One time, my mom was covered. Once she got sick again, the insurance company sent her money back and said, umm, no we don't really want to cover you. Now, she has another company but she pays quite alot. These practices are well known, right?
He can have it tomorrow morning, or the day after tomorrow morning. Ian, it's better than no surgery at all. Why do you pretend that you don't understand this simple matter? Stop hating 45 million Americans.
Or the day after he's dead. You make it sound like a waiting period for heart surgery is no big deal.
So you tried to prove me wrong and found a link which showed I was EXACTLY RIGHT. The waiting period is 29 days for the UK. If your friend is waiting only 2 days that means somebody else is waiting 56 days. That doesn't seem to be a problem for you, though...unless you're the guy waiting 2 months.
No ********head, it demonstrates that the system needs to be examined in areas like London, and left the hell alone where I am. An average is not the same thing as a mean. How does it feel to be wrong, and all alone, and stupid? Card me if you like; I'm on my way to work on the thesis in any case; oh, and I'm getting my pulled/torn hamstring looked at tomorrow (today); playing some gridiron with the school, and can't cut on a dime like I used to...I called for an appointment on the 6th, a holiday, and got one...well, whadaya know...on the 7th. You have no IDEA what you are even talking about Ian. None. I don't believe you have much idea what you are even thinking about. Just because you have down-feathered cushions and silk sheets in your derangement doesn't mean we are all comfortable with delusion...it's just you. I live here; Scotland's no castle in the clouds like you've got, but it's health care need not be ********ed with at all, thank you very much indeed.
Uh, yes it is Mel. I suspect your rage is getting the better of you. mean: approximating the statistical norm or average or expected value [syn: average, mean] (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913))
Actually, Republicans enjoy a suffering underclass because it makes them feel superior. They need Fantasy Island and Night Gallery.
They're synonymous terms. http://www.harcourtschool.com/glossary/math_advantage/definitions/mean.html Mel just made a typo.
No, he didn't. HE LIED! It was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public and prove his point. I should write a book about him and call it "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" or something like that.
Mel probably meant median. Median is the "typical" number, in that half are above and half below. Here's an example. Let's say there are 300 million Americans, and a hypothetical American president cuts taxes on the 10 million richest Americans by 300 billion per year, and nothing for everyone else. The "average" tax cut is $1000, so you can say, wow, superdave, you have a wife and 2 kids, that means you're gonna get $4000 back!! Yes, that's the avearge, but I'm not among the 10 million, I'm among the 290 million, so I get squat. The median tax cut is zero. If you check out the MLS attendance threads, we go over this stuff alot. If MLS has alot of doubleheaders, it makes the average look good, but doesn't do much for the median. Another example. My sister graduated from UNC with a geography degree, 1989. About a dozen kids got that degree every year, at the time. (Probably still the same.) The thing is, that's what Michael Jordan got his degree in, so all of the stats about the average income of a geography major from UNC in the 5 years preceding 1990 were pretty whacky. You had 60 kids making, I dunno, $25,000 each, and then 1 guy making several million.
False. He would have been treated inmediately by national health care, which haves as good or even better specialists as private does. At least, in Spain, he would.
Universal Health care isn't always a good deal. I have relatives in Germany right now. My wife's grandmother is in a home with severe Alzheimers. Yup, they covered it, but... some "interesting" things also happened: - My wife's grandfather was not involved in any way in the treatment choices, home she was put in etc. In fact he did NOT want her put into a home, he wanted to take care of her at their home. He was NOT ALLOWED this option, even when the symptoms where mild. Universal system forced him to either pay it himself (for home care) or put her into a home they picked. - Each of their children (my in-laws are one of them) received STRONGLY worded "requests" for payment of the home. Now neither of them are German citizens and the letters acknolwedged this and came very close to demanding that they fork over several thousand dollars each since family didn't have the funds. - The drugs/care being used is NOT very good. Additionally no choice is given to my grandfather-in-law, nor is any communication given to him when decision are to be made. I have in the past gotten into "discussions" with my mother-in-law, she siding on the German way since she grew up with it, about how superior it is, how cheap/inexpensive it is etc etc etc. Now that she REALLY needs it, she thinks its horrible. Yes, its ancecdotal evidence, but its all I have to directly go on. Universal Health Care? No thanks.
NHref, when talking about health care, two related-but-different issues often get confused. One is the relative efficiency and "fairness" of our system vs. a gvt. system. The other is rationing. They're related because gvt.'s have more power to enforce rationing, but you can have rationing in our system, and you can have gvt. care without rationing. It sounds like that issue is partly one of rationing. The gvt. has made a decision about care for Alzheimer's patients, and if you want better care, you've got to pay for it. The fact remains that cumulative data shows that our system spends more and delivers less. There are always going to be difficult situations. The thing is, most people who contribute to this discussion, even in such a casual way as your post, aren't the kind of people whose problems are in the US way of rationing health care, namely, can you afford it.
You give us your name and address, and I'll send you a link to his company's website. And to be honest, he has no interest in adopting universal health care because he makes money consulting on employer-provided health care. There are two issues at play here. The first is whether or not the government should, as a matter of policy, provide some form of health care insurance to all uninsured Americans. The second is whether or not the US should be the insurer for every American. On the first point, the stats are clearly in favor of providing insurance for everyone because it would save us money -- and not just a little bit of money, billions. The second point is still up for debate.
Any system - like ours - where my insurance will cover surgeon's fees, but not the facility costs because they are "out of network", for removal of a painful infected cyst is seriously faulty. We can do better. (I currently owe the facility $1500. I was on the table for under 15 minutes, local anesthetic. It's under appeal to the insurance company. I already pay $300/month just to cover my wife.)
Hey, everybody, stop reading your own navel-gazing intellectually mastubatory posts on universal health care. Read what smart people are saying, instead. What a concept, eh? Read these conference proceedings, especially Uwe Reinhardt's piece. http://conferences.mc.duke.edu/2002dpsc.nsf/contentsnum/ca But then again, he's an economist, not a socialist, and is actually a nuanced thinker. Bottom line? --Prospective health care, driven by genetic knowledge --Figure out ways to reward productivity --Life cycle insurance coverage
Of course you can also hear lots of stories of how the system saved their lives. These are the people you don't know. Let's trust the statistics. Forget about the anecdotal evidence, whcih is unreliable. The statistical fact is 45 million people in this country can't see a doctor when they are sick. That's a big social problem.
How retarded is that whole thing seriously? CONCACAF is the same way; because the GenSec, and the folks he mainly likes to employ, are single, the insurance comes out of pocket to cover spouses, and then the coverage (Guardian, in this case) has so many loopholes and intentional redundancies, it's almost reduced to not really having much coverage, if any, at all. Example: My daughter will be two in November. Guardian, after putting us through a pre-approval for our midwife/doula and a home birth (cheaper for them overall, given their facilities charge claims!!!), and multiple checks through the preganancy, STILL HAS NOT PAID THE MIDWIFE FOR HER SERVICES, and is still giving her the runaround for her thousands of dollars. What a joke. Example 2: Aetna, our insurance company with GameWorks, STILL HAS NOT PAID a GP in Dallas for standard care vists we took in...wait for it... 1997. The whole thing needs to be scrapped, and reconsidered within the larger "reconsidering" of what it means to be a nation, to be "American." In the interim, 45 million are OUTRIGHT not covered, and untold millions are jokingly covered. In the greatest beacon of democratic freedom in the history of history? Quit living the dream, and get some bottom-line decent coverage for every American. What kind of so-called human doesn't demand that for themselves and for every citizen? Well, we know...they post here regularly.