Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:07:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:36:31 -0400, Jim wrote:


Burst yours didn't I.

No you didn't. You sure do have a big head. lol lol

It's not easy to burst stone. If you plonk him, he'll change his name
every day. Best policy is to ignore.

Take a lesson from a real big-headed woman. Just say no.


He's just such a pill. I'm going to ignore him. Maybe I'll plonk him, maybe
not. He'll never know...

Pill is a good description. Ignore the ignorance. Good bumper
sticker for those of us who've exchanged posts with Fla Jim.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every time
we turn around.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:18:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:36:57 -0400, wrote:



From what I have seen over the years a high deductible policy is not
really that expensive but that means you actually have to spend some
of your own money for your day to day "maintenance" and you are really
only covered for that catastrophic ailment boogie man everyone talks
about.
My IBM policy is $3000 deductible.

Mine is $500 and then I still pay 20%.
Since we're paying $5k in premium $3k is a drop in the bucket.
We only do annual exams, and this year I had a colonoscopy.
When I get the bill I might find I would have saved having no
insurance at all.
I don't mind a high deductible, and look at insurance as catastrophe
prevention.
Bottom line is I don't want to lose my house or go bankrupt.
That 20% could break me in a catastrophe.
I'm looking at plans now, and I keep seeing this line that says
"Pre-existing conditions are excluded from coverage."
Sweet deal.

--Vic

Isn't there a gross cap on expenditures that you have to contribute
20%?

I seem to remember our policies having a cap, like 10K...

Have to look.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:10:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:01:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What if it's not criminal? What if it's criminal, but can't be
prosecuted
for various techincal reasons? $250K is nothing. OIC... buy more
unaffordable insurance is the answer! NOT


You are going to pay one way or the other as long as mal-practice is
just another insurance item.
There is no incentive to stop bad doctors, they just let them continue
screwing up and passing the cost on to the public.
People like you who think a quarter of a million is not just
compensation are just increasing the size of the problem.

The reality is there is no way to compensate someone for mal-practice.
Lawyers invented this cash payout model, just because they get a third
to half of the money.
Sweet deal. Don't stop bad doctors, cash in on them.


Sorry, but tort reform and caps on compensation for loss are small items
in
the scheme of healthcare reform. How about no pre-existing conditions?
How
about removing the anti-trust exemptions? How about ensuring competition
in
the ins. field? Those are the big items.


You miss the point. As long as there is a big fat tort pie out there
to be had and nobody will address incompetent doctors it is a huge
problem. Everyone acts like a fat judgement will protect them from a
bad doctor. That is lunacy unless you are just planning on getting
hurt for the money. I say dump the whole thing. You can only go after
real measurable financial damages and the doctor pays, not the
insurance company. Let them go bankrupt for a change. Do it in
criminal court where the law has some teeth.

What about pain and suffering? And, again, what if there's no criminal
behavior that can be determined? Then what?

Pain and suffering are just something invented by lawyers to pad their
bankroll.
If I cause someone pain and suffering by punching them in the nose I
go to jail

I agree that if someone changes insurance, they should get a break on
pre-esisting conditions (perhaps bringing some money along from the
company they have been paying into) but if this is someone who made
the conscious choice NOT to buy insurance, then they get sick and
suddenly want it ... fkm. You spun the wheel and took your chances.
Sell all of that "stuff" you needed more than insurance.

Pre-existing conditions according to whom.. the ins. companies? They
consider rape a pre-existing condition.

The point is if you didn't buy insurance when you were healthy, just
to save some money, tough.
I would agree to a mandatory coverage law. You have to buy insurance.

It's not quite so simple as fkm. They show up the emergency room. Should
we
let them die after we quiz them about their ins. card?

It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants
it after they totaled their car.

Not really. Not even the same scale....

Same principle tho

Pre-existing condition guarantees will have to come with a mandatory
insurance law.

As for the other business issues, state lines, anti trust etc, much
ado about nothing as far as I see. Just open it up and let them go at
each other in a 50 state marketplace. Unfortunately it is the
insurance companies who prefer the current 50 separate company model..

Then, you're not looking at the cost factors of those things, esp.
compared
to the items you mentioned.

The biggest cost factor, the actual care, is being ignored by
everyone.


Perhaps, that's certainly a big number. Something like 70% of docs want a
public option or single payer. They're just as sick of the paperwork as
everyone else.

Don't talk to them about Medicare. The docs I know as friends think
It's just as bad as dealing with the insurance companies.

Delicious...
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:57:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:21:25 -0700, jps wrote:

Perhaps, that's certainly a big number. Something like 70% of docs want a
public option or single payer. They're just as sick of the paperwork as
everyone else.

Don't talk to them about Medicare. The docs I know as friends think
It's just as bad as dealing with the insurance companies.


I have been away from that part long enough not to know what is going
on now but my ex (that I am still on speaking terms with) was a
hospital administrator for most of her life and she says the same
thing. Medicare is very hard to deal with and very much "slow pay" for
the provider.
I wonder how that gets padded on to your bill. It is certainly a cost
to the provider and all costs are passed on one way or another.

She is now working at the DC Medical society. I will talk to her and
get their spin.
She is also the former commander of one of the DC area USCGA
flotillas.

I'm sure that's true.

I know there's a pile of money available through the stimulus program
to develop new methods of care delivery and processing of data.

There's got to be some efficiencies to be realized by applying best
practices from other industries.

We have a HMO in Seattle that's been around forever. Used to be
feared as not willing to spend on patients. It's turned out to be one
of the most efficient, effective, patient-lauded organizations in the
country. It's held out as a model and may well be the prototype for
better run organizations delivering more effective, reasonably priced
care.

Delicious...
 

Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:



I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also.
Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but they've
been
taken over by the dark side.
I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who should know
better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these days.

Hi Don.

Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and personal
insults yet?

It would improve the atmosphere, no?
I'm watching your lead..Lt Colonel.

Don, it's nice of you to call me that, but I'm no longer entitled to
that. Now it would be LTC Ret.

It's really not fair to the LTC's doing the work, if you know what I
mean.

When I refer to your rank of Lt Colonel....I mean in the Dope Army.


Thought that might be the case. So you have imaginary toy soldiers
running around in that empty head of yours?

Delicious...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:36:31 -0400, Jim wrote:


Burst yours didn't I.

No you didn't. You sure do have a big head. lol lol
It's not easy to burst stone. If you plonk him, he'll change his name
every day. Best policy is to ignore.

Take a lesson from a real big-headed woman. Just say no.


He's just such a pill. I'm going to ignore him. Maybe I'll plonk him, maybe
not. He'll never know...

The suspense is killing me. Lol lol

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:38 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:



I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also.
Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but they've
been
taken over by the dark side.
I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who should know
better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these days.


Hi Don.

Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and personal
insults yet?

It would improve the atmosphere, no?

I'm watching your lead..Lt Colonel.


Don, it's nice of you to call me that, but I'm no longer entitled to
that. Now it would be LTC Ret.

It's really not fair to the LTC's doing the work, if you know what I
mean.

When I refer to your rank of Lt Colonel....I mean in the Dope Army.


Wow, Don.

I guess you're just way too smart for me. So keep up with your
attempted insults and your name-calling. Maybe one day Harry, who
doesn't even answer most of your stuff any more, will adopt you. Then
you'll have an 'official' father figure.

Go for it.

Delicious...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:



I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also.
Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but they've
been
taken over by the dark side.
I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who should
know
better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these days.

Hi Don.

Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and personal
insults yet?

It would improve the atmosphere, no?
I'm watching your lead..Lt Colonel.

Don, it's nice of you to call me that, but I'm no longer entitled to
that. Now it would be LTC Ret.

It's really not fair to the LTC's doing the work, if you know what I
mean.

When I refer to your rank of Lt Colonel....I mean in the Dope Army.
Thought that might be the case. So you have imaginary toy soldiers running
around in that empty head of yours?


....and speaking of dopes.....right on cue!

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:38 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:10 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:



I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also.
Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but they've
been
taken over by the dark side.
I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who should
know
better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these days.


Hi Don.

Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and personal
insults yet?

It would improve the atmosphere, no?

I'm watching your lead..Lt Colonel.


Don, it's nice of you to call me that, but I'm no longer entitled to
that. Now it would be LTC Ret.

It's really not fair to the LTC's doing the work, if you know what I
mean.

When I refer to your rank of Lt Colonel....I mean in the Dope Army.


Wow, Don.

I guess you're just way too smart for me. So keep up with your
attempted insults and your name-calling. Maybe one day Harry, who
doesn't even answer most of your stuff any more, will adopt you. Then
you'll have an 'official' father figure.

Go for it.

Too bad the Army didn't provide you with one. It might have made a
difference in your outlook.