Oh - oh...
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...



I'm older than you are, and my health insurance (which I pay for) pays for
it.


My insurance also pays for it and encourages regular checkups. Being
generally healthy, I just don't feel I need it that often, so I don't abuse
it.

Given your style though, it really doesn't surprise me that you take
advantage of your coverage to get every penny's worth.

Eisboch

Oh - oh...
 

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...
Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible right-wing
publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag, edited for
those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley wouldn't have allowed
two-thirds of the contributors to the current NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of Canada's
medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least compared to
the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests, visits to a GP and
then a specialist etc, etc.




Down here, what health care you get depends upon your insurance company.

Oh - oh...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...

I'm older than you are, and my health insurance (which I pay for) pays for
it.


My insurance also pays for it and encourages regular checkups. Being
generally healthy, I just don't feel I need it that often, so I don't abuse
it.

Given your style though, it really doesn't surprise me that you take
advantage of your coverage to get every penny's worth.

Eisboch




My style? To what are you referring?

Oh - oh...
 

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:24:10 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
om...



I'm older than you are, and my health insurance (which I pay for) pays for
it.


My insurance also pays for it and encourages regular checkups. Being
generally healthy, I just don't feel I need it that often, so I don't abuse
it.

Given your style though, it really doesn't surprise me that you take
advantage of your coverage to get every penny's worth.

Eisboch


It may be that his insurance agency encourages frequent checkups,
especially for those that are at higher risk. This is a preemptive
strategy designed to keep outlays and premiums low. Still, there is
no empyreal mandate, other than that contrived by those who consider
themselves to be humanitarian and compassionate, that every person
must have access to some form of health insurance under the auspices
of government and by dint of government largesse. The very notion is
antithetical to personal choice and liberty; but, a good liberal
disdains such notions of personal independence.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Oh - oh...
 

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
...

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

--------------------------------------------------

I've had health insurance (that I have paid for through employment)
since 1977 when I left the Navy.
The first time I had a physical was two years ago and that was only
because Blue Cross insisted I get one or lose my coverage. They
thought I was dead because my file only had two pages in it.


Eisboch


So, you're not too bright when it comes to protecting your own health.
Are you saying that what you did is "proper" for everyone else?

I see my doctor every three months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes
first. :)

I don't have any serious chronic physical ailments, but if one develops,
I want it attended to right away. In between visits, I stop in every few
weeks at the firehouse and one of EMTs checks my blood pressure.

You never talk about your chronic mental ailments.

And I call bull**** that you get your BP checked at the firehouse. A
guy like you would either have a (1) Dr. Karen to check that or (2) a
top-of-the-line home BP tester.

Oh - oh...
 

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
...


i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

--------------------------------------------------

I've had health insurance (that I have paid for through employment)
since 1977 when I left the Navy.
The first time I had a physical was two years ago and that was only
because Blue Cross insisted I get one or lose my coverage. They
thought I was dead because my file only had two pages in it.


Eisboch
So, you're not too bright when it comes to protecting your own
health. Are you saying that what you did is "proper" for everyone else?

I see my doctor every three months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes
first. :)

I don't have any serious chronic physical ailments, but if one
develops, I want it attended to right away. In between visits, I stop
in every few weeks at the firehouse and one of EMTs checks my blood
pressure.

You are just simply awesome Harry. Every three months, huh?
Even the doc that finally checked me out said, "Come back in a year or
so".

Eisboch


I'm older than you are, and my health insurance (which I pay for) pays
for it.


No, you pay for it. The balance is profit for the big corporate health
insurance company, WAFA.

Oh - oh...
 

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...
Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible right-wing
publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag, edited for
those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley wouldn't have allowed
two-thirds of the contributors to the current NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of Canada's
medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least compared to
the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests, visits to a GP and
then a specialist etc, etc.



Did he, at least, walk the dog and help fetch lazy-ass his beer? What
made him leave? The pink RAV4 chickmobile?

Oh - oh...
 

HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the
high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...

Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health
coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible
right-wing publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag,
edited for those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley
wouldn't have allowed two-thirds of the contributors to the current
NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of
Canada's medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least
compared to the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests,
visits to a GP and then a specialist etc, etc.



Down here, what health care you get depends upon your insurance company.

If you have "Bob's Health Insurance Co.", maybe. The rest are very much
the same. I know - I review the options every year when I renew (or
change) my company's policy.

Oh - oh...
 

D K wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
...

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

--------------------------------------------------

I've had health insurance (that I have paid for through employment)
since 1977 when I left the Navy.
The first time I had a physical was two years ago and that was only
because Blue Cross insisted I get one or lose my coverage. They
thought I was dead because my file only had two pages in it.


Eisboch


So, you're not too bright when it comes to protecting your own health.
Are you saying that what you did is "proper" for everyone else?

I see my doctor every three months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes
first. :)

I don't have any serious chronic physical ailments, but if one
develops, I want it attended to right away. In between visits, I stop
in every few weeks at the firehouse and one of EMTs checks my blood
pressure.

You never talk about your chronic mental ailments.

And I call bull**** that you get your BP checked at the firehouse. A
guy like you would either have a (1) Dr. Karen to check that or (2) a
top-of-the-line home BP tester.

Harry has often talked about how he has perfect BP. Why in the world
would he go to the firehouse every few weeks if he didn't have a serious
health issue.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Oh - oh...
 

D K wrote:
HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead
with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the
high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...

Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health
coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible
right-wing publication. These days, it's just another right-wing
rag, edited for those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley
wouldn't have allowed two-thirds of the contributors to the current
NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of
Canada's medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least
compared to the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests,
visits to a GP and then a specialist etc, etc.



Down here, what health care you get depends upon your insurance company.

If you have "Bob's Health Insurance Co.", maybe. The rest are very much
the same. I know - I review the options every year when I renew (or
change) my company's policy.

Same here. Seems every two or three years, the big companies think
you're comfortable with them, so our rates go up a LOT. So we shop, and
usually change. It's usually between the two big ones.