H the K wrote:
On 10/3/09 3:21 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 3, 8:30 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

So making it more complex is better? Wouldn't you think that making
it simpler to deal with would be a better goal?

I don't have trouble understanding my insurance plan. I have a list
of what is and isn't covered, a formulary sheet that describes what is
covered fully/partially or not at all for prescriptions, a rate sheet
for reimbursement for my outlay, complete description of co-pays that
I'm responsible for and those procedures that are fully covered, a
contact person if I have questions.

How hard is it?


I have a card. Everything in the hospital is covered, including a
semi-private room. Doctor's office visits are covered, with a $10
co-pay. Generic prescriptions require a $5 co-pay, non-generics require
a 20% co-pay. Cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons is not covered, but it
is covered to reconstruct after a disease or an accident. Oh, yeah...80%
of my lasik eye surgery was covered 10 years ago. No need to read
complicated rate sheets, because it all fits on one side of one sheet of
paper. If there's a change, the administrator sends out a note.
Oh...there's a $200 annual deductible.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not have the sort of friendly health
insurance I have.


And neither will you, if the Obamanation administration has their say.
Enjoy it while you can, WAFA!

On Oct 3, 7:38*pm, The D wrote:
H the K wrote:


Unfortunately, most Americans do not have the sort of friendly health
insurance I have.

And neither will you, if the Obamanation administration has their say.
Enjoy it while you can, WAFA!-

chuckle guess you just think folks who are unemployed shouldn't get
health insurance at all

On Oct 3, 3:21*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Oct 3, 8:30*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

So making it more complex is better? *Wouldn't you think that making
it simpler to deal with would be a better goal?

what makes you think they aren't? and who said simple is better?

I don't have trouble understanding my insurance plan. *I have a list
of what is and isn't covered, a formulary sheet that describes what is
covered fully/partially or not at all for prescriptions, a rate sheet
for reimbursement for my outlay, complete description of co-pays that
I'm responsible for and those procedures that are fully covered, a
contact person if I have questions.

and that will be issued with the new plan.

wf3h wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:30 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

I understand my plan. What confuses you?

On Oct 3, 7:35*pm, The D wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:30 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?

I understand my plan. *What confuses you?

what makes you think you won't understand the new plan especially
because you'll keep your current insurance?

oh. rush told you otherwise

res ipsa loquitur

wf3h wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:35 pm, The D wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:30 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930
Seriously?
what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?
I understand my plan. What confuses you?

what makes you think you won't understand the new plan especially
because you'll keep your current insurance?

oh. rush told you otherwise

res ipsa loquitur

I haven't read it (the new plan). Evidently, neither has congress.

On Oct 4, 5:17�pm, Roger wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:35 pm, The D wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:30 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930
Seriously?
what makes you think people understand the healthcare system we have
now?
I understand my plan. �What confuses you?

what makes you think you won't understand the �new plan especially
because you'll keep your current insurance?

oh. rush told you otherwise

res ipsa loquitur

I haven't read it (the new plan). �Evidently, neither has congress.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And neither have any of the folks rabidly condemning it....but anyone
who disagrees with them are Nazis

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:30:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

Is it surprising? They are writing laws. Plain English is too vague and
filled with too many contradictions. Hell, a misplaced comma can change
the whole meaning, providing loopholes. Most professions have their own
language. I'm sure you have read scientific articles. Understandable?
Only to another scientist, maybe.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:31:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:30:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

Is it surprising? They are writing laws. Plain English is too vague and
filled with too many contradictions. Hell, a misplaced comma can change
the whole meaning, providing loopholes. Most professions have their own
language. I'm sure you have read scientific articles. Understandable?
Only to another scientist, maybe.

Well, that's a good point - I agree to some extent. Some of the stuff
I read looks like worm scratchings to most, but it's understandable to
me. :)

My larger point, and I think it's an important one, is this. We pay
the legislators to write laws. Almost all of them are lawyers. If the
lawyers who write the legislation don't understand the legalesse that
they themselves are responsible for understanding, then what's the
point?

When I fill in at UCONN, the people that hire me expect me to
understand the subject I'm instructing and be able to impart that
information to the students clearly and precisely.

Shouldn't we expect our legislators to do the same?

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:16:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:31:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:30:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

do any of you really think that we need a healthcare bill that the
people in charge of producing don't understand?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54930

Seriously?

Is it surprising? They are writing laws. Plain English is too vague
and filled with too many contradictions. Hell, a misplaced comma can
change the whole meaning, providing loopholes. Most professions have
their own language. I'm sure you have read scientific articles.
Understandable? Only to another scientist, maybe.

Well, that's a good point - I agree to some extent. Some of the stuff I
read looks like worm scratchings to most, but it's understandable to me.
:)

My larger point, and I think it's an important one, is this. We pay the
legislators to write laws. Almost all of them are lawyers. If the
lawyers who write the legislation don't understand the legalesse that
they themselves are responsible for understanding, then what's the
point?

They definitely should understand the law, and what it contains, but I'm
not sure they need to understand the legalese. Although, it would be a
plus if they did. They have hired help, staff, to do the grunt work, if
you will. Personally, I don't see the big deal. Many businessmen don't
understand accounting. That's why we have accountants. Builders don't
need to be architects, etc. etc.

When I fill in at UCONN, the people that hire me expect me to understand
the subject I'm instructing and be able to impart that information to
the students clearly and precisely.

Shouldn't we expect our legislators to do the same?

Personally, I would prefer our legislators to reflect our society. I
think it would be a good thing if there were fewer lawyers in Congress.

An alternative would be to make all laws understandable in plain
English. However, given our 200 plus years of precedents, I don't see
that happening. Given the controversy over the meaning of the word "is",
plain English probably is unworkable in law.