"free" health care), etc. Also in that package is long-term disability
coverage.

 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Steve wrote:

> >>The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual.

> > Where are you getting this? I've noticed no such absence of individual
> > choice here in Canada. I picked my own General Practitioner based on
> > recommendations from friends and my own research. Picked my own dentist
> > the same way. When I got hit with a kidney stone, I picked the hospital to
> > go to (made a bad choice that day, the ER had a heavy load when I happened
> > to come in -- but it was MY choice). I picked the doctor to operate and
> > remove the kidney stone. Where is this alleged removal of CHOICE from the
> > individual in Canada you keep going on about from clear down in Texas?

Still waiting for an answer to this question.

> > You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.
>
> Yeah, they might have to give up their 50-inch plasma TV.

I'm being serious...why aren't you?

> The claim that health insurance is "out of reach" in the US is

....not a claim. It's a reality for a great many people.

> I'm referring mainly to proposed changes toward nationalizing US
> healthcare that would remove some of those options.

HillaryCare did a terrific job of scaring Americans off any changes
whatsoever to the current system. I have little doubt that was, in fact,
one of the primary main goals behind it.

DS

 
C. E. White wrote:
>
> Dan Gates wrote:
>
>
>>It is too late for the US of A to go down that road. There is too much
>>big business involved now. When Canada went there and, I think, the UK
>>went there, hospitals were run by churches and community groups, you
>>know, for the good of the people. Doctors worked in exchange for a pig
>>or a dozen eggs, or at least everyone remembered when that was the case,
>>a government run and paid for system looked really good to everyone
>>still does from where I sit), and I and everyone I know can afford to
>>pay for it if I had to.
>
>
> It is my opinion that very few US doctors are overpaid when the stress
> and work hours are considered and when you deduct the money they must
> spend on malpractice insurance. Much of the money we Americans spend on
> health care disappears into the hands of insurance companies,
> administrators, and trial lawyers. The point I think everyone is missing
> is that we already have a national health care system. Unfortunately it
> is just about the worst combination of private payments, private
> insurance, workplace insurance, charity, and government programs that
> could be concocted. I suspect that a properly structured national health
> system could actually lead to an increase in the average doctor's net
> salary. Of course any such system would have to include limits on
> liability and controls to prevent abuses by people trying to take
> advantage of the system. It doesn't even need to be directly run by the
> government. In my opinion, the greatest single group who will oppose a
> comprehensive national health system are trial lawyers. They are the
> ones that stand to lose the most. And since many legislator come from a
> background in law and/or insurance, I think it is highly unlikely we
> will see a reasonable system anytime soon.
>
> Ed


I didn't say they were over paid there. They may be underpaid here,
however.

Dan

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:36:20 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> >> that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> >> have been performed.
> >
> >And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
> >procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6
months
> >for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
> >receiving the free care you boast of.
>
> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
> than have it in six months for free.

Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
at their own expense.
I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
in his life. ;-)

>
> >> Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> >> mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.
> >
> >Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck
through
> >taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty
of
> >options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The
only
> >true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because
there
> >is not enough money in the budget.
>
> If the procedure is urgent, it gets done. Simple as that.
>
> >> >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
> >>
> >> Then why are you running it down?
> >
> >Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to
see
> >it.
>
> If you're wealthy it may be inferior, if you're not, it isn't. My
> step-father in Florida pays about $800/month in insurance costs!
>
> >> >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which
would
> >> >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
> >Canadians.
> >>
> >> It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> >> effectively no care at all.
> >
> >Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.
>
> Yeah, they're just presented a nice whopping bill at the end of it.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
> >unabaited.
> >> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
> >> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here.
You
> >get
> >> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery,
but
> >the
> >> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
> >list,
> >> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
> >> >treatment.
> >>
> >> It's not quite that simple. If you need a procedure, they evaluate
> >> how urgent it is. If it's extremely urgent you get bumped to the top
> >> of the list. If it's not so urgent, you get on the waiting list and
> >> get done after others who have been waiting longer are processed. If
> >> you don't want to wait and can afford it, you go to somewhere that you
> >> can pay for the procedure, which is down south. A great system if
> >> you're wealthy.
> >>
> >> I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
> >> get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
> >> anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
> >
> >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
long
> >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
>
> How long would he have waited here if he were poor or had no insurance?
He
> wouldn't have even had the routine physical, and you know it.

He is a truck driver, the physical is mandated by the government, who
doesn't care if you can afford it. Once he was diagnosed he had no choice
but to have the procedure, or his drivers licence would have been revoked.
Cost was irrelevant, as his future income was at stake if he lost his
licence. But you don't care, you just want to argue. There is most likely a
wall behind you, argue with it, it has a higher IQ than you do, and will
debate as long as you like.

>
> >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> >long? How could he have been sure?
> >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
that
> >is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy
great.
> >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
Canadians.
> >
> >


 

"Dan Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Funk wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:30:46 -0500, Dan Gates
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Lets compare, shall we?
> >> Can. US
> >>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
> >
> >
> > http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm
> > http://www.retirelink.com/education/LifeExpectancy.html
> > http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
> > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
> >
> > Google shows much more of the same.
> > Where did 66.9 come from?
> >
>
>
> I explained earlier that I was reading the incorrect Appendix, which
> appears to have a different base value.
>
> Sorry

Truth be known, I imagine we are all wrong, and the truth is still waiting
to be found.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
>news:p[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
> >lodged
> >> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
painful,
> >but
> >> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
> >manner.
> >> >
> >> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time,
otherwise
> >> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been to Canada?
> >
> >Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> >Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many
times.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Gee, anecdotal evidence is so, well, silly.

You're starting to bore me Parker, it is so tireing to argue with such a low
IQ as your's. Come back when you grow a brain.



 

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:45:48 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than
> >private
> >> >control, but then you knew that already.
> >>
> >> Poorer health care for the elite maybe, but as one of the huddled
> >> masses, I'm grateful that I don't have to worry about a decision
> >> between seeing the doctor and making my mortgage payments.
> >
> >I'm glad I don't have to wait six months for treatment of a condition
that
> >worsens with time.
>
> And if you weren't in a position to afford the treatment on your own?

As I've stated many times, there are options available, even the homeless
receive treatment when they need it. The ones who have it the hardest are
the middle income, who make to much for free treatment, but decide they need
a new car and a 4500 square foot home more than they need insurance. I can
but a good used truck for $2500.00 and get 6 to ten years of fairly trouble
free use out of it, and you know what? It does everything a new one would do
at a fraction of the cost. Anyone who says they can't afford treatment in
America is wrong.


 

"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I define abuse as posting off topic bull **** to a newsgroup that has a
> Charter.
>
> No netcop here, I haven't reported anyone to their abuse department yet.
>
> If you read your terms of service with your ISP, you will find that
> constantly posting off topic crap to a newsgroup with a charter is
> breaking your TOS agreement.
>
> That is abuse.
>
> Mike

I'll leave Mike, but not because of you. I don't want to offend anyone, but
I am getting tired of repeating myself as well. Merry Christmas.

>
> Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
> >
> > How do you define abuse? You yourself quoted an entire message to add
a line which
> > had nothing to do with what you quoted. When were you elected netcop?
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > Bill Putney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lloyd Parker wrote:


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating
> >health
> >> >>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
> >expense.
> >> >>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to
a
> >year
> >> >>>for treatment.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It
simply
> >does
> >> >>not happen.
> >> >>
> >> >>Read, for example,
> >> >>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html
> >> >
> >> >Um, Lloyd...
> >> >Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.
> >Now I
> >> know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal
if
> >not
> >> a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
> >
> >
> >They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke,
used
> >by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and
learn
> >the truth.
> >
> >
> Yeah, what else to expect of the mind-set that thinks Fox News is "fair
and
> balanced"?

I don't watch Fox news Loyd, why do you make up "facts" to support your
lies?


 
On 05 Dec 3 05:03 AM, Lloyd Parker posted the following:

> Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable
> lease deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off
> of the taxpayers.

Senator McCain is against the U.S. civil aviation industry in general,
for reasons known only to him. His sorry ass should have been left to
rot in the Hanoi Hilton.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
 
The Ancient One wrote:
>
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I define abuse as posting off topic bull **** to a newsgroup that has a
> > Charter.
> >
> > No netcop here, I haven't reported anyone to their abuse department yet.
> >
> > If you read your terms of service with your ISP, you will find that
> > constantly posting off topic crap to a newsgroup with a charter is
> > breaking your TOS agreement.
> >
> > That is abuse.
> >
> > Mike
>
> I'll leave Mike, but not because of you. I don't want to offend anyone, but
> I am getting tired of repeating myself as well. Merry Christmas.
>

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

These posts just go insane when Lloyd gets into them, it gets beyond
'entertaining' when he sets off dozens of folks and insists the whole
usenet needs to see how stupid he is.

Mike
 
Daniel J Stern wrote:


> HillaryCare did a terrific job of scaring Americans off any changes
> whatsoever to the current system. I have little doubt that was, in fact,
> one of the primary main goals behind it.

As deliciously evil and Hillary-esque as that idea is, I still don't
think it was the intent. I think Hillary was dead serious.


 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, [email protected]
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>>>>
>>>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>>>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>>>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>>>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>>>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>>>>rationing involved.
>>>
>>>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
>>>well.
>>
>>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>>the less-critical needs in a timely manner.
>
>
> For those with insurance or plenty of money.

Or anyone with a critical and immediate need.

> Of course, that's one reason
> health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
> to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
> procedure.

To an extent I agree. On the other hand, when you're sick, in pain, and
have a life and career to get back to, getting bounced across town in an
ambulance to wait in line for the MRI is a pretty rotten way to spend 6
hours.


> It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
> engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
> to military tank to NASA space shuttle.

Well, during the company's most successful years that's EXACTLY what
they did (stretching a little there, they built COMPONENTS of the Saturn
V and Saturn 1b, not a whole shuttle).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top