On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:




Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down. Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,

actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:




Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,

actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?


The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:




Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,

actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?


The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.

No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on the face
of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with or
without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's the most
expensive way to treat people.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"CalifBill" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,
actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?

The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.

No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on the face
of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with or
without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's the most
expensive way to treat people.

Stabilize and ship out. That's all a for profit hospital is required to do.

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"CalifBill" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,
actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?

The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.

No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on the
face of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with
or without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's the
most expensive way to treat people.

Stabilize and ship out. That's all a for profit hospital is required to
do.


And you think that's going to solve the healthcare problem... dumping people
on the street after they're "stable."

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"CalifBill" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,
actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?

The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.
No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on the
face of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with
or without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's the
most expensive way to treat people.

Stabilize and ship out. That's all a for profit hospital is required to
do.


And you think that's going to solve the healthcare problem... dumping people
on the street after they're "stable."

Didn't say they were put out on the street. Didn't say it was going to
solve the healthcare problem. Not for profits must accept them. It's the
law baby.
Sheesh, you have quite an imagination. I wonder if you are going a
little heavy on your meds?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:18:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:




Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,

actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?


The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.

No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on the
face
of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with or
without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's the
most
expensive way to treat people.


The thing that bothers me is they still have not addressed that.
If the government really wanted to cut health care costs they would be
setting up low cost store front clinics staffed by paramedics and
medical techs to handle minor injuries and ailments. A lot of drugs
should be able to be dispensed by pharmacists without prescription.
They are doing nothing to actually cut the cost of care with any bill
I have seen. They all seem to just be subsidizing billionaire medical
conglomerates and insurance companies with tax payer money.


That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:18:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,
actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their
health insurance which they don't have?

The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.
No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on the
face
of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with or
without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's the
most
expensive way to treat people.

The thing that bothers me is they still have not addressed that.
If the government really wanted to cut health care costs they would be
setting up low cost store front clinics staffed by paramedics and
medical techs to handle minor injuries and ailments. A lot of drugs
should be able to be dispensed by pharmacists without prescription.
They are doing nothing to actually cut the cost of care with any bill
I have seen. They all seem to just be subsidizing billionaire medical
conglomerates and insurance companies with tax payer money.


That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?

On 24/02/2010 12:34 PM, anon-e-moose wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:18:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt
down.
Yes
the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance,
actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about
their
health insurance which they don't have?

The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If
they
have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills.
No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on
the face
of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with or
without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's
the most
expensive way to treat people.

The thing that bothers me is they still have not addressed that.
If the government really wanted to cut health care costs they would be
setting up low cost store front clinics staffed by paramedics and
medical techs to handle minor injuries and ailments. A lot of drugs
should be able to be dispensed by pharmacists without prescription.
They are doing nothing to actually cut the cost of care with any bill
I have seen. They all seem to just be subsidizing billionaire medical
conglomerates and insurance companies with tax payer money.


That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but
preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include
preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?

Don't forget the tax on liquer and beer. Say a 40 oz Jim Beam, $55 and
12 pack of regular beer, $30.

When you buy a boat, 15% taxes on it, the vehicle and everything in
them. Gas is 50% higher...

Also jack total deductions off your pay check to 45%.

And ever time you turn around, government will justify higher taxes in
the name of health care and spend it on something else. And they will
cite deterioring services and longer lineups while they syphon
government profit in higher and higher percentages. And not a damned
thing you can do about it as you have for practical purposes lost the
liberty to choose.

Americans should do what it takes to stop it cold.

Just like thy do in UK and Canada....

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose
wrote:

That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable
conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?


The smokers and the people who try to enforce it.
At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes
causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit
incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away.

This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse
themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their
injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the
profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked.