Comments by sevendolphins
Page 1 of 30 | Next
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 23 at 12:59 p.m.
The stridency of the neighbors is just a political position. They are assuming that the more extreme their opening position, the more close to their desire will be the final compromise.
The important thing is that the i's are dotted and t's crossed in the DEIR and all the planning process. In principal this is a legal morass, with annexation, dual County and City jurisdiction, covenants, etc. Generally, the City of Santa Barbara gets what it wants (the Airport is an example) but they can mess up the process too (Veronica Springs).
Posted on November 22 at 1:50 p.m.
Uh... I think I have said how to pay... although I'm not necessarily a single payer proponent, although I might become one. Right now I just point out that other country's single payer plans are far superior to ours, which is run by venal and greedy CEO's who, like William W. McGuire formerly of United Healthcare, get paid $125 million/year for the wretched system we now have, which denies healthcare to rape victims.
Posted on November 21 at 3:07 p.m.
And those percentages prove what, exactly? The current U.S. guidelines are for a mammogram *every year* for women over 40. That only 87% of insured women are getting one mammogram *every five years* is an indication of the s***ty U.S. insurance, which does not follow U.S. guidelines.
Why do U.S. healthcare CEOs get paid $125 million/year for such a cruddy healthcare system, that doesn't even follow guidelines for frequency of mammograms?
However, Canadian mammogram guidelines ***HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT FOR QUITE SOME TIME***.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/164/4/469...
The data I find shows 70.4% of Canadian women got screened ***IN THE LAST 2 YEARS***:
Posted on November 20 at 8:52 a.m.
Interesting comment, six. Maybe. The weird thing is, powerful hospitals in the US, which service a zone of at most a few hundred square miles, are one major factor that drives up cost in the US.
The same hospital might charge $1,000 for an appendectomy to one (major) insurance company, and $13,000 per appendectomy to another smaller insurance company.
Seems like the larger the insurance company, the lower it can drive costs down at hospitals. But that is not the whole story either... paying for the emergency room walk ins is a hospital's problem, currently. Canada has basically the same population of illegals and uninsured that we do, though...
Posted on November 19 at 8:33 p.m.
@ jcrdan
jcrdan is sdelat kozyol for the mafiya of US healthcare.
Posted on November 19 at 11:22 a.m.
@jcrdan
For the 3rd time, don't pay healthcare CEO's $125 million a year, limit salaries to $200,000 a year, that will pay for a lot of it.
Claw back the $23.7 trillion that GW Bush and H Paulson gave to their buddies at AIG and Goldman Sachs.
And the US pays twice a much per capita as Canada does, with the same problems of immigration etc. In the US we get a sh***y product from the $125 million/year CEOs. Tie salary increases above $200,000 a year to actual improvements in the US health care yardsticks, not to venal and greedy behavior by CEOs.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 6:55 a.m.
Nice post, billclausen.
The Paulson/GWBush initiated bailout of AIG etc has cost taxpayers $23.7 trillion. Yes, that is trillion... another way to say this is $23,700 billion or $23,700,000 million.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...
But hey, the wall street guys need their $100 million bonuses paid by the taxpayers. How else can they afford private security for protection?
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 5:53 a.m.
Here's how the healthcare business works in CA:
Hospitals call the tune, not insurance companies. Can't easily get interstate competition when you need, say, and appendectomy suddenly, unless you happen to live in Four Corners.
So big hospitals charge one insurance company $1,000 per appendectomy. Another insurance company $13,000 per appendectomy. Competition between insurance companies usually doesn't help control costs.
So go ahead, DP, and have all the insurance company competition you want, across state lines. Won't drive down costs. Nor will national tort reform... at most a 20% effect, and more likely a 2% effect.
Control costs by no longer paying $125 million a year to insurance and hospital CEOs. Limit salaries to $200,000 a year.
Control costs by removing hospitals' neurotic funding... they must take care of anyone who walks in the emergency room, and charge $13,000 for an appendectomy to some people to pay for that care.
I already maintain a tax free medical account. Works great.
I'll assume you concede that the US simply does have much worse infant mortality rates than other advanced countries.
Page 1 of 30 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on November 23 at 1:11 p.m.
You've proven nothing either, jcrdan. Capitalism is nowhere mentioned in the constitution, either, nor are corporations. No one cares that you think you are a courtroom steps lawyer. And everyone notices that you omitted the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says the health care plans **REDUCE THE FUTURE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT**:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-w...
jcrdan... some time tell us how in blazes we pay for 2 wars in the mideast, huge foreign aid to Egypt and Israel, as well as a bloated defense procurement system. Vast cuts there would sure help in funding health care.
On Health Care Victory Bittersweet for Capps