"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

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

"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

"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"

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

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

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.

"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

"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

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.