Posted by Michael Pardee on July 9, 2006, 12:51 am
No - the public health care system in Washington state (as mandated by
federal Medicaid regulations) did serious damage to my son. To think it
would be better when the orders come from the other side of the continent
defies credulity. In contrast, when I could choose what treatment he would
have because I was paying, the underlying problem was corrected quickly. Why
anybody would choose to throw away all control of their health care is
When I had to pay for his treatment myself I was poor. So I did what I had
to - I got a second job that I worked for 11 years and left my job that had
topped out at $0/hr for one that started at $4/hr and increased rapidly
with experience. The tradeoff is that I sell more hours of my life - I am on
call even when on vacation and worked until midnight one night when I was
supposed to be on bereavement leave following the death of my mother. It
hasn't been easy and there were no guarantees except for harder work and
more responsibilities. Such was my lot in life and I rose to the challenge,
and I am a better man for it.
I used to work with a man who is still a Swedish citizen. We were talking
about the health care system in Sweden, and he said it was adequate for most
people if you weren't in a hurry or misdiagnosed. It seems initial diagnoses
are carved in stone - if you have "an allergic reaction" and it is really
leukemia, you aren't likely to live long enough to get a second opinion. In
addition, emergency room waits for conditions that aren't getting worse -
like fractures - are often 12 hours or more.
Posted by Bill on July 10, 2006, 12:32 am
Please don't get me wrong, Mike, because I don't question your son's
experience nor your friends comments. I have a Canadian friend who loves
their healthcare system. Individual experiences don't provide the overall
picture, however. Remember the old saying "analysis without synthesis
reduces all to the chaos of multiplicity"?
At the link below you will find the conclusion of a comprehensive and
uncontested study of health care in the U.S. as compared to the national
health care systems in every other modern nation. The U.S. stands with
South Africa as the only modern nations that don't have a system for
national health care. You will discover that we pay about twice what these
nations pay for better care.
My primary health care provider is the U.S. Veteran's Administration. I can
afford private care but the V.A. is so much better than private providers
I've used as to make the V.A. an easy choice. In fact, they ranked ahead of
private U.S. providers in a recent, well publicized study. I wasn't the
least bit surprised by the results of that study.
Posted by Davoud on July 8, 2006, 5:08 am
Maybe he meant postpone the purchase of the second car?
No sticking point. Follow my lead: I borrowed for my first new car,
paid it off as quickly as I could, then began saving for my next car
(what we have referred to as making car payments to oneself.) I kept
the first car until I had enough money to pay cash for its replacement;
in fact I had more than enough by the time I was ready to change cars,
so I was able to buy something a little better than I might otherwise
have gotten. The thing about this technique is that you don't need to
have started with your first car. You can start now.
As soon as the second one is bought for cash it gets easier because
/all/ of the "payments" go to savings and nothing is lost to interest.
If one is not wealthy this means keeping your cars longer than your
neighbours do. So what? Many of mine are a bit smug about getting a new
car every two-three years, but who's the smart one!? What they don't
realize is that I'm spending less on cars + interest than they are
/and/ I'm driving nicer cars -- cars that don't /need/ to be replaced
every two years. The most laughable of all is the guy who drives
nothing but Cadillacs. (No chance he'll see this!) He changes them like
I change socks. He'll drive his two-year-old Caddy down the street and
it'll be making all kinds of expensive noises. Pretty soon he's got a
new one and is proud of himself for being smart enough to drive a
Caddy. Doesn't understand what's happened to GM or why it has happened.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
Posted by Cathy F. on July 8, 2006, 5:51 am
Nope, from another post he meant the first car, but turns out what he was
doing at that point in his life allowed for him to save & he didn't need a
car right then.
No, I meant it'd be a sticking point if one paid cash for *all* cars, incl.
the first one.
Ha! Right now I'm making extra payments on my mortgage's principal, plus
dumping as much as I can into my TDA, since retirement's on the horizon. I
*could* save even a little more, but am not willing to go back & live on the
super-strict budget I lived on for umpteen years in the past. As it is, I'm
going to up my TDA contributions even more next year, but as of now will be
making the same salary as this year & last (lack of overdue contract
settlement at this point).
I keep my cars approx. 6 years each.
Many of mine are a bit smug about getting a new
I've been driving Japanese cars since '76. Had a Plymouth Duster as my
first car & it had a great engine, but the body really rusted... By that
point the American car makers were paying no attention to the writing on the
wall, & I said forget it - I'm going to go for best quality for the least
outlay. Which led me away from American made cars...
Posted by Davoud on July 8, 2006, 6:09 am
No criticism. That wouldn't make sense for me, though. Recent cars:
1991 Toyota pickup: 13 years, still good, got bored, gave it to a
friend. Honda Accord: 10 years, donated to needy person. 1992 Mazda
Miata: 14 years/low mileage (still have it) and will give it to my
niece four years from now when she turns 16, providing her parents
approve. 2004 Nissan Titan: Two years, traded for Prius
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com