For Wake

James_ wrote:
If U.S. Healthcare were considered a tax then it's a 20% tax. Then add on payroll, gas, etc. taxes and Americans pay about the same in taxes as socialist countries.
It might be that the wealthy in the US, like the top 1% or 5% pay less % tax than someone who makes $75,000.
And with you, for all I know you get a disability check or something. I've seen it before, those taking advantage of the system can be quite agressive.

Wake wrote:

James, until you stop blithering there's no need for any discussions. Are you laying in a hospital with drip feed pain killers?

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James, until you stop blithering there's no need for any discussions. Are you laying in a hospital with drip feed pain killers?

You mean that you don't know that healthcare is about 17.3% of the U.S. GDP ? That translates into about a 20.9% tax on the U.S. economy.
That is one difference between a capitalist and a socialist country. Is it paid for by a taxes or by people writing $1,000 checks to support the U.S. economy ?
And the U.S. cost for healthcare compared to other countries:
What outliers?

With development, health outcomes generally improve, but the U.S. is an anomaly. The U.S. and the U.K. are both high-income, highly developed countries. The U.K. spends less per person ($3,749) on health care than the U.S. ($9,237). Despite its high spending, the U.S. does not have the best health outcomes. [Life expectancy, for example, is 79.1 years in the U.S. and 80.9 years in the U.K. And while the U.S. spends more on health care than any country in the world, it ranks 12th in life expectancy among the 12 wealthiest industrialized countries, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization focusing on health issues.]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country-spends-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person

NPR is the National Public Radio so maybe this is just propoganda being put out by our own government.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James, until you stop blithering there's no need for any discussions. Are you laying in a hospital with drip feed pain killers?

You mean that you don't know that healthcare is about 17.3% of the U.S. GDP ? That translates into about a 20.9% tax on the U.S. economy.
That is one difference between a capitalist and a socialist country. Is it paid for by a taxes or by people writing $1,000 checks to support the U.S. economy ?
And the U.S. cost for healthcare compared to other countries:
What outliers?

With development, health outcomes generally improve, but the U.S. is an anomaly. The U.S. and the U.K. are both high-income, highly developed countries. The U.K. spends less per person ($3,749) on health care than the U.S. ($9,237). Despite its high spending, the U.S. does not have the best health outcomes. [Life expectancy, for example, is 79.1 years in the U.S. and 80.9 years in the U.K. And while the U.S. spends more on health care than any country in the world, it ranks 12th in life expectancy among the 12 wealthiest industrialized countries, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization focusing on health issues.]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country-spends-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person

NPR is the National Public Radio so maybe this is just propoganda being put out by our own government.

I've explained to you that about half of all surgeries of your type end up unsuccessful and something like 9% end up with the patient having persistent and sometimes crippling pain. On your socialist plan you have no recourse. You cannot force improvement on the medical establishment with lawsuits.

Hopefully you won't be the bad half but if you are you have NO reason to complain.

James_ wrote:
What I do like is that our National Debt exceeds our GDP. This means that our political leaders are financing our life style today at the expense of future generations. That's not a policy that we can maintain unless we want to become like Brazil.

GasGuzzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
What I do like is that our National Debt exceeds our GDP. This means that our political leaders are financing our life style today at the expense of future generations. That's not a policy that we can maintain unless we want to become like Brazil.

It seems like only 2 minutes ago you were hoisting up support for single payer health care. How do you think that adds ANY sustainability to the financial situation?

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
What I do like is that our National Debt exceeds our GDP. This means that our political leaders are financing our life style today at the expense of future generations. That's not a policy that we can maintain unless we want to become like Brazil.

It seems like only 2 minutes ago you were hoisting up support for single payer health care. How do you think that adds ANY sustainability to the financial situation?

Most of my medical bills over the last 8 years were unnecessary. And when you consider that the federal government started paying my rent because I can't work, just a lot of unnecessary expense to tax payers.
I'm also not promoting a single payer system but one that ensuures everyone and holds doctors, radiologists, surgeons and hospitals accountable.
The United Kingdom is capitalist and their healthcare costs about 1/3 of ours.

GasGuzzler wrote:

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
What I do like is that our National Debt exceeds our GDP. This means that our political leaders are financing our life style today at the expense of future generations. That's not a policy that we can maintain unless we want to become like Brazil.

It seems like only 2 minutes ago you were hoisting up support for single payer health care. How do you think that adds ANY sustainability to the financial situation?

Most of my medical bills over the last 8 years were unnecessary. And when you consider that the federal government started paying my rent because I can't work, just a lot of unnecessary expense to tax payers.
I'm also not promoting a single payer system but one that ensuures everyone and holds doctors, radiologists, surgeons and hospitals accountable.
The United Kingdom is capitalist and their healthcare costs about 1/3 of ours.

Haven't researched it so I am asking you....
How does the court system in UK compare to the US?
I have couple of friends that are doctors and good grief what they pay for malpractice insurance! I'm sure that is helping to drive up costs as well.

All I know is that the gov does nothing but make things more expensive and screws them up in the process. We should almost never look to the gov for solutions. We need to look at ourselves and the free market. That's what made the USA great, but now we're living on our grandparents good credit.

What kind of system do you propose that insures everyone?

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
What I do like is that our National Debt exceeds our GDP. This means that our political leaders are financing our life style today at the expense of future generations. That's not a policy that we can maintain unless we want to become like Brazil.

It seems like only 2 minutes ago you were hoisting up support for single payer health care. How do you think that adds ANY sustainability to the financial situation?

Most of my medical bills over the last 8 years were unnecessary. And when you consider that the federal government started paying my rent because I can't work, just a lot of unnecessary expense to tax payers.
I'm also not promoting a single payer system but one that ensuures everyone and holds doctors, radiologists, surgeons and hospitals accountable.
The United Kingdom is capitalist and their healthcare costs about 1/3 of ours.

Haven't researched it so I am asking you....
How does the court system in UK compare to the US?
I have couple of friends that are doctors and good grief what they pay for malpractice insurance! I'm sure that is helping to drive up costs as well.

All I know is that the gov does nothing but make things more expensive and screws them up in the process. We should almost never look to the gov for solutions. We need to look at ourselves and the free market. That's what made the USA great, but now we're living on our grandparents good credit.

What kind of system do you propose that insures everyone?

Before Obama Care they said that 90% of all Americans were insured. After 2000 the inflation rate of healthcare was about twice the inflation rate for the rest of the country. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/business/27insure.html
If the medical community could have lowered costs by 10% then what was paid for premiums before Obama took office would've insured everyone.
The medical community has no need to lower costs because they aren't competing against anyone. From what I have seen insurance companies basically accept rate increases. And when it comes to market place competition, it can hurt American companies.

Gasguzzler,
With my situation, if my original surgeon would've consulted with surgeons familiar with radiation damage, he could've done the surgery I just had or reopened my ileostomy. Then there would've been no problem.
And if doctors were willing to ask other doctors then they might find other doctors have dealt with things that they haven't.
Also with surgery, having a monitor that walks the surgeon through it. Surgeons can have literally 100's of patients so aids that makes it easier on them could improve healthcare. After all with so many patients to keep track of it's understandable that they sometimes will make mistakes.

Wake wrote:
Wait a minute - haven't you been complaining that you didn't have any surgery under commercial insurance? Now you're saying that your original doctor did an ileostomy? Or perhaps you don't understand what an ileostomy is?

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:
Wait a minute - haven't you been complaining that you didn't have any surgery under commercial insurance? Now you're saying that your original doctor did an ileostomy? Or perhaps you don't understand what an ileostomy is?

Wake,
Once again all you are trying to do is discredit me. This is one issue with posting online. Not necessarily you're trying to make me look bad but in getting the facts straight.
It is like with Gasguzzler I posted a link from 2006 that showed where some of the reasons why healthcare today is so expensive. It really had nothing to do with politics.
With you, what you posted is a lie. I did post that what can be shown is that with private insurance I could not get the surgery that I needed. And with Medicaid I did have the surgery.
And with an ileostomy anyone can look up the definition online.
Kind of proves nothing when the ileum (end of the small intestines) is separated from the cecum (the first section of the colon). Then a stoma is created which protrudes from the right side of the abdomen and empties into a bag.
With my ileostomy a blood vessel from the ileum was left attached to the cecum. This is because my ileostomy was going to be closed.
And yet what you said was that I should consider that it took hospitals 8 years to properly diagnose that I had radiation proctitis.
My surgeon has acknowledged that I needed surgery years ago but blamed me for the surgery not having been performed.
I have applied for SSDI and have talked to my caseworker. In 2016 when I originally applied for SSDI my surgeon did not mention that I had radiation proctitis. My caseworker worker is aware of this. Instead of resolving my situation my surgeon chose to lie.
It's crap like that that needs to be eliminated.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:
Wait a minute - haven't you been complaining that you didn't have any surgery under commercial insurance? Now you're saying that your original doctor did an ileostomy? Or perhaps you don't understand what an ileostomy is?

Wake,
Once again all you are trying to do is discredit me. This is one issue with posting online. Not necessarily you're trying to make me look bad but in getting the facts straight.
It is like with Gasguzzler I posted a link from 2006 that showed where some of the reasons why healthcare today is so expensive. It really had nothing to do with politics.
With you, what you posted is a lie. I did post that what can be shown is that with private insurance I could not get the surgery that I needed. And with Medicaid I did have the surgery.
And with an ileostomy anyone can look up the definition online.
Kind of proves nothing when the ileum (end of the small intestines) is separated from the cecum (the first section of the colon). Then a stoma is created which protrudes from the right side of the abdomen and empties into a bag.
With my ileostomy a blood vessel from the ileum was left attached to the cecum. This is because my ileostomy was going to be closed.
And yet what you said was that I should consider that it took hospitals 8 years to properly diagnose that I had radiation proctitis.
My surgeon has acknowledged that I needed surgery years ago but blamed me for the surgery not having been performed.
I have applied for SSDI and have talked to my caseworker. In 2016 when I originally applied for SSDI my surgeon did not mention that I had radiation proctitis. My caseworker worker is aware of this. Instead of resolving my situation my surgeon chose to lie.
It's crap like that that needs to be eliminated.

James, you spend a great deal in this thread not explaining what in hell your problem is. Then your explanations were incomplete and seemed inaccurate.

You are continuing crying that someone is trying to make you look bad like some sort of dysfunctional child. You did the same thing while being corrected about your perception of scientific principles. You would post totally fine for two or three days and then run off into outer space for another couple of days. That seems pretty much bi-polar you know. I suppose it could be connected to the medications you've been taking.

NO ONE is trying to make you look any worse that what you're doing to yourself. You did NOT say that you had an ileostomy until a couple of postings back. While it is hardly a subject for dinner table conversation it would have been helpful when discussing your lower bowel being reversed from its normal position.

When you have commercial insurance you have to kick them a lot to get them going. The fact that you like the idea that Medicaid doesn't require that doesn't make it better. It means that it is very difficult to sue them for errors in judgement. And as I said, 50% or so of these operations do not have proper outcomes.

Are you going to brag about how great Medicaid is if you turn out to be one of the 9% who end up with uncontrollable pain? This could show up months or even years after the operation.

I'm not trying to make you look bad or scare you. I'm saying that there are reasons why it works one way with commercial insurance and another with government welfare. YOU have to do all the work with commercial insurance. That includes getting new doctors if you do not like the actions of the one you have.

I went through a half dozen neurologists before ending up with the one that cured my condition. Even though he treats football concussion injuries he said that I was the worst he'd ever seen. So why couldn't other neurologists know how to treat it? Because there are horses for courses. Most neurologists treat aging diseases and not concussions.