Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article fc01071e-9d47-4211-9502-35c7d45d9cd1
@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 31, 5:51*am, "Eisboch" wrote:


You are correct, Prick *or whoever you are.


LOL!

sorry, sometimes it's hard to make no comment in a non-boating
thread...

In some respects I can understand your reaction, but that does not make
your reaction the correct one.
From reading your posts here you seem to be a gentleman, so I will take
this opportunity to give you a brief background of my name.
I hope it will make you think twice before mocking somebody's name, and
if not, at least I tried.
I see you are a Schnautz, so suspect you may be sensitive in this area.
In the long history of my family, all traceable in British genealogy and
heraldry annals, lack of male descendants and marriage of the female
descendant to another manor or principality led to a number of changes
of the family name.
This is a common occurrence in the long sweep of history.
From Shaftcroft to Dickinson to Cockburn, then DePenis, LaBanane, and
finally vonPrick - who was a Prussian Baron - when an arranged marriage
took place joining him to the last of the Labanane line, Princess
Donhava LaBanane.
Today these names strike the modern person as similar in a certain way,
but language itself is ever evolving, and simple chance plays its role.
I don't mean to sound any way "superior" here with all this talk of
heraldic names, because I'm certainly not.
The family fortune waned long ago, and my work has mainly been clerking
in various Sears Roebuck shoe departments, and a stint at Tom McCann.
In my direct family line the vonPrick name was shortened to Prick by my
great-great-grandfather when he left Stropfordshire in 1849 to seek his
fortune in the California gold rush.
He had no success there, and likewise failed in other endeavors, and so
too the family left in Europe suffered a steep decline.
Some of the European family still use the vonPrick name on formal
occasions, but here in the U.S. it is mostly relegated to discussion of
ancestry at various family functions.
Birthdays, weddings, christenings, picnics, etc.
I use the Prick family name here really to disguise my identity, as it
is not easily traced, and I am a rather private person.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to use my given name, as it is also not
easily traced.
In 1933 my grandfather had a violent falling out with the European
Pricks, and decided to abandon the name.
He changed his name legally to Jones, and that is the name I was given.
I'm happy with it, and consider myself lucky in that respect.
My grandmother insisted that the family name become her maiden name if
my grandfather were to abandon his family name.
He adamantly refused and insisted on the Jones name, which was done.
This deep disagreement simmered for another 4 years and led to divorce,
which was relatively unusual in the 1930's.
Her maiden name was Schmuck, and I sometimes ponder how my life may have
been different if Jones had not won out in the battle between Prick and
Schmuck.
But family matters are boring to strangers, aren't they? So I'll stop
now.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Peter Prick wrote:
In article fc01071e-9d47-4211-9502-35c7d45d9cd1
@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...
On Mar 31, 5:51 am, "Eisboch" wrote:

You are correct, Prick or whoever you are.

LOL!

sorry, sometimes it's hard to make no comment in a non-boating
thread...

In some respects I can understand your reaction, but that does not make
your reaction the correct one.
From reading your posts here you seem to be a gentleman, so I will take
this opportunity to give you a brief background of my name.
I hope it will make you think twice before mocking somebody's name, and
if not, at least I tried.
I see you are a Schnautz, so suspect you may be sensitive in this area.
In the long history of my family, all traceable in British genealogy and
heraldry annals, lack of male descendants and marriage of the female
descendant to another manor or principality led to a number of changes
of the family name.
This is a common occurrence in the long sweep of history.
From Shaftcroft to Dickinson to Cockburn, then DePenis, LaBanane, and
finally vonPrick - who was a Prussian Baron - when an arranged marriage
took place joining him to the last of the Labanane line, Princess
Donhava LaBanane.
Today these names strike the modern person as similar in a certain way,
but language itself is ever evolving, and simple chance plays its role.
I don't mean to sound any way "superior" here with all this talk of
heraldic names, because I'm certainly not.
The family fortune waned long ago, and my work has mainly been clerking
in various Sears Roebuck shoe departments, and a stint at Tom McCann.
In my direct family line the vonPrick name was shortened to Prick by my
great-great-grandfather when he left Stropfordshire in 1849 to seek his
fortune in the California gold rush.
He had no success there, and likewise failed in other endeavors, and so
too the family left in Europe suffered a steep decline.
Some of the European family still use the vonPrick name on formal
occasions, but here in the U.S. it is mostly relegated to discussion of
ancestry at various family functions.
Birthdays, weddings, christenings, picnics, etc.
I use the Prick family name here really to disguise my identity, as it
is not easily traced, and I am a rather private person.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to use my given name, as it is also not
easily traced.
In 1933 my grandfather had a violent falling out with the European
Pricks, and decided to abandon the name.
He changed his name legally to Jones, and that is the name I was given.
I'm happy with it, and consider myself lucky in that respect.
My grandmother insisted that the family name become her maiden name if
my grandfather were to abandon his family name.
He adamantly refused and insisted on the Jones name, which was done.
This deep disagreement simmered for another 4 years and led to divorce,
which was relatively unusual in the 1930's.
Her maiden name was Schmuck, and I sometimes ponder how my life may have
been different if Jones had not won out in the battle between Prick and
Schmuck.
But family matters are boring to strangers, aren't they? So I'll stop
now.


Are you related to that cocksucker Krause.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...
In article fc01071e-9d47-4211-9502-35c7d45d9cd1
@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 31, 5:51 am, "Eisboch" wrote:


You are correct, Prick or whoever you are.


LOL!

sorry, sometimes it's hard to make no comment in a non-boating
thread...

In some respects I can understand your reaction, but that does not make
your reaction the correct one.
From reading your posts here you seem to be a gentleman, so I will take
this opportunity to give you a brief background of my name.
I hope it will make you think twice before mocking somebody's name, and
if not, at least I tried.
I see you are a Schnautz, so suspect you may be sensitive in this area.
In the long history of my family, all traceable in British genealogy and
heraldry annals, lack of male descendants and marriage of the female
descendant to another manor or principality led to a number of changes
of the family name.
This is a common occurrence in the long sweep of history.
From Shaftcroft to Dickinson to Cockburn, then DePenis, LaBanane, and
finally vonPrick - who was a Prussian Baron - when an arranged marriage
took place joining him to the last of the Labanane line, Princess
Donhava LaBanane.
Today these names strike the modern person as similar in a certain way,
but language itself is ever evolving, and simple chance plays its role.
I don't mean to sound any way "superior" here with all this talk of
heraldic names, because I'm certainly not.
The family fortune waned long ago, and my work has mainly been clerking
in various Sears Roebuck shoe departments, and a stint at Tom McCann.
In my direct family line the vonPrick name was shortened to Prick by my
great-great-grandfather when he left Stropfordshire in 1849 to seek his
fortune in the California gold rush.
He had no success there, and likewise failed in other endeavors, and so
too the family left in Europe suffered a steep decline.
Some of the European family still use the vonPrick name on formal
occasions, but here in the U.S. it is mostly relegated to discussion of
ancestry at various family functions.
Birthdays, weddings, christenings, picnics, etc.
I use the Prick family name here really to disguise my identity, as it
is not easily traced, and I am a rather private person.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to use my given name, as it is also not
easily traced.
In 1933 my grandfather had a violent falling out with the European
Pricks, and decided to abandon the name.
He changed his name legally to Jones, and that is the name I was given.
I'm happy with it, and consider myself lucky in that respect.
My grandmother insisted that the family name become her maiden name if
my grandfather were to abandon his family name.
He adamantly refused and insisted on the Jones name, which was done.
This deep disagreement simmered for another 4 years and led to divorce,
which was relatively unusual in the 1930's.
Her maiden name was Schmuck, and I sometimes ponder how my life may have
been different if Jones had not won out in the battle between Prick and
Schmuck.
But family matters are boring to strangers, aren't they? So I'll stop
now.



Prick,

Don't be so sensitive.

Dick

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...

Though Eisboch may mean well, his answer is bereft of any thought or
logic, and could insult anybody with the slightest knowledge of the
health care issue.
That's fine though, since this is a boat venue, and most here probably
don't spend much time in debating health care policy.
Not attributing anything to Eisboch, but I've heard much the same empty
words from Republican politicians.
"We have good ideas."
"There's a better way."
Whenever pressed for details, they propose ideas that have been
rejected time and again as not offering a solution to the problem,
and which would simply maintain, or even worsen, the status quo.
Your "WTF" was quite appropriate.
Again, I understand that Eisboch may mean well.
I'm sure he is better versed in boats than he is in the health care
issue.
And it is unfair to ask him to put in a paragraph what Congress needed
+2700 pages to describe.


You are correct, Prick or whoever you are.
I don't claim to be a health insurance expert, nor do I have all the
answers.
However, I *do* have some experience in the administration of health care
plans in a company and I have some experience in the application of
health
insurance as it pertains to a serious health issue.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the health insurance problem
started
with the demise of affordable, Major Medical health insurance
(catastrophic
insurance) that started in the late 1970's and early 1980's. When HMO,
then PTO and other similar plans became the standard in the industry, the
cost of medical insurance began it's upward spiral.

It now seems that a medical insurance plan styled like an HMO and
subsidized
by taxpayers for those who can't afford it is expected to be a right. I
have no problem with insurance or subsidized care/service for life
threatening or disabling conditions. I *do* have a problem with
subsidized
HMO type programs covering everything under the sun, including elective
or
for convenience surgery, convenience abortions (meaning non-life
threatening) etc.

When it comes to basic health care, everyone should have it and those who
can't afford it should be helped. When it comes to other, elective or
unnecessary care, surgery, etc, I think you should pay for it and not
have
it paid for by others.

Really very simple.

Eisboch

Nothing is simple when it is clouded by lies.
I have not seen or heard anything suggesting that this bill will make
"everything under the sun" available.
But I have heard that catching medical conditions early and treating
them is much cheaper than later amputations, prosthetics, dialysis,
transplants, etc, the latter of which you are implying is the best
course, given your frequent use of "life threatening."
You may disagree with that. But you won't find a doctor to agree with
you.
Simple as that.


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my mind,
be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for sniffles,
colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 3/31/10 11:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my
mind, be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for
sniffles, colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch


Do most people, even with HMOs, see the doctor for sniffles or colds?
I'm not sure what "issues of convenience" are.

My doctor wants to see me every four months. I usually have nothing to
report to him in terms of aches, pains, ailments, but he checks me over
anyway, and has blood drawn. Prior to flu season, I pop by his office
for the nurse to give me the "shot." I see my ophthalmologist once a
year for an eye exam. Are these "issues of convenience"?


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 3/31/10 11:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my
mind, be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for
sniffles, colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch


Do most people, even with HMOs, see the doctor for sniffles or colds? I'm
not sure what "issues of convenience" are.

My doctor wants to see me every four months. I usually have nothing to
report to him in terms of aches, pains, ailments, but he checks me over
anyway, and has blood drawn. Prior to flu season, I pop by his office for
the nurse to give me the "shot." I see my ophthalmologist once a year for
an eye exam. Are these "issues of convenience"?


Yes.

I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once
that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company and
for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of the
services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical
insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries or
illness.

Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow such
a thing.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 3/31/10 11:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my
mind, be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for
sniffles, colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch


Do most people, even with HMOs, see the doctor for sniffles or colds? I'm
not sure what "issues of convenience" are.

My doctor wants to see me every four months. I usually have nothing to
report to him in terms of aches, pains, ailments, but he checks me over
anyway, and has blood drawn. Prior to flu season, I pop by his office for
the nurse to give me the "shot." I see my ophthalmologist once a year for
an eye exam. Are these "issues of convenience"?


Yes.

I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once
that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company
and for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of
the services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical
insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries
or illness.

Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow
such a thing.

Eisboch

"would *not* allow"

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 3/31/10 12:12 PM, Eisboch wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 3/31/10 11:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my
mind, be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for
sniffles, colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch


Do most people, even with HMOs, see the doctor for sniffles or colds?
I'm not sure what "issues of convenience" are.

My doctor wants to see me every four months. I usually have nothing to
report to him in terms of aches, pains, ailments, but he checks me
over anyway, and has blood drawn. Prior to flu season, I pop by his
office for the nurse to give me the "shot." I see my ophthalmologist
once a year for an eye exam. Are these "issues of convenience"?


Yes.

I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once
that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company
and for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost
of the services that you described to the employees and had a Major
Medical insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening
injuries or illness.

Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow
such a thing.

Eisboch

Well, I'm sure I would not agree that regular checkups are "issues of
convenience" for old farts like me. If my health insurer thought
otherwise, it wouldn't authorize the visits.

I was on the health and welfare committee of my local for many years. We
had a multimillion dollar deductible that we covered with a second
insurance plan. There was a substantial cost savings for us to do that.

Most construction worker union members pay the entire cost of their
health insurance premiums. There is no employer contribution. It's part
of the hourly rate. If that rate is $45, $8 an hour of that might go for
health care premiums and other amounts go to other bennies.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:25:39 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Peter Prick" wrote in message
...

Though Eisboch may mean well, his answer is bereft of any thought or
logic, and could insult anybody with the slightest knowledge of the
health care issue.
That's fine though, since this is a boat venue, and most here probably
don't spend much time in debating health care policy.
Not attributing anything to Eisboch, but I've heard much the same empty
words from Republican politicians.
"We have good ideas."
"There's a better way."
Whenever pressed for details, they propose ideas that have been
rejected time and again as not offering a solution to the problem,
and which would simply maintain, or even worsen, the status quo.
Your "WTF" was quite appropriate.
Again, I understand that Eisboch may mean well.
I'm sure he is better versed in boats than he is in the health care
issue.
And it is unfair to ask him to put in a paragraph what Congress needed
+2700 pages to describe.


You are correct, Prick or whoever you are.
I don't claim to be a health insurance expert, nor do I have all the
answers.
However, I *do* have some experience in the administration of health care
plans in a company and I have some experience in the application of
health
insurance as it pertains to a serious health issue.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the health insurance problem
started
with the demise of affordable, Major Medical health insurance
(catastrophic
insurance) that started in the late 1970's and early 1980's. When HMO,
then PTO and other similar plans became the standard in the industry, the
cost of medical insurance began it's upward spiral.

It now seems that a medical insurance plan styled like an HMO and
subsidized
by taxpayers for those who can't afford it is expected to be a right. I
have no problem with insurance or subsidized care/service for life
threatening or disabling conditions. I *do* have a problem with
subsidized
HMO type programs covering everything under the sun, including elective
or
for convenience surgery, convenience abortions (meaning non-life
threatening) etc.

When it comes to basic health care, everyone should have it and those who
can't afford it should be helped. When it comes to other, elective or
unnecessary care, surgery, etc, I think you should pay for it and not
have
it paid for by others.

Really very simple.

Eisboch

Nothing is simple when it is clouded by lies.
I have not seen or heard anything suggesting that this bill will make
"everything under the sun" available.
But I have heard that catching medical conditions early and treating
them is much cheaper than later amputations, prosthetics, dialysis,
transplants, etc, the latter of which you are implying is the best
course, given your frequent use of "life threatening."
You may disagree with that. But you won't find a doctor to agree with
you.
Simple as that.


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my mind,
be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for sniffles,
colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch

A simple case of gangrene, untreated, turns into an amputation or
toxic poisoning that's certainly life threatening.

You'd opt to ignore the simple case and wait until it'll cost 100's of
thousands of dollars in emergency hospitalization and care.

Makes perfect sense.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:12:44 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
om...
On 3/31/10 11:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my
mind, be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for
sniffles, colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch


Do most people, even with HMOs, see the doctor for sniffles or colds? I'm
not sure what "issues of convenience" are.

My doctor wants to see me every four months. I usually have nothing to
report to him in terms of aches, pains, ailments, but he checks me over
anyway, and has blood drawn. Prior to flu season, I pop by his office for
the nurse to give me the "shot." I see my ophthalmologist once a year for
an eye exam. Are these "issues of convenience"?


Yes.

I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once
that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company and
for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of the
services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical
insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries or
illness.

Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow such
a thing.

Eisboch

I have argued on behalf of self-coverage augmented by catastrophic
care coverage in my state. The state doesn't allow it for some
obvious reasons. They don't trust business to keep the faith, even if
the money were put in escrow and an independent administrator hired to
oversee.

That was a good argument when my workforce was young. As me and my
workforce age, it makes less sense since the unmarried employees
married, pregnancies came, minor surgeries and the lot, which now
cost 1000s of dollars, make that particular combination difficult to
justify in a self-insurance plan, nevermind the overhead of
administration.

While your ideas have merit, your specific solution has limited
applicability to the broader issue of health care as a right or
privilege.