But it seems even legitimate questions get painted with the same brush, ie. you're either for or against it, and if you're against it, then your arguments are not legitimate.

8/13/2009 8:05:17 AM

Quote :

"so, it's terrible for liberals to plant a question. but when Bush plants a question, it's ok? got it "

hahah, this Bush shit never gets old and it is used for practically any lib arguement they are losing. So a 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit and growing is ok.. bc BUSH had a 400 B dollar one.. which is worse man... worse.... man...

I kinda get the picture of libs as linus carrying around thier comfort blanket and sucking thier thumb. As long as they can hold onto that comfort, bush, blanket all makes sense in the world. Not all libs, just the ones that always divert every arguement back to bush.

Fail boat has been pretty reasonable, but come on man. This astroturfing shit was drumbed up in the last couple of weeks as a way to take some bite out of these protests as being more of a show than of substance. You gotta expect some ribbing back when the O does the same. This has NOTHING to do with bush.

8/13/2009 8:06:03 AM

All this time spent demonizing a small group of fringe protesters is purely an attempt to disingenuously paint all those who oppose the democrats’ plan in the same light. It is a crafty way of posing an argument without having to actually make it substantive.

8/13/2009 8:50:08 AM

it's hard not to respond when that small group includes national figures and high-profile members of the national media

8/13/2009 8:54:17 AM

Quote :

"hahah, this Bush shit never gets old and it is used for practically any lib arguement they are losing. "

Don't be a mindless political hack. This is how I scored



and it's pretty much how I've always felt my politics were.

My comment was sarcasm on what aaronangry posted you dumb shit. I'm already on the record as saying I gave up on Obama, I have a thread where I disagreed with Paul Krugman for the rimjob he's been giving Obama lately. I'm hardly a liberal. Now run along and masturbate to Dave Ramsey's voice and try and figure out other ways you can minimize the profit potential of your free capital.

8/13/2009 9:13:17 AM

Quote :

"it's hard not to respond when that small group includes national figures and high-profile members of the national media"

They are a small group, nonetheless. Nearly all controversial ideas have some "high-profile" members of the national media behind them.

8/13/2009 9:19:05 AM

Quote :

" Health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Comprehensive health insurance is such an ingrained element of our thinking, we forget that its rise to dominance is relatively recent. Modern group health insurance was introduced in 1929, and employer-based insurance began to blossom during World War II, when wage freezes prompted employers to expand other benefits as a way of attracting workers. Still, as late as 1954, only a minority of Americans had health insurance. That’s when Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. This seemingly minor tax benefit not only encouraged the spread of catastrophic insurance, but had the accidental effect of making employer-funded health insurance the most affordable option (after taxes) for financing pretty much any type of health care. There was nothing natural or inevitable about the way our system developed: employer-based, comprehensive insurance crowded out alternative methods of paying for health-care expenses only because of a poorly considered tax benefit passed half a century ago. In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12% of the population. And it is no coinci­dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after. We all believe we need comprehensive health insurance because the cost of care—even routine care—appears too high to bear on our own. But the use of insurance to fund virtually all care is itself a major cause of health care’s high expense. "

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care/6

8/13/2009 9:47:08 AM

Quote :

"try and figure out other ways you can minimize the profit potential of your free capital. "

haha

8/13/2009 9:51:25 AM

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32398096

Quote :

"German gross domestic product rose by 0.3 percent in the second quarter, bringing an end to the country's deepest recession since World War Two. French GDP also grew by 0.3 percent in the second quarter. The consensus in a Reuters poll of economists had predicted a 0.3 percent quarterly contraction in both countries."

How could these evil socialist regimes possibly pull out of the recession before true, free market economies?

8/13/2009 9:52:52 AM

right right. We're totally a free market. Ignore the fed propping up the same companies that caused the problems. Ignore the governement providing tax incentives that created our shitty healthcare system.

8/13/2009 10:14:15 AM

Yeah, you're right. We should be more like Somalia. Now there is a real free market we can look to

Surely those countries well funded social programs which allow people who lost their jobs to continue receiving health care, and go back to school (tuition is dirt cheap there) instead of working at Burger King, has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to recover from a recession.

8/13/2009 10:35:36 AM

education is an easy fixed cost. healthcare is not. I dont really understand why you people dont get this.

The post office works because people pay to have their packages delivered
The education system works because you can tax based on predictable costs

The healthcare system is busted because people pay LESS than the cost of the services they use. Govcare does absoultely nothing at all to fix this problem.

I totally agree with you that better education would make people better able to afford their own healthcare and that we should look to fix that before looking at healthcare.

8/13/2009 10:39:28 AM

See, that's bullshit though. Most people (or their employers) pay MORE than the cost of the services they use. I go to a doctor maybe 1-2 times a year MAXIMUM. Whatever premiums my job has to pay to keep me insured (probably ~$5000/year) cost a shit ton more than the cost of 2 doctor's visit. This is the case for most healthy people.

Of course, when the shit hits the fan and we actually need that service that we've been paying premiums out the ass for, the insurance companies come up with various reasons to deny our claims and send people into the poor house. Explain how else insurance company profits have quadrupled in the past decade. The exception to this is old people on Medicare, which we've already discussed.

The bottom line is that health care constitutes ~%15 of our GDP right now. In about 20 years, it'll reach 1/3 of our GDP. People talk about Medicare or SS becoming unsustainable, but they pale in comparison to the explosive growth in health care costs that will actually cripple our economy in the near future if nothing is done.

8/13/2009 10:57:24 AM

thats you and me. We dont use our healthcare. old people do. And thats the fucking problem. And all these plans that are being proposed are designed to help them, not us. None of these plans are going to help you and me. And they'll all be bankrupt by the time we get to old age.

A better plan is to get rid of the idea of an "insurance" that pays for all your care. Pay for it out of pocket. For you and me we'll end up putting the money we save into an HSA so its there when we get old. It also means we dont need to deal with an insurance company (private or government run) to get care. Create a cutoff for medicare and get rid of it when the old people on it finally die off.

The only way. THE ONLY WAY to control healthcare costs is by getting consumers to start thinking about it themselves. If we have to do research to determine if we need certain procedures or we start shopping around for prices, then costs go down. And the only way that will happen is if people have to pay for their own care. This idea that the governement is somehow going to control costs by dictating prices is ludicrous.

8/13/2009 11:11:33 AM

it's not even possible to shop around these days. costs (especially for more serious procedures) are completely hidden to the consumer. in many instances you can't even find out what a procedure will cost before it is performed.

8/13/2009 11:15:55 AM

^ because 88% of all health-care expenditures are paid by third parties. If consumers are insulated from prices, why demand cost transparency?

8/13/2009 11:19:02 AM

I assume this is old, what is the explanation from the anti socialists crowd

8/13/2009 11:37:30 AM

^^^^That's all well and good, and it may actually be a valid solution to the problem of health care expenditures for the elderly. But it does nothing to solve this:

Quote :

"Most people (or their employers) pay MORE than the cost of the services they use. I go to a doctor maybe 1-2 times a year MAXIMUM. Whatever premiums my job has to pay to keep me insured (probably ~$5000/year) cost a shit ton more than the cost of 2 doctor's visit. This is the case for most healthy people. Of course, when the shit hits the fan and we actually need that service that we've been paying premiums out the ass for, the insurance companies come up with various reasons to deny our claims and send people into the poor house. Explain how else insurance company profits have quadrupled in the past decade."

Your HSA will be wiped out with one trip to the ER if your insurance company doesn't pay (or you don't have insurance).

Also, how can you possibly say,

Quote :

"This idea that the governement is somehow going to control costs by dictating prices is ludicrous."

when that's exactly how it works for I dunno, the rest of the developed world? Why are we so different? A health consultation in France costs $32 (meaning, that's what the private doctor charges for his services). Something similar here can cost upwards of $300 when all is said and done. How did that happen? Certainly not the free market since France is a socialist cess pool. It happened because the government was able to negotiate those rates with doctors.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM. Reason : :]

8/13/2009 11:41:40 AM

^^Look at the price differentials between the US and France for cosmetics, where consumers pay almost entirely out of pocket. In all but one category, the US is significantly less expensive.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 11:44:14 AM

Ok, and?

8/13/2009 11:50:37 AM

It is consistent with what many of us have been saying all along: the reason health-care costs are rising exponentially (which is one of the causes of higher medical tourism) is because consumers are insulated from prices and thus do not weigh costs and benefits, which causes the entire value chain to care less about finding ways to provide higher quality care at lower costs. Cost consciousness on the part of the consumer has led LASIK providers to dramatically improve the quality of LASIK while at the same time reducing prices. Again, just as in every other sector of our economy where consumers care about prices.

8/13/2009 11:59:44 AM

There's no reason why one visit to my cardiologist at Duke (it's usually just an echocardiogram and an x-ray, and then I talk to my doctor) ends up being > $3,000.

The cost of health care is ridiculous. I have no problem paying for my own health care (I already have quite the bill that I'm paying a few hundred dollars on a month) because I obviously use the service but this "out-of-pocket" idea is such bullshit because you're not paying a fair price for what you're getting in return.

8/13/2009 12:00:48 PM

Quote :

"Your HSA will be wiped out with one trip to the ER if your insurance company doesn't pay (or you don't have insurance)."

HSAs are meant to be coupled with high-deductible insurance plans, which cover all costs above the deductible. The purpose of an HSA is to have adequate savings to cover deductibles and routine expenses. It is unlikely, in most cases, for the entire balance to be wiped out.

Quote :

"when that's exactly how it works for I dunno, the rest of the developed world? Why are we so different? We produce more technological "

First, distorting prices distorts producers' incentives. There is a reason the majority of the world’s health-care innovation occurs in the United States.

Secondly, we do not resort to fiat rationing. (of course one can make the silly argument that we ration by price, but this is the case in every other market. There is both a moral and functional difference between fiat rationing and price rationing)

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 12:05:30 PM

Quote :

""out-of-pocket" idea is such bullshit because you're not paying a fair price for what you're getting in return."

How do you determine a "fair" price?

8/13/2009 12:06:59 PM

Quote :

"Your HSA will be wiped out with one trip to the ER if your insurance company doesn't pay (or you don't have insurance). "

Thats why you have accidental insurance to cover those things. Insurance works just fine for unexpected problems. See car insurnace. It totally breaks down when you charge every little thing to insurance. An HSA is for things like perscriptions or other out of pocket medical expenses.

Quote :

"when that's exactly how it works for I dunno, the rest of the developed world? Why are we so different? A health consultation in France costs $32 (meaning, that's what the private doctor charges for his services). Something similar here can cost upwards of $300 when all is said and done. How did that happen? Certainly not the free market since France is a socialist cess pool. It happened because the government was able to negotiate those rates with doctors."

Right now our costs are so high because thats what doctors have to charge to get their moneys worth out of insurance or medicare. If you eliminate insurance and medicare entirely doctors will only be able to charge what their patients can afford. You might pay $32 to a french doctor for a consult, but hes going to turn around and charge whatever else he needs to the government. This is no different from the way our current system works with private insurance. The only difference is the french doctor has a guarantee that what he charged will be paid for by the government.

Creating a static list of forced price limits and covered procedures in a single payer system in the US would probably reduce costs. However, it would also reduce doctor salaries and would mean non-covered care is out of the question for most americans.

A truely free market system where neither your insurance provider or the government has any say in what doc you pick or whats going to be covered will result in a better system. PCPs will lower prices to get patients and as a result more people will use their PCP instead of the emergency room lowering costs further. Current plans are to have the government pay for ER care for the uninsured. All that does is guarantee the fed will pay full price for ER care. It might make private insurance cheaper, but it'll be made up for with taxes.

8/13/2009 12:09:38 PM

I'm admittedly no expert in economics or health care so I can't even try to answer that.

It's just for somebody that's had a certain condition since birth that requires a specialist you can't "shop around for" - an out-of-pocket system would be bullshit. Of course I'm biased because that person is me, but how could anybody be okay with somebody, through no fault of their own, paying over $5,000 a year for visits that are only check-ups on their condition? Because they were lucky enough to not have the problem?

8/13/2009 12:13:36 PM

^ I agree, there is a strong case for a government role in providing subsidies to those with preexisting conditions. However, this can be resolved through narrowly-defined, targeted subsidies for those few who need them. It does not require distorting the entire system.

8/13/2009 12:18:08 PM

Quote :

"It is consistent with what many of us have been saying all along: the reason health-care costs are rising exponentially (which is one of the causes of higher medical tourism) is because consumers are insulated from prices and thus do not weigh costs and benefits, which causes the entire value chain to care less about finding ways to provide higher quality care at lower costs. Cost consciousness on the part of the consumer"

And letting the government negotiate that on my behalf is a problem? Is that really the reason cosmetic surgery is cheaper? I find it hard to believe I could get drastically different quotes on medical procedures by shopping around. Why haven't big group plans been able to get rates per procedure near what India or even France can get? They aren't cost conscience? And, in regard to LASIK, I talked to my eye doc about it in May and the prices haven't come down one bit in years at Duke (which is where he recommends me get it done as they are the best in the state).

8/13/2009 12:18:09 PM

^^^The problem is your costs are distorted by the insurance system. Those specialists know they can find someone whos insurance will pay more for the same thing .So if you dont bite on their prices, they can just bump you and fill that timeslot with someone who will. You are also not the common case.

From an economic standpoint you are going to cost any system significantly more than the average person. In an out of pocket system you'd be covered under the same limited governement programs that cover the poor plus charities whos donations would be completely tax deductable.




[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : a]

8/13/2009 12:20:55 PM

Remind me again why we bear firefighters, schools, and police, as a distributed cost to all of society...but not health care?

8/13/2009 12:25:00 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Take a look at the latest headlines -- or at your insurance premiums -- and it's hard to escape the conclusion that health-care prices move in only one direction: up. But why should this be the case? After all, prices for many other goods and services have fallen over time as technology and productivity have improved. One leading theory on health-care inflation suggests that part of the problem is that consumers don't generally spend their own money on health care. Rather, it's paid for by "third parties" -- either by insurance paid by employers or by the government -- giving individuals little incentive to pay attention to price. And giving doctors and hospitals little incentive to be clear about either price or quality. That's the thinking behind new health-insurance products such as Health Savings Accounts, which allow individuals to reap tangible benefits by making cost-conscious medical decisions. But will HSAs help keep costs down? And what would a price-sensitive health-care market look like? Some answers can be found by looking at the market for medical procedures that aren't usually covered by insurance today. Take cosmetic surgery and dentistry, both widely used and available. Plenty of consumer satisfaction and no cost crisis there. Another good example is LASIK, the revolutionary laser surgery that over the past decade has restored many former eyeglass or contact-lens wearers to near perfect sight. No doubt most readers have noticed the advertisements and aggressive price competition for the procedure in recent years. And it turns out competition works. The nearby chart tells the story. In early 1999, shortly after LASIK was first approved by the FDA, the average price for the procedure was about $2,100 per eye. By the end of last year, it had fallen about 20% to $1,687. Innovators have also responded to the demand for the service by developing a newer and more precise LASIK technology called "wavefront-guided" LASIK. Naturally, they charge more for this better, more accurate technology, but not much more than the standard procedure originally cost. In short, the existence of a real market for the LASIK procedure has produced rapid improvements in technology and stable-to-falling costs. Between 1999 and 2004, by contrast, overall annual health expenditures per person in the U.S. increased to nearly $6,300 from $4,400, and the increase is being felt acutely by employers and their workers. The LASIK experience also refutes the criticism of HSAs that individuals without comprehensive insurance coverage are likely to underconsume health care to their own detriment. If so many people are willing to ante up for optional procedures like LASIK, surely they'll be able to get used to more direct spending on urgent medical needs as well. Just as surely, everyone stands to benefit from a health-care marketplace in which LASIK surgeons and dentists aren't the only medical providers competing aggressively for business. Proponents of government-run health care keep insisting that medicine is different from everything else in the economy in being immune to market forces. But the LASIK example shows that where a market in health care is actually allowed to function, with transparent pricing and incentives to spend wisely, the market works very well. The goal of public policy should be to make sure there's such a market across the entire health-care industry."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114195744716494410.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

8/13/2009 12:32:58 PM

Fail Boat,

Because when a cop catches a criminal breaking into your house, it not only makes you safer, but me safer as well. The fact that there is unexcludable benefits to everyone from policing is part of what makes it a "public good".

Similar stories can be told for firefighters (putting out the fire at your house keeps it from spreading to everyone else's ala San Fran 1906) and maybe even schools (the fact that you are a smarter and more productive workers helps me to be smarter more productive worker, try being a doctor in a hospital where the rest of the staff can barely read...of course I'm less convinced by this story).

Remind me again how health insurance sounds like any of these things? If you don't have health insurance and go bankrupt from medical bills, how does that help or hurt me?

8/13/2009 12:38:52 PM

^^^Again, those all carry fixed and predictable costs and for the most part everyone takes out the same value they put into the system.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM. Reason : a]

8/13/2009 12:40:18 PM

Great link hunt. Ive seen lasik prices fall since ive been out of school. You can get LASIK for about 1k an eye by some docs(which i would NOT do btw). The technology with the wavefront, improvements in the lasers themselves, as far as burn times and heat generated, and now using the laser to make the flap instead of the microkeratome is leading to a much better procedure now than even 4-5 yrs ago.

Now if youll excuse me, Ive got my jergens ready for the dave ramsey show, and my money buried in the back yard. Fail Boat.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 12:47:09 PM

Quote :

"Remind me again how health insurance sounds like any of these things? If you don't have health insurance and go bankrupt from medical bills, how does that help or hurt me?"

An unhealthy population kills GDP in the same way an aging population does, look at Japan for how this is working.

8/13/2009 1:03:32 PM

Quote :

"First, distorting prices distorts producers' incentives. There is a reason the majority of the world’s health-care innovation occurs in the United States."

Correlation without causation. The US leads in innovation across many other fields, mostly because we have the most money to spend. Hell, some of them are even government subsidized, like for example, NASA. Unless you can somehow show me that health insurance companies donate a sizable portion of their profits to medical research, you don't have a point.

Quote :

" Thats why you have accidental insurance to cover those things. Insurance works just fine for unexpected problems. See car insurnace. It totally breaks down when you charge every little thing to insurance. An HSA is for things like perscriptions or other out of pocket medical expenses."

Did you just ignore the part where I said what if their insurance company denies their claim or cancels their policy? Or if they weren't able to get the insurance in the first place because pre-existing conditions? I love how you people pretend that this doesn't really happen. 67% of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses, and most of those people have/had insurance.

Quote :

"You might pay $32 to a french doctor for a consult, but hes going to turn around and charge whatever else he needs to the government. This is no different from the way our current system works with private insurance. The only difference is the french doctor has a guarantee that what he charged will be paid for by the government."

That's not how the French system works. Prices aren't fixed, reimbursements rates are. Doctor's can charge whatever they want, but a patient will know up front how much of that will be paid for by their medicare system and how much will be out of pocket. This keeps prices in check while also allowing for a degree of choice and also supplemental insurance to cover whatever the government doesn't.

Quote :

"I agree, there is a strong case for a government role in providing subsidies to those with preexisting conditions. However, this can be resolved through narrowly-defined, targeted subsidies for those few who need them."

At least you acknowledge that a private, for profit health industry can never totally satisfy a countries medical needs.

8/13/2009 1:07:40 PM

Quote :

"Unless you can somehow show me that health insurance companies donate a sizable portion of their profits to medical research, you don't have a point"

Why would you assume insurance companies fund R&D?

Quote :

"Correlation without causation. The US leads in innovation across many other fields, mostly because we have the most money to spend."

And why do we have the most money to spend?

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 1:26:53 PM

Quote :

"At least you acknowledge that a private, for profit health industry can never totally satisfy a countries medical needs."

That is why we have non-profit insurance companies for those who wish to entertain that idea.

Besides, why do you assume a private, for-profit health-care industry cannot satisfy a country's medical needs? Such industries do so for food at ever-lower prices each year.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 1:28:54 PM

Is eyedrb an ophthalmologist or an optometrist?

And how does he post on TWW during the middle of the day? I wasn't aware that either of those occupations was a desk job.

And I was under the impression that eye doctors (optometrists at least) have a pretty sweet deal going here in North Carolina. My friend had to go to the eye doc twice a year (one appointment for an exam and one for a "fitting") just to get the exact same prescription lenses each year. They always gave her the run-around, trying to get her to buy contacts through them. She moved to Florida, and they refilled her prescription with no exam or fitting. I think she has to go back every two years down there.

And eye doctors are notorious for giving unneeded exams. Just because there's an exam limit per patient doesn't mean they can't slip in some bullshit tests. And remember when they lobbied to mandate that every school-age child undergo eye exams? Yeah, let's give eye exams ($$$) to every kid (developing eye sights and all) and have even more children needlessly wearing glasses ($$$).

I dunno. I don't like the idea of kids not getting the help they need. But I also don't want to pour money into the pockets of some entirely empowered eye doctors who whine about how tough it is all the time.

8/13/2009 1:31:50 PM

yeah "eye dr"

8/13/2009 1:54:11 PM

the poorer of the two bridget.

Yeah most docs will charge a seperate contact lens fitting fee. It does not mean they have to come back every 6 months though, its usually at the time of the exam. Its usually only charged when we make a change or its a first time/new fit that we need to see back again. Hence they wont be charged every time they come back for follow ups on the contact fitting or for each change in contacts.

I disagree with docs pushing to buy glasses or contacts in thier office, offering is fine, but pushing violates trust imo.

Im not sure what you mean by unneeded exams though. Or an exam limit. We are limited by the procedures we can be reimbursed for in the same day and by diagnosis. Also, certain insurances will limit how often you can get an exam, although those tend to be vision insurances and medicaid that limit those.

The Jim Black deal was a shady way of going about things. THere are several states that have laws requiring kids to get eye exams before schools starts. Its a great idea knowing how important vision is to learning but also the detection of eye disease or amblyopia that can be corrected if caught early. However, how they went about it was wrong and illegal. Besides, I personally think its a good idea to have each kid screened before school, however, I think parents should have the option and it should not be taxpayer funded/mandatory. imo

As for today, im off. Did you get today off too bridget?

8/13/2009 3:15:32 PM

Quote :

"I'm just tired of so many people stirring this "Republicans have lost their mind" bullshit."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/death-to-obama-sign-holder-at-town-hall-detained-by-secret-service.php

Quote :

"Man carrying "death to Obama" sign at Maryland town hall detained by Secret Service. The full sign actually read: "Death To Obama, Death To Michelle And Her Two Stupid Kids""

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 3:35:55 PM

yep, all the evidence you need right there. Time to disband the party, everyone has lost thier minds.

8/13/2009 3:43:35 PM

Nobody ever said "everybody," though Grassley, Palin, etc saying that the death panels thing is true pretty much shows that the leadership are losing their minds, too.

8/13/2009 3:45:40 PM

Michael Steele, too.

8/13/2009 3:50:42 PM

Quote :

"Death To Obama, Death To Michelle And Her Two Stupid Kids"

nice

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 3:51 PM. Reason : just to clarify - a sarcastic nice]

8/13/2009 3:50:58 PM

^^^ well if Palin is considered "leadership" these days then that's half their problem right there

8/13/2009 4:29:29 PM

So, essentially no good argument for why France and India have drastically lower non cosmetic surgery costs?

8/13/2009 5:17:29 PM

Probably because they have less regulations, less technologically advanced facilities, doctors that aren't as well trained, probably lower legal fees, on top of an exchange rate that's very beneficial to Americans.

I would imagine, compared to their ordinary citizen, their surgical procedures aren't all that cheap.

8/13/2009 5:22:55 PM

I dont see that being the case with france.

8/13/2009 5:24:23 PM