OT
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those
who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

How about replacements due to breast cancer?
--

"You may give it away, but your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it."
John H

OT
 

In article ,
says...



I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

Geeze, and I used to like you;)

Scotty

OT
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can
be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big
boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those
who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

How about replacements due to breast cancer?


Absolutely.

Eisboch

OT
 

On 3/19/10 11:45 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that
those who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that
provide things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et
cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

Unless for reconstruction after breast removal surgery.

At heart, I'm really opposed to for-profit health insurance. For-profit
health insurance companies add nothing of value to the process of
staying well or getting well. Doctors, nurses, technicals, hospitals,
therapists, drug companies...they help you get well.

- -

If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

OT
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:44:51 -0400, HK
wrote:

On 3/19/10 11:45 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that
those who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that
provide things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et
cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

Unless for reconstruction after breast removal surgery.

At heart, I'm really opposed to for-profit health insurance. For-profit
health insurance companies add nothing of value to the process of
staying well or getting well. Doctors, nurses, technicals, hospitals,
therapists, drug companies...they help you get well.


This is an alarmingly naive statement. It is inherently in the
"for-profit" insurance company's best interest to persuade, encourage,
and cajole insureds into "staying well." This is why most bona-fide
insurance companies will offer some type of health-and-wellness
program for their insureds. Many plans include memberships to Curves
and typical stay-n-shape type of progams. Too, it is implicitly not
in the health insurance company's mission statement to be a health
care provider. They provide 'financial' protection against
catastropic loss. To be opposed to "for-profit" health insurance in
conflating the health care responsibilities (or value) of both is the
product of confused thinking or the product of disinformation.

OT
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" 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




And when money is short, they will say lots of things are not covered. Has
already happened here in California. The Regional Centers were set up to
provide care for those with mental problems and other handicaps when the
State Mental Hospitals were closed. When the state overspent, raising
prison guards salary's to $100k, etc. They dropped lots of services from
the list approved for the kids. Now there is only Speech and Physical
Therapy for handicapped and autistic kids. No mental help at all. Same
thing will happen with a national plan. Look at the 1-2 year wait for a
knee replacement in Canada as one of the signs.

OT
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:44:51 -0400, HK
wrote:

On 3/19/10 11:45 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can
be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big
boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that
those who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that
provide things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et
cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

Unless for reconstruction after breast removal surgery.

At heart, I'm really opposed to for-profit health insurance. For-profit
health insurance companies add nothing of value to the process of
staying well or getting well. Doctors, nurses, technicals, hospitals,
therapists, drug companies...they help you get well.


This is an alarmingly naive statement. It is inherently in the
"for-profit" insurance company's best interest to persuade, encourage,
and cajole insureds into "staying well." This is why most bona-fide
insurance companies will offer some type of health-and-wellness
program for their insureds. Many plans include memberships to Curves
and typical stay-n-shape type of progams. Too, it is implicitly not
in the health insurance company's mission statement to be a health
care provider. They provide 'financial' protection against
catastropic loss. To be opposed to "for-profit" health insurance in
conflating the health care responsibilities (or value) of both is the
product of confused thinking or the product of disinformation.


Yeah right. As soon as you get sick, they'll look for a way to drop you.
Submit a bill and it takes an act of Congress to get them to pay in a timely
fashion. Lose your job and can't afford Cobra, too bad. You can't get
private insurance if you have any kind of pre-existing condition. The
insurance companies are only interested in one thing: profit. That's fine,
except that has little to do with public health. They provide financial
protection against catastrophic loss unless they can find a way to weasel
out of it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:25:18 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can
be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big
boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those
who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

How about replacements due to breast cancer?


Absolutely.

Eisboch

I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change
operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for.
--

"You may give it away, but your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it."
John H

OT
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:25:18 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can
be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big
boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that
those
who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that
provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in
some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

How about replacements due to breast cancer?


Absolutely.

Eisboch

I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change
operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for.


Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when
vasectomy operations increase in frequency.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT
 

On 3/19/10 4:57 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:25:18 -0400, wrote:


"John wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:45:13 -0400,
wrote:


wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can
be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big
boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that
those
who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that
provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in
some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects
or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I
don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch

How about replacements due to breast cancer?


Absolutely.

Eisboch

I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change
operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for.


Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when
vasectomy operations increase in frequency.



Yeouch!

And I can say that from personal experience. :)

I have a really funny story about my snipping, but this probably isn't
the place to tell it.




--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.