Delicious...
 

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers.
Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from
anti-trust laws.
It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.
It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only
because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff.
If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to
'anti-trust' laws?

That's funny! Did you make that up?

Can you answer the question?

lol lol

Delicious...
 

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:32:20 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Looking at ratios of doc/patient here and in other 1st world
countries, we are way behind.

We're way behind in turning out GPs. We've got specialists coming out
the kazoo.

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new
customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome
the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only
because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff.

If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to
'anti-trust' laws?


That's funny! Did you make that up?

Can you answer the question?


Can you ask questions that have some thought to them?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have
passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to
affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies
that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of
admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill
and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly
promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris
Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like
Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda.
More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in
Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger
out of the wind and be a president.


Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many
Rep.
amendments. Look it up.

Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are
wrong, period..


Prove it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

A quarter of a million dollar cap per suit is not reform. That just
means they have to file more suits. That is why you see so many lawyer
ads on TV


I disagree with this cap in any case. Caps do not tort reform make.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:09:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new
customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome
the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only
because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff.

If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to
'anti-trust' laws?


That's funny! Did you make that up?

Can you answer the question?


Can you ask questions that have some thought to them?

Are you saying you can't answer the question because you've backed
yourself into another corner?

lol lol

Delicious...
 

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:10:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have
passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to
affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies
that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of
admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill
and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly
promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris
Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like
Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda.
More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in
Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger
out of the wind and be a president.


Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many
Rep.
amendments. Look it up.

Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are
wrong, period..


Prove it.
lol lol

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:09:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it.
What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new
customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt
from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome
the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only
because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff.

If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to
'anti-trust' laws?


That's funny! Did you make that up?

Can you answer the question?


Can you ask questions that have some thought to them?

Are you saying you can't answer the question because you've backed
yourself into another corner?

lol lol


You're barking about something, but at this point the burgler already left
the premises.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only
because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff.

If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to
'anti-trust' laws?


That's funny! Did you make that up?

Can you answer the question?

Well, I don't really know but if they were they would be sued
immediately. After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Delicious...
 

In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have
passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to
affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies
that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of
admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill
and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly
promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris
Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like
Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda.
More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in
Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger
out of the wind and be a president.


Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many
Rep.
amendments. Look it up.

Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are
wrong, period..


Prove it.

Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going
over hundreds of posts from the past...