Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation. As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real competition. Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em? Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a profit, as they should. Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to revolt. How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance? How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've got a mortgage? Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant? Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality, not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly, a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for liability only. You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant? What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried. |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:02:03 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4ax. com... There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation. As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real competition. Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em? Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a profit, as they should. Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to revolt. How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance? How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've got a mortgage? Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant? Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality, not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly, a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for liability only. You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant? What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried. But our insurance reseller finds the requirement to carry even minimum insurance repugnant??? Is that because "conservatives" always hold their mud and pay in cash? |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4ax. com... There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation. As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real competition. Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em? Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a profit, as they should. Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to revolt. How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance? How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've got a mortgage? Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant? Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality, not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly, a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for liability only. You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant? What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried. Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for everyone. I agree! -- Nom=de=Plume |
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4ax .com... There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation. As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real competition. Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em? Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a profit, as they should. Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to revolt. How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance? How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've got a mortgage? Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant? Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality, not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly, a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for liability only. You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant? What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried. Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for everyone. I agree! -- Nom=de=Plume There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should get at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and suffering, etc. If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then the rest of us will pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need to carry auto insurance. Except it is the law to drive. But if you have no assets, why have insurance? |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4a x.com... There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation. As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real competition. Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em? Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a profit, as they should. Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to revolt. How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance? How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've got a mortgage? Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant? Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality, not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly, a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for liability only. You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant? What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried. Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for everyone. I agree! -- Nom=de=Plume There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should get at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and suffering, etc. If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then the rest of us will pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need to carry auto insurance. Except it is the law to drive. But if you have no assets, why have insurance? Where do you get that number... 40%? If you have no assets and you're liable, they can garnish your wages... Not to mention that everyone else picks up the tab for your medical bills. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:56:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote: But if you have no assets, why have insurance? Personal responsibility? Do you assume the poor are less honorable than those who aren't? Would that be your POV is you were poor? |
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4 ax.com... There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation. As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real competition. Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em? Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a profit, as they should. Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to revolt. How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance? How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've got a mortgage? Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant? Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality, not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly, a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for liability only. You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant? What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried. Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for everyone. I agree! -- Nom=de=Plume There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should get at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and suffering, etc. If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then the rest of us will pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need to carry auto insurance. Except it is the law to drive. But if you have no assets, why have insurance? Where do you get that number... 40%? If you have no assets and you're liable, they can garnish your wages... Not to mention that everyone else picks up the tab for your medical bills. -- Nom=de=Plume At least 40% of the people are in the poverty or low end economic level. Sure they garnishee the wages. How much are you going to get from a person making maybe $24k a year? Maybe in a 100 years, they have paid enough to cover the vehicle, let alone the medical costs. |
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:56:19 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: But if you have no assets, why have insurance? Personal responsibility? Do you assume the poor are less honorable than those who aren't? Would that be your POV is you were poor? Personal Responsibility? Hardly seen these days. Look at the people suing and getting big bucks when they do some stupid thing and blame the other person for having a bad roof, they are walking across to rob the business. Personal Responsibility? People would have medical insurance. and not a BMW. |
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Congressional Carrion Sessions in the Midwest
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@ 4ax.com... There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation. As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real competition. Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em? Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a profit, as they should. Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to revolt. How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance? How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've got a mortgage? Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant? Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality, not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly, a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for liability only. You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant? What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried. Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for everyone. I agree! -- Nom=de=Plume There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should get at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and suffering, etc. If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then the rest of us will pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need to carry auto insurance. Except it is the law to drive. But if you have no assets, why have insurance? Where do you get that number... 40%? If you have no assets and you're liable, they can garnish your wages... Not to mention that everyone else picks up the tab for your medical bills. -- Nom=de=Plume At least 40% of the people are in the poverty or low end economic level. Sure they garnishee the wages. How much are you going to get from a person making maybe $24k a year? Maybe in a 100 years, they have paid enough to cover the vehicle, let alone the medical costs. That's an even better argument for everyone having health insurance. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Another Congressional Scumbag | General | |||
WTB: 02 OR 03 SEA RAY SUNDANCER 550 IN THE MIDWEST | Marketplace | |||
WTB Trailer in Midwest | Marketplace | |||
FS Com-Pac 19XL in Midwest | Marketplace | |||
CT AMC Pool Sessions time and dates change | General |