On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:01:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> A county is basically one elected federal official, IIRC.
>> I *think* you mean state official. :)
> 
> Possibly. Especially with the gerrymandering going on.

Yeah.  If it was a federal-level elected official, they'd have to be a 
federal judge (IIRC), or a member of the house/senate, and in general, 
the areas represented are much larger than a single county.  There may be 
one or two exceptions in those less-densely populated states.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Every house here belongs to a town (or village if you like). Don't tell me 
> even that is different in the US.

When I moved to Germany I was intrigued how every tiny village is very 
precisely defined with those yellow signs telling you the beginning and end 
of it (and how they also mean there's a 50 speed limit, can catch out 
foreigners...).

I always wondered what would happen if you built a house outside of any 
official village, would they move the yellow signs so that you were still 
inside one, or would you get to choose which one you belonged to, or what?

In the UK there is no such precise system, if you're lucky enough to have 
your village defined with a name sign on entry (good luck finding an exit 
sign!), it doesn't mean anything official in terms of addresses or postal 
regions, and certainly doesn't imply anything to do with speed limits, it's 
more just for info.

Post a reply to this message

> Dutch people tend to travel a lot.

Usually with a caravan, in the overtaking lane, with a huge queue behind :-)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
> vocal ones do.


I don't know about all of the issues that surround this debate, but I 
have noticed something that does disturb me.

Do you ever look at the statement that the health insurance company 
sends out showing the charges and what they covered?
I do and find it very disturbing.

The provider charges $1000 for a procedure, yet the health insurance 
company pays only $200 and due to an agreement with the provider the 
difference ($800) is waived.
The provider got only $200 for the service and somehow is able to stay 
in business.
Yet, if I did not have insurance, the provider would charge $1000 and 
attempt to receive it from me - $800 more for the exact same procedure.
If the provider is willing to accept $200 for the procedure, why do they 
charge $1000?


My dentist is the same way - I do not have dental insurance so I pay 
face value.  If I pay at the time of service the dentist gratefully 
gives me a 6% discount.  So on my $150 procedure I pay $141.  The dental 
office also does not have to deal with the insurance paperwork, no small 
effort from what I understand.  Yet if I had health insurance the 
dentist would likely get $50-$70 for the procedure.


So what do I find disturbing?
That there is such a LARGE difference between what the provider is 
willing to accept and what they try to charge.
If you do not have health insurance, you get hit with some very large 
bills - at minimum 2-3x what the insurance companies pay out.


Will health insurance for everyone solve this problem????

Post a reply to this message

On 08/26/09 08:51, Tom Austin wrote:
> The provider charges $1000 for a procedure, yet the health insurance
> company pays only $200 and due to an agreement with the provider the
> difference ($800) is waived.
> The provider got only $200 for the service and somehow is able to stay
> in business.
> Yet, if I did not have insurance, the provider would charge $1000 and
> attempt to receive it from me - $800 more for the exact same procedure.
> If the provider is willing to accept $200 for the procedure, why do they
> charge $1000?

	To make up for the amount they lost.

	Many of the doctors/hospitals contend that they *cannot* stay in 
business if they keep accepting the negotiated rates that insurers 
demand. So they charge people who aren't insured to recover as much as 
they can.

	It's a well known "policy". They've admitted to it at various times.

> So what do I find disturbing?
> That there is such a LARGE difference between what the provider is
> willing to accept and what they try to charge.

	It's not so much that they're happy to accept the reduced rates. 
There's a bit of arm twisting by the insurance companies.

	And then when a hospital gets big (top 10 in heart care in the country, 
for example), the process is reversed and they twist the arms of the 
insurance companies.


-- 
Feet Smell?  Nose Run?  Hey, you're upside down!

Post a reply to this message

On 26-8-2009 9:03, scott wrote:
>> Dutch people tend to travel a lot.
> 
> Usually with a caravan, in the overtaking lane, with a huge queue behind 
> :-)
> 
You are watching too much Top Gear. BTW the USA is notoriously difficult 
to reach by car. In winter it is too cold and in summer there may be not 
enough ice.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-8-2009 17:21, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/26/09 08:51, Tom Austin wrote:
>> The provider charges $1000 for a procedure, yet the health insurance
>> company pays only $200 and due to an agreement with the provider the
>> difference ($800) is waived.
>> The provider got only $200 for the service and somehow is able to stay
>> in business.
>> Yet, if I did not have insurance, the provider would charge $1000 and
>> attempt to receive it from me - $800 more for the exact same procedure.
>> If the provider is willing to accept $200 for the procedure, why do they
>> charge $1000?
> 
>     To make up for the amount they lost.

So basically if you are poor and cannot afford the insurance you pay more?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:50:26 +0200, andrel wrote:

> You are watching too much Top Gear.

Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26-8-2009 21:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:50:26 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> You are watching too much Top Gear.
> 
> Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)

hmm, did I miss anything?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:06:05 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 26-8-2009 21:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:50:26 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> You are watching too much Top Gear.
>> 
>> Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)
> 
> hmm, did I miss anything?

That depends on what you've seen. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message