Suzuki 2 Strokes

An elderly couple go to a sex therapist's office.
The doctor asks, "What can I do for you?"

The man says, "Will you watch us have sexual intercourse?" The Doctor raises both eyebrows, but he is so amazed that such an elderly couple is asking for sexual advice that he agrees.

When the couple finish, the doctor says, "There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way you have intercourse." He thanks them for coming, he wishes them good luck, he charges them $50 and he says goodbye.

The next week, however, the couple return and asks the sex therapist to watch again. The sex therapist is a bit puzzled, but agrees. This happens several weeks in a row. The couple makes an appointment, have intercourse with no problems, pay the doctor,then leave.

Finally, after 5 or 6 weeks of this routine, the doctor says, "I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Just what are you trying to find out?"


The old man says, "We're not trying to find out anything. She's married and we can't go to her house. I'm married and we can't go to my house. The Holiday Inn charges $98. The Hilton charges $139.


We do it here for $50, and I get $43 back from OHIP."

Maybe old, but still able to save a buck or two!!

I admit it - I laughed, but partly because now you'll have to explain to everyone what OHIP is

OHIP: Ontario Health Insurance Plan.
OHIP is funded by taxes paid by the residents and businesses of Ontario and by transfer payments from the federal government.
Every Ontario resident with his or her primary and permanent home in Ontario is entitled to access emergency and preventive medical care under OHIP free of charge. Ontario residents may go to a participating doctor—essentially every doctor practising in the province—any time they wish (subject to the consent of the doctor) and the services are billed through OHIP to the government.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_He ... rance_Plan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And why don't we have something similar?

for the joke.

Cliff wrote:OHIP: Ontario Health Insurance Plan.
OHIP is funded by taxes paid by the residents and businesses of Ontario and by transfer payments from the federal government.
Every Ontario resident with his or her primary and permanent home in Ontario is entitled to access emergency and preventive medical care under OHIP free of charge.
Really free of charge Oh... I see, not so free... "its funded by taxes paid by the residents and businesses of Ontario and by transfer payments from the federal government."
"Ontario residents may go to a participating doctor—essentially every doctor practising in the province—any time they wish" (subject to the consent of the doctor) and the services are billed through OHIP to the government. I know of some who cross the border to receive cancer treatment because OHIP did not consent to treatment.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_He ... rance_Plan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good points Joisey.

As you mentioned, healthcare can never be FREE in a total sense. It costs and someone pays.
The two issues, from a financial perspective, are the total cost of Healthcare, and how it is paid for. Let's leave aside the second because there are not a lot of facts available in an easy to digest form and we tend to end up having emotional or philosophical discussions. It would be nice to see a respectful discussion on how H/C is paid for in different parts of the world in a balanced and non-ideological way.

That was we can put aside politics and ideology and focus on the issues and can discuss the merits of alternative systems. What is clear is that there is no one perfect system anywhere in the world. There are pros and cons to any approach.

A bigger issue in the US is that the total costs of H/C is somewhere around two times as much as any other country on a per capita basis. That ignores who pays and who doesn't and all the extraneous discussions about illegals and people with and without insurance. Just the total cost divided by the population is twice as high as any other country. Before we jump up and yell that it's because we have "the best" H/C system in the world, we have to acknowledge fact #2 that US H/C outcomes are not close to the best in the world. We're somewhere around 34th place or thereabouts.

And that, to me is the real issue that we have to talk about. Why are we spending twice as much for not very good outcomes. Is it as simple as the cost is to provide the absolute best care to the few that can afford to access it or is it more complicated than that? How much of it is that we want to have choices and have gone past the point of reasonableness.

Let me use myself as an example. A year or so ago I needed to visit and MRI center and in my town (lots of H/C services) I had choices of 4-6 MRI centers within 10 minutes drive and none were very busy. That was nice but how many do we need? We probably need more in other places, but that's a different and equally valid issue.

Is it because there are dozens of clinics within 15 minutes drive all trying to make money as not for profits. Is it appropriate for my oncologist to be a millionaire in his "small Business" or NFP? I don't begrudge him for making the most of the opportunity, but that's the sort of complicated question we have to start talking about. How much choice is enough? How do we want the H/C system to work?

Can you imagine the lines of lobbyists if there was a commission to investigate the cost of H/C and to recommend a new delivery model?

But that's what we need to start talking about. There's an interesting set of data at http://www.regence.com/transparency/reg ... -costs.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... care-costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and I'm sure there are others. The answer clearly isn't to pay nurses less or to cut service to Medicare/Medicaid patients.

We need to address the total cost and it's also not about whether Romneycare or Obamacare are the right answer. They just scratch the surface and don't have much impact on the total cost, though both attempt to contain costs. Arguing over those plans is not the issue. The issue is the total cost and how we plan to cut it by say 40% within 5 -10 years. That alone would cut deficit by 8 trillion dollars over 10 years. Cut that and cut back defense spending to pre-war levels and the deficit is almost fixed, but only if we talk as adults and don't allow political activists to wind us up emotionally.

It's up to us, all of us, to force politicians to start having that conversation. It's not about politics. It's economics and we all have a stake in that.

tz375, from what I've read, you are right that the US doesn't rank very good based on life expectancy. But a good bit of that is because the people don't take very good care of themselves. When the statistics control for things like americans being so fat, the US gets a very good score for the H/C system.

So many things are broken in this country. Unfortunately, the longer we take to fix the problems, the more painful the fix will be.

I agree. The solution isn't getting any easier as time goes by and we can't work on the basis that we expect the system to fix us after we over eat, etc.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a system that punishes us if it thinks we're too fat or don't do as much exercise as they think we should though.

One thing I am absolutely sure about is that the cost will not go down all on its own.

It's probably the old bicycle shed/nuclear power station issue again. Everyone has an idea about the simple things and no one wants to tackle the difficult stuff. I suspect that the only way anything will happen is if enough people lobby their elected officials at all levels to do something.

Preferably before the system is broke or we are paying 100% of our income for H/C

Good points Joisey.

As you mentioned, healthcare can never be FREE in a total sense. It costs and someone pays.
The two issues, from a financial perspective, are the total cost of Healthcare, and how it is paid for. Let's leave aside the second because there are not a lot of facts available in an easy to digest form and we tend to end up having emotional or philosophical discussions. It would be nice to see a respectful discussion on how H/C is paid for in different parts of the world in a balanced and non-ideological way. I agree it would be nice.

That was we can put aside politics and ideology and focus on the issues and can discuss the merits of alternative systems. What is clear is that there is no one perfect system anywhere in the world. There are pros and cons to any approach. AGREED

A bigger issue in the US is that the total costs of H/C is somewhere around two times as much as any other country on a per capita basis. That ignores who pays and who doesn't and all the extraneous discussions about illegals and people with and without insurance. Just the total cost divided by the population is twice as high as any other country. Before we jump up and yell that it's because we have "the best" H/C system in the world, we have to acknowledge fact #2 that US H/C outcomes are not close to the best in the world. We're somewhere around 34th place or thereabouts. Are you sure about that? Who conducted those surveys and which countries participated? Anytime I’ve needed health care here in the states, I’ve received what I consider to be the best. That being said, I don’t know what’s available in other countries. And that, to me is the real issue that we have to talk about. Why are we spending twice as much for not very good outcomes. Is it as simple as the cost is to provide the absolute best care to the few that can afford to access it or is it more complicated than that? How much of it is that we want to have choices and have gone past the point of reasonableness. Here I disagree. Health care in the US is extremely high for those who pay… yes, but those who don’t pay receive just as good or better care. The advantage to those who don’t pay over those who do is that since it’s “free” or at least to them, they visit doctor’s more often, medication is provided either free or at an affordable price to them. Paying patients are overcharged to compensate for those who don’t, therefore those who must pay, think twice before visiting a doctor or hospital.

Let me use myself as an example. A year or so ago I needed to visit and MRI center and in my town (lots of H/C services) I had choices of 4-6 MRI centers within 10 minutes drive and none were very busy. That was nice but how many do we need? We probably need more in other places, but that's a different and equally valid issue.

Is it because there are dozens of clinics within 15 minutes drive all trying to make money as not for profits. Is it appropriate for my oncologist to be a millionaire in his "small Business" or NFP? I don't begrudge him for making the most of the opportunity, but that's the sort of complicated question we have to start talking about. How much choice is enough? How do we want the H/C system to work? Regarding choices, I like choices. Choices make for competition which helps keep costs down. Monopolies on the other hand are the entire contrary.

Can you imagine the lines of lobbyists if there was a commission to investigate the cost of H/C and to recommend a new delivery model? I shudder to think.

But that's what we need to start talking about. There's an interesting set of data at http://www.regence.com/transparency/reg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... -costs.jsp or http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... care-costs and I'm sure there are others. The answer clearly isn't to pay nurses less or to cut service to Medicare/Medicaid patients. AGREEDED!!! Especially since there are nurses in my family and my mother receives Medicare/Medicaid. Which of course she contributed to during her 25+ working years.

We need to address the total cost and it's also not about whether Romneycare or Obamacare are the right answer. They just scratch the surface and don't have much impact on the total cost, though both attempt to contain costs. Arguing over those plans is not the issue. The issue is the total cost and how we plan to cut it by say 40% within 5 -10 years. I don’t believe those figures to be realistic at all. We can probably expect higher costs with time, just as in the past.

That alone would cut deficit by 8 trillion dollars over 10 years. Cut that and cut back defense spending to pre-war levels and the deficit is almost fixed, but only if we talk as adults and don't allow political activists to wind us up emotionally. I believe services and aid to the illegal population should be closely examined and curtailed. To me the partial solution is clear as water; if you didn’t contribute to the system, then you simply cannot expect to reap the benefits of the system, of course there can be and usually are exceptions to that rule.

It's up to us, all of us, to force politicians to start having that conversation. It's not about politics. It's economics and we all have a stake in that. Amen!

Some good points in there. I didn't suggest that the quality of care that any individual would receive is better or worse than in another country. Quality is not bad here, but not necessarily better than in other places.

The H/C outcome data is sound and well accepted by most H/C professionals. The argument made by those that want to protect the current system is that the data is wrong or can't be trusted. That's just a smoke screen.

As a society, we cannot refuse to provide H/C to those in need and the in reality the care that illegals get varies. There is a legal and moral obligation to provide emergency care to anyone that is visiting the country and to citizens who cannot afford it. 20m people are out of work and have no access to quality H/C. Another 30m are paid so badly that they have no insurance or very basic insurance. We need to work out an appropriate and humane way to get them basic care.

Illegals are a cost, for sure, but they are used as the reason and that's not valid. If they all went home, H/C costs would keep rising and we wouldn't see a dip in our costs.

That 40% reduction isn't a forecast. It's an argument I am making to raise awareness of the beneficial effect on the economy of reducing this cost that is spiraling out of control. It will never happen unless we choose to do something about it. If congress had that as a target and only got half way there, we'd still be trillions better off as a nation.

I also like competition and I don't think that anyone has suggested a monopoly. The answer is managed competition. We don't have competition at the moment because that's how the H/C system works. It encourages doctors and bankers to open more clinics and there is zero price competition because that's how the system works. If we want competition to work the way the economics books talk about it, the reimbursement (incentive) system has to change.

There are ways to change the system that will increase real competition, but until we all start to talk about it we simply transfer our wealth to others and that is just how the lobbyists want to keep it. They get richer and the rest of us grumble and pay up.

We can have better H/C outcomes at a lower cost, but it will not happen unless we demand that our elected officials start to look after the people that elected them rather than the people that bought that seat for them. It's that simple.

Folks - how about a time out ? This is the 'Jokes' section and not the 'Soapbox' section eh ?

oldjapanesebikes wrote:Folks - how about a time out ? This is the 'Jokes' section and not the 'Soapbox' section eh ?

Hey can I opt for a spanking instead of a time out?

That's the best medicine I can think of. I feel better already.

Joiseygirl wrote:

oldjapanesebikes wrote:Folks - how about a time out ? This is the 'Jokes' section and not the 'Soapbox' section eh ?

Hey can I opt for a spanking instead of a time out?

Well, since you asked nicely.

Getting a little kinky here!
Might need a new item for the board?