Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...


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


A simple cold can turn into pneumonia, which is life threatening.

Not knowing colesteral counts can lead to heart disease and
catastrophic outcomes.

I don't know where you think you'd draw the line. It's proven that
consistency of care when health is a key factor in preventing the
types of diseases and afflictions that end up costing huge money.

This is just as short-sighted as those who favor funding jails to
pre-school.

Is that somehow miscomprehending your intent?

I think it's just lacking in some common sense.

Eisboch


The typical sort of system that I'm used to has a triage system, whereby a
nurse practitioner handles the initial call. If s/he feels it might be worth
proceeding with a doctor telephone call or a visit, it's decided then. I
also have access to my doctor directly via email (answered the same day) or
telephone (next business day, typically). That takes it out of the hands of
the patient deciding if it's trivial or not.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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


Perhaps you're better educated than others? Perhaps it's something other
than laziness or not taking responsibility. Perhaps it's concern for the
child's health. I seriously doubt any parent is going to waste the hours
required to take a child to the doctor if it's something they really think
is trivial. That would cost them way more than the $10.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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 believe preventive care is part of the new law.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

snipped for brevity

A man's character is best known by the number of his friends, not his
enemies.


A good man can have a wealth of enemies.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:48:59 -0400, Larry wrote:

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.

Well then, you're obviously playing two roles. The customary Dan
Krueger and his less evil twin.

Does Margaret know there's two of you?

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:29 -0400, Larry wrote:

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?

That's your sick truth. The world's truth is something else and you
clearly wouldn't understand.

You're too busy investing in Reagan's myth of parasitic welfare
cheats.

You're no more enlightened than the militia idiots who think that when
the government goes broke that all those inner city leaches are gonna
come rape and pillage the good white folk.

****in' sick *******s, the lot of you.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:55:38 -0400, hk
wrote:

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.

That's why the reaction from the right is so astounding. This is the
Republican's wet dream of a health care bill. Protect the monied scum
who make a profit by providing nothing but administrative process.

The public option is the only way we're going to see competitive rates
in this country. That'd be a good first step towards the ultimate
goal of single payer.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:04:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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

Holy ****.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:04:30 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .


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


A simple cold can turn into pneumonia, which is life threatening.

Not knowing colesteral counts can lead to heart disease and
catastrophic outcomes.

I don't know where you think you'd draw the line. It's proven that
consistency of care when health is a key factor in preventing the
types of diseases and afflictions that end up costing huge money.

This is just as short-sighted as those who favor funding jails to
pre-school.

Is that somehow miscomprehending your intent?

I think it's just lacking in some common sense.

Eisboch

Common sense dictates investment in education and care so that more
people avoid the catastrophic.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 3/31/10 9:25 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:55:38 -0400,
wrote:

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.

That's why the reaction from the right is so astounding. This is the
Republican's wet dream of a health care bill. Protect the monied scum
who make a profit by providing nothing but administrative process.

The public option is the only way we're going to see competitive rates
in this country. That'd be a good first step towards the ultimate
goal of single payer.



The GOP doesn't know or care about reform...what is driving the GOP is
its desire to try to stymie Obama wherever and whenever possible, for
purely political reasons. Remember, the GOP is populated by morons like
Ingersoll and Herring who believe the simple-minded nonsense the party
chieftains and elected officials spew. Look at the teabaggers - a
movement of absolute morons.
--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym