On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:22:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
m...

"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...

Though Eisboch may mean well, his answer is bereft of any thought or
logic, and could insult anybody with the slightest knowledge of the
health care issue.
That's fine though, since this is a boat venue, and most here probably
don't spend much time in debating health care policy.
Not attributing anything to Eisboch, but I've heard much the same empty
words from Republican politicians.
"We have good ideas."
"There's a better way."
Whenever pressed for details, they propose ideas that have been
rejected time and again as not offering a solution to the problem,
and which would simply maintain, or even worsen, the status quo.
Your "WTF" was quite appropriate.
Again, I understand that Eisboch may mean well.
I'm sure he is better versed in boats than he is in the health care
issue.
And it is unfair to ask him to put in a paragraph what Congress needed
+2700 pages to describe.


You are correct, Prick or whoever you are.
I don't claim to be a health insurance expert, nor do I have all the
answers.
However, I *do* have some experience in the administration of health care
plans in a company and I have some experience in the application of health
insurance as it pertains to a serious health issue.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the health insurance problem
started with the demise of affordable, Major Medical health insurance
(catastrophic insurance) that started in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
When HMO, then PTO and other similar plans became the standard in the
industry, the cost of medical insurance began it's upward spiral.

It now seems that a medical insurance plan styled like an HMO and
subsidized by taxpayers for those who can't afford it is expected to be a
right. I have no problem with insurance or subsidized care/service for
life threatening or disabling conditions. I *do* have a problem with
subsidized HMO type programs covering everything under the sun, including
elective or for convenience surgery, convenience abortions (meaning
non-life threatening) etc.

When it comes to basic health care, everyone should have it and those who
can't afford it should be helped. When it comes to other, elective or
unnecessary care, surgery, etc, I think you should pay for it and not have
it paid for by others.

Really very simple.

Eisboch



It's really not very simple. I love this... convenience abortions. Nothing
in the legislation allows money to be spent on abortions, yet the rightnuts
keep bringing it up. "Everything under the sun" includes basic healthcare.
Elective surgery is tough to define also. How about breast reconstruction
after cancer treatment? It's not life threatening, yet you'd deny it right?

The health insurance industry is only interested one thing.. profit. They
don't care about people's health. They need to be cut out of the equation.

I need a facial sanding to make me look younger. Will Obamacare take
care of it for me even if my regular health insurance doesn't?

Where the heck is my free lunch?