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.

"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

"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'.

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

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?

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.

"jps" wrote in message
news

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

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...

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.

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?