Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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



It's really not very simple. I love this... convenience abortions. Nothing
in the legislation allows money to be spent on abortions, yet the rightnuts
keep bringing it up. "Everything under the sun" includes basic healthcare.
Elective surgery is tough to define also. How about breast reconstruction
after cancer treatment? It's not life threatening, yet you'd deny it right?

The health insurance industry is only interested one thing.. profit. They
don't care about people's health. They need to be cut out of the equation.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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


You're the one to decide what's a sniffle or cold? I think I'd rather have
my doctor decide.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 3/31/10 2:22 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

"Peter 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



It's really not very simple. I love this... convenience abortions. Nothing
in the legislation allows money to be spent on abortions, yet the rightnuts
keep bringing it up. "Everything under the sun" includes basic healthcare.
Elective surgery is tough to define also. How about breast reconstruction
after cancer treatment? It's not life threatening, yet you'd deny it right?

The health insurance industry is only interested one thing.. profit. They
don't care about people's health. They need to be cut out of the equation.


In the end, sometime, we will dump the health insurance industry,
because it adds absolutely nothing to health care and sucks up
kazillions of dollars that could be spent improving the quality of care
for Americans.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

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


You once did a survey that proved something. Sure. In one specific case.
But, I guess Mitt didn't like your plan. The one he pushed is much stronger
than the one that just passed. Of course, he's against it after he was for
it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, Larry wrote:

hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result
racked up
a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.


I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his
arrangement is
with the hospital.
That's his business and I am not interested in that specific
discussion.

However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as a
person
of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no
insurance
for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it.

I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the
criticism?

Eisboch



My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his
irresponsibility,
his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of
attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the
uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help
that
was offered to him in a time of need.

I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the
cost of
health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In
fact, I
would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law last
week goes.



So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health
care
is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a deserving
recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this
regard.

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance" are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford
the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the
degree necessary.



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?

You are an ignorant, sick piece of **** who has bought into all the
propaganda fed you by your selfish, greedy masters.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...


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

Eisboch

"would *not* allow"

It's funny, even though you stated it wrong, I initially read it right
and didn't even notice you left out the not, until you edited your
post;)

Scotty

--
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
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.


You may read, but you don't seem to comprehend very well.
I never suggested anything like that. A simple case of gangrene is life
threatening.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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


You're the one to decide what's a sniffle or cold? I think I'd rather have
my doctor decide.


--
Nom=de=Plume


I am 60 years old. My parents and my wife and I (with our kids) did a
pretty good job determining what required a doctor's attention and what
required a day home from school to rest.
Now-a-days the parents don't want that responsibility because it only costs
a $10 co-pay to run to the doctor.

That's what I am talking about. Not serious injuries or illnesses.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 3/31/10 3:18 PM, Eisboch wrote:

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


You're the one to decide what's a sniffle or cold? I think I'd rather
have my doctor decide.


--
Nom=de=Plume


I am 60 years old. My parents and my wife and I (with our kids) did a
pretty good job determining what required a doctor's attention and what
required a day home from school to rest.
Now-a-days the parents don't want that responsibility because it only
costs a $10 co-pay to run to the doctor.

That's what I am talking about. Not serious injuries or illnesses.

Eisboch


Ahh, but you are a reasonably educated, wealthy, white guy who worked
and got many of the advantages life has to offer. You're far more
sophisticated in the matters under discussion than tens of millions of
Americans. What works for you intellectually isn't going to work for
boobus Americanus, necessarily. The short version: a lot of parents do
not have the ability to differentiate between a low fever and a fever
that might indicate something serious.





--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


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


You once did a survey that proved something. Sure. In one specific case.
But, I guess Mitt didn't like your plan. The one he pushed is much
stronger than the one that just passed. Of course, he's against it after
he was for it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


My company was representative of a typical small business who collectively
employ about 80% of the population. It may have been a specific case, but
it was representative of what happened when HMO type health plans became
popular.

BTW ... the one Mitt signed .... (under a heavily Democratic state populous)
isn't exactly working out very well, particularly for small business. It
has advantages to the insured, but is causing small business to cut back or
avoid growth. Again, since small business is the major employer, it has
ramifications that aren't so good overall.

Overall, I think it's better than the system we had before him in MA. It
was terrible.
A small business had to have 100 percent participation in a particular HMO
plan. If one employee had a doctor who was in the Harvard plan and the
small business had a Blue Cross plan, the employee might have been required
to find a new family doctor in order to accept a job.

Eisboch

Eisboch

Eisboch