IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

His importance, Yes and yes, in that order. I think there is alot of evidence this man is a dictator wannabe.

Well it was a bit of a cheap shot, but it was not a knee jerk reaction; nor was it reflective of a pervasive anti government attitude (though, I'll confess there are other things I respect more). Nor do I believe I am ignoring the central trend of "real world" data. Finally neither was the point I was trying to make a political one.

I'll confess, I do become quickly irritated by criticism from Europeans - possibly a failing on my part. The social democrat perfection now achieved, during their comfortable senescence, by the western European powers - after seven centuries of warfare, tyranny, exploitation, revolution and more warfare and exploitation - may be of some instructive value, but is not a useful model for any of us.

America was the creation of Europeans fleeing the awful histories of their former homelands. We are the anti Europe of the world.

So our warfare, tyranny, exploitation revolution and more warfare is of some instructive value while theirs is not?


Hilarious.

The pride in which you declare such a thing is punchline.
K
O

Then your fear comes from ignorance. What you listed were payment networks (and there are at least 2 dozen more of these that you didn't list).

Visa and Mastercard are NOT credit card companies who lend money to consumers. Discover and American Express are also networks, but hey also lend money to customers. Diners Club is also a network.

There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of banks, stores, other financial institutions who issue CREDIT CARDS.

As far as competition, it doesn't get much more competitive than credit cards.

FALSE

http://www.mybudget360.com/credit-card-monopoly-top-5-issuers-hold-550-billion-in-credit-card-debt-taking-up-over-60-percent-of-the-entire-credit-card-market/

I only use my credit card sparingly, I guess I could use some learning on this. What is the difference between a network and a credit card company? I mean, aren't the networks competing with each other here just as much? I know I left of some networks, but my point was to list the biggest that most people would have.

T
K
O

How is it any more of an extreme than your suggestion that people should be able to smoke tobacco because they want to? Nicotiene is a poisonous alkaloid. There is absolutely no use for it other than as a poison. It is just as deadly as any of the drugs I mentioned. The only difference is that society for some reason, doesn't care about tobacco and nicotiene - which is why you say the others are extremes, when in reality they are not.

So, to back up my anecdotal evidence from earlier (that Cyclo was so quick to dismiss) I found two small pages which echo (with stats, Cyclo!) EXACTLY what I said earlier.

I personally like the part that says :

"Five chronic diseases"heart disease, cancers, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and diabetes"account for more than two-thirds of all deaths in the United States."

and

"Health care for people with chronic diseases accounts for 75% of the nation’s total health care cost"

So, I'm curious, what do you have to say about that? I'd like to know if you have anything intelligent to say about the points I brough up ealier other than saying that "this is America, we should be able to do what we want with no consequences".

It is attitude like that which caused this whole mess. People here feel entitled to anything they want at everyone elses' expense. The problem with that is that sooner or later, you run out of everyone elses' money.



http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/burdenbook2004/Section01/tables.htm

So you are saying we shouldn't let people want to get cancer?

While some of the diseases listed have causes that can be controlled to some degree, many of them can occur even if people make all the right choices.

Ok Hawkeye; please show me an industry that is more competitive?

You also have to understand that credit card companies don't just compete with each other, they also compete with debit cards, cash, other types of loans, etc.

A network like Visa or Mastercard simply process the transactions between the banks that issue credit to customers and the merchants that swipe the card. The make a % of each transaction that goes over their network. Mastercard and Visa are the major networks that process most of the transactions, but this is mainly due to the anti-competitive nature of their business for the last 40-50 years. They recently lost a lawsuit filed by Discover and American Express that stated exactly that. So in the network business, there isn't as much competition, but that was due to law breaking.

Credit cards themselves are issued by just about every major store, bank, Credit Union, etc in the country.

For example. I personally have:

Discover More credit card on Discover network
Discover Miles credit card on Discover network
Walmart credit card on Discover network
Chase credit card on Visa network
Bank of America credit card on Visa network
Barclays Bank credit card on Mastercard network
American Express Blue credit card on Amex network
Home Depot credit card on Mastercard network

and probably about 10 others. But you can see that banks,etc use the different payment networks, but issue their own cards. And even within banks, most of them have between 10-20 different credit products that compete with each other and all have different terms, rewards, interest rates, etc.

I'm trying to think of an industry where the top 5 of that industry DON'T account for at least 60% of the sales.......

Maybe restaurants? But even that may not be true especially when you consider the amount of money people spend on fast food. Even fast food corporations are conglomerates as are the major restaurant chains.

Computer sales? Haha, nope. Operating systems? Even funnioer, nope. Internet providers?, not even close.

So hawkeye; please help me find some industries where the top 5 of that industry do not account for 60% of sales.

Massage parlours.

All of those listed are primarily caused by overeating and/or smoking. There will always be some exceptions, but that are not significant in number.

What I am saying is that people who are diagnoses with these diseases should be made to help foot more of the bill. And as a default, high sugars and lipids and smokers should be required to pay higher premiums while those that are within normal ranges should not.

There are simple tests for all of the most commong risk factors.

Hmmm. Thanks.

Okay, now bring it all together for me how this kind of model is possible for health insurance. I kind of feel like in this case insurance companies are more comparable to the credit networks, and credit card companies are more comparable to hospitals/care facilities.

T
K
O

Which of the top 10 cancers are caused by overeating/smoking?




I guess it all comes down to what you think is "significant". It's always so much easier when you blame the victim of the disease, isn't it?

Firstly, I said "and/or" overeating and "primarily caused". SO, you're really only concerned with absolute I take it?

Please, don't lecture me on diabetes... I am well aware of the differences between the two. You'll notice that in my earlier post, I specifically said TYPE TWO (also know as acquired or adult-onset).

AND AGAIN - there is an OBVIOUS difference between them.

Are there any costs associated with not smoking.

I'm thinking of general nervous disorders, avoidance of the very high taxation on tobacco, the uses to which the expenditure saved from that avoidance is put, the lack of any imaginative input into the economy and the cost of their care when the doddering old fools start needing round the clock care until they are 109 after having taken early retirement at 57.

Turn it up stain, we get enough liberal hand-wringing by the life-savers as it is and all you are doing is parroting their self-serving simplicities.

What's your take on the fatuous dinghy sailors and mountaineers and pot-holers, few of whom smoke, which is why they are out there, up there and down there finding something to do with their hands, which we smokers use, holding a stogie to wave stylishly whilst making some philosophical point to the maid when she's dusting the books on the top shelf out of reach of the little monsters, a measure which I feel sure you will approve of, and when these intrepid adventurers get in the ****. as they do at an alarming rate, it's red bloody alert and there's a whole system goes into action, which has been trained for such eventualities and are dying to be sprung from the tense waiting, and cannot but be costing a sodding fortune and if the cameras can get there quick enough, if they're tipped off by an insider for a consideration, not the cameras, the folks who have the cameras, and we then have to sit and watch the silly sods on the News being fished out, brought down and guided up, often on stretchers, loaded into ambulences, winched in some of them, and it's as bad as sitting watching your own money burning on a fire.

I remember a story where two policemen got drowned trying to save a bloke who was taking his bloody dog for a more interesting walk than the average dog-owner does. And the inquests etc cost a small fortune.

He was showing the dog the big waves during a storm on the promenade. The storm may well have been elsewhere but if your on the promenade it seems like that's where it's on to all intents and purposes. And a wave grabs the dog. Metaphorically I mean. In goes the idiotic gump after it, somebody sees it, another idiotic gump no doubt, and shouts two young coppers over who are quietly strolling along the side of the promenade where the shops are talking about the new policewoman. They run across the tramlines and in they go to get the chump out and bloody drown leaving widows and orphans.

PS. If you know a non-smoker who can improve my punctuation on the 4th paragraph above let me know. I'm more than willing to take sound advice. That's how I got to be like I am. It is always struck me that people who are not like me must be unwilling to take sound advice.

And do they really know that smoking is the cause of these diseases? Smoking something has been a common fact in every previous human society I have ever heard of. Drug taking too. From a Darwinian perspective it looks selected in. And selecting it out might be mal-adaptive. As you are campaigning to do.

The converstion of non-smokers is so boring that I can well understand them looking for hobbies and interests and what it costs hardly bears thinking about. And the same goes for non-drinkers. And they walk with fast short steps too. Unless they are trying not to.

Some might think that their was a contradiction in my last post. They might think that two young husbands and fathers would not be talking about the new policewoman.

I would have to disagree with them and say that they must not understand young men.

As you were so elegantly asking, Spendi, I'm more than willing to oblige.

I find that it was interesting to end in the ****, with a period. (Not sure, however, you'd approve the comma here...)

But, I'm not aware of your intentions there..

We don't need an ambulance either..