Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:26:02 -0400, hk
wrote:

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.

Good thought. Guys in suits taking protection money, for nothin'.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 3/31/10 5:46 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:28:52 -0400,
wrote:


wrote in message
...

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.

Maybe small businesses are just going to have to account for the real
cost of doing business, including taking care of the folks who
generate the income.

I'm burdened because I choose to be, no matter the state law. It may
indeed limit my growth but I know whomever is in my employ has a
medical safety net that they can rely on.

Walmart wouldn't be nearly as successful if they accounted for the
true cost of maintaining a human being.

Socialism for the rich.


The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the
direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and
businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals
and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost.







--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"hk" wrote in message
...


The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the
direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and
businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals
and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost.


Good grief. I agree with you.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
...


The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the
direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and
businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals
and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost.


Good grief. I agree with you.

Eisboch


Are you sure you two don't have a little Canadian bood in your history? ;-)

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:44:30 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
om...
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.


Hmmmm... makes you wonder. But ..
Any financial advantage I may enjoy was arrived at later in life .... after
turning 50.
No, I just had responsible parents and, more to Mrs.E's credit than mine,
our kids had responsible parents. Neither one of us are rocket scientists.

Eisboch

I employ a rocket scientist and he doesn't take any better care of his
kids than we do...

I do like the "can't see the forest for the trees" cliche, because it so
often fits well.
I interject my comment here, because I don't want to burden Mr. Eisboch
with the thought involved in mocking my name.
And it relates to the "forest for the trees" cliche quite well.
I have heard two phrases countless times from Republican resistors of
the recently passed health care bill.
"Can't afford it."
"Don't want the government coming between the patient and his doctor."

To the first point, apparently Mr. Eisboch does not believe that regular
visits to a doctor leads to less health care costs in the end.
This is somewhat akin to never doing preventative maintenance on an
automobile. And thinking that is cost efficient.
But I don't choose to argue that now.
What I find most insufferable in Mr. Eisboch's mantra is the second
point:
He is so arrogant to think HE should come between the doctor and his
patient.
That fact, evidenced by his virtually writing health care prescriptions
for others right here in this news group, is insulting to anybody who
actually sees a doctor, and to 99% of health care providers.
Perhaps others are too kind to mention this to Mr Eisboch, who seems an
otherwise reasonable man when not toeing the Republican party line.
In any case, I can still respect Mr. Eisboch's view on other matters he
speaks on, and where he shows logic and plain common sense.
For certain, he stands above many here who choose to cuss, cry,
lie, demean and spoof the names and families of others.
I've already forgiven Mr. Eisboch the mocking of my name, which was an
understandable lapse in judgment.
I implore others here to endeavor to speak in kind terms whenever
possible, and not allow petty differences of politics to come between
the friendship and camaraderie most boaters desire.
Mr Schnautz serves well as an example of civil conduct here, and can
stand as a fine exemplar.
A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his
enemies.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article 41929bb6-34ff-4f3c-b369-49a6c42bbab9@
30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 31, 7:37*am, Peter Prick wrote:

But family matters are boring to strangers, aren't they? *So I'll stop
now. *

Oh, not at all. Here's a listing of most of my ancesterial names:

Schnautz, Weidner, McKinney, Sandschaefferr, Hahn, Gladstone,
Wilkinson, Smythe, Price, Cordell, Pruitt, Pearson, Kruegmann,
Knoppehler, Dhonau, Marmaduke (Not necessarily in that order.)

My cousin has my family (Schnautz) traced back to the Black forrest
region of Germany to about 1620. And my sister has my mothers side
traced to the British Isles to the mid 1700's

Many fine names there, Tim.
You are most fortunate to not have any with the connotations mine carry.
But one can say, "What's in a name?" or "A rose is a rose by any other
name" And so on. But this is neither the time or place.
Instead, let's just say "It's a beautiful day to go boating!"

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:44:30 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
om...
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.


Hmmmm... makes you wonder. But ..
Any financial advantage I may enjoy was arrived at later in life ....
after
turning 50.
No, I just had responsible parents and, more to Mrs.E's credit than
mine,
our kids had responsible parents. Neither one of us are rocket
scientists.

Eisboch

I employ a rocket scientist and he doesn't take any better care of his
kids than we do...

I do like the "can't see the forest for the trees" cliche, because it so
often fits well.
I interject my comment here, because I don't want to burden Mr. Eisboch
with the thought involved in mocking my name.
And it relates to the "forest for the trees" cliche quite well.
I have heard two phrases countless times from Republican resistors of
the recently passed health care bill.
"Can't afford it."
"Don't want the government coming between the patient and his doctor."

To the first point, apparently Mr. Eisboch does not believe that regular
visits to a doctor leads to less health care costs in the end.
This is somewhat akin to never doing preventative maintenance on an
automobile. And thinking that is cost efficient.
But I don't choose to argue that now.
What I find most insufferable in Mr. Eisboch's mantra is the second
point:
He is so arrogant to think HE should come between the doctor and his
patient.
That fact, evidenced by his virtually writing health care prescriptions
for others right here in this news group, is insulting to anybody who
actually sees a doctor, and to 99% of health care providers.
Perhaps others are too kind to mention this to Mr Eisboch, who seems an
otherwise reasonable man when not toeing the Republican party line.
In any case, I can still respect Mr. Eisboch's view on other matters he
speaks on, and where he shows logic and plain common sense.
For certain, he stands above many here who choose to cuss, cry,
lie, demean and spoof the names and families of others.
I've already forgiven Mr. Eisboch the mocking of my name, which was an
understandable lapse in judgment.
I implore others here to endeavor to speak in kind terms whenever
possible, and not allow petty differences of politics to come between
the friendship and camaraderie most boaters desire.
Mr Schnautz serves well as an example of civil conduct here, and can
stand as a fine exemplar.
A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his
enemies.


I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I
am sure you can handle it.
But, just for the record .... where exactly did I "mock" your name?

I recall writing "Prick (or whatever your name is)". I did so because I
suspected (and still do) that you are in reality another person who used to
post here regularly.

Eisboch

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

jps wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:51:04 -0400, wrote:


jps wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:32:00 -0500, wrote:



jps wrote:


On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, wrote:



wrote in message
m...


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.



The hang-up I still have is the difference between a mandatory health
insurance program and the right to free or subsidized (tax supported) health
care for life threatening or disabling conditions. Mandatory health
insurance puts another massive layer of bureaucracy, private or government,
into the mix. When it comes to getting care, that has never been a good
thing.

A mandatory health insurance law is in effect here in MA. For those who
can't afford the subsidized insurance (state programs) it is cheaper to pay
the fine (assuming the state even enforces the collection of them, which I
doubt.)

Tough call. I guess my attitude is that those of us that are fortunate
enough to be able to afford decent health insurance also have a moral
obligation to assist those who need medical care (though a tax or increased
insurance premium) for those who cannot afford insurance. But to subsidize
health *insurance* programs is another matter.

Eisboch


Are you suggesting that those that can afford it pay retail, but those
who need subsidized care get it through some other method?

Not sure I understand.


The guy lays out a detailed plan to provide health care for all, and you
bitch about it. Unless you have a better plan, quit criticizing.


What about my post was bitching? Do you actually read or just jerk a
spasmotic knee?

It was a question about clarification, you dweeb, not an accusation or
bitch.


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Maybe you should consider augmenting your screen name so we can tell
the difference. Sure you don't have MPD?

Pretty sure. Let me check . . . . . . . Nope.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

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

The truth hurts that bad?

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
...


The easy answer and the one used by most modern nations is to lift the
direct burden of providing health care coverage from individuals and
businesses and lay it against society as a whole. That way, individuals
and businesses pay their fair share of a societal cost.


Good grief. I agree with you.

Eisboch



Good grief. I do also!

--
Nom=de=Plume