"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 3/31/10 11:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my
mind, be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for
sniffles, colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch


Do most people, even with HMOs, see the doctor for sniffles or colds? I'm
not sure what "issues of convenience" are.

My doctor wants to see me every four months. I usually have nothing to
report to him in terms of aches, pains, ailments, but he checks me over
anyway, and has blood drawn. Prior to flu season, I pop by his office for
the nurse to give me the "shot." I see my ophthalmologist once a year for
an eye exam. Are these "issues of convenience"?


Yes.

I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once
that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company
and for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of
the services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical
insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries
or illness.

Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow
such a thing.

Eisboch


You once did a survey that proved something. Sure. In one specific case.
But, I guess Mitt didn't like your plan. The one he pushed is much stronger
than the one that just passed. Of course, he's against it after he was for
it.

--
Nom=de=Plume