|
OT
On 3/20/10 8:57 PM, Larry wrote:
hk wrote: On 3/19/10 9:11 PM, Larry wrote: HK wrote: On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs. You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either. Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you" for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions. I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated health care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have described. Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I support. It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem as I see it: Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will always be more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can afford to pay for them. When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who can afford non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can not? The debate will start all over again. Eisboch If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All Swiss must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized. All the basic plans provide the same coverage at the same price. Each basic plan also offers a number of options for those who want them and can afford them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if you need cancer surgery, you get it under the basic plan. If you want bigger teats, and the "want" is only for cosmetic reasons, you have to have one of the supplemental plans if you want insurance coverage for it. Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to work. Those days are gone. The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to really care what the meat of the plan is. It's what may be passable. It is obvious the Republicans do not want any serious legislation to pass during Obama's terms. How serious is this legislation if the people voting for it don't fully understand it and the President admits that it will have to be modified later? Why not vote on a final plan and implement it? You mean, do what the GOP wants and delay health care insurance reform for another 20 years? No thanks. |
OT
"jps" wrote in message
... On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:30:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... I'm betting your "strong" views include disenfranchizing the poor, middle class, and anyone who might have a different perspective, but that's just a guess. -- Nom=de=Plume You are a pretty poor guesser. But, I can recognize one who's guesses are immediately classified as truths in their minds. Eisboch Despite your protests, your lack of refutation and refusal to state your stong views lends credit to her assumptions. Maybe you're not so convinced of your strong views and lack the courage of conviction. Without intending to slam Eisboch, that's exactly what I think. What "strong" views could be antithetical to what has already been on display here and elsewhere? I can't think of anything. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:32:52 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"jps" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:26:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: What I write is not required reading. The fact that you do and then comment in the manner in which you do displays and confirms what's wrong with the mindset of some liberals better than I could ever do if I wrote a book on the subject. I don't respond very well to threats or attempts at intimidation. Eisboch Misdirection and drivel. I get better responses when I call you a snob. My bet is that your platform is shaky and you're not sure what your strong views are. I'll bet you relish your sad life as a newsgroup troll. Eisboch This isn't a troll. You don't have the answers and you're hiding behind bull****. Got lint? |
OT
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:24:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:30:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... I'm betting your "strong" views include disenfranchizing the poor, middle class, and anyone who might have a different perspective, but that's just a guess. -- Nom=de=Plume You are a pretty poor guesser. But, I can recognize one who's guesses are immediately classified as truths in their minds. Eisboch Despite your protests, your lack of refutation and refusal to state your stong views lends credit to her assumptions. Maybe you're not so convinced of your strong views and lack the courage of conviction. Without intending to slam Eisboch, that's exactly what I think. What "strong" views could be antithetical to what has already been on display here and elsewhere? I can't think of anything. He's got bumper sticker ideas that aren't defensible. It's true of most "conservatives." The details make them quiver with fear. |
OT
On Mar 20, 6:43*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article , says... You haven't offered a solution but you've used bumper sticker logic to back up your position. How bloody sad that your facile mind cannot travel further than that. I have some very strong views on what the solution is. * You wouldn't like them however and it would just generate another round of your immature, naive comments and name calling. Best to let you take care of yourself and your family your way. I'll continue to do it my way. Eisboch Why that's the most common sense answer I have heard in a while;) Scotty, glad you are having such a good time with the shop Dick! -- Rowdy Mouse Racing, no crybabies! Scotty, glad you are having such a good time with the shop Dick! Figures...playing with some guys dick....again. |
OT
On Mar 20, 9:37*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: *wrote in message ... The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. *It really isn't a plan at all. *The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. *This is unprecedented. *He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to really care what the meat of the plan is. I feel the same way. * I've been watching interviews with some of the Congress members who are on the fence regarding their vote on Sunday. Most are still seeking specific definitions of certain details of "the plan". It has been debated for a year and they still aren't sure what they are voting for? In the end it will pass due to an enormous amount of arm twisting and backroom deals. * Heh. *One member of Congress was calling this bill "the most transparent" proposal (to the public) that he had ever witnessed in his 40 years of elected office. *But when pressed for specific answers, he still wasn't sure exactly what some parts of the bill were, what the language meant or what the ramifications would be. But, he's leaning towards a "Yes". Eisboch America certainly got "Change". Actually, less than we wanted. I don't think enough has been done to fix the economy and fix healthcare. -- Nom=de=Plume Well, when you have scumbags like Snotty Scotty Ingersoll skipping out on $25,000 Hospital Bills...the economy will go to hell in a handbasket. |
OT
On Mar 21, 2:31*pm, "*e#c" wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:43*pm, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... You haven't offered a solution but you've used bumper sticker logic to back up your position. How bloody sad that your facile mind cannot travel further than that. |
OT
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: How serious is this legislation if the people voting for it don't fully understand it and the President admits that it will have to be modified later? Why not vote on a final plan and implement it? Come on... legislators "fully" understand legislation? That's near impossible. What's wrong with improving things later? It's historically commonplace to do just that. I love it.. a final plan. Name a piece of law that was implemented in final form... Well, most actually. Sure some are amended months, years, or decades later but how many are passed knowing there are flaws that will have to be changed before it's implemented? Most legislation is changed after initially being passed. Name one piece of major legislation that wasn't changed after passing. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Larry" wrote in message
... H the K wrote: On 3/20/10 8:57 PM, Larry wrote: hk wrote: On 3/19/10 9:11 PM, Larry wrote: HK wrote: On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message m... If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs. You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either. Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you" for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions. I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated health care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have described. Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I support. It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem as I see it: Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will always be more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can afford to pay for them. When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who can afford non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can not? The debate will start all over again. Eisboch If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All Swiss must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized. All the basic plans provide the same coverage at the same price. Each basic plan also offers a number of options for those who want them and can afford them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if you need cancer surgery, you get it under the basic plan. If you want bigger teats, and the "want" is only for cosmetic reasons, you have to have one of the supplemental plans if you want insurance coverage for it. Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to work. Those days are gone. The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to really care what the meat of the plan is. It's what may be passable. It is obvious the Republicans do not want any serious legislation to pass during Obama's terms. How serious is this legislation if the people voting for it don't fully understand it and the President admits that it will have to be modified later? Why not vote on a final plan and implement it? You mean, do what the GOP wants and delay health care insurance reform for another 20 years? No thanks. They are passing a shell of a bill to be repaired and adjusted later. How long do you think that will take? Well, they were going to do it as Deem and Pass, but the Nut Cases on the right claimed that it was illegal or immoral or against nature or some idiocy, even though they've done it a bunch. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com