SkyDekker 1,465 #76 February 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. If that were true, the rich wouldn't be coming to the states for medical treatment. Seems facts may not entirely be agreeing with you: A forecast by Deloitte Consulting published in August 2008 projected that medical tourism originating in the US could jump by a factor of ten over the next decade. An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #77 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >The USPS loses money and your federal government extracts >money from me and the rest of the taxpayers to make it up. ============= Postal Service Turns a Profit in 2008 Tuesday February 12, 2008 Despite a downturn in mail volume, the perennially cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service managed to post a net profit of $672 million on gross revenue of $20.4 billion during the first quarter of 2008. The USPS' total revenue of $20.4 billion represented a 3.5 percent increase over the same period last year. Postal officials attributed the increase to last May's postage increase. Total mail volume during the quarter declined 3 percent; with First-Class Mail being particularly affected, declining by 3.9 percent. ============== >The point I was making is that as a business, the USPS sucks. It can >not sustain itself. Apparently it's doing about as well as any other business did in 2008. About time. And at the expense of how many trees and how much CO2 spewed into the air to produce, transport, and dispose of that dead tree waste called bulk mailing? Try this: Fascinating way you have of admitting that you were WRONG. Have you been taking lessons from mnealtx? You cited one year of results. Look at history. Even in the article you cite the author stresses that the Postal Service "managed" to post a net profit. Nice jab at mnealtx, though. That's really becoming - or at least revealing - of you. If you bothered to do just a tiny teeny bit of research you would find that the USPS has averaged over $1Billion/yr in profits over the past 10 years. 2008, the year Bill cited, was actually down because of the economy, 2008 was down because the USPS had to Pre-Pay $5 Billion in Retirement Benefits: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5870048&page=1 Here's your tiny teeny bit of research, which can be found at http://www.usps.com/financials/ar/welcome.htm and looks like this: Net Income (in millions) 2008 - (2,806) 2007 - (5,142) 2006 - 900 2005 - 1,445 2004 - 3,065 2003 - 3,868 2002 - (676) 2001 - (1,680) 2000 - (199) 1999 - (447) 1998 - (810) 1998 - (1360) Net total (3842) / 12 years = (320.1666) annually. That's a $3,201,666 average annual LOSS over the past 12 years (as far back as the USPS website reports) Double and a too. As I said, as a business model, the USPS sucks.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #78 February 18, 2009 Quote I seem to have a better "clue" than you, since I have experienced both. I'd rather have the system where I can get the care that I need, *WHEN* I need it, thanks. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/01/illusion-of-socialized-health-care.html http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/226 Those are opinions. The simple fact that they all use the words "socialized medicine" is a sign of their week base, and their avoidance of the real subject. If you would like facts there are plenty of research done on the health care quality in different countries. WHO is one very good source of statistic: http://www.who.int/en/ ... the statistics seems to suggest that publicly financed health care in industrialized countries is the way to go. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #79 February 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo people from around the world come to our state-of-art medical centers for second-rate treatment. That makes perfect sense. I have no doubt that the very best care available in the US is comparable to the very best care available in any country. However, if we only look at the quality of the best care the US has to offer, and the wealthy recipients of that care, we get no useful information about the average care that the average recipient receives, which is far more useful information. You're reaching. I've also been in hospitals and medical facilities in poor small towns and in the heart of urban areas. From what I've seen, the quality of care is pretty similar across the board, without respect to who's walking in the door. Sure the super-facilities have technologies that smaller one don't, but that's to be expected. It makes no sense to have some zillion dollar gizmo and world-class whateverologist at a facility that only treats a small population or in a tiny urban clinic. People who need more care than is available are simply and routinely referred to places that do. People come to our state-of-the-art medical centers because the quality of care sucks in their country, not ours.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #80 February 18, 2009 And americans often go overseas to get affordable, quality medical care. I know several skydivers who found it cheaper to go to Switzerland to get shoulder surgery, plane ticket and all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #81 February 18, 2009 QuoteAnd americans often go overseas to get affordable, quality medical care. I know several skydivers who found it cheaper to go to Switzerland to get shoulder surgery, plane ticket and all. The high cost of medical care in the U.S. is driven largely by our screwy third party payer system and the huge hole left in hospitals pocketbooks from treating people who can't or don't pay their tab. You know, the people the libs say can't get health care.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #82 February 18, 2009 Quote Quote If you bothered to do just a tiny teeny bit of research you would find that the USPS has averaged over $1Billion/yr in profits over the past 10 years. 2008, the year Bill cited, was actually down because of the economy, HEY.. STOP IT Just who the fuck do you think you are.. bringing facts to support blowing the shit out of another sacred right wing phallacy Nice try, but....http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3490356;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #83 February 18, 2009 >The high cost of medical care in the U.S. is driven largely by our screwy >third party payer system and the huge hole left in hospitals pocketbooks from >treating people who can't or don't pay their tab. Exactly. We already have socialized medicine; our system just sucks compared to, say, Switzerland's. Best learn from other people's mistakes, rather than make them all ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #84 February 19, 2009 QuoteYou're reaching. Not at all. Research simply indicates that US healthcare isn't that great compared to the rest of the developed world. Denying that our health care system is broken isn't going to help matters. QuotePeople come to our state-of-the-art medical centers because the quality of care sucks in their country, not ours. So, why is it that so many Americans go abroad for health care? Is it also because "the quality of care sucks in their country"?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #85 February 19, 2009 Quoteright wing phallacy [Beavis] Heh heh heh heh She said phallacy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #87 February 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou're reaching. Not at all. Research simply indicates that US healthcare isn't that great compared to the rest of the developed world. Denying that our health care system is broken isn't going to help matters. QuotePeople come to our state-of-the-art medical centers because the quality of care sucks in their country, not ours. So, why is it that so many Americans go abroad for health care? Is it also because "the quality of care sucks in their country"? If we are to have an intelligent conversation on the issue, you'll have to let me know what "so many Americans" are. Is that a million people a year going out of country, or 1,000?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #88 February 19, 2009 QuoteIf we are to have an intelligent conversation on the issue, you'll have to let me know what "so many Americans" are. Is that a million people a year going out of country, or 1,000? I lost count. Do you know the exact number of foreigners who have access to health care in their own countries that come to the US to receive care instead? Somehow I doubt it. The point is, using such examples to support your assertion is ludicrous, because the medical "tourism" goes both ways. If you want to try to support your claim, you'll have to use real evidence.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #89 February 19, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote The best medical care in the world is about to be as efficient as the f*cking post office. The US is far from having the "best medical care in the world." It's only the most expensive. If that were true, the rich wouldn't be coming to the states for medical treatment. A large number of "the rich" go to London for treatment You mean, like this guy? Or maybe you mean this guy. Or, this guy? Hmm....maybe not. No, I meant THE RICH, just like YOU wrote. Prove your cite. Quote If you want to discuss poor people, the UK and Canada do a far better job than we do. And you might want to read the links I provided, since they blow THAT argument out of the water.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #90 February 19, 2009 QuoteQuote I seem to have a better "clue" than you, since I have experienced both. I'd rather have the system where I can get the care that I need, *WHEN* I need it, thanks. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/01/illusion-of-socialized-health-care.html http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/226 Those are opinions. The simple fact that they all use the words "socialized medicine" is a sign of their week base, and their avoidance of the real subject. If you would like facts there are plenty of research done on the health care quality in different countries. WHO is one very good source of statistic: http://www.who.int/en/ ... the statistics seems to suggest that publicly financed health care in industrialized countries is the way to go. /Martin And the WHO study criterion WEREN'T biased? Gimme a break.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #91 February 19, 2009 Quote And the WHO study criterion WEREN'T biased? Gimme a break. Did you even click the link? I didn't link to a report. There is a database there. Check out the percentage of GDP that is used for Health care, the infant mortality rate or average life expectancy. Are you telling me that these numbers are fraudulent or not relevant? Examples: USA Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070 Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 6,347 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 15.2 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8 NORWAY (Chosen because of the high GDP - better comparison) Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 50,070 Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 4,331 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 9.1 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/83 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4 SPAIN (Chosen because to show that even less GDP works) Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 28,200 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 8.2 Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 2,242 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/84 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4 Can you seriously tell me that American health care is cost efficient? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #92 February 19, 2009 Quote Quote If we are to have an intelligent conversation on the issue, you'll have to let me know what "so many Americans" are. Is that a million people a year going out of country, or 1,000? I lost count. Do you know the exact number of foreigners who have access to health care in their own countries that come to the US to receive care instead? Somehow I doubt it. The point is, using such examples to support your assertion is ludicrous, because the medical "tourism" goes both ways. If you want to try to support your claim, you'll have to use real evidence. There is one major difference between people who come to the U.S. for treatment vs Americans that go elsewhere. Americans travel for treatment because procedures are cheaper abroad. People come to America for procedures because it's far superior than what they have available in their home countries. By the way, you didn't lose count. You never knew.Not that it matters.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #93 February 19, 2009 Who the hell goofed up the thread by posting text that makes the posts 4 screens wide?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #94 February 19, 2009 >Americans travel for treatment because procedures are cheaper abroad. > People come to America for procedures because it's far superior . . I can think of two well known skydivers who travel outside the US because the orthopedic surgery they can get there is far superior to what they can get here in the US. THey both have good health care plans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #95 February 19, 2009 Quote >Americans travel for treatment because procedures are cheaper abroad. > People come to America for procedures because it's far superior . . I can think of two well known skydivers who travel outside the US because the orthopedic surgery they can get there is far superior to what they can get here in the US. THey both have good health care plans. Of course you do.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #96 February 19, 2009 Quote Americans travel for treatment because procedures are cheaper abroad. Probably correct in many/most cases. That they may receive better treatment than they would get in the US is just an added bonus. Quote People come to America for procedures because it's far superior than what they have available in their home countries. That may also be true, at least for the ones who do not come from one of the 36 countries with superior health care compared to the US. Quote By the way, you didn't lose count. You never knew.Not that it matters. Exactly. They do not provide useful statistics w/r/t the discussion. Just like your examples are not offer useful statistics with respect to the discussion. Thanks for reiterating that point.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #97 March 2, 2009 Medicine is a business. Why do you think very little has been cured? Treatments a plenty, drugs for just about anything you can imagine. Yes we're living longer, but it sure as hell isn't naturally. But the longer they can keep us alive, the more money they can make doing it. As for doctor's being "bullied" into things: Stop treating them as patients, they became customers years ago. Give the customers what they need, not what they want. Drugs need to be supplements, not the solution. My father is a drug reps dream: He takes a pill for everything. Recently he was in the hospital and basically got detoxed. He was more lucid and clearer than he's been in years. The hospital sent him home on way less meds. He goes back to his PC, whines to him and is back on all that crap. Back to a half out of it babbler again. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
