Rehab1´s accident(s)

[Shad0z]

7 hours ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

I hacked into the medical billing database and managed to get a breakdown of the fee codes, one of which might reveal a bit more about where the money goes... 

02/06/18 PHARMACY GENERAL CLASSIFICATION (S42202A)....  SURGEON'S MERCEDES BENZ / SUMMER COTTAGE DOWNPAYMENT.  $34, 733.00

good one made me laugh  

[Rehab1]

8 hours ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

I hacked into the medical billing database and managed to get a breakdown of the fee codes, one of which might reveal a bit more about where the money goes... 

02/06/18 PHARMACY GENERAL CLASSIFICATION (S42202A)....  SURGEON'S MERCEDES BENZ / SUMMER COTTAGE DOWNPAYMENT.  $34, 733.00

Lol! Keep it coming! My wife actually laughed! 

[Scatcat]

Soooooo.

As I understand it @Rehab1 has some "news" for his wife visavi that EUC-thingie past-time, that he thought he was prepared to skip? 
And then us eurotrash zocialistz and the 'murican capitalizts got into the usual row of whose system is the better... big surprise there... 

Well my two pennies worth is that a good doctor is a good doctor however I pay him - wether by tax, insurance or my kids college money... 
A bad doctor OTOH will be no better if I get him/her for "free" or have to sell my wife and kids to pay the bill.

I've met both very, very, very good doctors and really lousy ones here in Sweden. Meeting those who should never have passed their exam makes me angry they live of the taxes I pay. Meeting the good ones makes me smile all day.

But to be properly eurotrash zoooocialist, I have to say that I'm quite content with the fact that some of my taxes goes to pay for the medical care for those who have a less fortunate lot in life. Some of those are of course lazy bums, but quite a few have it worse than me without any fault of their own. And I also feel quite happy about the fact that even if I would suffer twice @Rehab1's mishap, the grand total of my out-of-purse payments for medical care would be in the order of $22 or so.

Started using my wheel again today. Almost no ice on the roads right now, and as long as I dress like an Innuit, I even get away with going to work without turning into a popsicle...

Edited March 19, 2018 by Scatcat

[Rehab1]

6 minutes ago, Scatcat said:

And I also feel quite happy about the fact that even if I would suffer twice @Rehab1's mishap, the grand total of my out-of-purse payments for medical care would be in the order of $22 or so.

$22. That would be nice. I think the white worm crawling out of my arm cost twice that amount. 

[Scatcat]

Just now, Rehab1 said:

$22. That would be nice. I think the white worm crawling out of my arm cost twice that amount. 

Actually it's not entirely true. The system here is that the $22 is the fee for visiting a doctor - to get a diagnosis, plan whatever medical procedures needed and so on. If, for example, I visit a doctor, and get remitted to a specialist, I pay $22 at my first visit, then $22 when visiting the specialist.

If I hit the "roof" for a procedure (about $110) there will be no more costs incurred. Likewise I pay for medicine myself, at a subsidised price, but the same "roof" applies. The whole logic behind the $22 per visit and the $110 "roof" is that people shouldn't visit the doctor because they stub their toe, but if they actually need medical help, their economic status should not force them to forgo the needed procedures/medication/examinations.

In general I concur with such a system, but I am flexible in how it is implemented. Making sure insurance is within reach for the absolute majority of citizens is a perfectly acceptable alternative to our tax-funded system.

The pros of the tax-funded system, is that there is no economic paperwork to do when you get to the doctor. I understand such things are the norm even in the US when you talk ER, but as soon as you're out of the woods in terms of life and death, the economy of the situation becomes a problem - unless you have insurance or a very fat bank-account.

The cons of the same system can be illustrated by a relative of mine, where a succession of doctors have had a rather lax attitude to diagnosis and treatment, never managing to pin-point the actual problem but remitting her to one thing after the other - scatter-gun style. She has probably incurred medical costs in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars by now, without really being any closer to actually getting rid of her problems. I suspect that a certain "cost-sensitivity" would have made at least a few of those doctors more focused on actually finding the correct diagnosis and remedy...

[Rehab1]

The politics associated with healthcare runs rampant in my country. In my opinion everyone should have access to high quality care without placing a huge financial onus on them. The main issue is the ‘primary care physicians and insurance gate keepers’ that oversee the process. My father died because a general practitioner failed to pass him onto a pulmonologist even after he had distressed breathing for a month. 

[Shad0z]

32 minutes ago, Rehab1 said:

 My father died because a general practitioner failed to pass him onto a pulmonologist even after he had distressed breathing for a month. 

[Marty Backe]

6 hours ago, Scatcat said:

Soooooo.

As I understand it @Rehab1 has some "news" for his wife visavi that EUC-thingie past-time, that he thought he was prepared to skip? 
And then us eurotrash zocialistz and the 'murican capitalizts got into the usual row of whose system is the better... big surprise there... 

Well my two pennies worth is that a good doctor is a good doctor however I pay him - wether by tax, insurance or my kids college money... 
A bad doctor OTOH will be no better if I get him/her for "free" or have to sell my wife and kids to pay the bill.

I've met both very, very, very good doctors and really lousy ones here in Sweden. Meeting those who should never have passed their exam makes me angry they live of the taxes I pay. Meeting the good ones makes me smile all day.

But to be properly eurotrash zoooocialist, I have to say that I'm quite content with the fact that some of my taxes goes to pay for the medical care for those who have a less fortunate lot in life. Some of those are of course lazy bums, but quite a few have it worse than me without any fault of their own. And I also feel quite happy about the fact that even if I would suffer twice @Rehab1's mishap, the grand total of my out-of-purse payments for medical care would be in the order of $22 or so.

Started using my wheel again today. Almost no ice on the roads right now, and as long as I dress like an Innuit, I even get away with going to work without turning into a popsicle...

Of course we know that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying your difference. From what I see and read (I've only lived in the United States, so maybe I'm blowing smoke), most people in the "$22 covers everything" societies pay much more in taxes, live in smaller homes (if they can even afford a stand alone home), smaller yards, smaller cars, higher prices for everything (except medical), etc.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Marty Backe

[Keith]

41 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

societies pay much more in taxes, live in smaller homes (if they can even afford a stand alone home), smaller yards, smaller cars, higher prices for everything (except medical), etc.

That is absolutely true, and one “adjusts” to the society one lives in. But the humanitarian in me does find the idea that money should give someone better medical care and their children better education hard to swallow. Bigger cars, nicer neighbourhood, bigger house, better holidays, yes you’ve worked for them why not, but to penalise the children of the poor or to live in pain, or not live at all because you do not earn enough - that is hard for me to swallow, especially when our hereditary rich are absolutely not the brightest and best [inbreeding!]. I’m convinced that was why the immediate aftermath of both world wars in the U.K. was a massive political swing to the left, the “ordinary” man in the forces got to see just how good their so-called “betters” really were close up. 

To put it into perspective, I earned very good money working for Reuters ( not bad when my grandfathers were a navvy {road digger} and a horse and cart driver - neither had the money to pay for their own funerals) the welfare state allowed my parents and then me to pull ourselves out of that but the cost was roughly 50% of my income of which 15% was National Insurance which pays for health care. On top of that anything not considered an essential (I.e. not uncooked food, books or children’s clothes) has a 20% purchase tax (VAT) added. And our local and London councils levy a further £1500 or so a year for police, refuse collection, etc (based on the size of your house!) plus around £300 a year in road tax for the car (but very few toll roads) So we do pay an awful lot in taxes.

Now I’ve been forced to take early retirement less than 12% of my much lower pension goes in taxes (and nothing in National Insurance which was a surprise ) public transport anywhere within 20+ miles of London is free and so are any medicines or medical help I need. Suddenly all that tax I paid in the past seems a VERY good deal indeed - although strangely neither dental or optical care is included.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Keith

[Marty Backe]

1 hour ago, Keith said:

That is absolutely true, and one “adjusts” to the society one lives in. But the humanitarian in me does find the idea that money should give someone better medical care and their children better education hard to swallow. Bigger cars, nicer neighbourhood, bigger house, better holidays, yes you’ve worked for them why not, but to penalise the children of the poor or to live in pain, or not live at all because you do not earn enough - that is hard for me to swallow, especially when our hereditary rich are absolutely not the brightest and best [inbreeding!]. I’m convinced that was why the immediate aftermath of both world wars in the U.K. was a massive political swing to the left, the “ordinary” man in the forces got to see just how good their so-called “betters” really were close up. 

To put it into perspective, I earned very good money working for Reuters ( not bad when my grandfathers were a navvy {road digger} and a horse and cart driver - neither had the money to pay for their own funerals) the welfare state allowed my parents and then me to pull ourselves out of that but the cost was roughly 50% of my income of which 15% was National Insurance which pays for health care. On top of that anything not considered an essential (I.e. not uncooked food, books or children’s clothes) has a 20% purchase tax (VAT) added. And our local and London councils levy a further £1500 or so a year for police, refuse collection, etc (based on the size of your house!) plus around £300 a year in road tax for the car (but very few toll roads) So we do pay an awful lot in taxes.

Now I’ve been forced to take early retirement less than 12% of my much lower pension goes in taxes (and nothing in National Insurance which was a surprise ) public transport anywhere within 20+ miles of London is free and so are any medicines or medical help I need. Suddenly all that tax I paid in the past seems a VERY good deal indeed - although strangely neither dental or optical care is included.

Of course England has a long history of inherited wealth and privilege, so I can see how many people have rebelled against inequalities. Fortunately the vast majority of wealth that gets created here is first generational. Because of the society that I grew up in, my preference is liberty over equality. Children are taken care, but once you've reached 18-years old and are able bodied, you're on your own as far as I'm concerned.

[WARPed1701D]

Here we go... 

[steve454]

3 minutes ago, WARPed1701D said:

Here we go... 

Yep...

[kasenutty]

Hey guys, I'm here for the pedophile and acid tossing thread. Did it start yet? 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by kasenutty
slow white genocide?

[Esash]

23 minutes ago, kasenutty said:

Hey guys, I'm here for the pedophile and acid tossing thread. Did it start yet? 

 

 

 

My bad. Probably out of place on a thread about the virtues of socialism. 

 

 

[Shad0z]

[The Fat Unicyclist]

7 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

Of course we know that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying your difference. From what I see and read (I've only lived in the United States, so maybe I'm blowing smoke), most people in the "$22 covers everything" societies pay much more in taxes, live in smaller homes (if they can even afford a stand alone home), smaller yards, smaller cars, higher prices for everything (except medical), etc.

l agree, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Over here though some of that tax money contributes toward our "accident compensation" system (which replaces the need / ability to sue for injury). So in some ways I'm swapping insurance premiums for that tax... 

It may be better, it may be worse - but it does make life a lot simpler (IMHO). 

[Marty Backe]

4 hours ago, The Fat Unicyclist said:

l agree, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Over here though some of that tax money contributes toward our "accident compensation" system (which replaces the need / ability to sue for injury). So in some ways I'm swapping insurance premiums for that tax... 

It may be better, it may be worse - but it does make life a lot simpler (IMHO). 

I can see your point. But since it's based on taxes, I have to believe it's costing you a lot more than if you paid for the insurance out-of-pocket. Being the globe trotter that you are , you're probably in the higher tax brackets, and the more money that you make the more this "insurance" is costing you. At least on my side of the pond, my insurance is based on health and age, but not income. I prefer the fixed insurance cost.

[The Fat Unicyclist]

44 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

I can see your point. But since it's based on taxes, I have to believe it's costing you a lot more than if you paid for the insurance out-of-pocket. Being the globe trotter that you are , you're probably in the higher tax brackets, and the more money that you make the more this "insurance" is costing you. At least on my side of the pond, my insurance is based on health and age, but not income. I prefer the fixed insurance cost.

What anyone pays in tax depends on how creatively one can lose their money (not that I want to start a discussion on that).

Unfortunately most of my globe trotting was work funded, and following the latest restructure is now limited to Auckland and Christchurch only...  

Unless of course I can find a new (tax deductible) business venture to fund my intercontinental e-unicycling ambitions!  

Edited March 20, 2018 by The Fat Unicyclist

[Marty Backe]

1 hour ago, The Fat Unicyclist said:

What anyone pays in tax depends on how creatively one can lose their money (not that I want to start a discussion on that).

Unfortunately most of my globe trotting was work funded, and following the latest restructure is now limited to Auckland and Christchurch only...  

Unless of course I can find a new (tax deductible) business venture to fund my intercontinental e-unicycling ambitions!  

That's a bummer. Does that mean you won't be joining any groups rides this year in Southern California 

You're still a Globe Trotter in my book 

[The Fat Unicyclist]

Let's not rule it out @Marty Backe... Having family in England and California means that I am either "passing through" or stopping fairly frequently.

Perhaps I could even make a special trip for that group ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco (or the other way - I'm not picky).

Edited March 20, 2018 by The Fat Unicyclist

[Scatcat]

14 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

Of course England has a long history of inherited wealth and privilege, so I can see how many people have rebelled against inequalities. Fortunately the vast majority of wealth that gets created here is first generational. Because of the society that I grew up in, my preference is liberty over equality. Children are taken care, but once you've reached 18-years old and are able bodied, you're on your own as far as I'm concerned.

It can be argued either way, and depending which day you ask my answer will be yours or in favour of a tax based system... 

But I think the main point here is "18 years old and able bodied". Because those who fall outside the latter are also those that will pay an insurance premium, if they even can get insurance. They're also mostly the people who have the hardest time scraping together enough money for a decent life.

So I do see the problems of tax funded systems. They basically rob me and the people around me of a big part of the money we make, then rename those money "state money" and buy my gratitude by giving me some of my own money back as alms.

I think my idealistic view is closest to John Rawls idea of the ideal society. That if society was created by people that would be part of it, but not knowing in what position... as impossible as that is in real life... then we would probably see a very sane and decent compromise. A compromise that would be good enough whether you'd be a CEO, a professional, disabled, a child, or elderly.

Interesting stuff to discuss, as long as we can discuss it without poisoning/hijacking the thread...  

[dmethvin]

14 hours ago, Scatcat said:

So I do see the problems of tax funded systems. They basically rob me and the people around me of a big part of the money we make, then rename those money "state money" and buy my gratitude by giving me some of my own money back as alms.

In a lot of countries including the US, the political and legal system is pretty generous towards those who already have a lot. The reason that we don't see terrible injustice in health care, law enforcement, or taxes is because we are well-off enough that they are at worst a nuisance and certainly not a threat to our existence. If there were not public schools I would have sent my kids to private school, so I could argue that government spending on schools is a waste of my money. Yet I know that would be counter-productive, if anything we should be spending more on schools because there are still a lot of dumb people out there and that is a threat to our society.

[novazeus]

the government takes in a dollar and if ur lucky maybe 2 cents actually gets used, the rest is wasted. the governments of the world have zero accountability.

[Scatcat]

38 minutes ago, dmethvin said:

In a lot of countries including the US, the political and legal system is pretty generous towards those who already have a lot. The reason that we don't see terrible injustice in health care, law enforcement, or taxes is because we are well-off enough that they are at worst a nuisance and certainly not a threat to our existence. If there were not public schools I would have sent my kids to private school, so I could argue that government spending on schools is a waste of my money. Yet I know that would be counter-productive, if anything we should be spending more on schools because there are still a lot of dumb people out there and that is a threat to our society.

Yeah.

I have a cynical and a humanitarian argument, that are both valid AFAIC. The cynical argument is that if we implement a strict "every man for himself" regime, where we pay no or almost no taxes. Then the cost will be a large proportion of people that fail in the task of creating a reasonably good life for themselves. What follows is a stratified society with some that are very well off and some who are totally desperate. Desperation leads to violence: upheaval, more criminality and so on. Before we know it we all live behind gates and bars, either looking in at a life we can only dream of, or looking out afraid of those on the outside. That's the cynical side of it.

The humanitarian argument is more bleeding heart style... Do I really appreciate those extra dollars enough to begrudge those elderly with pensions below the poverty level, those kids whose parents can't afford a private school, the not so able bodied, the people with mental challenges and so on a reasonably decent life? Isn't the true measure of a society how well we choose to care for those who can't care for themselves?

But that is the "why", the "how" is another matter entirely...

51 minutes ago, novazeus said:

the government takes in a dollar and if ur lucky maybe 2 cents actually gets used, the rest is wasted. the governments of the world have zero accountability.

And that is the main reason why a high tax society is not necessarily the answer to "how". Humans have a tendency to empire building, and building empires with other peoples confiscated money is something we've done since the idea of taxes came to be in the dawn of modern history. The down-side of high taxes is that you lose control of the money and that accountability - checks and balances - almost never suffice.

A high tax society also takes too much of personal responsibility away from individuals, and as freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, the risk of losing some freedom together with the responsibilities are high.

Sweden, my country, lies in the top five as far as taxes go. We do get a lot for the taxes we pay: health care, infrastructure, nursery schools, schools, free college/university, help to the poor, care for the elderly and so on. I'd argue that we are a pretty free country: freedom of speech, freedom to gather, freedom to form opinion and so on - but the freedom to set up our own lives as we se fit are probably less than it could be. Not because the police will try to stop you, but because you'll have to do it after effectively paying half your salary in taxes.

[Rehab1]

Follow up visit with surgeon this morning and more X-rays. So far my humeral head is not dying ( the screws remain in the same position) but the attached point for the rotator cuff muscles (greater tubercle) has still not ossified so I’m restricted to lifting only  2-3 pounds. I can now attend therapy.  

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Rehab1