| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Snerk of the week
(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. |
Snerk of the week
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. |
Snerk of the week
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? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
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. |
Snerk of the week
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 |
Snerk of the week
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 |
Snerk of the week
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 |
Snerk of the week
"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.” |
Snerk of the week
Lu Powell wrote:
"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.” The "party line," of course, is that the Republicans want to kill any possibilities of a "public option," because that's what their owners in the health insurance industry have told them to do. Easy, Lu-ser. Even for someone as dumb as you are. BTW, you're not enrolled in a publicly funded health care program, are you? Just wondering, because most of "conservative" opponents here are. |
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote: "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.” Apparently these 'ultra-compassionates' aren't even reading there own linked articles carefully. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Snerk of the week
H the K wrote:
Lu Powell wrote: "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.” The "party line," of course, is that the Republicans want to kill any possibilities of a "public option," because that's what their owners in the health insurance industry have told them to do. It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to patient centered health care. Easy, Lu-ser. Even for someone as dumb as you are. BTW, you're not enrolled in a publicly funded health care program, are you? Just wondering, because most of "conservative" opponents here are. Everyone aged 65 and over is compelled by the full force of the US government to "participate" in a government run health care program whether they choose to participate or not. Nice try anyway. |
Snerk of the week
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. |
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:
Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg? I don't know what the party line is, but, IMO, Obama better start playing hardball or his Presidency is going to become a wasted one. His bi- partisan efforts have failed. The Republicans aren't playing. It's time for him to control his party, and start ramming legislation down the Party of No's throat. To allow a small minority to control this debate is a major mistake. |
Snerk of the week
BAR wrote:
It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to patient centered health care. Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment. It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it. I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything necessary at once. |
Snerk of the week
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. |
Snerk of the week
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote: It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to patient centered health care. Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment. It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it. I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything necessary at once. Snerk |
Snerk of the week
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 |
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, Lu Powell wrote: Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg? I don't know what the party line is, but, IMO, Obama better start playing hardball or his Presidency is going to become a wasted one. His bi- partisan efforts have failed. The Republicans aren't playing. It's time for him to control his party, and start ramming legislation down the Party of No's throat. To allow a small minority to control this debate is a major mistake. From what I've heard, the republicans weren't invited to play. It's good to see that O's "ram it down the throats" tactic is meeting resistance. |
Snerk of the week
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. |
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:28:20 -0400, J i m wrote:
From what I've heard, the republicans weren't invited to play. It's good to see that O's "ram it down the throats" tactic is meeting resistance. Well, regardless of Obama's successes or failures, the Republicans aren't coming back. Demographics will tell you that. Until Republicans become an inclusive party, they are in the wilderness, where they belong. |
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:25:22 -0400, JustWait wrote:
Yeah, dozens of amendments, all squashed.. Biparitzan my ass... Just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. The dems are not allowing the repubs a say, they won and they keep reminding us of that.. Bipartizan? snerk how rediculous... They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-) |
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:39:46 -0400, JustWait wrote:
Nobody here wants to give up that right, just want to get it back to reality so doctors can be doctors again... Well, what kind of tort reform are you talking about? The only tort reform I ever hear about is capping damage awards. If doctors have a bitch about malpractice insurance, they should take it up with their insurance providers, because, frankly, there are quite a few doctors that shouldn't be practicing medicine. |
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:58:13 -0400, JustWait wrote:
So, now you don't support the end of life panels??? Sounds like all you really care about is squashing the competition and forcing your party views on everybody.. So, are you like Harry and Al Gore, just think you are smarter so we should all just shut up and pay up??? No, actually, I think end of life counseling is a good idea, voluntary of course. Living wills are prudent, and put the decisions in the hands of the individual, where they belong, not in the hands of grieving loved ones, who under the emotional stress of the moment, have enough on their plate. |
Snerk of the week
On Aug 17, 10:11*am, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:39:46 -0400, JustWait wrote: Nobody here wants to give up that right, just want to get it back to reality so doctors can be doctors again... Well, what kind of tort reform are you talking about? *The only tort reform I ever hear about is capping damage awards. If doctors have a bitch about malpractice insurance, they should take it up with their insurance providers, because, frankly, there are quite a few doctors that shouldn't be practicing medicine. Tort reform can also address junk lawsuits and fraud... |
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:56:10 -0400, JustWait wrote:
Yeah, let's just have one party rule.. I just don't get the math though with slightly over 50% voting for Obama... You are suggesting nearly half of the population being repub, they are though? Like I said, only if freedom of speech is quelled by keeping email lists or bills like the fairness act. Still doesn't mean half of America just should sit and let the elite limosine liberals run our lives.. But half are not Republican. You are forgetting Independents. Until recently, the break down was, roughly, 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Independents, and 1/3 Republican. However, that has changed. Self-identified Republicans are less than 1/4, with the remainder mostly going to the Independent column. Hey, I strongly believe in the two party system, I'm just not sure the Republican party will be that second party. Republican support is mainly defined as white married Christian, an aging and declining demographic. If Republicans can't become inclusive of ethnic diversity, and the youth demographic, they are going to wither on the vine. That's unfortunate, because Conservatives have some good ideas that should be in the national debate. Born again Christians, however, can pound sand. |
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:15:59 -0700, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
Tort reform can also address junk lawsuits and fraud... Establishing a lower threshold before allowing lawsuits, would take care of the former. Fraud is already against the law. |
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:20:51 -0400, JustWait wrote:
So my point is, I am living this right now and I don't want government pencil pushers involved, not even a little bit... The end of life counseling, as written, would be *completely* voluntary. I'm sympathetic to your situation, and you have my condolences. It has to be a difficult time. |
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
|
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:28:49 -0400, JustWait wrote:
You have sucked up party line like a good follower.. I predict a huge turn around again like 84... 3/4 of Americans are pretty upset at the dems in congress right now... Not only the Democrats in Congress, Congress as a whole. As for 1984, Reagan had a landslide victory, but it didn't translate to Congress. Republicans actually lost two seats in the Senate. |
Snerk of the week
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:38:38 -0400, JustWait wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:20:51 -0400, JustWait wrote: So my point is, I am living this right now and I don't want government pencil pushers involved, not even a little bit... The end of life counseling, as written, would be *completely* voluntary. I'm sympathetic to your situation, and you have my condolences. It has to be a difficult time. Please tell me how the word "shall" makes it voluntary?? Shall refers to what the counseling consists of. If you read the first paragraphs, you will see that Sec. 1233 amends current law. To understand Sec. 1233, it has to be placed in context. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...40SZ9:e513253: Moreover, this is still America. We do not do eugenics. Democrats and Republicans should be agreed on that. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com