On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:47:47 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:06:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:53:55 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:56:49 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:34:10 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:57:50 -0400, H the K
wrote:

(floating around the 'net...grammar errors included)


I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE ****HEEL

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of
energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the
municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the
FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the
national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the
weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and
launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched
this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected
food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food
and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept
accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the
US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety
administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads
build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation,
possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender
issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any
mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids
off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work
thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor
and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another
two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my
NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned
down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and
fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s
valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense
advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com
and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the
government can’t do anything right.

Brilliant, even without mentioning a hundred other agencies that make
our lives safer and more comfortable.

Sold your soul to the devil for a little security and comfort?

No, haven't sold my soul at all. I'm for the common good, all ships
in the harbor...


Where is the common good in foisting an indifferent, insensate,
behemoth of government on a hard-working peoples? It's
unconscionable.

Are you referring to corporate insurers? How could the federal
government be any more insensitive and unconsionable than corporations
who find ways to deny coverage and kick people off their roles who are
higher risk?

The public option is the only thing that's going to force these
assholes to behave more like decent citizens.

A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each
other. The contention that a public option will keep providers honest
is itself a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as
possible in the free market if they are to remain viable. And if
providers are required to carry all applicants without consideration
of medical history, most providers would not be able to remain viable.
Too, there are organizations that provide various forms of
indemnification for the uninsurable. But, as in all insurances,
higher premiums are required. And all states have policy renewal and
cancellation regulations. Health insurers are subject to oversight
and state regulation. And the states generally shape their
legislation and regulations to conform to the recommendations of the
NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or pre-existing conditions is
that any condition that could have been reasonably diagnosed by a
physician 12 months prior to the activation date of the policy is not
covered for 12 months following that date. Too, most insurers for an
array of conditions, will attach riders to policies that will exclude
coverage for those conditions for approximately 2 years after which
those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and
ultimately most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that
option. And the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that
without the competition of the free market to keep it streamlined,
efficient, and honest, the public option will inexorably provide
mediocre health care, and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-
oxymoron

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:20:13 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-
oxymoron

http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is
a capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the
article illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and
states have options available for their respective residents. The
fact remains that states can determine their respective domestic
insurers. A federal public option will follow the course I outlined
above. It's a pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain,
nothing else. It's inhumane.

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

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron

http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal
anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's
Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the
schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges,
used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions,
subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It
ain't a competitive market.

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron
http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal
anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's
Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the
schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges,
used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions,
subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It
ain't a competitive market.




in fact, the only real competition is in the federally managed FEHBA
program, where hundreds of insurance companies compete for the health
care dollars of federal workers, who can pick the health care plans they
want.

Not true in the private sector. If you get health insurance through your
employer, you have no or very little choice. Your employer makes the
decision.

There is no marketplace for health insurance consumers.

H the K wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron
http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much
Federal anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry.
There's Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that
provides the schedules used in determining reimbursement for
out-of-network charges, used by most of the major players. Then
there is the acquisitions, subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting
in a few major players. It ain't a competitive market.



in fact, the only real competition is in the federally managed FEHBA
program, where hundreds of insurance companies compete for the health
care dollars of federal workers, who can pick the health care plans they
want.

What insurance company wants to get on the wrong side of the government?

Not true in the private sector. If you get health insurance through your
employer, you have no or very little choice. Your employer makes the
decision.

The employers are limited by the number of employees they bring to the
insurance companies.


There is no marketplace for health insurance consumers.

The government at the federal and state levels has closed the markets to
true competition.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron

http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal
anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's
Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the
schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges,
used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions,
subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It
ain't a competitive market.

So maybe anti-trust legislation, Tort reform should be the basis for a
"rework", not taking it over and running it into the ground...

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:23:14 -0400, JustWait wrote:


So maybe anti-trust legislation, Tort reform should be the basis for a
"rework", not taking it over and running it into the ground...

The reason for the success of the capitalist system, is competition. So,
I don't have any problems with strong anti-trust legislation. Tort
reform is another matter. I could see setting a threshold before
allowing a lawsuit, but if some incompetent doctor botches an operation,
making me a paraplegic, or worse, dead, I want the ability to sue. My
family will need to be provided for. I don't understand people wanting
to give up their rights, to protect incompetence.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:23:14 -0400, JustWait wrote:


So maybe anti-trust legislation, Tort reform should be the basis for a
"rework", not taking it over and running it into the ground...

The reason for the success of the capitalist system, is competition. So,
I don't have any problems with strong anti-trust legislation. Tort
reform is another matter. I could see setting a threshold before
allowing a lawsuit, but if some incompetent doctor botches an operation,
making me a paraplegic, or worse, dead, I want the ability to sue. My
family will need to be provided for. I don't understand people wanting
to give up their rights, to protect incompetence.

Nobody here wants to give up that right, just want to get it back to
reality so doctors can be doctors again...

--
Wafa free since 2009

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-
oxymoron

Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t
essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health
care.

“What’s important is choice and competition,� Sebelius said today on CNN’s
“State of the Union.� The public option itself “is not the essential
element.�

Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she
didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing
versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate
Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of
health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with
government funds.

Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be considering
backing off its commitment to create a government-run health insurance
system to operate alongside private insurers in order to get health
legislation passed.

“There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there never
have been,� North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead Democratic
negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said on “Fox News
Sunday.�

“To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,� he
said.

“President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,� said Senator
Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The American
people “don’t want a government- run program,� Shelby said. Shelby also said
that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be government involvement�
would be “a step in the right direction.�