|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
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. |
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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Mar 31, 7:37*am, 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. * Oh I have no cmplaints with your name and like mine, yes it's very Germanic. I meant no harm by my post, but when I read that line, I confess it did catch me a bit off guard. And even if Richard was serious (which he wasn't) , it wouldn't be near the insults or psudo degedations as what I'm sure you've witnessed here in rec.boats. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"hk" wrote in message m... 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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"jps" wrote in message ... 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. Yup...you've described Ditzy Dan to a 'T'. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:10:54 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "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 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? |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:18:35 -0400, "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 My insurance is a $30 copay and we don't go to the doctor unless necessary. We've recently passed a cough/cold around the family that had me close to pneumonia for 3 weeks. I didn't let it get the best of me and I didn't see a doctor. I'm fine now. Am I different from your prototypical example? Don't think so. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
"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 |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
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... |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:28:52 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "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. 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. |
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:22:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "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. I need a facial sanding to make me look younger. Will Obamacare take care of it for me even if my regular health insurance doesn't? Where the heck is my free lunch? |
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
|
Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com