[geeks] nVidia 8800GT for Apple Mac Pro

[Shannon Hendrix]

On May 22, 2008, at 17:28 , Mike Meredith wrote:

> On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:15:50 -0400, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>> No, it isn't, because that is not what it meant by rationed health
>> care.
>
> I think we'll have to disagree on the "rationing" issue.

I see both systems are requiring money, and supported by people and  
companies who make either salary or a profit.

The only real difference is how you pay.

I'm not convinced the socialized system saves anyone money, unless the  
corporations are forced by law to sell cheap.

Most of them seem clever enough to work that to their advantage,   
primarily by buying influence in the regulation of healthcare systems.

> Personally I
> think that that a monetised system would be "unrationed" if everyone
> had an unlimited ability to pay or had an insurance policy that had no
> limit on the cost of treatment. Last I heard the US wasn't like that.

Rationing as used historically has nothing to do with money.  It's an  
arbitrary limit placed on a resource without regard for ability to pay.

That's pretty much a dictionary definition.

> The problem with using "rationing" in association with socialised
> health care is that it gives the impression that one queues up in  
> front
> of a government office to get assigned a GP who dictates the form of
> treatment you get. If you need a hospital operation you get assigned  
> to
> a queue and have to wait ages until a slot is available.

In some countries, that is what happens.

Some Canadians complain about that, for example.

> As to waiting times, the only unsatisfactory experience in my family  
> is
> when my grandmother had to wait a few months for a cataract operation.
> And that was partially her "fault" for insisting on going to her local
> hospital which had a waiting list and not going to another which would
> have given her the operation within days.

Can't speak for your grandmother, but I certainly don't want my  
physician or hospital chosen for me, so I'd likely do that too.

>> That's pretty silly, given that it is impossible not to profit
>> unless medical personnel work for free.
>
> The word there is "salary" not "profit".

So the companies that make the supplies sell them at cost and no profit?

>> The US system was far cheaper before it started socializing.
>
> Well refusing expensive treatment to a large percentage of your
> population is a pretty dire way of keeping things cheap.

That's just the point though: the treatment was not expensive before.

The costs increased *after* insurance started expanding.

Insurance was originally designed to handle the expensive stuff, the  
emergencies.

As it started handling more the regulations, law, and other government  
interference started to rise, as did the cost of services, and rapidly  
so.

I'd like to reverse that, otherwise a socialized system here will only  
make it worse.

> Hmm. I phrased it poorly. The NHS will sometimes fund private health
> treatment where local waiting times are unacceptable, or possibly make
> reciprocal arrangements with other socialised health care systems.

You have to remember that in the USA, the liberals (democrats and  
neocons) are wanting to impose a totally socialized system and  
virtually eliminate private insurance and you will go through the  
government to get anything.

If your system allows a choice, that's better.

>> There are some US hospitals or individual wards that treat more non-
>> resident patients than US residents because of their proximity to
>> airports or the Canadian border.
>
> Same happens over here. The West Middlesex hospital (serves Heathrow)
> saved B#700,000 one year by insisting that "health tourists" (actually
> mostly people taken ill in transit) either pay up or just get
> stabilised and shipped back.

Not too far back, France and Germany were supposed to be on the verge  
of financial ruin because of socialized medicine.

I've not read much about it lately, so I wonder if they change the  
rules to curb the free ride, or are they still having trouble.

The study I read in Germany was the same basic thing you hear  
elsewhere: it was a great system when most of the population was  
working, but that's no longer true.



-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com