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.

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.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:50:35 -0500, thunder
wrote:

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.

No, it means that a 'for profit' corporation couldn't compete with a
government subsidized, taxpayer supported public option. By taxing
individuals enough, the government can cut the 'cost' of the public
option to a fraction of the 'for profit' corporation's costs.

Denying that would be intentionally burying one's head in the sand.

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:50:35 -0500, thunder
wrote:

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.

No, it means that a 'for profit' corporation couldn't compete with a
government subsidized, taxpayer supported public option. By taxing
individuals enough, the government can cut the 'cost' of the public
option to a fraction of the 'for profit' corporation's costs.

Denying that would be intentionally burying one's head in the sand.


Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have
driven the ins. companies into the ground. I guess NASA shouldn't allow
private companies to get involved in future missions.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:42:16 -0500, thunder
wrote:

You are willing to give up your right to sue for peanuts? Medical
malpractice costs are 1-2% of health care costs. Some incompetent doctor
makes you a paraplegic and you are willing to accept $250,000 for your
pain and suffering? Not me.

If this was really criminal incompetence prosecute it in criminal
court.
That money you get is coming from everyone else, not the doctor.
If you want to be insured against mistakes, make that a separate
policy others can opt out of, not part of "medical insurance". They
we all won't be paying for a few bad doctors.


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:36:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:50:35 -0500, thunder
wrote:

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.

No, it means that a 'for profit' corporation couldn't compete with a
government subsidized, taxpayer supported public option. By taxing
individuals enough, the government can cut the 'cost' of the public
option to a fraction of the 'for profit' corporation's costs.

Denying that would be intentionally burying one's head in the sand.


Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have
driven the ins. companies into the ground. I guess NASA shouldn't allow
private companies to get involved in future missions.

lol

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:37:42 -0700, "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.

lol

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"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.

lol