| Author |
Message |
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
| Quote: | You better, it can't be the USA. The USA is a, democratically
elected, Constitutional Representative Republic of independent
states. The USA operates on a capitalist system. But then
perhaps we should expect
that you do not know that. LOL
|
Humble you are not. You think America is the only DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY?
Perhaps it is the least democratic among democratic countries. Or to
put it another way, the most democratic country among communist
nations...
"Israel's health indicators for longevity and infant mortality are
better than those of the United States. This aspect is not unique to
Israel, but many Western countries are better in the various indicators
of health than the United States."
But God forbid the thought, "input from ordinary Israelis to help set
priorities for the future," what a communist nation Israel is...
America is quick to hand out prescriptions to the world, but fails to
apply them to herself. Even those countries she bankrolls and defends
to her own peril, do it better.
Of course, this doesn't make the news, where the issue is the war or
whatever makes you pity that nation. But hey, we can take some pitying
ourselves... ;)
Israel has Rx for U.S. Healthcare
Mordechai Shani
Israel and the United States each have successes and failures in their
respective health care systems, but the younger of the modern nations,
rooted in its tradition of helping the needy, has much to teach its
American ally. When it comes to some of the most important issues
facing the American health care system today - universal health care,
administrative costs and establishing a national health basket of
services - America can look to Israel.
Until 1995, health insurance in Israel was voluntary, although 99
percent of the Jewish population and 97 percent of the Arab population
were covered by four HMOs, the first of which was established at the
end of 1911. This was a system wherein the insured members paid the
HMO, and the employer made a compulsory payment to the National
Insurance Institute.
Today in Israel, everyone is covered by health insurance. In 1994, the
Israeli parliament passed a groundbreaking health insurance bill that
made every Israeli resident automatically insured, no matter their age,
financial status or religion. In the United States today, more than 43
million people, including 12 million children, are uninsured.
Israel's universal health care is characterized by its "national health
care basket," which defines the range of services to which every
resident is equally entitled. Residents can petition a labor court if
they believe an HMO has ignored their rights to a medical service.
Universal access to Israel's national health care basket means that
there is no underinsurance in Israel, which happens when there are gaps
in coverage. In the United States, more than 100 million citizens are
underinsured, including 40 million with Medicare, 50 million with
Medicaid and at least 10 million who are employed in large companies
that have self-insurance.
The main health care delivery system for all Israelis is through
primary and secondary clinics. These clinics, which are present
throughout the country, provide easy and efficient access to care.
The clinics that belong to the HMOs enable quick access to primary
medical care and also easy referral to specialists without waiting
lists. There is continuity of care, while there is now a tremendous
effort to computerize all the medical data.
Ninety-five percent of general care hospitals in Israel are public.
There is no wait for diagnostic examinations such as MRI and CT or for
procedures such as open-heart surgery. Payment for hospitalization is
the responsibility of the HMO, and there is no deductible or
co-insurance payment required of the patient.
There is a $3 co-payment for each prescription on the approved drug
list covering acute and chronic diseases.
High unemployment and the Israeli economic recession make it difficult
for about 10 percent of the population to pay even this, even though
there is a $50 biannual co-payment cap.
Caring for the elderly is a core social policy and an integral part of
health care in Israel. While in the United States geriatric care is
handled by Medicare, in Israel it is part of the health basket and is
the responsibility of the HMOs.
Only hospitalization in nursing homes is the responsibility of the
Ministry of Health for those who cannot afford to pay for private
insurance or from their own means. Geriatric care, being an integral
part of health care in Israel, is of high quality.
I do hope that one of the Israeli government's priorities in an
improved economic situation will be to reflect the nation's social
values by exempting the poorest 5-10 percent of the population from
drug co-payments.
Israel's health indicators for longevity and infant mortality are
better than those of the United States. This aspect is not unique to
Israel, but many Western countries are better in the various indicators
of health than the United States. Yet while Israel spends 8.8 percent
of its Gross National Product on caring for the elderly, the United
States spends 15 percent of its GNP.
In international comparisons of health care systems, Israel ranks among
the top 20 in the world. But, even with its favorable standing, Israel
faces many challenges, such as the financial limitations of introducing
new technologies and prescription drugs to the health basket and the
high taxes Israelis pay. Also of concern are high out-of-pocket
expenses for cost sharing and for health care services that are covered
only by complementary insurance.
Israel's health care system, while based on the core value of access
for all, is still evolving. The establishment of a "health parliament,"
a private initiative endorsed by the government, enabled input from
ordinary Israelis to help set priorities for the future, including the
challenges of limited resources and the growing gap between rich and
poor.
Obviously, Israel and the United States differ vastly in size, making
full comparisons limited. But with the exception of four large states,
Israel is similar in size to most U.S. states. The American health
system can be improved only if states take responsibility for health
care, or, in the case of the four largest states, if there is regional
responsibility within the state.
In 2003, the United States spent at least 30 percent of its national
health expenditures on administration, while Israel spent less than 10
percent. The United States could have saved at least $280 billion of
the $400 billion spent in administrative expenditures in 2003 to cover
the uninsured and to close the gap of the underinsured, strengthening
the democratic principles it holds dear.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/septe...s_rx_for_us.php
http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John David Galt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:36 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of SUV's |
|
|
| Quote: | John David Galt wrote:
For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper height is illegal
or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of Osama" should go
report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can throw him in
the loony bin where he belongs.
|
william lynch wrote:
| Quote: | So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on SUVs?
|
Sure they're higher. Show me a law against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of SUV's |
|
|
John David Galt wrote:
| Quote: | John David Galt wrote:
For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper height
is illegal
or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of Osama"
should go
report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can throw
him in
the loony bin where he belongs.
william lynch wrote:
So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on SUVs?
Sure they're higher. Show me a law against it.
|
It got a law going FOR it: the Law of the Jungle. F*** the passengers
in the smaller vehicles!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Conklin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 2:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of SUV's |
|
|
"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:cr7jd8$j7c$2@blue.rahul.net...
| Quote: | John David Galt wrote:
For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper height is
illegal
or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of Osama"
should go
report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can throw him
in
the loony bin where he belongs.
william lynch wrote:
So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on SUVs?
Sure they're higher. Show me a law against it.
|
The bumper heights of the 18-wheeler are higher than those of a car.
Should be illegal, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Conklin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of SUV's |
|
|
"DonQuixote-v-Windmills" <nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104635377.678931.302280@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
John David Galt wrote:
John David Galt wrote:
For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper height
is illegal
or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of Osama"
should go
report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can throw
him in
the loony bin where he belongs.
william lynch wrote:
So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on SUVs?
Sure they're higher. Show me a law against it.
It got a law going FOR it: the Law of the Jungle. F*** the passengers
in the smaller vehicles!
|
The motto of the 18-wheeler, where in an accident, the car is NINE times
more likely to have a fatality than the truck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of SUV's |
|
|
George Conklin wrote:
| Quote: | "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:cr7jd8$j7c$2@blue.rahul.net...
John David Galt wrote:
For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper height
is
illegal
or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of
Osama"
should go
report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can
throw him
in
the loony bin where he belongs.
william lynch wrote:
So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on SUVs?
Sure they're higher. Show me a law against it.
The bumper heights of the 18-wheeler are higher than those of a
car.
Should be illegal, right?
|
That's why they are required a much tougher license. Reckless SUVs got
a License to Kill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of SUV's |
|
|
George Conklin wrote:
| Quote: | "DonQuixote-v-Windmills" <nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104635377.678931.302280@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
John David Galt wrote:
John David Galt wrote:
For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper
height
is illegal
or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of
Osama"
should go
report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can
throw
him in
the loony bin where he belongs.
william lynch wrote:
So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on
SUVs?
Sure they're higher. Show me a law against it.
It got a law going FOR it: the Law of the Jungle. F*** the
passengers
in the smaller vehicles!
The motto of the 18-wheeler, where in an accident, the car is NINE
times
more likely to have a fatality than the truck.
|
It must be 90 times more deadly because the SUVs can be up to 16 times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Soto
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:53:41 GMT, "Bernard Farquart"
bernardfarquart@hotmail.delete.com> wrote:
"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:baebt0l10vkk3q7t76kvhn7e5osddd4lru@4ax.com...
Everybody should work to convince government that SS is a waste of tax
payer dollars. People need to take care of themselves, and government
plans should only be available to the ones who are truly in need.
Are you saying you are in favor of "means testing" for retirees
to receive SS?
'cause I am right with you on that one.
At a minimum, yes. Really, I think SS should be eliminated. People
need to take care of themselves. Although, as I understand the need
to offer temporary assistance, such as unemployment, I would not fight
offering temporary support to retirees who are in dire need. The
problem is how to do so without encouraging people to not save.
|
Jesus saves. Why should I?
Charles
--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in Roadrunner, my ISP.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
Charles Soto wrote:
| Quote: | At a minimum, yes. Really, I think SS should be eliminated.
People
need to take care of themselves. Although, as I understand the
need
to offer temporary assistance, such as unemployment, I would not
fight
offering temporary support to retirees who are in dire need. The
problem is how to do so without encouraging people to not save.
Jesus saves. Why should I?
|
But why do you want to try him? Are you saying you kill people to save
them? Then Hitler is a prophet!!!
Bush? He's one of the disciples... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Z. Helm
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:27 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:48:26 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net>
| Quote: | On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:52:28 -0700, Olaf Gustafson <none@dev.null
wrote:
The biggest issue the poor have is that the rich (read that as
liberals in control of the country)
Liberals control the country? Bush isn't a conservative, but he's
hardly liberal.
Bush is the president, the liberal media, schools and corporations
control the country.
|
Don't you think they would have preferred someone besides Bush in
office?
If they control the country, why didn't they put Kerry (or someone else)
in?
| Quote: | Don't tell me you thought the president had any real power other than
what the constitution gives him?
|
Don't tell me you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in
Washington. Oh, sorry. No need to tell me. Your last comment made it
obvious.
| Quote: | I'll bet you are in that group that
is blaming Bush for the tidal wave.
Actually, it's the credit industry that teaches them that not only do
they not have to save, but that they can go into debt!
See above on corporations...
They should still know better though -
See above on liberal teachers and schools...
That is quite good. Most people are doing well if they can make 10%.
I'm satisfied with 15% - doubles my money every 5 years
5.2 actually.
Every year I increased the yield, maxing out at 51%. Better than most
- yes. Unusual - not at all.
Yeah - 51% is not unusual. Dream on.
Nope. There are many of Fidelity funds (just one group of available
funds) that had returns averaging over 50%, and at least a few that
were averaging over 100%.
|
had...
were...
nice!
| Quote: |
Gee, I can sit around and bitch about the cost of natural gas, or I
can invest in a fund that benefits from the cost, and more than makes
up for what I am losing in increased costs of heating my home. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
DustyRhoades@mailcity.com wrote:
| Quote: | That is what I suspected, you are one of those that can't afford
to own an SUV. LOL
|
The issue is not whether I can afford it or not (I can always buy an
old SUV) but whether I want it or not.
I find them fit for "cheap people" though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
DTJ wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:16:49 GMT, Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber
wrote:
I'm more an environmentalist than most people, (I did get my degree
in
it,) but you have to be a real extremist to actually think mules
might
be an answer. And it's entirely too glib, (and too common,) to
dismiss
an issue because of its extremists.
No it is not. Take "global warming" for example. No such thing
exists. Environuts use this pseudo science to force their ideals on
the world. They have no interest in stopping "global warming", only
in redistributing wealth to where they want it. So they make up
theories, ignore facts and real science, and pay off the media to
portray their fantasies on the rest of us. It has got to the point
where the majority of Americans believe there is such a thing,
regardless of the fact that 95% of people who consider themselves
scientists know there isn't, and the 5% aren't really scientists.
|
We have enough "conspiracy theories." Environmentally concerned people
are not nuts and there's conspiracy to redistribute wealth. It should
be distributed, of course, but that's another subject...
And where you got the 5% from, another "theory"? ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
George Conklin wrote:
| Quote: | "DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g2frs0l7l3c6idtpq7teufke8ab9gnclgn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:16:49 GMT, Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber
wrote:
I'm more an environmentalist than most people, (I did get my
degree in
it,) but you have to be a real extremist to actually think mules
might
be an answer. And it's entirely too glib, (and too common,) to
dismiss
an issue because of its extremists.
No it is not. Take "global warming" for example. No such thing
exists. Environuts use this pseudo science to force their ideals
on
the world.
In 1975 we were being told we were on the edge of a new ice age.
Same
data: just different politics.
|
You must have confused the "Cold War" for an Ice Age. They ain't the
same thing, Brutus Maximus... ;_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
George Conklin wrote:
| Quote: | Businesses do haul stuff. When my heat pump was serviced, the van
held
enough parts to fix it without having to say, "Gee, be cold for a
week while
we schedule a time to come back so my bumper can be lower."
|
SUVs do many trips, but their best trip is the EGO TRIP.
You know that's why people but it... ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sancho Panza
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of SUV's |
|
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2yPBd.15237$RH4.14003@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | The motto of the 18-wheeler, where in an accident, the car is NINE times
more likely to have a fatality than the truck.
|
There is no need to go that big. Ford pickups like the F-250, 350 and 550
all have higher bumpers than ordinary sedans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in