BoatBanter.com - Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/114733-bliues-deny-coverage-ill-newborn-baby.html)

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

wrote in message
...
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.

It can be a requirement.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:43:50 -0500, Peter Prick
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

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

"hk" 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.

Clarify what? I didn't see a "detailed plan" anywhere, nor any
"bitching."
You gentlemen seem more interested in one-upmanship than real
discussion.
Very disappointing.

Peter, I was asking Richard what he meant by not subsidizing a health
insurance program.

My aim was true but some jerk claimed I was bitching. I think he
should start reading for content and, otherwise STFU.

I don't really give a **** if you're disappointed but perhaps you
should be more accurately so.

Why would you like to subsidize insurance? The insurance industry is
ecstatic over this healthcare bill. They love Obama. Got another 35
million customers. Can charge what they want. Main reason their stock
prices increased 12% in the runup to the passing of the bill.

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

The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear?
Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A cold
and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for every little
sniffle. Then there are those to do.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:39:49 -0400, hk
wrote:

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.

They're not who concern me. We've shifted so far to the right that a
health care bill based on a Republcan wet dream is considered a
leftist government plot.

We're easily as far to the right as we were to the left when Nixon
founded the EPA.

I sure as **** hope the pendulum has come to rest and ready to move
back to the left.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:20:54 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I've survived 60 years of jokes and snerks regarding my nickname (Dick). I
am sure you can handle it.

I've done well enough. There have been times though....

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.

I take at face value your saying you were not mocking my name, and
apologize for criticizing you unfairly.
As to my name, you can suspect what you will.
I have given a brief history of my family name in reply to Mr. Schnautz.
I am always exactly who I claim to be.
Years ago - at least a decade - I made some number of posts to various
groups, and some may have been cross posted here.
You might find some by looking for "Peter" or "Pete."
But I don't remember what I posted. I was often drunk.
I did not use the Prick family name then. Too many fights.
I only recently "rediscovered" usenet and after browsing this group
found it an interesting study in newsgroup dynamics.
I was initially interested in buying another boat, but that desire has
dissipated somewhat after reading this group, which might be more
appropriately called rec.anything.but.boats.
Doesn't matter really. There is a wide variety of personalities here,
spanning the wacko spectrum.
I like that, as it reflects real life.
Hopefully, I can get along here, and make a few pals.
Then when I get a boat, organize some raft ups.
Wouldn't it, after all, be a delightful sight to behold Harry, Loogy,
John, and Scotty sitting around a shore site campfire, singing "Michael
Rowed the Boat Ashore," with Loogy and Scotty doing the chorus while
strumming their Fenders, John singing bass, Harry singing tenor?
Maybe Froggy could do some background croaking for atmosphere if no real
frogs are calling, and jps could cuss sotto voce, adding a bit of
rhythm.
There are many, many arrangement possibilities.
I think that's an admirable goal for a group participant to strive for,
and that's the type of boater I would like to be.
I'm sure many here agree with my get-along sentiments.
They just don't want to come out of the protective shells they have
constructed around themselves.
But they are basically good people.
Just takes a little sing-along to bring the good elements out.
A few cases of beer helps too.
But sing-along to get-along is a good motto.
I sure hope Jesse Jackson never said that.

That's an adimrable goal but I'd recommend TSA be contracted to
provide metal and explosives detection.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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

The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear?
Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A cold
and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for every
little sniffle. Then there are those to do.

So, basically, you're unable to understand the word prevention and can't
comprehend doctors making decisions.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

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

It can be a requirement.

You are scary weird and crazy. But you already knew that.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"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

The catch to that, is what part of the health care should society bear?
Breast Augmentation? Tummy tucks? Where does it start and stop? A cold
and sniffles? Those that have to pay, do not go to the doc for every
little sniffle. Then there are those to do.

So, basically, you're unable to understand the word prevention and can't
comprehend doctors making decisions.

So basically, you would expect us to pay for your breast augmentation
because your doctor decided it would improve your self esteem and
thought it was medically necessary. Are you confusing prevention with
early intervention? It seems as if you are.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby