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.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.
--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope. You do not have insurance to cover your self imposed ills. You die.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope. You do not have insurance to cover your self imposed ills. You
die.



You said, "Maybe require they carry insurance...." So, were you just lying?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:16:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news:_7ednXcdOIKRWhvWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

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.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.


I am willing to bet that your average smoker has a lower lifetime
health care cost than a non-smoker. They die sooner and don't get all
the late life care. It is certainly better for Medicare since they are
not on it as long. Some never make it at all.



Heh... I have no objection your honor. I know, that's mean, but I hate
second-hand smoke.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:58:37 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

Most of the prevention for those things do not require a doctor, they
require some self restraint and a little activity from the patient.

Untrue for lots and lots of things. High blood pressure for example requires
that the patient get tested and then monitored carefully. Cancer, regular
checkups find all sorts of things.


Basically step away from the doughnuts, put out the cigarette and take
a walk.
Michelle Obama seems to be taking that on but she is not getting much
help from the media. They sell doughnuts (fast food, potato chips,
candy etc) and you can't watch TV if you are out on a walk.


Yes, obesity is a huge (no pun intended) problem.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:28:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:58:37 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

Most of the prevention for those things do not require a doctor, they
require some self restraint and a little activity from the patient.

Untrue for lots and lots of things. High blood pressure for example
requires
that the patient get tested and then monitored carefully. Cancer, regular
checkups find all sorts of things.


You still don't need 8 years of training to monitor blood pressure. I
think a lot of this blood pressure thing is driven by the drug
companies that sell the pills. I am a little sensitive about this
because blood pressure medicine killed my mother.
She had the "white fright" problem and her resting blood pressure was
in the 90/60 range in spite of regularly blowing a 190/100 at the
doctor's office. It went down hill from there.


Basically step away from the doughnuts, put out the cigarette and take
a walk.
Michelle Obama seems to be taking that on but she is not getting much
help from the media. They sell doughnuts (fast food, potato chips,
candy etc) and you can't watch TV if you are out on a walk.


Yes, obesity is a huge (no pun intended) problem.



Monitoring isn't the problem. Lots of people can't get it under control
without medicine and it needs to be monitored closely. I'm sorry for your
mom. Diabetes is another silent killer. It's not just getting tested.. it's
regular monitoring and checkups. There are a host of others. That's why docs
go through so many years of training. Nurses and Physician Assistants can do
some of it, certainly. But, they can't do al lot of it.


--
Nom=de=Plume