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

"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.

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

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

"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

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

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

"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.

"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.

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