The Science Behind Torchships https://reactormag.com/the-science-behind-torchships/
And I think our American high school physics textbook used d.
begin fnord
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> writes:
And I think our American high school physics textbook used d.
I won't say _none_ of my texts (hi skul or collidge) used _d_, but if
they did I don't remember it. I know at least one of my profs in
collidge used _s_.
On 2026-04-23, James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
The Science Behind Torchships
https://reactormag.com/the-science-behind-torchships/
| I don?t know why S instead of say, D, or if I did know that once,
| I forgot.
I was going to say "Strecke", but that seems an unlikely place for a Germanism. Turns out it's from Latin "spatium".
And I think our American high school physics textbook used d.
The Science Behind Torchships
Like a functional health care system in the US, torchships would be
along any time soon.
https://reactormag.com/the-science-behind-torchships/
And I think our American high school physics textbook used d.
Physicists, like mathematicians, use i for the imaginary, but engineers use
j because i is already in use for current.
And in physics I never saw anything but V used for voltage, but I've
got (radio) engineering books that use E instead - for electromotive
force, perhaps.
On 2026-04-23, James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
The Science Behind Torchships https://reactormag.com/the-science-behind-torchships/
I don?t know why S instead of say, D, or if I did know that once,
I forgot.
I was going to say "Strecke", but that seems an unlikely place for a Germanism. Turns out it's from Latin "spatium".
And I think our American high school physics textbook used d.
The USA healthcare system is incredibly functional. The best in the
world, no argument there. All of the dictators come here for treatment.
Paying for the USA healthcare system is incredibly dysfunctional.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
Physicists, like mathematicians, use i for the imaginary, but engineers use >> j because i is already in use for current.
And in physics I never saw anything but V used for voltage, but I've got >(radio) engineering books that use E instead - for electromotive force, >perhaps.
The American health care system is ...
... the American health care system does ...
On 2026-04-26, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The American health care system is ...
... the American health care system does ...
There is no such thing as "the American health
care system". There are a lot of mentally ill
people acting in their best interests, and then
pretending the result is a system because the
truth requires their looking at the reality
of their egotic mental illness perpetually
guaranteeing "we" can't have nice things.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:treatment.
The USA healthcare system is incredibly functional. The best in the >>world, no argument there. All of the dictators come here for
people,
Paying for the USA healthcare system is incredibly dysfunctional.
There's a connection between the two, though.
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill
and it's very good at dealing with the very ill. That's why all thosecancerous,
very ill dictators come here... but they don't come here until they are
very ill.
The other side of the coin is that the American health care system does >little to prevent people from getting very ill. People are discouraged
from visiting doctors unless they are very very sick. A friend of mine
tried to wait out a stomachache until her appendix burst because she did
not want to pay the copay for the primary care physician's visit. I had
a skin bump that my primary care physician said might be cancerous... it >turned out it wasn't which was good because it took nearly a year for me
to get an appointment with a dermatologist. But if it HAD been
there is a huge cancer center nearby that specializes in stage-4cancers.
But I am in a town with a huge retiree community and a couple of nearby >cities. Friends out in the western part of the state don't have accessand
to hospitals are all; a friend I hang out with at Balticon is an hour
a half drive to the nearest hospital, and that hospital is about toclose.
The thing is... it's a lot less expensive to keep people from gettingvery
sick than it is to treat them when they are very sick. This is part of
how the whole "paying for care" and "care itself" things get so tightly
wound up with one another.
We have some of the best hospitals and some of the best doctors but yet
most people don't actually get routine care.
I was in Sweden a couple years ago and was talking to someone at a busstop
and he asked where I was from, and I told him, and he was astonished."But
you have all your teeth!" he said. That's how the rest of the world perceives
Americans, I fear.
The thing is... it's a lot less expensive to keep people from getting very sick than it is to treat them when they are very sick. This is part of
how the whole "paying for care" and "care itself" things get so tightly
wound up with one another.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The USA healthcare system is incredibly functional. The best in the >>world, no argument there. All of the dictators come here for treatment.
Paying for the USA healthcare system is incredibly dysfunctional.
There's a connection between the two, though.
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill people, and it's very good at dealing with the very ill. That's why all those
very ill dictators come here... but they don't come here until they are
very ill.
The other side of the coin is that the American health care system does little to prevent people from getting very ill. People are discouraged
from visiting doctors unless they are very very sick. A friend of mine
tried to wait out a stomachache until her appendix burst because she did
not want to pay the copay for the primary care physician's visit. I had
a skin bump that my primary care physician said might be cancerous... it turned out it wasn't which was good because it took nearly a year for me
to get an appointment with a dermatologist. But if it HAD been cancerous, there is a huge cancer center nearby that specializes in stage-4 cancers.
But I am in a town with a huge retiree community and a couple of nearby cities. Friends out in the western part of the state don't have access
to hospitals are all; a friend I hang out with at Balticon is an hour and
a half drive to the nearest hospital, and that hospital is about to close.
The thing is... it's a lot less expensive to keep people from getting very sick than it is to treat them when they are very sick. This is part of
how the whole "paying for care" and "care itself" things get so tightly
wound up with one another.
We have some of the best hospitals and some of the best doctors but yet
most people don't actually get routine care.
I was in Sweden a couple years ago and was talking to someone at a bus stop and he asked where I was from, and I told him, and he was astonished. "But you have all your teeth!" he said. That's how the rest of the world perceives
Americans, I fear.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:37:17 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
We have some of the best hospitals and some of the best doctors but yet >>most people don't actually get routine care.
Healthy people do not need "routine care". Note that this is an
ideological assertion, and need not be taken as a fact.
Doctors are like auto mechanics: when you need them, you need them.
When you don't, you don't take your car to them just to see if
anything needs fixing.
Healthy people do not need "routine care". Note that this is an
ideological assertion, and need not be taken as a fact.
Doctors are like auto mechanics: when you need them, you need them.
When you don't, you don't take your car to them just to see if
anything needs fixing.
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill
people, and it's very good at dealing with the very ill. That's why
all those very ill dictators come here...
"But simple preventive care is much less profitable!"
There is no such thing as "the American health care system".
This is the thing about (dum dum dum dum) anti-vaxxers: they forget
the basic rule of conspiracy theories, in that somebody has to
actually benefit from the conspiracy.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
This is the thing about (dum dum dum dum) anti-vaxxers: they forget
the basic rule of conspiracy theories, in that somebody has to
actually benefit from the conspiracy.
If it's not 36-bits you're not playing with a full DEC.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 09:17:16 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
"But simple preventive care is much less profitable!"
This is the thing about (dum dum dum dum) anti-vaxxers: they forget
the basic rule of conspiracy theories, in that somebody has to
actually benefit from the conspiracy.
Think of the main kinds of things big pharmaceutical corporations
produce:
* Cures for diseases
* Preventives of disease (e.g. vaccines)
* Treatments which don?t actually cure a condition, but which require
lifelong application
Would you care to rank them in order of profitability? Vaccines and
other preventives would come right at the bottom.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 13:30:25 -0000 (UTC), oldernow wrote:
There is no such thing as "the American health care system".
I joined Bluesky not long the time that guy shot and killed the health >insurance exec. The outpouring of sympathy for him, and the widespread >feeling that the health insurance boss only got what was coming to
him, was unbelievable.
As some of the posters related their horror stories of having to deal
with health insurance companies, the feelings became a little less >unbelievable.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:too.
Healthy people do not need "routine care". Note that this is an
ideological assertion, and need not be taken as a fact.
Doctors are like auto mechanics: when you need them, you need them.
When you don't, you don't take your car to them just to see if
anything needs fixing.
And that's just as bad for your car as for your body. My mechanic has
all kinds of horror stories about people who go for years without oil >changes.
It's time for new differential fluid and a valve adjustment on my car
On 2026-04-26, Paul S Person wrote:yet
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:37:17 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
We have some of the best hospitals and some of the best doctors but
most people don't actually get routine care.
Healthy people do not need "routine care". Note that this is an
ideological assertion, and need not be taken as a fact.
Doctors are like auto mechanics: when you need them, you need them.
When you don't, you don't take your car to them just to see if
anything needs fixing.
Not sure that's the metaphor you want to be using - in some parts of the >world it *is* mandatory for road vehicles to undergo regular checks, >precisely to make sure they are still fit to be on the roads.
And, from what I understand, any sufficiently serious transportation
industry will have regular checks too? Planes and trains tend to visit >maintenance facilities at scheduled intervals.
Unless your point is that the patient could see e.g. a nurse instead of
a medic?
On 4/26/2026 5:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:very
The thing is... it's a lot less expensive to keep people from getting
ofsick than it is to treat them when they are very sick. This is part
tightlyhow the whole "paying for care" and "care itself" things get so
wound up with one another."But simple preventive care is much less profitable!"
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 09:17:16 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:require
"But simple preventive care is much less profitable!"
This is the thing about (dum dum dum dum) anti-vaxxers: they forget
the basic rule of conspiracy theories, in that somebody has to
actually benefit from the conspiracy.
Think of the main kinds of things big pharmaceutical corporations
produce:
* Cures for diseases
* Preventives of disease (e.g. vaccines)
* Treatments which don?t actually cure a condition, but which
lifelong application
Would you care to rank them in order of profitability? Vaccines and
other preventives would come right at the bottom.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 18:02:53 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-26, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:37:17 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
We have some of the best hospitals and some of the best doctors but yet >>>> most people don't actually get routine care.
Healthy people do not need "routine care". Note that this is an
ideological assertion, and need not be taken as a fact.
Doctors are like auto mechanics: when you need them, you need them.
When you don't, you don't take your car to them just to see if
anything needs fixing.
Not sure that's the metaphor you want to be using - in some parts of the
world it *is* mandatory for road vehicles to undergo regular checks,
precisely to make sure they are still fit to be on the roads.
I think that actually applies up here, but the things to check are
specified.
And, from what I understand, any sufficiently serious transportation
industry will have regular checks too? Planes and trains tend to visit
maintenance facilities at scheduled intervals.
Facilities which, I expect, are controlled by people who do not stand
to gain directly from payment for the work done.
Unless your point is that the patient could see e.g. a nurse instead of
a medic?
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for
medical reasons).
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 01:04:01 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 13:30:25 -0000 (UTC), oldernow wrote:
There is no such thing as "the American health care system".
I joined Bluesky not long the time that guy shot and killed the health
insurance exec. The outpouring of sympathy for him, and the widespread
feeling that the health insurance boss only got what was coming to
him, was unbelievable.
As some of the posters related their horror stories of having to deal
with health insurance companies, the feelings became a little less
unbelievable.
I'm currently reading Robin Cook in one series (the other series is
James White). Cook has written several novels on the Evils of Managed
Care. Mostly involving Managed Care executives, or consultants they
have hired, who decide to kill off patients who promise to cost them
lots of money in the future.
OTOH, he also wrote one on the Evils of Concierge Medicine, and his
latest was about Traditional Doctors Starting Deadly Outbreaks to
bankrupt managed care organizations through bad publicity.
There is a /lot/ of hostility out there. But actually shooting the people-in-charge isn't something that most people would consider a
good idea.
On 2026-04-26, Scott Dorsey wrote:treatment.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The USA healthcare system is incredibly functional. The best in the >>>world, no argument there. All of the dictators come here for
people,
Paying for the USA healthcare system is incredibly dysfunctional.
There's a connection between the two, though.
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill
areand it's very good at dealing with the very ill. That's why all those
very ill dictators come here... but they don't come here until they
very ill.
I'd argue that the USA don't have a health care system. Maybe some
states have something in place, but at least the thing that tends to get >portrayed (and that some want to replicate in other countries) is
"health insurance", which is a somewhat different thing and, if
implemented badly, inflates prices needlessly just to make the
appearance of being necessary. And perhaps without the universality
that'd be expected in health care.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 18:02:53 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-26, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:37:17 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
And, from what I understand, any sufficiently serious transportation >>industry will have regular checks too? Planes and trains tend to visit >>maintenance facilities at scheduled intervals.
=46acilities which, I expect, are controlled by people who do not stand
to gain directly from payment for the work done.
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for
medical reasons).
On 2026-04-26, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The USA healthcare system is incredibly functional. The best in the
world, no argument there. All of the dictators come here for treatment. >>>
Paying for the USA healthcare system is incredibly dysfunctional.
There's a connection between the two, though.
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill people, >> and it's very good at dealing with the very ill. That's why all those
very ill dictators come here... but they don't come here until they are
very ill.
I'd argue that the USA don't have a health care system. Maybe some
states have something in place, but at least the thing that tends to get portrayed (and that some want to replicate in other countries) is
"health insurance", which is a somewhat different thing and, if
implemented badly, inflates prices needlessly just to make the
appearance of being necessary. And perhaps without the universality
that'd be expected in health care.
This aspect of it seems to be at least to some extent consensually
regarded as the mess it is, given what I've read about reactions to the actions of Luigi Mangione. It seems a lot of people have had loved ones suffer or die at the hands of the US health insurance industry.
On 4/26/2026 11:57 AM, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-26, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuireÿ <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The USA healthcare system is incredibly functional.ÿ The best in the
world, no argument there.ÿ All of the dictators come here for
treatment.
Paying for the USA healthcare system is incredibly dysfunctional.
There's a connection between the two, though.
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill
people,
and it's very good at dealing with the very ill.ÿ That's why all those
very ill dictators come here... but they don't come here until they are
very ill.
I'd argue that the USA don't have a health care system. Maybe some
states have something in place, but at least the thing that tends to get
portrayed (and that some want to replicate in other countries) is
"health insurance", which is a somewhat different thing and, if
implemented badly, inflates prices needlessly just to make the
appearance of being necessary. And perhaps without the universality
that'd be expected in health care.
This aspect of it seems to be at least to some extent consensually
regarded as the mess it is, given what I've read about reactions to the
actions of Luigi Mangione. It seems a lot of people have had loved ones
suffer or die at the hands of the US health insurance industry.
We are all going to die.ÿ No one leaves this place alive.ÿ I thought my hypochondriac father was going to live to 100 but he passed away last
year at 86.
My wife is a 21 year advanced breast cancer survivor, I had two heart attacks in 2009 and 2013, and our severely disabled daughter had several strokes in her teens in the 2000s until we started treating her problem.
ÿAll of us saved by modern medicine but still severely affected by the various treatments.
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would bankrupt the USA.ÿ And Medicare is not free, my wife and I pay about
$400 per month each for Part B and other supplemental insurances.ÿ But Medicare does not have a gatekeeper and I like it that way.
Lynn
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would bankrupt the USA.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
Lynn
In article <10sp26c$2qbam$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
But they are not dealing with the American Legal system and American patients. I know that people keep pointing at the health insurance
companies, but they don't have enough employees to absorb enormous
amounts of money.
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it
would bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for
half the cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
Lynn
And I never thought I would agree with you
about anything.
On 4/27/26 21:56, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <10sp26c$2qbam$5@dont-email.me>,
ÿ Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the >>> cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
But they are not dealing with the American Legal system and American
patients. I know that people keep pointing at the health insurance
companies, but they don't have enough employees to absorb enormous
amounts of money.
ÿÿÿÿOh they have enough money to give bit bonuses to executives
who are paid outrageously high salaries for deciding what treatments
will be given to partients.ÿÿ And they are reputed to have LLMs to
make logical decisions to maximize their profits.
On 2026-04-28, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Indeed. While some funding is needed, I get the impression a significant >chunk of the "cost" in the US is created by the health insurance
industry. Think of it as a very inefficient bureaucracy.
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
The critical difference is the US system is For
Profit. The "Socialist-style" system is _not_
For Profit.
As for "don't have enough employees to absorb
enormous amounts of money" I submit exhibit
Elon Musk as an example of the human capacity
to absorb effectively infinite amounts of money.
The US system is completely screwed up, with
significant dollars spent in the legal system
and political "contributions".
On 4/26/2026 11:57 AM, Nuno Silva wrote:[...]
On 2026-04-26, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuireÿ <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The USA healthcare system is incredibly functional.ÿ The best in the
world, no argument there.ÿ All of the dictators come here for
treatment.
Paying for the USA healthcare system is incredibly dysfunctional.
There's a connection between the two, though.
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill
people,
and it's very good at dealing with the very ill.ÿ That's why all those
very ill dictators come here... but they don't come here until they are
very ill.
I'd argue that the USA don't have a health care system. Maybe some
states have something in place, but at least the thing that tends to get
portrayed (and that some want to replicate in other countries) is
"health insurance", which is a somewhat different thing and, if
implemented badly, inflates prices needlessly just to make the
appearance of being necessary. And perhaps without the universality
that'd be expected in health care.
This aspect of it seems to be at least to some extent consensually
regarded as the mess it is, given what I've read about reactions to the
actions of Luigi Mangione. It seems a lot of people have had loved ones
suffer or die at the hands of the US health insurance industry.
We are all going to die.ÿ No one leaves this place alive.ÿ I thought my hypochondriac father was going to live to 100 but he passed away last
year at 86.
My wife is a 21 year advanced breast cancer survivor, I had two heart attacks in 2009 and 2013, and our severely disabled daughter had several strokes in her teens in the 2000s until we started treating her problem.
ÿAll of us saved by modern medicine but still severely affected by the various treatments.
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would bankrupt the USA.
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
On 4/27/2026 10:02 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 4/27/26 21:56, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <10sp26c$2qbam$5@dont-email.me>,
ÿ Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would >>>>> bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half
the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
But they are not dealing with the American Legal system and American
patients. I know that people keep pointing at the health insurance
companies, but they don't have enough employees to absorb enormous
amounts of money.
ÿÿÿÿÿOh they have enough money to give bit bonuses to executives
who are paid outrageously high salaries for deciding what treatments
will be given to partients.ÿÿ And they are reputed to have LLMs to
make logical decisions to maximize their profits.
The critical difference is the US system is For Profit.ÿ The "Socialist- style" system is _not_ For Profit.
As for "don't have enough employees to absorb enormous amounts of money"
I submit exhibit Elon Musk as an example of the human capacity to absorb effectively infinite amounts of money.
On 2026-04-28, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Indeed. While some funding is needed, I get the impression a significant chunk of the "cost" in the US is created by the health insurance
industry. Think of it as a very inefficient bureaucracy.
(Is it possible "half" is even a too high estimate?)
For some reason, DOGE missed a spot here (do note that I'm *not* saying
it was spot-on in any other area).
On 4/28/2026 5:24 AM, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-28, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the >>> cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Indeed. While some funding is needed, I get the impression a significant
chunk of the "cost" in the US is created by the health insurance
industry. Think of it as a very inefficient bureaucracy.
(Is it possible "half" is even a too high estimate?)
For some reason, DOGE missed a spot here (do note that I'm *not* saying
it was spot-on in any other area).
There are actual numbers out there, so you don't have to work on >'impressions'.
Picking one, I see that United Healthcare paid out 83% of its revenue
as medical reimbursements last year.
Whether that's too high, or low, is a matter of perspective. A
socialized system would probably have lower overhead (no stock
dividends, for a start), but 'half' is a wild exaggeration.
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for >>medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for which >annual screenings are beneficial.
On 4/27/26 21:40, Lynn McGuire wrote:would
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it
thebankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half
Why are you so sure of that? The fact is that most procedurescost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
Lynn
are cheaper done abroad. Most drugs are cheaper bought from
those nations but are just as good as the American versions.
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
On 4/28/2026 12:40 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the >>> cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
Yet, somehow, the US is 62nd in life expectancy
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
and 53rd in infant mortality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under- five_mortality_rates
The European countries with "socialist medicine" are much higher
up both lists than the US.
pt
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the >>> cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
In the past year I've had about twenty five medical appointments.
I've been to the ER five times in the past six months four times in the
past ten days (nothing dangerous this week, just painful).
I have five treatments lined up for the next two weeks, and already
have eight more appointments in the next couple of months thereafter.
Further surgery might be on the table for June (nothing dangerous).
I used to hate the ER, but yesterday when on an unrelated matter I
walked past the Ambulatory Treatment Centre I felt like going in - but
maybe that's the morphine talking.ÿ Or Stockholm syndrome, or something.
They offered to fix my hernia, but I said no as it doesn't hurt and is
not likely ever to do so.ÿ It's true that my career as a bathing suit
model is somewhat compromised, but I've had a good run.
If there's a limit, I have not found it.
William Hyde
On 2026-04-28, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
The critical difference is the US system is For
Profit. The "Socialist-style" system is _not_
For Profit.
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
*Everything* implemented by self-centered
be-ings is for their own profit, *especially*
if/when they declare it not to be!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
Oh my gosh, how I wish you could share your
drugs with me....
As for "don't have enough employees to absorb
enormous amounts of money" I submit exhibit
Elon Musk as an example of the human capacity
to absorb effectively infinite amounts of money.
All egos are like that, not to mention blind to
that fact by the very mechanism of self adoration
that makes all the other ego-centric human misery
possible.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for
medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for which
annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
The doctor, of course, had no problem returning to work at all. He was telling the truth about that.
You just have to keep in mind the realities of the situation.
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
My Canadian customers complain bitterly about Canadian healthcare.
Several of them have private health insurance that is good for
private healthcare in Canada and in the USA.
On 2026-04-28, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for
half the cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
A socialized system would probably have lower overhead (no stock
dividends, for a start), but 'half' is a wild exaggeration.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:27:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
My Canadian customers complain bitterly about Canadian healthcare.
Several of them have private health insurance that is good for
private healthcare in Canada and in the USA.
Interesting that their Canadian health insurance actually works,
compared to American health insurance ...
On 4/28/2026 4:55 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:27:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
My Canadian customers complain bitterly about Canadian healthcare.
Several of them have private health insurance that is good for
private healthcare in Canada and in the USA.
Interesting that their Canadian health insurance actually works,
compared to American health insurance ...
I got my cataracts replaced last year on Medicare.
Tell me again that USA health insurance does not work.
Lynn
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
On 4/27/26 21:40, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:Why are you so sure of that? The fact is that most procedures
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the >>> cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
are cheaper done abroad. Most drugs are cheaper bought from
those nations but are just as good as the American versions.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for
medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for which
annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:27:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
My Canadian customers complain bitterly about Canadian healthcare.
Several of them have private health insurance that is good for
private healthcare in Canada and in the USA.
Interesting that their Canadian health insurance actually works,
compared to American health insurance ...
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 4/27/26 21:40, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:Why are you so sure of that? The fact is that most procedures
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would >>>>> bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the >>>> cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
are cheaper done abroad. Most drugs are cheaper bought from
those nations but are just as good as the American versions.
Limiting medical treatments is always going to happen, though, because the resources are not unlimited. But personally I would much rather see a transparent system where I could understand how resources would be limited, over the American system where I get denied care for no obvious reason and then have to jump through elaborate hoops to even figure out why.
--scott
Tell me again that USA health insurance does not work.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:45:03 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Tell me again that USA health insurance does not work.
I heard some stories, as people expressed sympathy for that guy who
shot and killed the health insurance exec. Hard to believe anybody
could express sympathy for such a killer, but after hearing those
stories, maybe not so hard.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:27:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
My Canadian customers complain bitterly about Canadian healthcare.
Several of them have private health insurance that is good for
private healthcare in Canada and in the USA.
Interesting that their Canadian health insurance actually works,
compared to American health insurance ...
My Canadian friend says that in the US, you get whatever healthcare you
can pay for, while in Canada you get whatever healthcare you can wait for.
As I said earlier, the US system is optimized for people who are very
sick but does little to keep them from getting sick.
But it's true that many Canadians do come to the US for more elaborate
health care. At the border they can wave to all the US residents driving
to Canada to pick up their prescriptions. It's a hell of a weird world. --scott
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death??
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill
people, and it's very good at dealing with the very ill. That's why
all those very ill dictators come here...
On 4/28/2026 9:47 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:snip for brevity
The critical difference is the US system is For Profit.ÿ The
"Socialist- style" system is _not_ For Profit.
As for "don't have enough employees to absorb enormous amounts of
money" I submit exhibit Elon Musk as an example of the human capacity
to absorb effectively infinite amounts of money.
Last year United Healthcare paid out over 19 billion dollars in stock dividends, on 447 billion in revenue, or which 310 billion was paid out
in reimbursements.
pt
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half the >>> cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
In the past year I've had about twenty five medical appointments.
I've been to the ER five times in the past six months four times in the
past ten days (nothing dangerous this week, just painful).
I have five treatments lined up for the next two weeks, and already
have eight more appointments in the next couple of months thereafter.
Further surgery might be on the table for June (nothing dangerous).
I used to hate the ER, but yesterday when on an unrelated matter I
walked past the Ambulatory Treatment Centre I felt like going in - but
maybe that's the morphine talking.ÿ Or Stockholm syndrome, or something.
They offered to fix my hernia, but I said no as it doesn't hurt and is
not likely ever to do so.ÿ It's true that my career as a bathing suit
model is somewhat compromised, but I've had a good run.
If there's a limit, I have not found it.
William Hyde
On 4/28/2026 10:36 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:45:03 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Tell me again that USA health insurance does not work.
I heard some stories, as people expressed sympathy for that guy who
shot and killed the health insurance exec. Hard to believe anybody
could express sympathy for such a killer, but after hearing those
stories, maybe not so hard.
IIRC, United Healthcare rejects 43% of all preapprovals. The next
highest was around 20%.
On 4/28/2026 8:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death??
Immediate death, death within 30 days of delivery, death within 90
days of delivery, etc are handled differently by states and
countries for infant mortality.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:37:17 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very ill
people, and it's very good at dealing with the very ill. That's why
all those very ill dictators come here...
The American health care system is optimized to deal with very rich
people, and it's very good at dealing with the very rich. That's why all those very rich dictators go there...
(Only those dictators appointed by the US or those that gave the US a
major share from exploiting their helots.)
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:(for
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone
whichmedical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for
I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract >surgeries. (One for each eye.)annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from
surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
I am also lucky in that being white I had clear
advantages in dealing with physicians over many
people of color.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death??
On 4/28/2026 8:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA.ÿ Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death??
Immediate death, death within 30 days of delivery, death within 90 days
of delivery, etc are handled differently by states and countries for
infant mortality.
Some places also define death of a fetus after a certain number of weeks
as infant mortality.
You learn a lot of things when you lose a baby during what was a normal delivery.ÿ There is no such thing as a normal delivery.
On 2026-04-29, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
I am also lucky in that being white I had clear
advantages in dealing with physicians over many
people of color.
Making distinctions between people based on skin
color is racist/racism.
On 4/28/2026 12:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would >>>>> bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for half
the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
In the past year I've had about twenty five medical appointments.
I've been to the ER five times in the past six months four times in
the past ten days (nothing dangerous this week, just painful).
I have five treatments lined up for the next two weeks, and already
have eight more appointments in the next couple of months thereafter.
Further surgery might be on the table for June (nothing dangerous).
I used to hate the ER, but yesterday when on an unrelated matter I
walked past the Ambulatory Treatment Centre I felt like going in - but
maybe that's the morphine talking.ÿ Or Stockholm syndrome, or something.
They offered to fix my hernia, but I said no as it doesn't hurt and is
not likely ever to do so.ÿ It's true that my career as a bathing suit
model is somewhat compromised, but I've had a good run.
If there's a limit, I have not found it.
William Hyde
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 22:48:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/28/2026 10:36 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:45:03 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Tell me again that USA health insurance does not work.
I heard some stories, as people expressed sympathy for that guy who
shot and killed the health insurance exec. Hard to believe anybody
could express sympathy for such a killer, but after hearing those
stories, maybe not so hard.
IIRC, United Healthcare rejects 43% of all preapprovals. The next
highest was around 20%.
One story was about someone who got an approval for some procedure,
went ahead and did it, then got a call sometime later saying it had
been retrospectively declined.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/28/2026 12:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it would >>>>>> bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for
half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
In the past year I've had about twenty five medical appointments.
I've been to the ER five times in the past six months four times in
the past ten days (nothing dangerous this week, just painful).
I have five treatments lined up for the next two weeks, and already
have eight more appointments in the next couple of months thereafter.
Further surgery might be on the table for June (nothing dangerous).
I used to hate the ER, but yesterday when on an unrelated matter I
walked past the Ambulatory Treatment Centre I felt like going in -
but maybe that's the morphine talking.ÿ Or Stockholm syndrome, or
something.
They offered to fix my hernia, but I said no as it doesn't hurt and
is not likely ever to do so.ÿ It's true that my career as a bathing
suit model is somewhat compromised, but I've had a good run.
If there's a limit, I have not found it.
William Hyde
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
Because they're well off people who want to buy their way to the head of
the line at the expense of people who need treatment more urgently?
Why do Americans come here?ÿ They do, in numbers.
Remember that I lived in the US for ten years.ÿ While I have had some
good experiences with the US healthcare system (Duke university
hospital), I've had bad ones too (Texas).
Basically I got along fine in the US, because I always had health
insurance.ÿ But certainly not better than in Canada.
At one point in Texas I was feeling a little burned out, and I asked if
I could be assigned teaching (I sat in on some lectures and decided that
the students really needed someone with some teaching skill).ÿ I was
fine with the significantly lower pay this would involve.ÿ But it turned
out that the teaching position did not come with life insurance.ÿ I
would have had to pay $600 a month to get it, and on this lower salary
that just wasn't affordable.ÿ So I did not teach. That sort of dilemma should not exist.
Most humanities professors at A&M have only a nine month salary, and
that not terribly generous.ÿ In the other three months they have to pay COBRA.ÿ People with a family to support basically can't afford these jobs.
On 4/29/2026 12:00 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-29, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:Treating people differently based on skin color
I am also lucky in that being white I had clear
advantages in dealing with physicians over many
people of color.
Making distinctions between people based on skin
color is racist/racism.
is raceist.
Observing and reporting people being treated
differently based on skin color is not.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:29:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract
wrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for >>>>> medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for which >>>> annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from
surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
surgeries. (One for each eye.)
Well, good for you.
Being physically capable of getting there, or even surviving the day,
is not the point: the point is, I would not have performed my duties propertly.
There is more to a job than just showing up.
(Indeed, the first time I was required to do eye-drops for a month as
part of inducing the eye to stop quivering in fear after being cut
open unexpectedly. I did this before eating lunch. When I managed to
get the drop in, I could feel it down to my toes, and the first call
after lunch was often /very/ strange.)
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA.ÿ Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death??
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Once again, Lynn is burying his head in the sand.
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death??
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
On 4/29/2026 8:49 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Lurndal)
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:29:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
(forwrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone
whichmedical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for
fromannual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up
surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract
surgeries. (One for each eye.)
Well, good for you.
Being physically capable of getting there, or even surviving the day,
is not the point: the point is, I would not have performed my duties
propertly.
There is more to a job than just showing up.
(Indeed, the first time I was required to do eye-drops for a month as
part of inducing the eye to stop quivering in fear after being cut
open unexpectedly. I did this before eating lunch. When I managed to
get the drop in, I could feel it down to my toes, and the first call
after lunch was often /very/ strange.)
Sounds like you had something more complicated than a lasik lens >replacement. My sympathies.
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death???
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because, it
is my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition of
infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:50:29 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/29/2026 8:49 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:29:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>> wrote:I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for >>>>>>> medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for which >>>>>> annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from >>>>> surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
surgeries. (One for each eye.)
Well, good for you.
Being physically capable of getting there, or even surviving the day,
is not the point: the point is, I would not have performed my duties
propertly.
There is more to a job than just showing up.
(Indeed, the first time I was required to do eye-drops for a month as
part of inducing the eye to stop quivering in fear after being cut
open unexpectedly. I did this before eating lunch. When I managed to
get the drop in, I could feel it down to my toes, and the first call
after lunch was often /very/ strange.)
Sounds like you had something more complicated than a lasik lens
replacement. My sympathies.
Actually, it worked just fine.
But no mention of "lasik". Both cataract surgeries were, AFAIK,
non-laser.
This was in the late 90's, BTW. Times have, no doubt, changed.
The second one didn't require eyedrops after the first week. It is the
first one that kept one of the two going for a month.
Different doctors, different details (the second had a folding lens,
which presumably meant the incision was smaller; the first did not).
I still have the cards for the inserted lenses in my wallet, in case
they are ever needed. What they would be needed /for/ I have no idea.
IIRC, each has a serial number on it and other information.
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract surgeries.ÿ (One for each eye.)
wrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone (for
medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for which >>> annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from
surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
On 4/30/2026 11:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:50:29 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/29/2026 8:49 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:29:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>> wrote:I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone >>>>>>>> (for
medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine,
for which
annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor >>>>>> said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work >>>>>> would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would >>>>>> /you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from >>>>>> surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
surgeries.ÿ (One for each eye.)
Well, good for you.
Being physically capable of getting there, or even surviving the day,
is not the point: the point is, I would not have performed my duties
propertly.
There is more to a job than just showing up.
(Indeed, the first time I was required to do eye-drops for a month as
part of inducing the eye to stop quivering in fear after being cut
open unexpectedly. I did this before eating lunch. When I managed to
get the drop in, I could feel it down to my toes, and the first call
after lunch was often /very/ strange.)
Sounds like you had something more complicated than a lasik lens
replacement.ÿ My sympathies.
Actually, it worked just fine.
But no mention of "lasik". Both cataract surgeries were, AFAIK,
non-laser.
This was in the late 90's, BTW. Times have, no doubt, changed.
The second one didn't require eyedrops after the first week. It is the
first one that kept one of the two going for a month.
Different doctors, different details (the second had a folding lens,
which presumably meant the incision was smaller; the first did not).
I still have the cards for the inserted lenses in my wallet, in case
they are ever needed. What they would be needed /for/ I have no idea.
IIRC, each has a serial number on it and other information.
My wife just got cataract surgery in the last month. She was in some
pain, but within a couple days she saw real change in the quality of
her vision, both in sharpness and in color.
I'm probably going to need it myself in the next few years.
pt
On 4/30/2026 1:16 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 4/30/2026 11:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:50:29 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/29/2026 8:49 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:29:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (ScottI was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract >>>>>> surgeries.ÿ (One for each eye.)
Lurndal)
wrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see
anyone (for
medical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, >>>>>>>> for which
annual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor >>>>>>> said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work >>>>>>> would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would >>>>>>> /you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up >>>>>>> from
surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
Well, good for you.
Being physically capable of getting there, or even surviving the day, >>>>> is not the point: the point is, I would not have performed my duties >>>>> propertly.
There is more to a job than just showing up.
(Indeed, the first time I was required to do eye-drops for a month as >>>>> part of inducing the eye to stop quivering in fear after being cut
open unexpectedly. I did this before eating lunch. When I managed to >>>>> get the drop in, I could feel it down to my toes, and the first call >>>>> after lunch was often /very/ strange.)
Sounds like you had something more complicated than a lasik lens
replacement.ÿ My sympathies.
Actually, it worked just fine.
But no mention of "lasik". Both cataract surgeries were, AFAIK,
non-laser.
This was in the late 90's, BTW. Times have, no doubt, changed.
The second one didn't require eyedrops after the first week. It is the
first one that kept one of the two going for a month.
Different doctors, different details (the second had a folding lens,
which presumably meant the incision was smaller; the first did not).
I still have the cards for the inserted lenses in my wallet, in case
they are ever needed. What they would be needed /for/ I have no idea.
IIRC, each has a serial number on it and other information.
My wife just got cataract surgery in the last month. She was in some
pain, but within a couple days she saw real change in the quality of
her vision, both in sharpness and in color.
I'm probably going to need it myself in the next few years.
pt
I thought I went colour blind when I was 45 in 2005.ÿ I could not tell
the difference between red and green.ÿ Traffic lights were a mystery.
The day after my first cataract surgery, I suddenly realized I could see
the red and the green on the traffic lights.
Lynn
Jay Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.me> wrote or quoted:
When mentioning this to a friend he told me his mother had her house
interior painted an off-white color, then had cataract surgery a few
months later. Turned out it was intensely white.
I'm not sure. Before his surgery he also should have noted that every
piece of white paper and every white egg etc. has the same off-white
color, so his visual system or his mind would have corrected this.
In other words, when you turn on the red lights for a party, you do
not believe that your white walls are now red. Since everything is
now red by the same amount, you subtract this and still believe that
your walls are as white as before. Or when you put on red glasses.
Artificial light or evening light is warmer (kind of yellowish or
reddish) compared to the blue morning light, yet we do not experience
white walls or other objects changing their color during the course
of the day because or visual system corrects for constant offsets.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:05:34 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death???
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because, it
is my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition of >infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
As the man said, "with infant mortality, you can claim there are
differences over what constitutes in 'infant'".
Thank you for illustrating the point.
This appears to be a /comparison/ of rates all using the /same
definition/. It really doesn't matter what the definition is; the US
is worse off than other countries.
On 4/28/2026 7:29 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:(for
On 4/28/2026 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 19:11:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
<snippo>
My point is that if you are /well/ you do not need to see anyone
whichmedical reasons).
I would expect that there is a benefit to preventive medicine, for
I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataractannual screenings are beneficial.
Of course there is a benefit to preventive medicine: the
doctors/nurses/others make more money.
Gotta pay off those student loans /somehow/.
This is similar to my experience after cataract surgery: the doctor
said (after the next morning's appointment) that returning to work
would be fine. I knew darn well it would be anything but (how would
/you/ like to talk about a tax debt with someone feeling beat up from
surgery?), so I took the rest of the week off.
surgeries.? (One for each eye.)
Me too. And I drove over to see my mother the same day after each of
the surgeries.
My wife just got cataract surgery in the last month. She was in some
pain, but within a couple days she saw real change in the quality of
her vision, both in sharpness and in color.
In article <cct6vkhsc9j26j1npaquk1jp83r2cn5qsk@4ax.com>,Be
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:05:34 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA.
itcareful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death???
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because,
ofis my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition
infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
As the man said, "with infant mortality, you can claim there are
differences over what constitutes in 'infant'".
Thank you for illustrating the point.
This appears to be a /comparison/ of rates all using the /same
definition/. It really doesn't matter what the definition is; the US
is worse off than other countries.
If the comparison is done using the same definition, somebody had to
adjust the data to the same definition. I have doubts that can be done >without checking each death certificate in every country in the
comparison. I have doubts that they had the budget to do that.
The USA, on the Federal level, is a failed
state. The acts of piracy committed by its
military show this clearly. As do the antics
of its President, who manages to make banana
republics look good by comparison.
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death??
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because, it
is my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition of infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:05:34 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence Dƒ??Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be
careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ƒ??deathƒ???
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because, it
is my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition of
infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
As the man said, "with infant mortality, you can claim there are
differences over what constitutes in 'infant'".
Thank you for illustrating the point.
This appears to be a /comparison/ of rates all using the /same
definition/. It really doesn't matter what the definition is; the US
is worse off than other countries.
So, what else is new?
On 4/28/2026 12:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
My Canadian customers complain bitterly about Canadian healthcare.
Several of them have private health insurance that is good for private healthcare in Canada and in the USA.
On 4/29/26 4:48 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/28/2026 12:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it >>>>>>> would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for
half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
In the past year I've had about twenty five medical appointments.
I've been to the ER five times in the past six months four times in
the past ten days (nothing dangerous this week, just painful).
I have five treatments lined up for the next two weeks, and already
have eight more appointments in the next couple of months thereafter.
Further surgery might be on the table for June (nothing dangerous).
I used to hate the ER, but yesterday when on an unrelated matter I
walked past the Ambulatory Treatment Centre I felt like going in -
but maybe that's the morphine talking.ÿ Or Stockholm syndrome, or
something.
They offered to fix my hernia, but I said no as it doesn't hurt and
is not likely ever to do so.ÿ It's true that my career as a bathing
suit model is somewhat compromised, but I've had a good run.
If there's a limit, I have not found it.
William Hyde
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
Because they're well off people who want to buy their way to the head
of the line at the expense of people who need treatment more urgently?
Why do Americans come here?ÿ They do, in numbers.
Remember that I lived in the US for ten years.ÿ While I have had some
good experiences with the US healthcare system (Duke university
hospital), I've had bad ones too (Texas).
Basically I got along fine in the US, because I always had health
insurance.ÿ But certainly not better than in Canada.
At one point in Texas I was feeling a little burned out, and I asked
if I could be assigned teaching (I sat in on some lectures and decided
that the students really needed someone with some teaching skill).ÿ I
was fine with the significantly lower pay this would involve.ÿ But it
turned out that the teaching position did not come with life
insurance.ÿ I would have had to pay $600 a month to get it, and on
this lower salary that just wasn't affordable.ÿ So I did not teach.
That sort of dilemma should not exist.
Most humanities professors at A&M have only a nine month salary, and
that not terribly generous.ÿ In the other three months they have to
pay COBRA.ÿ People with a family to support basically can't afford
these jobs.
Re: needing COBRA
Do you happen to know if that's still true now?
Nowadays, all the tenured/tenure-track faculty in other states I know
about (which does not include Texas at the moment) are considered
"9/12" or "9/11" employees, which (amongst other things) means you get
paid your salary over the 9 months of the academic year, but there's no interruption in benefits over the 12 months.
On 4/30/2026 11:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Be
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:05:34 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA.
itcareful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ?death???
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because,
ofis my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition
infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
As the man said, "with infant mortality, you can claim there are
differences over what constitutes in 'infant'".
Thank you for illustrating the point.
This appears to be a /comparison/ of rates all using the /same
definition/. It really doesn't matter what the definition is; the US
is worse off than other countries.
So, what else is new?
No, still births aren't counted. I was mentioning a hypothetical, which
I have now investigated.
"Infant mortality refers to the death of a live-born baby before
reaching 1 year of age.
To be counted, the baby must show any sign of life after delivery >(breathing, heartbeat, voluntary movement)."
Don't assume something you don't know actually favors your
position.
On Fri, 1 May 2026 16:31:55 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/30/2026 11:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:05:34 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence Dƒ??Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be >>>>>>> careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining ƒ??deathƒ???
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because, it >>>> is my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition of >>>> infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
As the man said, "with infant mortality, you can claim there are
differences over what constitutes in 'infant'".
Thank you for illustrating the point.
This appears to be a /comparison/ of rates all using the /same
definition/. It really doesn't matter what the definition is; the US
is worse off than other countries.
So, what else is new?
No, still births aren't counted. I was mentioning a hypothetical, which
I have now investigated.
"Infant mortality refers to the death of a live-born baby before
reaching 1 year of age.
To be counted, the baby must show any sign of life after delivery
(breathing, heartbeat, voluntary movement)."
Don't assume something you don't know actually favors your
position.
Well, somebody's position, anyway. Mine here was just that the stats
all came from the same source so quibbling was irrelevant.
And, anyway, if we looked everything up, where would the fun of these discussions come from? It is the way-out ideas that entertain, not the
stolid facts.
Tony Nance wrote:
On 4/29/26 4:48 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/28/2026 12:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2026 8:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 15:29:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
I would love to see Medicare For All but I am convinced that it >>>>>>>> would
bankrupt the USA.
Countries with Socialist-style healthcare systems can do it for >>>>>>> half the
cost per capita of the US health-insurance system.
Yes, by limiting medical treatments to the people of the country.
In the past year I've had about twenty five medical appointments.
I've been to the ER five times in the past six months four times in >>>>> the past ten days (nothing dangerous this week, just painful).
I have five treatments lined up for the next two weeks, and already
have eight more appointments in the next couple of months thereafter. >>>>> Further surgery might be on the table for June (nothing dangerous).
I used to hate the ER, but yesterday when on an unrelated matter I
walked past the Ambulatory Treatment Centre I felt like going in -
but maybe that's the morphine talking.ÿ Or Stockholm syndrome, or
something.
They offered to fix my hernia, but I said no as it doesn't hurt and >>>>> is not likely ever to do so.ÿ It's true that my career as a bathing >>>>> suit model is somewhat compromised, but I've had a good run.
If there's a limit, I have not found it.
William Hyde
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
Because they're well off people who want to buy their way to the head
of the line at the expense of people who need treatment more urgently?
Why do Americans come here?ÿ They do, in numbers.
Remember that I lived in the US for ten years.ÿ While I have had some
good experiences with the US healthcare system (Duke university
hospital), I've had bad ones too (Texas).
Basically I got along fine in the US, because I always had health
insurance.ÿ But certainly not better than in Canada.
At one point in Texas I was feeling a little burned out, and I asked
if I could be assigned teaching (I sat in on some lectures and
decided that the students really needed someone with some teaching
skill).ÿ I was fine with the significantly lower pay this would
involve.ÿ But it turned out that the teaching position did not come
with life insurance.ÿ I would have had to pay $600 a month to get it,
and on this lower salary that just wasn't affordable.ÿ So I did not
teach. That sort of dilemma should not exist.
Most humanities professors at A&M have only a nine month salary, and
that not terribly generous.ÿ In the other three months they have to
pay COBRA.ÿ People with a family to support basically can't afford
these jobs.
Re: needing COBRA
Do you happen to know if that's still true now?
Nowadays, all the tenured/tenure-track faculty in other states I know
about (which does not include Texas at the moment) are considered
"9/12" or "9/11" employees, which (amongst other things) means you get
paid your salary over the 9 months of the academic year, but there's
no interruption in benefits over the 12 months.
I've not been to A&M since 2011, so I can't say for sure.ÿ On the other
hand none of my contacts there have told me of any change.ÿ But they're
full time.
I am pleased but not that surprised to hear that other jurisdictions
follow a more civilized practice.
Maybe the ACA has helped?
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 493843:35:52 |
| Calls: | 146 |
| Files: | 547 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (97K bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,650 |