On 12/27/09 1:14 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:59:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US.
The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?




The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that
way.
Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.




The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.

Gingrich ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.



It's always so nice when those with some means want to crap on those
with no means. It's so...Republican.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:16:48 -0500, Harry wrote:

On 12/27/09 12:59 PM, RLM wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:31:46 -0500, BAR wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600,
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health
insurance to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning,
competitively and socially. However, health care has the potential
of reviving this entire economy. Health care jobs are well paying
and *local*. IMO, they could provide a replacement for the
manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our medical technology sector,
already top of the world, could provide export dollars. In the
public debate, we've been looking at health care as a drain on the
economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's basic
economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world values
life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being
exposed, it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez
style take over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

There has not been a free market for years. It has been a front to look
like a free market with cooperation amoung insurance carriers to set
prices and have had no control of who they can deny service to even if
they pay their premiums. A public option would prevent this and keep
them honest.

Been there, had this happen.

Remove government regulation of the medical insurance industry. The free
market will return.

Why should health insurance be treated any differently than your life,
home, auto and property insurance? Your previous history of claims and
behavior determines your ability to obtain insurance and the rates you
pay.

Besides you do not have a right to health insurance or health care.

I have medicare now.
I also carry additional insurance too, beside medicare.


I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.


I love the simple-minded elegance of "get the government out and
everything will be ok." Yeah, right. Bend over. Farther.

"Free market" is as phony as "Work will set you free". Feel good BS.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:43:03 -0500, Gene wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:20:56 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:56:19 -0500, John H
wrote:

However,
I believe you should have the choice.

What choice? Dying with dignity or being kept alive, with
extraordinary means, in a persistent vegetative state? Indefinitely?

And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Let's recap, per your
link:

".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patientÂ’s life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy
isn't an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep
pockets" is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get real
and evaluate the next sentence.....

“If you come into this hospital, we’re not going to let you die....”

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a
cold, hard, business decision.....

You missed this:

"Take the case of Salah Putrus, who at age 71 had a long history of
heart failure.

After repeated visits to his local hospital near Burbank, Calif., Mr.
Putrus was referred to U.C.L.A. this year to be evaluated for a heart
transplant.

Some other medical centers might have considered Mr. Putrus too old
for the surgery. But U.C.L.A.’s attitude was “let’s see what we can do
for him,” said his physician there, Dr. Tamara Horwich.

Indeed, Mr. Putrus recalled, Dr. Horwich and her colleagues “did every
test.” They changed his medicines to reduce the amount of water he was
retaining. They even removed some teeth that could be a potential
source of infection.

His condition improved so much that more than six months later, Mr.
Putrus has remained out of the hospital and is no longer considered in
active need of a transplant. "

What YOU missed is that he WAS too old for a transplant, so they tried
alternative treatment, which the high priced folks in Burbank
incompetently missed.... he got no medical care, he got maintenance.
Had the first hospital been competent, there would be nothing to
say....

I agree with you and have a living will for DNR and a organ donor sheet
that is always part of my record at the local hospitals and my primary
doctor understands my wishes. Hell, we already have prepaid creamation
services payed for. What's a few ounces shy in a cardboard box. We have
picked out the GPS spot to be put in the ocean. A case of keep it simple.

On 12/27/09 1:35 PM, RLM wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:16:48 -0500, Harry wrote:

On 12/27/09 12:59 PM, RLM wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:31:46 -0500, BAR wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600,
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health
insurance to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning,
competitively and socially. However, health care has the potential
of reviving this entire economy. Health care jobs are well paying
and *local*. IMO, they could provide a replacement for the
manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our medical technology sector,
already top of the world, could provide export dollars. In the
public debate, we've been looking at health care as a drain on the
economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's basic
economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world values
life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being
exposed, it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez
style take over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

There has not been a free market for years. It has been a front to look
like a free market with cooperation amoung insurance carriers to set
prices and have had no control of who they can deny service to even if
they pay their premiums. A public option would prevent this and keep
them honest.

Been there, had this happen.

Remove government regulation of the medical insurance industry. The free
market will return.

Why should health insurance be treated any differently than your life,
home, auto and property insurance? Your previous history of claims and
behavior determines your ability to obtain insurance and the rates you
pay.

Besides you do not have a right to health insurance or health care.

I have medicare now.
I also carry additional insurance too, beside medicare.


I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.


I love the simple-minded elegance of "get the government out and
everything will be ok." Yeah, right. Bend over. Farther.

"Free market" is as phony as "Work will set you free". Feel good BS.



Further, we haven't had a "free market economy" for many, many decades.
Where there are segments of "free markets," or "almost free markets,"
what happens is that most of us get screwed by the marketeers.

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:28:45 -0500, BAR wrote:


What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.

Let's see, valedictorian of her college class, J.D. from University of
Virginia, US Attorney for the District of Arizona, Attorney General of
Arizona, Governor of Arizona ... yup, must be an idiot.


There's a thing called all G2 and no gee-whiz.

In article ,
says...
I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.


I love the simple-minded elegance of "get the government out and
everything will be ok." Yeah, right. Bend over. Farther.

"Free market" is as phony as "Work will set you free". Feel good BS.


Work has been very good to me so far.

On 12/27/09 1:46 PM, D.Duck wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:28:45 -0500, BAR wrote:


What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.

Let's see, valedictorian of her college class, J.D. from University of
Virginia, US Attorney for the District of Arizona, Attorney General of
Arizona, Governor of Arizona ... yup, must be an idiot.


There's a thing called all G2 and no gee-whiz.


BAR doesn't have the intel or gee-whiz to make the call he's tried to make.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:47:06 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.


I love the simple-minded elegance of "get the government out and
everything will be ok." Yeah, right. Bend over. Farther.

"Free market" is as phony as "Work will set you free". Feel good BS.


Work has been very good to me so far.

Zooooooooooooooooooooom!

On 12/27/09 2:14 PM, RLM wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:47:06 -0500, BAR wrote:

In ,
says...
I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.


I love the simple-minded elegance of "get the government out and
everything will be ok." Yeah, right. Bend over. Farther.

"Free market" is as phony as "Work will set you free". Feel good BS.


Work has been very good to me so far.

Zooooooooooooooooooooom!


Bert (BAR) is a regular rocket scientist.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:47:06 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.


I love the simple-minded elegance of "get the government out and
everything will be ok." Yeah, right. Bend over. Farther.

"Free market" is as phony as "Work will set you free". Feel good BS.


Work has been very good to me so far.

Zooooooooooooooooooooom!

It really must suck to be you. Seeing the worst in everyone and
everything.