|
OT
-- 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. |
OT
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. -- 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 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:12:15 -0400, HK
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? |
OT
On 3/17/10 2:22 PM, jps 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? Kindling. -- 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 Mar 17, 2:22*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:12:15 -0400, HK 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....... |
OT
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. |
OT
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 ". |
OT
"*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 |
OT
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. |
OT
"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 |
OT
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. |
OT
"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 |
OT
|
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 I agree with you on universal health care Eisboch but I really don't have a problem with someone else being able to afford something I can't, wether it's better health care or a steak and lobster dinner. I drive a 6 yo pickup. Dodge not Cadillac. I don't begrudge any driving newer/nicer cars. That's life |
OT
"W1TEF" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:14:16 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The debate will start all over again. The problem is simple from the perspective of the Democrats - the need to pass health-care reform but make it look like it saves money is paramount. The only way to do that is to force states into expanding Medicaid in order to absorb more of the uninsured. Keep in mind that Medicaid costs are mainly borne by the states. Will Obamacare actually save money? No - it's a Ponzi scheme. State taxes will have to increase while the President and his Congressional minions talk on about the cost "savings" at the Federal level. States already dragging their asses along the ground with diminishing revenues will find themselves desperate for cash infusions - where exactly will that come from? You're talking hard money here - taxes and revenues. There is no other solution. And in return, reduced services - assuming that there are physicians willing to work for $15/hr after spending a million dollars on their education. Every doctor I've talked to over the past three/four months hates this thing and several who are ten/twelve years away from retirement are planning on tossing in the towel now rather than later and/or changing career from primary/specialist care to research or just taking their money and running. The irony is that the solution has staring them in the face the whole time - open the anti-trust laws, let the companies compete in an open market across state lines, allow doctors to charge what they feel is appropriate for their services and complete tort reform. It seems to work for worker's compensation - why not for medical practices? Two of the docs I see on a regular basis told me that they could charge less for their services if they could reduce their insurance costs to a more reasonable level. The one single issue I agreed with Ted Kennedy on was catastrophic care - that is an area where the government could be of enormous benefit. Otherwise Obamacare is going to be a fiscal disaster for the middle class - pay more and get less. I think you make good points. One of the arguments I've made for years is for the return of basic, affordable, catastrophic medical insurance plans. They won't cover the removal of a splinter from little Johnny's finger, but *will* cover serious, life threatening injuries or diseases. Major catastrophic medical insurance was relatively inexpensive compared to the minimal co-pay HMO type programs that pay for a doctor to wipe your nose. A universal catastrophic health insurance program, subsidized for those who cannot pay the full premium (or any of it for that matter) would be far less expensive and would provide basic, life threatening care for everyone. Viagra, abortions for convenience, cosmetic and other non-life threatening procedures or services would be optional at extra cost. Eisboch |
OT
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. |
OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:21:17 -0400, "mmc" wrote:
"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 I agree with you on universal health care Eisboch but I really don't have a problem with someone else being able to afford something I can't, wether it's better health care or a steak and lobster dinner. I drive a 6 yo pickup. Dodge not Cadillac. I don't begrudge any driving newer/nicer cars. That's life Well, you're obviously not Harry, jps, or Jim Hertvik! :) -- "You may give it away, but your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it." John H |
OT
On Mar 19, 8:49*am, I am Tosk wrote:
In article , says.... "*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 Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. |
OT
On 3/19/10 11:28 AM, *e#c wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:49 am, I am wrote: In , says... wrote in message ... On Mar 18, 6:49 pm, 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 Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. It's sadly humorous. Snotty posts here that he's been in the hospital and left owing $25,000, and he tells us we have no idea of what we are talking about...even though our comments are based entirely on what he posted. -- 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
"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 |
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
|
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. |
OT
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. |
OT
*e#c wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:49 am, I am wrote: In , says.... wrote in message .... On Mar 18, 6:49 pm, 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 Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. Who are you? |
OT
nom=de=plume wrote:
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. Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated. |
OT
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. |
OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:14:16 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
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. It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. |
OT
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: 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. Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated. No. Really? Wow Larry.. you sure are smart! -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"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 |
OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:28:20 -0400, W1TEF
wrote: Obamacare is going to be a fiscal disaster for the middle class - pay more and get less. Absolutely right. Unfortunately the current administration only pays lip service to caring about the middle class. |
OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:42:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: 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. Learn to read, and learn to think, ma'am. |
OT
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com