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.

Larry wrote:


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.

What do you expect with the health care and insurance lobbyists running
the show, and the Republicans just saying "No!"?
This bill is a landmark, and will break the back of that grip if it passes.
There's insurance company regulation in it, and they're now grabbed by
the short hairs.
It's been messy, with too many Dems in the pocket of the insurance
industry to get a good product.
But if it passes it's only the beginning. That's why the Republicans
hate it.
What do you mean no plan? I always hear it's over 2000 pages.
Get your talking points straight.
Let me clue you in - everything is unprecedented. Can't be otherwise.

Jim - Enemy of the status quo in health care. Status quo is Republican.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
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.


Right. We've never had that happen before. Call CNN!


--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote in message
...
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.


Right. We've never had that happen before. Call CNN!


--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, and look at the results here in the state of California when they
rammed through a bill at the last moment that nobody read, or understood.
Caused PG&E bankruptcy, high wholesale energy prices, and blackouts.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote in message
...
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.


Right. We've never had that happen before. Call CNN!


--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, and look at the results here in the state of California when they
rammed through a bill at the last moment that nobody read, or understood.
Caused PG&E bankruptcy, high wholesale energy prices, and blackouts.

So, you lied about not reading or responding to my posts. Ok. I knew that
was going to happen.

And, you are now equating the entire nation and the Congressional healthcare
legislation with "a bill" that went through the Calif. legislature. You are
just so brilliant. The wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Larry" 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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Larry" 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

And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force?

You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Larry" 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

And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force?

You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what
channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to
Rush.

Eisboch

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:51:55 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Larry" 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

And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force?

You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what
channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to
Rush.

Eisboch

You may be listening to Beck or Rush but you do an excellent job of
channeling their thoughts. Great minds, you know...

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:31:16 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:51:55 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Larry" 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

And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force?

You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what
channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to
Rush.

Eisboch

You may be listening to Beck or Rush but you do an excellent job of
channeling their thoughts. Great minds, you know...

Whoops, meant to say you may "not" be listening. ****ed up a
perfectly good comeback.