On 3/19/10 2:06 AM, mgg wrote:


"*e#c" wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 6:49 pm, HK wrote:
On 3/18/10 6:23 PM, *e#c wrote:



On Mar 17, 2:22 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:12:15 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/17/10 10:06 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
Beware "Big City Yellow Pages" out of Encino California. They
work through AT+T
to provide advertizing. They are sleazy in their sales and do
not honor their
cancellation agreements! Customer service sucks, all they want
to do is steal
your money.

It's too bad that local hospital can't cancel the care it gave
you...you
know, the hospital you didn't pay.

Scotty's homebuilt rowboats going national?

Geese... all they gotta do is look at the scary pictures on his " web
site " and the deals off.......

I have a vague recollection of him stating here that he had some
"health" reason for not building any more boats, but who really knows?
If you ever saw the photos of the rowboat/skiff he built for himself,
you'd laugh your butt off at the paint job...what was left of 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.

Thats the one for his " Viking Funeral " up the muddy creek with his 6
pack.

No Hospital will take him, now that he's ****ed one over..... Dead at
home, amidst all his " boats ".

Pssssst... I have secret for ya.... they HAVE to take him. How do you
think all the illegals get medical care?? I know nothing of Scott's
financial situation, or his dealings with any hospitals, but the law is
the law. Unfortunately, they'd even take care of harry, even though
they'd do the world a favor if they didn't, regardless of his, or his
union's ability to pay.

--Mike


Only right-wing morons like Mike believe the indigent get the same sort
of medical care at hospitals as those who have good insurance or can pay
in cash.

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.

Life is easy for mooks like Mike, who don't see or care about how harsh
life is for those who are without. It's really getting close to the time
when the proper response to these tea-baggers is to put their heads on
pikes.


--


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.

"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

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.



--


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.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
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.


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

On 3/19/10 7:58 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...
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.


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.

--


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.

"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

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

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

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.

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.