Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

On 2008-07-30 22:04:02 -0400, Dave said:

Insurance companies are indeed part of the problem.

Insurance, and the companies and governments who administer such, are
part of virtually every financial problem.

In every case, they take a "cut" of the proceeds that only organized
crime can rival, but they got there first and wrote the laws that
legalize their usury, with the help of the lawyers who have gotten rich
defending their interests.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:35:32 -0700, said:

A completely irrational approach to building a healthcare
network, but there you have it. And that's why we're here.

My point precisely, whether you choose to point the finger at unions,
guvmint or employers.

Hmmmm...didn't notice anyone arguing with the fact the current system is
screwed up.


The
for-profit intermediary approach (insurance) merely exacerbates the problem.

This is your second mistake.

Uhmmm, sure, read on.

Our present system is not insurance, at least
not in the usual sense of that word. An insurance system has each insured
pay a small amount because a few of the total number of insureds, the
identities of whom cannot be established in advance, will incur a
catastrophic loss.

Yes, this is exactly the way the current system works. The key is
"loss", and size of the premium determines where the "catastrophic" line
is placed. Normal, preventive, medical care is paid merely as a *hedge*
against greater catastrophic losses that would be expected (based on
actuarial calculation) from lack of such care. With a marketing aspect
thrown in as well naturally.

A quick check of Merriam Webster:

Main Entry:
health insurance
Function:
noun
Date:
1901

: insurance against loss through illness of the insured; especially :
insurance providing ***compensation*** for medical expenses emphasis added

Common usage for over a century. Insurance does not always mean total
indemnification against any loss.

In an insurance system each of us would bear the normal,
regular and recurring costs of medical treatment, and only large
expenditures would be paid by third parties. The present system is a
prepayment system, not an insurance system. If you're "insured" under the
present system, when was the last time you had to pay out of pocket the
entire cost of a routine doctor's visit?
Would you be making as many visits
if somebody else wasn't picking up nearly all of the tab?

With very few exceptions, my copays cover the entire cost of the visit.
And being self employed, I pay all my own premiums as well - a
princely sum indeed.

Would your neighbor?

Doubtful. What's your point?

Keith Hughes

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:34:15 -0400, said:

Clinton was
elected President with a REPUBLICAN congress,

That is, of course, the key.

Well, you clearly jumped the shark with THAT rationalization.

Rationalization hell. The Dems for years insisted on defending the system
of
paying unwed mothers to stay home making babies indefinitely. They dragged
out all kinds of parades of horribles they claimed would occur if the
system
were changed.

Then the Republicans took Congress and decided there ought be a limit. And
Clinton had the good sense to get out of the way of that freight train.
And
lo! The sky did not fall as the Dems had been predicting.


So, Clinton acted successfully, and he created a compromise that even those
terrible democrats could tolerate... unless you think that the Republicans
had a filibuster proof majority.

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

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

On 2008-07-30 23:42:02 -0400, Dave said:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:23:25 GMT, Jere Lull said:

laws that legalize their usury,

Nice word, usury. It has a wonderfully slithering sound of sleazy illegality.

But it has no application to what we're talking about here.

As a matter of fact, it does if you know the territory that this thread
has blundered into.....

I was essentially saying "a pox on both their houses", or more
precisely, "a pox on their house".

No significant difference amongst them all. They simply change sides,
and their viewpoints, depending on whether they're "in power" or "not".

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:00:31 -0700, said:

A quick check of Merriam Webster:

Main Entry:
health insurance

I think you've proved my point rather nicely. Health insurance now differs
so radically from what the term "insurance" has traditionally meant that it
has to have its own separate entry .

LOL. Right - a tradition starting over a HUNDRED years ago. Oh, I
suppose your convenient excision of

"Date:
1901"

was unintentional? OK, how about this;


Main Entry:
1in·sur·ance Listen to the pronunciation of 1insurance Listen to
the pronunciation of 1insurance
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈshu̇r-ən(t)s also ˈin-ˌ\
Function:
noun
Date:
1651

1 a: the business of insuring persons or property b: coverage by
contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another
against ***loss*** by a ***specified contingency*** or peril c: the sum
for which something is insured emphasis added

Note - indemnification against loss (i.e. cost) due to ANY *specified*
(i.e. contractually defined) contingency. Sorry, but your artificially
narrow definition of "insurance" simply does not hold water. And your
semantic quibbling would be to what end exactly?


Would you be making as many visits
if somebody else wasn't picking up nearly all of the tab?

[snip]

LOL - again. Nice editing; leave in the question to imply that the
answer supports your position when, in fact, my answer was just the
opposite. I don' purport to represent the 'typical' insurance user, but
such editing is disingenuous at best.


Would your neighbor?

Doubtful. What's your point?

Ever see one o' them graphs with price on one axis and quantity on the other
axis, and an x in the upper right hand quadrant? See if you can piece it
together after thinking about one o' them there graphs.

Well DUH! What did you think "doubtful" implied? Bingo! You guessed
it, people tend to overuse/abuse 'free' services. Wow! I meant, rather
obviously I thought, "what's your point relative to the discussion at
hand"? I.e. since we've stipulated that the system as structured is
broken, this point is relevant how exactly?

Keith Hughes

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:49:02 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, Clinton acted successfully, and he created a compromise that even
those
terrible democrats could tolerate... unless you think that the Republicans
had a filibuster proof majority.

Your memory is faulty again, Jon. That was back in the days when neither
party was using its minority position at the time to require that every
piece of legislation and every presidential appointment receive a 2/3
vote.


As soon as someone claims that something is "always" true or uses the term
"every" to support an argument (used twice in your reply), I'm skeptical.
Thus, I don't believe this is an accurate representation of the facts.

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

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:52:22 -0700, said:

Ever see one o' them graphs with price on one axis and quantity on the other
axis, and an x in the upper right hand quadrant? See if you can piece it
together after thinking about one o' them there graphs.
Well DUH! What did you think "doubtful" implied? Bingo! You guessed
it, people tend to overuse/abuse 'free' services.

Ah, so you did figure it out.

Ah, so you *can* read! Obviously it's the comprehension part you're
struggling with. Like the typical usage of "insurance" that you can't
quite seem to understand. I notice you conveniently ignored replying to
that part...

Keith Hughes

Advice on refrigeration unit please
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:49:02 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, Clinton acted successfully, and he created a compromise that even
those
terrible democrats could tolerate... unless you think that the Republicans
had a filibuster proof majority.
Your memory is faulty again, Jon. That was back in the days when neither
party was using its minority position at the time to require that every
piece of legislation and every presidential appointment receive a 2/3
vote.


As soon as someone claims that something is "always" true or uses the term
"every" to support an argument (used twice in your reply), I'm skeptical.
Thus, I don't believe this is an accurate representation of the facts.


Actually, as far as the Senate goes, it is fair to say that "every"
piece of legislation, since the Clinton years, is subject to a
filibuster-proof margin (60 votes, not 2/3rds however) since that is
always implicit in negotiations for unanimous consent requests when the
majority party controls less than 60 (solid) votes. Just how the Senate
works. It is certainly true that the *Public* threat of filibuster
seems to be gaining great favor these days as a negotiating/PR tactic.

It is also fair to say that *we*, the public, cannot be sure how often
the filibuster threat is used to stop legislation, or judicial
appointments. And for judicial nominations, any member of the Judiciary
committee can put a hold on any nominee, effectively killing (with few
exceptions) the nomination. This happened scores of time during the
Clinton years, and during previous administrations and congresses as well.

Keith Hughes

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:38:54 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

As soon as someone claims that something is "always" true or uses the term
"every" to support an argument (used twice in your reply), I'm skeptical.
Thus, I don't believe this is an accurate representation of the facts.

Hyperbole sometimes effectively makes in more memorable fashion a point
that
otherwise might be lost.


So, you don't have a leg to stand on... got it.

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

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:20:46 -0700, said:

I notice you conveniently ignored replying to
that part...

So sue me.

While I do appreciate the invitation, I must respectfully decline. Much
too busy...

Keith Hughes