"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


OzOne wrote:


On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:40:19 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:




Capt. JG wrote:



"Bart" wrote in message
news:1183167385.992767.285800@m36g2000hse. googlegroups.com...




Sicko': Heavily Doctored
Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?

By Kurt Loder

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/artic...58/story.jhtml

Except of the above.



We're the only "modern" country that doesn't have universal health
care. They all must be wrong.


Erroneous thinking...a preponderance of the world is Asian....we must
change our genetics...a preponderance of the world is Muslim...we
must all become Muslims...


Your national debt is the worlds largest per capita....you will become
part of Asia.


Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

WalMart has been trying to accomplish that for the last 15
years...people here just don't get it...by Jon's way of thinking, then,
the rest of the world should follow suit...



Wow... we should all rely on WalMart! Now that's logical thinking.



Um...I think you got it wrong...that was a scathing remark about WalMart
and their proclivity for buying Asian goods...and yes, the populace of
the US does rely on WalMart, thus making us an economic hostage of
China...



Um... you're right, but who's buying all those goods... WalMart
customers.


Like I said...people here just don't get it...we're our own worst
enemies...


Well, this people gets it. I don't shop at WalMart.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Bart" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...



Sicko': Heavily Doctored
Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?

By Kurt Loder

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/artic...58/story.jhtml

Except of the above.



We're the only "modern" country that doesn't have universal health
care. They all must be wrong.


Erroneous thinking...a preponderance of the world is Asian....we must
change our genetics...a preponderance of the world is Muslim...we must
all become Muslims...



So, I guess it's ok with you if 12 million American children don't have
health care. Got it!


It's 8.9m and a goodly number of them ARE eligible for Medicaid or other
programs but aren't enrolled...thus making it an education problem, not a
healthcare problem...
http://www.aap.org/research/factsheet.pdf

To ameliorate the problem of those that don't qualify, legislation should
be passed that finds a way to take care of them...I've had personal
experience, on several levels, with Canada's national healthcare
system...it is not something I would want for myself or any of mine
(which is a joke because half my mother's side of the family is in
Canada...they can tell you some real horror stories about national health
care..) And why would you think our overburdened, bureaucratic governemnt
could hgandle anything like national health care? Expand Medicaid. Expand
Medicare. Nationalize insurance companies or drastically change the way
insurance companies are allowed to exist. Those things are feasible.
National health care, in our system, would be a sorry mess.



So, you're talking about expanding a gov't program to include all. I'm
for it. "Expand Medicare"

It's a program already in place and already working...reform it...

Besides, those who do have coverage are at risk of losing it should they
lose their job,

that's why there's COBRA...you have 18 months, and sometimes more, to
either get re-employed or find something else...

Cobra is great, but some employers don't offer insurance, so no Cobra.


and they're at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay.

Refuses to pay for waht? Platic surgery? Breat enhancements? Viagra?
Quadruple by=pass on a 96 year old?

There are many instances of insurance companies refusing to pay or burying
people in red tape. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples!



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:


Cobra is great, but some employers don't offer insurance, so no Cobra.


So maybe potential employees should pay more attention to the benefits
package employers offer? Or get a compensation package that allows them
to purchase their own insurance?


and they're at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay.

Refuses to pay for waht? Platic surgery? Breat enhancements? Viagra?
Quadruple by=pass on a 96 year old?

There are many instances of insurance companies refusing to pay or burying
people in red tape. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples!


And is nationalized / socialized insurance is any better? Bureaucrats
are bureaucrats regardless of whether they are with private insurers or
work for a govt.

Canada is a great example of how nationalized insurance fails. They
offer all the problems of private insurance amplified by a
non-responsive govt bureaucracy.

Keep in perspective that Michael Moore is in business to promote his film.

"Cal Vanize" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:


Cobra is great, but some employers don't offer insurance, so no Cobra.


So maybe potential employees should pay more attention to the benefits
package employers offer? Or get a compensation package that allows them
to purchase their own insurance?

Maybe and maybe. I would say that companies should be required to offer
insurance benefits and that benefits should follow a person whether they're
employed by the same company or not. Insurance companies can't be sued.
Medicare can't negotiate for the cost they pay for drugs unlike the VA
system. This isn't right. The package that Congress has is pretty great. Why
can't regular people have the same benefits?

and they're at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay.

Refuses to pay for waht? Platic surgery? Breat enhancements? Viagra?
Quadruple by=pass on a 96 year old?

There are many instances of insurance companies refusing to pay or
burying people in red tape. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples!


And is nationalized / socialized insurance is any better? Bureaucrats are
bureaucrats regardless of whether they are with private insurers or work
for a govt.

Not saying it's going to be better or worse. It's pretty clear that the
current system is working only for those who can afford it, leaving millions
uninsured and millions more under-insured.


Canada is a great example of how nationalized insurance fails. They offer
all the problems of private insurance amplified by a non-responsive govt
bureaucracy.

Everyone keeps mentioning Canada, except I didn't. Why is it not possible to
take the good things and leave the bad things? Must we adopt the Canadian
system wholesale? Seems pretty narrow-minded and limiting. But, it sounds
great.

Keep in perspective that Michael Moore is in business to promote his film.

I know... capitalism is a bad thing....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

* Capt. JG wrote, On 6/30/2007 12:48 PM:

Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except ours.

Actually you should say most of the US. As of tomorrow, Massachusetts
essentially has universal health care. All residents are required to
have coverage, and employers have strong incentives to contribute.
Coverage is free, or very cheap for low income families. Insurers
have to charge the same for non-group as group - in fact my non-group
cost will be much lower than my current group insurance.

Th rest of the country is watching how this plays out - it could be a
model for other progressive states.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* Capt. JG wrote, On 6/30/2007 12:48 PM:

Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except ours.

Actually you should say most of the US. As of tomorrow, Massachusetts
essentially has universal health care. All residents are required to have
coverage, and employers have strong incentives to contribute. Coverage is
free, or very cheap for low income families. Insurers have to charge the
same for non-group as group - in fact my non-group cost will be much lower
than my current group insurance.

Th rest of the country is watching how this plays out - it could be a
model for other progressive states.


You mean not the fly-over states. :-)

Well, I'm not going to worry about it for the week of the 4th. We're headed
to Lake Mead for a nice, relaxing vacation...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:48:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:02:01 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:36:25 -0700, Bart wrote:


What's the problem with government health systems?

What's more important, continued support for a private health care system,
or American jobs? It seems
to be overlooked that our health care system costs upwards of 15% GDP,
while those countries with
universal health care spend @10% GDP. That extra 5% is the reason is the
reason our automotive
sector is fleeing north, expanding operations in Canada, while curtailing
them here. In a global economy,
5% extra cost puts us at a considerable economic disadvantage. Ignore
that at your peril.

All manufacturing is fleeing, not just automotive, and health care
cost is a major driver. I know, I've been there. But universal
health care is not the answer.

Just recently, at a medical school close to my home, the state
legislature mandated to the board of higher education that the number
of seats be increased. There is a very large supply of eligible
candidates, many don't get in. It is the AMA's very sucessful, long
standing attempt to control the supply side, keeping fee schedules
very high.

That's just job losses. Let's not consider the lower life expectancy and
higher infant mortality our health
system provides.

Our health care system doesn't have anything to do with this. It is a
matter of lifestyle choices. Want a lower infant mortality rate? how
about a lower rate of teen mothers on drugs and alcohol. Want a
longer life expectancy? How about everyone get off your buns and get
some exercise and drop the high fat, high sugar diet.

Frank
Who runs 36 miles a week and at 60 has no aging diseases. No
diabetes, no high blood pressure, no cardiovascular issues, no joint,
ligament, or cartilage issues.


Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except ours. I'm
sure we're glad you're healthy and can afford health care, but no one has a
contract with God.


And you miss the entire point. Adopting healthier lifestyles has
nothing to do with having a contract with God. It just diminishes the
need for the" healthcare" that we have come to believe is an
entitlement in this country, that is we can eat horribly, be obese,
smoke, lead completely sedentary lives, and if pregnant, take drugs,
alcohol and smoke, and we or our newborn will remain healthy, and if
that doesn't work, someone else has to pay to make it happen.

Anything the government has ever gotten involved in that requires cost
control and reasonable product or service has been a disaster.

Frank

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
I love it when folks talk about healthcare and then wrap it all up
with the economic factors. You can really spot the royal asshole that
way.
Bottom line: Every American should have health care because it's the
ethical way. Period. There is simply no answer, no feasable and human
alternative. Our current medical system is a complete horror show for
too many good Americans.
Period.

Bart, go **** yourself. You're such an asshole with no clue about the
poverty in this country. Why should you care? Oh, right. You're a
dick.





RB
35s5
NY


Oh the hypocrisy!

This is after you bragged how much your wife makes as a nurse!

Tell us about your yacht, sports cars, vans, rental houses, lakefront
properties, coin collections, telescopes, access to untold funds and then
lecture US on how we don't know or care or do something about poverty!

Tell everyone they are trailer trash and then tell them they don't
understand poverty like you!

Tell us how rich you are and how you know about poverty better than everyone
else!!

Tell us!

Tell us how much your wife makes as a nurse! Tell us how that is so much
more than any of us make! Tell us how you care about those less fortunate
than you!

Tell us!

Tell us, lecture us and lead a life that is the exact opposite of what you
preach!

Tell us!

Oh the hypocrisy!!!!!

But do tell us!!!

Bob Crantz wrote:
"Capt. Rob" wrote in message



snip


RB
35s5
NY


snip

Oh the hypocrisy!!!!!



Hold on....

This controversy is all about Michael Moore making more money stirring
up controversy. He's making a career out of this and laughing at all
American society all the way to the bank.

Don't lead yourself to think there's any other motivation.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:48:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:02:01 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:36:25 -0700, Bart wrote:


What's the problem with government health systems?

What's more important, continued support for a private health care
system,
or American jobs? It seems
to be overlooked that our health care system costs upwards of 15% GDP,
while those countries with
universal health care spend @10% GDP. That extra 5% is the reason is
the
reason our automotive
sector is fleeing north, expanding operations in Canada, while
curtailing
them here. In a global economy,
5% extra cost puts us at a considerable economic disadvantage. Ignore
that at your peril.

All manufacturing is fleeing, not just automotive, and health care
cost is a major driver. I know, I've been there. But universal
health care is not the answer.

Just recently, at a medical school close to my home, the state
legislature mandated to the board of higher education that the number
of seats be increased. There is a very large supply of eligible
candidates, many don't get in. It is the AMA's very sucessful, long
standing attempt to control the supply side, keeping fee schedules
very high.

That's just job losses. Let's not consider the lower life expectancy
and
higher infant mortality our health
system provides.

Our health care system doesn't have anything to do with this. It is a
matter of lifestyle choices. Want a lower infant mortality rate? how
about a lower rate of teen mothers on drugs and alcohol. Want a
longer life expectancy? How about everyone get off your buns and get
some exercise and drop the high fat, high sugar diet.

Frank
Who runs 36 miles a week and at 60 has no aging diseases. No
diabetes, no high blood pressure, no cardiovascular issues, no joint,
ligament, or cartilage issues.


Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except ours. I'm
sure we're glad you're healthy and can afford health care, but no one has
a
contract with God.


And you miss the entire point. Adopting healthier lifestyles has
nothing to do with having a contract with God. It just diminishes the
need for the" healthcare" that we have come to believe is an
entitlement in this country, that is we can eat horribly, be obese,
smoke, lead completely sedentary lives, and if pregnant, take drugs,
alcohol and smoke, and we or our newborn will remain healthy, and if
that doesn't work, someone else has to pay to make it happen.

Anything the government has ever gotten involved in that requires cost
control and reasonable product or service has been a disaster.

Frank

And you've missed the point as well... all of your attempts to remain
healthy are great, but that has little to do with the money required to save
your life or give you a decent quality of life if you get sick and don't
have insurance. The VA insurance is a great example of gov't run healthcare
that for the most part works. They can negotiate prices for drugs, they
serve a vast community, mostly quite well.

You're very quick to say that healthcare is an entitlement, as though it
isn't needed, not really. It is needed and that's demonstrated by the
millions who are uninsured, pushing up the costs for those who are. It's
demonstrated by people's inability to get affordable insurance that sticks
with them, rather than changes with their employer. A child of four getting
cancer is not a life-style problem, but gods forbid if that child's parents
couldn't afford decent health insurance.

We're very, very quick to talk about "freedom," but we sure are slow to talk
about decency when it comes to our own.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com