Delicious...
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:50:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

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

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
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...
Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your
assertion...
that
would save you going over hundreds of posts.
Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch
of
pics
to
post
for some folks I was photographing at the track today...
But if
I
get
time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me
cites
of
bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed...

Five seconds worth of google search, including typing:
republican
amendments to health care bill (no quotes).

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/
From Slate:

That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67
came
from
Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew
jeers
that
Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another
explanation
may
be
that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they
are
now,
in
fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went
unheeded.)
Only
197
amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161
from
Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate
Republicans
classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

I hope this helps!

It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and
large,
are
complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it.
They
will
rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama.
Even
obama
doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name
on
top.


It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments.

What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a
box
of
rocks.


Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks?

A pen name?


Like Tosk?

Uh no.. Tosk is the name I have given to my computer.


A made up name... like a pen name. Got it.

lol

Tosk is not a made up name, Tosk is real...;) Just ask Tom LOL...


It's made up or it's an Albanian dialect. You pick.

You didn't specify nose or butt. He requires instruction.


I'm hoping he'll pick the most effective one.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

On 10/24/09 12:16 PM, Don White wrote:
"John 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.




herring deserves our thanks for participating in a war in a way that
caused us to lose it.

Delicious...
 

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.


You don't need to be led by the nose anymore. You're a big boy now.

Delicious...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"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.
Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average
people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics
philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various
examples in recent decades.

While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does
create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The
unemployment rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and
prior to WW2, it was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right
direction. Then the gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the
war. What followed was one of the best growth periods in a long time.

The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month
is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely
keep rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to
hire, and this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is
over, according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good
right now.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble.

You won't burst many bubbles with that manure you are slinging, sweetie.


Burst yours didn't I.

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

Delicious...
 

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.

Delicious...
 

On 10/24/09 1:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

I think what he is saying is we are having a stock market rally, not
any real reconvey that has trickled down to the average worker. If
this is a "double dip" as many suggest, you should be locking in these
gains and be ready to buy the stocks back when the "recovery" starts
over next year.
The recovery in jobs is still a ways off, really looking for something
for these people to do for a living.


Employment is a trailing indicator.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:01:18 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:28:18 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:29:07 -0400, wrote:

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.

Let's assume for a minute that your subject was working for Walmart or
some other outfit making $10/hr and had to chose between a deduction
for health insurance or having enough money for food and rent?

**** 'em?

That sounds more like a problem getting affordable health care than an
"insurance" problem.

The insurance companies and the health care providers are all tied up
together. The high rates providers charge for their service is no
different than the Patco air traffic controllers that Reagan snuffed
out, except instead of a union the providers have lobbyists buying off
Congress.
Why should the insurance companies fight for lower health costs when
they can just up the premiums?
Besides, they get a good cut of the premium.
Now that system is falling apart. Tough ****.
Medicare reimbursement rates for all providers wouldn't lead to
reduction in the quality of health care, but more competition in
providing it. Still lots and lots of money there to go after.
It's just another commie-type industry, protected by the state.
The gov can set Medicare rates so the docs don't go to the poor house,
and toss all the defrauders in jail.
That's how it should be done. Good luck.

If the health care itself costs more than you make I am not sure what
to say except we need to find a cheaper way of providing the care. The
bookie really doesn.t change that

Sure does. The gov gets provider costs down with Medicare.
It's not funded and policed like it should be, but they pay less for
the same.
Let's call it bargaining power.
None of my bookies would bargain with me, no matter how much they
wanted my business.

--Vic

OT Recovery, (was "delicious")
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:13:55 -0400, wrote:



That is true but on a double dip recession it trails the second up.
I think we have a more fundamental problem. It is not just that all
those factories are sitting idle, they were dismantled and moved to
Mexico. We used the housing boom to hide the fact that there really is
not that much we actually do here.
For most of the Bush administration anyone who could hold a paintbrush
or swing a hammer had a job, good at it or not.
Unemployment in SW Florida was about 3% overall and less than half a
percent in anyone who claimed any building skills at all. That would
also include a lot of back office type folks who worked in the
construction offices, suppliers and government building departments.
With the factories gone and construction at a standstill I am not sure
where the recovery jobs are going to come from.
Housing inventory in some places is something like a two or three year
supply, built and unsold. Commercial is not in much better shape.

Maybe they should just tear down a bunch of the foreclosure houses,
particularly ones that are not code conforming (wind, earthquake or
flood depending on your area)

My idea that we should have condemned the whole underwater part of New
Orleans, barged in 15-20 feet of dirt and rebuilt it to FEMA specs is
not looking so dumb now huh? It would be a fraction of the $1.2
trillion we are spending on these bailout plans and provided a lot
more jobs than fixing a few bridges.

Sounds like a good plan.
Agree on the jobs being sent offshore.
We were dead and didn't know it. (though I must say I did (-:)
Zombies propelled by debt and mythical money in real estate and Wall
Street equities.
Hard times ahead for many.

--Vic

Delicious...
 

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.

Delicious...
 

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.


I'm trying to get you to follow your own lead, not someone else's.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:09:00 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:01:18 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:28:18 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:29:07 -0400, wrote:

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.

Let's assume for a minute that your subject was working for Walmart or
some other outfit making $10/hr and had to chose between a deduction
for health insurance or having enough money for food and rent?

**** 'em?

That sounds more like a problem getting affordable health care than an
"insurance" problem.

The insurance companies and the health care providers are all tied up
together. The high rates providers charge for their service is no
different than the Patco air traffic controllers that Reagan snuffed
out, except instead of a union the providers have lobbyists buying off
Congress.
Why should the insurance companies fight for lower health costs when
they can just up the premiums?
Besides, they get a good cut of the premium.
Now that system is falling apart. Tough ****.
Medicare reimbursement rates for all providers wouldn't lead to
reduction in the quality of health care, but more competition in
providing it. Still lots and lots of money there to go after.
It's just another commie-type industry, protected by the state.
The gov can set Medicare rates so the docs don't go to the poor house,
and toss all the defrauders in jail.
That's how it should be done. Good luck.

If the health care itself costs more than you make I am not sure what
to say except we need to find a cheaper way of providing the care. The
bookie really doesn.t change that

Sure does. The gov gets provider costs down with Medicare.
It's not funded and policed like it should be, but they pay less for
the same.
Let's call it bargaining power.
None of my bookies would bargain with me, no matter how much they
wanted my business.

--Vic

BTW, I just started looking at my wife's yearly health care
enrollment.
Premiums up 10%.
Since she had no raise, her cost is now at least 27.5% of her gross
pay.
Don't know if I'll keep the plan or go to something cheaper.
Looks like they're all Aetna plans. Real competition.
Probably stay with it, since I'm not hurting for money.
Have to see if I should do a "buy up" since I'm finding I'm still
subject to 20% of med costs.
That could really hurt with a "major" med incident.
But I'm really starting to get ****ed.

--Vic

Delicious...
 

"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.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:14:27 -0400, wrote:



First, show me a place where the government actually negotiates the
cheapest price? They usually pay significantly more than private
industry when you add in the bureaucratic overhead.
Medicare should not be your ideal. The fraud and waste rate is
estimated to be up around 20% and a lot of doctors just avoid medicare
patients. It is still one of the most expensive programs in the
government taking 3% of every wage dollar in the country, serving
15-16% of the people..

Hell, the cat is out of the bag.
VA and DOD negotiate and get lower drug prices.
And that +half trillion dollar Medicare part D boondoggle passed a few
years ago - and not paid for - went through without the right for
Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Pols paid off by the drug industry. A drug industry that spends more
on advertising than research, and can't even provide H1N1 vaccine.
Have to get it from overseas.
Don't know about shareholder value. That might be okay.
Like I give a **** about health care or drug company shareholders.
Why do you think the providers whine about Medicare reimbursement
rates?
Yet I don't know a single person on Medicare that has a problem
finding a good doc. Might happen in the sticks, but that can be
handled.
What will the poor underpaid docs do when their cut back on how many
exotic cars they can garage? Flee to Cuba?
****ing commies. Let 'em go kiss Castro's ass.
I already said fraud has to be severely punished.
Your numbers are a bit distorted, seeing as how Medicare is insuring
only all the old folks, who need the most, and most expensive health
care.
You got to kidding me about Medicare adman costs being more than
private insurance admin and Wall Street vigorish.
You'd have to show me some real numbers.
Everything I've read indicates the reverse.
Besides, just doing the annual Aetna enrollment it struck me how
expensive the materials package is.
It's like a ****ing Hollywood production.
Hey, no big deal.
Vic and Dorothy will pay for that.
3% of every wage dollar for Medicare?
**** that. Here's a real number for you.
My wife is paying 27.5% of her gross on top of that 3% - to the
insurance companies.
You sound like a real status quo guy.
I'm not buying the status quo no mo'.
Nor are most others.
The cat is out of the bag. Americans are pretty aware they are
getting hosed with the health insurance scam.

--Vic

Delicious...
 

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

Delicious...
 

"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...

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

I think what he is saying is we are having a stock market rally, not
any real reconvey that has trickled down to the average worker. If
this is a "double dip" as many suggest, you should be locking in these
gains and be ready to buy the stocks back when the "recovery" starts
over next year.
The recovery in jobs is still a ways off, really looking for something
for these people to do for a living.


Yes, the jobs recovery isn't really underway, but the rate of unemployment
is dropping, which is the right direction.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"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.

Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average
people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics
philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various
examples in recent decades.

While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does
create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The unemployment
rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and prior to WW2, it
was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right direction. Then the
gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the war. What followed was
one of the best growth periods in a long time.

The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month
is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely keep
rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to hire, and
this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is over,
according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good right
now.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble.

--
Nom=de=Plume


FDR never got the unemployment below 20% until the war. Only reason the
unemployment was starting to fall is we were making war materials for the
British.

Delicious...
 

"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.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:49:27 -0400, wrote:



Before you ask me what I would do, understand I am punching out before
I use much medicine. I have seen people die wheezing and I am not
doing it.
I had a good run, why spoil it with 5 years of (very expensive)
torture?

You'll know more when you get there.
I thought it would be all over when I couldn't construct the
two-backed beast three times a day.
I've adjusted.

--Vic

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.

Delicious...
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"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
om...
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.


Don, I didn't need one.

But I can understand why you're still looking for one.

Delicious...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"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
...
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.


Don, I didn't need one.

But I can understand why you're still looking for one.

If Donnie's kid had a father figure, he might have turned out differently.

Delicious...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"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
...
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.

Don, I didn't need one.

But I can understand why you're still looking for one.

If Donnie's kid had a father figure, he might have turned out differently.

Back into the septic tank...just in time for Sunday dinner...

Delicious...
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:44:34 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
. ..
John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"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
...
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.

Don, I didn't need one.

But I can understand why you're still looking for one.

If Donnie's kid had a father figure, he might have turned out differently.

Back into the septic tank...just in time for Sunday dinner...


Why?

Go look at your last fifty posts. See which of those your son would be
proud of.

Do me a favor, killfile me also. Just stop playing 'Harry' and
responding to all the posts from those you've KF'd.

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
snip usual drivel.........
Do me a favor, killfile me also. Just stop playing 'Harry' and
responding to all the posts from those you've KF'd.


I'll keep working to rehabilitate you as long as I'm in this newsgroup.
If nothing else...to keep you from being an embarrassment to all retired
military officers.
...and as far as responding to those in my septic tank...... only indirectly
if I see their drivel courtesy of a 3rd party poster.
If you can't figure that out, I'll give you the hitchhikers guide to how it
all works.

Delicious...
 

On 10/25/09 10:58 AM, Don White wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
snip usual drivel.........
Do me a favor, killfile me also. Just stop playing 'Harry' and
responding to all the posts from those you've KF'd.


I'll keep working to rehabilitate you as long as I'm in this newsgroup.
If nothing else...to keep you from being an embarrassment to all retired
military officers.
..and as far as responding to those in my septic tank...... only indirectly
if I see their drivel courtesy of a 3rd party poster.
If you can't figure that out, I'll give you the hitchhikers guide to how it
all works.




you cannot rehab a turd like herring.

Delicious...
 

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:37:00 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

That's all ass-backwards. There are well-proven "prototypes" all over
the civilized world that deliver better health care at much less cost
- for all.
And they are all virtual single payer, non-profit systems.
The problem is viewing health care as a business.
It's a calling; it's an occupation. You can make a good living.
But it's not a business.
All we're doing with it here is hampering real business.
You know, like making products, building things, repairing things,
providing non-health related services.
And I don't mean Wall Street financial paper con games.
Until that's understood by all, it's going to be a f**king mess and
just get worse.
It's really disappointing that the for profit insurance companies and
health care companies and their political cash-gathering cronies have
pulled the wool over the eyes of so many Americans.
Virtually every other modern country is beating our ass.
BTW, here's some perspective.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...ealth-care.php

and

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...in_health.html

Note from the above link about Medicare admin costs,
"Nor does it count most of Medicare's billing, which is outsourced --
and this might surprise people -- to private insurers like Blue Cross
Blue Shield and listed under vendor services rather than program
administration."

Wasn't aware of that.
So all the bitching about Medicare billing can as easily be laid off
on the private insurance industry by those who want to.
And now you know that the private health insurance companies are also
sucking blood from Medicare, which is covered with the private ticks.
Reminds me that the Army can't even cook for itself.
Have to hire Haliburton to do that. $150k slop cooks.
That's besides the backwoods $150k "electricians" they hire to zap
our boys in their showers.
Also brings to mind some of what I read about the work done after
Katrina.
$100k of taxpayer money to the connected general contractor to do the
work.
He gives $80k to the connected sub-contractor to do the work.
Sub gives $60k to the connected sub-sub-contractor to do the work.
Sub-sub pays out $40k in min wages to illegals for a half-assed job.
Multiply it all many times.
The worst of government and free enterprise all wrapped up in one big
ball. Corruption everywhere, and a total cluster****.
I'm ashamed of the leadership in this country.
And I don't see no change yet. Geithner. Summers. Goldman-Sachs.
Just to name a few.
The usual suspects. And business as usual.
If this health care bill doesn't have a strong public option, all hell
is going to break loose for the Dems. Just my guess.
Now, on the bright side, I'll continue to look into moving to Florida,
getting a boat, and do some fishing.

--Vic

Delicious...
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:27:23 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:37:00 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

That's all ass-backwards. There are well-proven "prototypes" all over
the civilized world that deliver better health care at much less cost
- for all.

They're not in the US from what I can tell.

And they are all virtual single payer, non-profit systems.
The problem is viewing health care as a business.

Every organization that uses money to exist can benefit from
efficiencies found in business. Non-profits do it all the time.

It's a calling; it's an occupation. You can make a good living.
But it's not a business.

Doctors and nurses and administrators all have to pay their bills. The
interest in making money has thwarted the "calling." They know they
can make oodles more money by specialiizing. There are so few GPs
coming out of school it's a disaster. No one wants to go through
school, residency to make a ****ty living. Might as well be a
teacher. :)

All we're doing with it here is hampering real business.
You know, like making products, building things, repairing things,
providing non-health related services.

Agreed.

And I don't mean Wall Street financial paper con games.
Until that's understood by all, it's going to be a f**king mess and
just get worse.
It's really disappointing that the for profit insurance companies and
health care companies and their political cash-gathering cronies have
pulled the wool over the eyes of so many Americans.
Virtually every other modern country is beating our ass.
BTW, here's some perspective.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...ealth-care.php

and

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...in_health.html

Note from the above link about Medicare admin costs,
"Nor does it count most of Medicare's billing, which is outsourced --
and this might surprise people -- to private insurers like Blue Cross
Blue Shield and listed under vendor services rather than program
administration."

Wasn't aware of that.
So all the bitching about Medicare billing can as easily be laid off
on the private insurance industry by those who want to.

It still represents overhead and a cost of providing care. That's why
the gov't is offering stimulus money to those who can devise systems
that do it more efficiently.

And now you know that the private health insurance companies are also
sucking blood from Medicare, which is covered with the private ticks.
Reminds me that the Army can't even cook for itself.
Have to hire Haliburton to do that. $150k slop cooks.
That's besides the backwoods $150k "electricians" they hire to zap
our boys in their showers.
Also brings to mind some of what I read about the work done after
Katrina.
$100k of taxpayer money to the connected general contractor to do the
work.
He gives $80k to the connected sub-contractor to do the work.
Sub gives $60k to the connected sub-sub-contractor to do the work.
Sub-sub pays out $40k in min wages to illegals for a half-assed job.
Multiply it all many times.
The worst of government and free enterprise all wrapped up in one big
ball. Corruption everywhere, and a total cluster****.
I'm ashamed of the leadership in this country.
And I don't see no change yet. Geithner. Summers. Goldman-Sachs.
Just to name a few.
The usual suspects. And business as usual.
If this health care bill doesn't have a strong public option, all hell
is going to break loose for the Dems. Just my guess.
Now, on the bright side, I'll continue to look into moving to Florida,
getting a boat, and do some fishing.

--Vic

I understand your frustration. I own a business that's saddled with
the cost of providing health care coverage. It's been going up
between 10 and 15%/year for the last ten years.

I'm looking at going to that HMO I cited as a way to keep our costs at
a level where we can still manage to provide the benefit. It's an
extraordinary % of overhead. I brought it up six years ago at a
dinner with a local state Rep. They were aware but displayed a tin
ear.

Delicious...
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:51:03 -0700, jps wrote:



They're not in the US from what I can tell.

Of course not. That's why you're looking in the wrong place.
If you try to reinvent a wheel using U.S. models, it will be square.

And they are all virtual single payer, non-profit systems.
The problem is viewing health care as a business.

Every organization that uses money to exist can benefit from
efficiencies found in business. Non-profits do it all the time.

Should have said for profit business. Doesn't work.
That's why we're here, and the rest of the modern world covers
everybody, with much better results and much less cost.
That cat is out of the bag.

It's a calling; it's an occupation. You can make a good living.
But it's not a business.

Doctors and nurses and administrators all have to pay their bills. The
interest in making money has thwarted the "calling." They know they
can make oodles more money by specialiizing. There are so few GPs
coming out of school it's a disaster. No one wants to go through
school, residency to make a ****ty living. Might as well be a
teacher. :)

I don't see docs driving Chevys. You don't really think docs make a
****ty living, do you?
http://www.studentdoc.com/family-practice-salary.html

Average of $204k for GP's.
What's that, 98th percentile or thereabouts?


Wasn't aware of that.
So all the bitching about Medicare billing can as easily be laid off
on the private insurance industry by those who want to.

It still represents overhead and a cost of providing care. That's why
the gov't is offering stimulus money to those who can devise systems
that do it more efficiently.

There's always overhead. My point was that Medicare billing is mostly
done by the private sector.
More taxpayer funded socialism to the for-profit private sector.

I understand your frustration. I own a business that's saddled with
the cost of providing health care coverage. It's been going up
between 10 and 15%/year for the last ten years.

Don't worry about me, I handle frustration well, and can afford the
insurance. I don't anticipate any problems, though it's possible.
It's your business that's getting ****ed.

--Vic

Delicious...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"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.

Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average
people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics
philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various
examples in recent decades.

While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does
create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The
unemployment rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and
prior to WW2, it was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right
direction. Then the gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the
war. What followed was one of the best growth periods in a long time.

The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month
is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely
keep rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to
hire, and this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is
over, according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good
right now.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble.

--
Nom=de=Plume


FDR never got the unemployment below 20% until the war. Only reason the
unemployment was starting to fall is we were making war materials for the
British.



Nope... That's a history rewrite..

It fell to just under 15% from a high of about 25% (or higher, depending on
the sector of course).

There were some anomalies in how unemployment rates were counted, and by
some estimates it was closer to 10%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020801757.html


--
Nom=de=Plume