About Us

Eisboch[_5_]

"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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Martha Coakley: I will deny life saving treatment	C. Mor Butts	General	2	January 15th 10 02:33 PM
Olympic Coverage	Skipper	General	0	February 11th 06 01:54 AM
Katrina coverage	Doug Kanter	General	1	August 31st 05 09:06 PM

Menu

About Us