"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:43:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If I have a runny nose when I come in from the cold I should immediately
make a doctor's appointment because it might be a deadly form of
pneumonia?


Do you have health insurace?

No. Nor do most Americans. Like most, I have a plan for prepayment of
medical expenses, in my case through my employer. If I want to go see a
doctor about that sniffle, the cost to me individually of that particular
visit is extremely small. That's the problem with the system. A system of
insurance, as opposed to tax subsidized prepayment, would, I suggest, do a
great deal toward reducing overall costs of the system.


Ah, so you have a plan, an employer, and a living wage. Unlike people who
are poor and children, you have choices. Not much of humanitarian I take it.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:05:14 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Ah, so you have a plan, an employer, and a living wage. Unlike people who
are poor and children, you have choices. Not much of humanitarian I take
it.

Ah, the old "ya gotta do it for the po' folks" argument. The politicians
have found that it's hard to get votes by handing out things just to the
po'
folks. The new game is to hand things out to everybody and then explain
that
somebody else (typically "the rich") is going to pay for it. That's how we
got the infamous donut hole.


So, what you're saying is that society should do nothing for the poor...
just let them get sick, and cost the rest of us even more. Makes a lot of
sense.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:58:57 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Ah, the old "ya gotta do it for the po' folks" argument. The politicians
have found that it's hard to get votes by handing out things just to the
po'
folks. The new game is to hand things out to everybody and then explain
that
somebody else (typically "the rich") is going to pay for it. That's how
we
got the infamous donut hole.


So, what you're saying is that society should do nothing for the poor...
just let them get sick, and cost the rest of us even more. Makes a lot of
sense.

Nope. What I'm saying is that if you want to give handouts to the po'
folks,
call them handouts, and be forthright about the fact that the rest of us
are
gonna pay for them. Then make those handouts more affordable for the rest
of
us to pay for by reducing the incentive of those who presently pay
virtually
nothing directly for those services to reduce the amount they demand. Make
them have to pony up a bit more each time they use those resources.
Convert
the present system of prepayment into a true system of insurance. Use the
demand curve to reduce the quantity demanded. It's insane when folks
making
in the hundreds of thousands pay $20 per visit to see the doctor.


Why do you believe it isn't obvious who's paying for the supposed handouts?
We've been doing "handouts" since FDR.

I would also like to know how you reduce incentives of those who pay
"virtually" nothing if those people have little or no money to pay more? The
only way I can think of is to make it extraordinarily difficult for them to
get healthcare, and that's certainly what the Bu****s and the other
right-wing nuts have attempted. How much more do you suggest a person of
limited means should pay and to whom should he or she pay it?

Where are you getting this about folks who make 100s of 1000s paying $20 to
see a doctor? The only way this happens is if you're covered by your
companies insurance policy, a policy that I guarantee is going to limit what
is or isn't a legitimate visit. Do you really believe that someone with a
company policy is going to go to the doctor because they have the sniffles?
Companies are paying more and more for coverage for their employees. They
have an incentive to keep people healthy if they can. That they can offer
coverage that's at all affordable to regular employees is many times a
factor of the company's size and thus bargaining ability with the insurance
companies.

Seems like you're changing the argument from don't help poor people to don't
help the rich. Which is it?


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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:51:57 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I would also like to know how you reduce incentives of those who pay
"virtually" nothing if those people have little or no money to pay more?
The
only way I can think of is to make it extraordinarily difficult for them
to
get healthcare, and that's certainly what the Bu****s and the other
right-wing nuts have attempted. How much more do you suggest a person of
limited means should pay and to whom should he or she pay it?

I think perhaps you're being willfully blind, Jon. The people I'm talking
about who pay "virtually" nothing are not the po' folks. They're people
like
me who are covered what's euphemistically called "insurance" and is
actually
a prepayment plan. Having paid their contribution every month, they can
walk
into the doctor's office and just write a check for $20 when they walk
out.
That's how my plan works, at least. It costs me a significant fixed amount
every month, but having paid, there's no incentive whatever for me not to
use the services it covers on every possible occasion.

You said "It costs me a significant fixed amount every month." So, how is
that a burdon to the rest of us? If don't pay so much upfront, your
incentive to go to the doctor with a real need would be less.


Where are you getting this about folks who make 100s of 1000s paying $20
to
see a doctor? The only way this happens is if you're covered by your
companies insurance policy, a policy that I guarantee is going to limit
what
is or isn't a legitimate visit. Do you really believe that someone with a
company policy is going to go to the doctor because they have the
sniffles?

Absolutely. And I'd be damned surprised if I got any objection from the
insurance company.

Not sure what planet you live on, but here when you go to the doctor, you
typically have to take time off to do it. The company is definitely
concerned about that, and if you keep doing it, you won't be working there
very long.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:05:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You said "It costs me a significant fixed amount every month." So, how is
that a burdon to the rest of us? If don't pay so much upfront, your
incentive to go to the doctor with a real need would be less.

You need to dig out a very basic economics text book and read about supply
and demand. Then you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions like that.


I think I have a bit more knowledge about this, but feel free to continue to
look foolish.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:05:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You said "It costs me a significant fixed amount every month." So, how is
that a burdon to the rest of us? If don't pay so much upfront, your
incentive to go to the doctor with a real need would be less.

You need to dig out a very basic economics text book and read about
supply
and demand. Then you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions like that.


I think I have a bit more knowledge about this, but feel free to continue
to look foolish.

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





Well, what I intended to say was "without" a real need. So there.

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

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:05:14 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:


Ah, so you have a plan, an employer, and a living wage. Unlike people who
are poor and children, you have choices. Not much of humanitarian I take it.


Ah, the old "ya gotta do it for the po' folks" argument. The politicians
have found that it's hard to get votes by handing out things just to the po'
folks. The new game is to hand things out to everybody and then explain that
somebody else (typically "the rich") is going to pay for it. That's how we
got the infamous donut hole.

The old Gotta do it for the po' argument? Right on, Dave! - Let's all
work together to put down all those bleeding heart arguments. The less
we talk about the poor, the better. - And the happier we all will be.

And if the poor (and middle class) can't afford to pay $30,000 for a
hospital stay, or emergency care, or to save enough (under a tax
shielded pre-payment savings plan) to pay $$$$ for a surgical procedure
or $$$$$$ for long-term cancer treatment, etc., then that's the way the
cookie crumbles in a free enterprise society. (After all, they had the
same OPPORTUNITIES, didn't they?) Or if they don't want to loose their
job or leave their children to wait all day for free or subsidized care,
that's their choice, right? And if they become more seriously ill or
die, as Scrooge told us, perhaps they should "go ahead and do so, and
thereby REDUCE THE SURPLUS POPULATION."

- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.

Jim

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:05:15 -0600, JimC said:

- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.

A bit late in getting on your soap box on this one, Jim. Did you retire from
being an ambulance chaser because of difficulty in getting your papers in
before the statute of limitations ran?


Wow Dave! I'm sure that Jim will fold up in the face such a
comprehensive and cogent rebuttal; you systematically destroyed every
point of Jim's idiotic statement.

Now I can clearly see why you take such umbrage when others sink to
baseless ad hominem attacks.

Well Done!

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:05:15 -0600, JimC said:

- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.

A bit late in getting on your soap box on this one, Jim. Did you retire
from
being an ambulance chaser because of difficulty in getting your papers in
before the statute of limitations ran?


Wow Dave! I'm sure that Jim will fold up in the face such a comprehensive
and cogent rebuttal; you systematically destroyed every point of Jim's
idiotic statement.

Now I can clearly see why you take such umbrage when others sink to
baseless ad hominem attacks.

Well Done!

Cheers
Marty


At least he's not an obstructionist!

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

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:05:15 -0600, JimC said:


- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.


A bit late in getting on your soap box on this one, Jim. Did you retire from
being an ambulance chaser because of difficulty in getting your papers in
before the statute of limitations ran?

Better late than never Dave. Always interesting to hear the latest
version of Dickens's satirical "reduce the surplus population." - No one
admits it of course, but it's still applicable to some of the true
believer right-wingers.

Jim