|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:18:47 -0400, bpuharic wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very low. Cite that. It really doesn't matter anyway. The defendant still gets stuck with a huge legal bill that shows up in his bills to everyone else. If they want to fix torts, make them "loser pays" so the plaintiff has some skin in the game. and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where doctors earn minimum wage? I am old enough to remember when we didn't have medical insurance and I didn't remember people dying in the street. The doctor lived on the same street you did and he would actually come to your house when you were sick. Another difference was, nobody thought about suing the doctor when things didn't turn out the way they hoped. There was medical insurance when you were a kid. But it was major medical. Did not pay for every sniffle visit. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, hk wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/11/10 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:13:03 -0400, anon-e-moose wrote: hk wrote: On 4/10/10 11:48 PM, wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places 1. No. 2. No. I like your new posting style. I want to know where I can get car insurance that is less than $1000 a year. Harry seems to know. Or is that another "no" ;-) For one car, with clean record drivers middle-aged or over? I believe you can do that right here in semi-rural Maryland. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 11/04/2010 1:20 AM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Why not require insurance? Seriously? If your caught without it say $1000 fine and lose the vehicle. Double the fine for each occurance and jail if not paid. Would be good to say if an uninsured was hit by an insured, the insured does not have to pay for the uninsured. Makes sense, good social engineering. In Canada we have maximum settlements much lower than the US and don't see it in the rates. I personally have no problem in suing a person into the poor house if they DWI in a red light and kill someone. The real problem is with juries making feel good judgements, that is they feel sorry for the injured and figure they need money. The wrong way to make the judgement. Like our propeller case in another thread. In no way is the manufacture liable for a idiot boater backing up on a swimmer. Nor a swimmer entering the water with a motor a running. Stupid case shouldn't even be heard. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/11/10 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:40:09 -0400, wrote: On 4/11/10 11:30 AM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:13:03 -0400, anon-e-moose wrote: hk wrote: On 4/10/10 11:48 PM, wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places 1. No. 2. No. I like your new posting style. I want to know where I can get car insurance that is less than $1000 a year. Harry seems to know. Or is that another "no" ;-) For one car, with clean record drivers middle-aged or over? I believe you can do that right here in semi-rural Maryland. You can't do it is semi-rural Florida if you want decent coverage (more than the legal minimum). When we moved to the Jax area, I was astonished by the high rates for auto and homeowner's insurance. They were twice what we were paying up north. I attributed the high auto rates to the crappy drivers and the hundreds of cars we saw without license plates, and the high homeowners' to the plethora of hurricanes. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:15:12 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:18:47 -0400, bpuharic wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very low. Cite that. It really doesn't matter anyway. The defendant still gets stuck with a huge legal bill that shows up in his bills to everyone else. If they want to fix torts, make them "loser pays" so the plaintiff has some skin in the game. and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where doctors earn minimum wage? I am old enough to remember when we didn't have medical insurance and I didn't remember people dying in the street. The doctor lived on the same street you did and he would actually come to your house when you were sick. Another difference was, nobody thought about suing the doctor when things didn't turn out the way they hoped. There was medical insurance when you were a kid. But it was major medical. Did not pay for every sniffle visit. I guess you don't understand how old I am. I am 67. But mom was a nurse, so maybe they had insurance via the hospital. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:49:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: Why not require insurance? Seriously? Every state does http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/v...utominimum.htm Most do not really have enough to deal with what the lawyers would like but you have to have something. BTW they have allowed lawyers to recover more from an insurance company than the policy covers. And so you fine the uninsured. They have no money to pay the fine. Friend was in court a while back and told of some lady with maybe her 4th ticket and the judge is asking how much she can pay a month. I think he said they agreed on $25 and he lowered the ticket from a couple hundred to maybe $75. Going to send them to jail? No rooms available. Plus high costs. Take the car? No problem, they go get another $50 beater. There was a story in the paper a while back about people who have a beater car for parking in the city. It gets towed for too many tickets, and they buy back the car at the police auction for less than 2 parking tickets. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/11/10 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:00:26 -0400, wrote: You can't do it is semi-rural Florida if you want decent coverage (more than the legal minimum). When we moved to the Jax area, I was astonished by the high rates for auto and homeowner's insurance. They were twice what we were paying up north. I attributed the high auto rates to the crappy drivers and the hundreds of cars we saw without license plates, and the high homeowners' to the plethora of hurricanes. Both are probably accurate assessments. They now separate wind storm from homeowners so you can see it. My pure homeowners is about $1100 a year for replacement coverage. I think the car insurance problem has to do with the number of tourists. We have so many people who are lost and making turns across 3 lanes of traffic that it makes it real easy to get hit. Add to that a huge population of people who should have surrendered their driver's license during the Reagan administration and you can see the problem. My mother was dead when we got her "mail in" license sticker, renewed for another SIX years. She would have been 90 when it expired. They have not seen Judy for over 18 years. She has 3 renewal stickers on the back of her license. Florida's lax laws and regulations were a constant source of amusement. I was pulled over once because the annual sticker on my license plate had expired. I was not aware it had expired...and in fact the county or state had not sent me a renewal notice. I fought the ticket and in fact the judge let me off the hook, but reminded me that it was not the government's responsibility to remind me about expired stickers. Well, hell, everywhere else I had ever lived, I got a renewal notice. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several Supreme Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being removed. You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status. Two different things. So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate one from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share. Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone, including the government. You are talking about double taxation. There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes. Not legally. Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your legal advise. Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong though when that runs counter to what's best for the country. Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time. ?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do with being a responsible corporate citizen? If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the "expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them. A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax is regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking about the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people. How else do you grow your business? Growth almost always requires new capital expenditures. New employee? New desk and computer. Get it? What are you going on about. You're going to complain about fair taxation? If you're going to make a point, try and make it a bit more obvious for me. I only have a graduate business degree, and I just don't understand. You might want to go back to school. You might want to not drop out next time... sorry, big assumption that you were actually in school at one point in your sorry life. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/11/10 2:24 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:40:05 -0400, wrote: On 4/11/10 1:32 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:00:26 -0400, wrote: You can't do it is semi-rural Florida if you want decent coverage (more than the legal minimum). When we moved to the Jax area, I was astonished by the high rates for auto and homeowner's insurance. They were twice what we were paying up north. I attributed the high auto rates to the crappy drivers and the hundreds of cars we saw without license plates, and the high homeowners' to the plethora of hurricanes. Both are probably accurate assessments. They now separate wind storm from homeowners so you can see it. My pure homeowners is about $1100 a year for replacement coverage. I think the car insurance problem has to do with the number of tourists. We have so many people who are lost and making turns across 3 lanes of traffic that it makes it real easy to get hit. Add to that a huge population of people who should have surrendered their driver's license during the Reagan administration and you can see the problem. My mother was dead when we got her "mail in" license sticker, renewed for another SIX years. She would have been 90 when it expired. They have not seen Judy for over 18 years. She has 3 renewal stickers on the back of her license. Florida's lax laws and regulations were a constant source of amusement. I was pulled over once because the annual sticker on my license plate had expired. I was not aware it had expired...and in fact the county or state had not sent me a renewal notice. I fought the ticket and in fact the judge let me off the hook, but reminded me that it was not the government's responsibility to remind me about expired stickers. Well, hell, everywhere else I had ever lived, I got a renewal notice. I always get my notices, did you have 2 homes listed or something? Although the tax collector is officially a state office, it is really county by county so a lot depends on which county you live in. Lee has always had a good tax collector. They make the tag process easier than any place I have ever lived. You can usually transfer a title, buy tags and get out the door in 10 minutes. They have a lot of offices. For a while, before that had that many, they had a fleet of RVs that would set up in various parking lots around town on a schedule what was in the paper. That was really sweet. They used that data to decide where to place offices. BTW you must have been in a place where the cops were jerks. I always call SW Florida "tags optional". I see cars all the time without them. If the cops stop you and you have proof of insurance you will usually just get a warning ticket. Tags on trailers are far less than universal. There is no title and no insurance requirement. This was in the mid -1990's...perhaps the renewals are handled better now. In those days, the county mounties, like school teachers, were grossly underpaid and the educational requirements were not very high. Teachers also were paid peanutes. Hopefully, that has changed, too. NE Florida was a strange place in many ways, especially for a transplanted yankee like me. Charming, but backwards, which I attributed in no small part to the religious fundies who controlled a lot and were hungry to control more. I enjoyed our stay there, but I was glad to get back to the civilized world. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote: Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S. income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53 Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.. If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the price of gas, with the profit tacked on. I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing. There is a basic problem with how corporations are treated as individuals. They're not people. That's an S-corp. Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded C-corp. Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several Supreme Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being removed. Really? XOM is a sole proprietorship now? I missed that. Corporations, as they relate to campaign financing. Both sides of the isle aren't sure about the implications. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=122805666 Did you mean aisle? I'm here to help. When did this discussion deviate from taxes? Evidently you chose to put up this smoke screen. Read your own words before you write. You said XOM was not a corporation. Now you are trying to avoid your mistake and change the discussion to campaign financing? Nice try. Yeah, the island. The one we're on. I'm on the other side with the rational people. I never said XOM was not a corp. I said that legally they're treated as an individual. Try again bozo. Read it again. I'm not going to do it for you. Perhaps you're incapable, as you are in so many other aspects of your life. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "hk" wrote in message m... On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the groceries in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the local mechanic. spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners. the middle class is expendable. I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers. there are no unions in the US. the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them, preferring to be protected by wall street. The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a long rep as a union buster. So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare insurance. Hmm... let's see. The right wing claims unions are all-powerful and now you're claiming they're powerless. At least you're consistently inconsistent. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:10:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall cost. Cite that. Be sure to include the legal costs of the suits that fail and the defensive medicine, useless tests and unneeded procedures to avoid or blunt a tort. Read up: http://www.factcheck.org/president_u..._costs_of.html -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, hk wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 11/04/2010 1:20 AM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Why not require insurance? Seriously? If your caught without it say $1000 fine and lose the vehicle. Double the fine for each occurance and jail if not paid. Would be good to say if an uninsured was hit by an insured, the insured does not have to pay for the uninsured. Makes sense, good social engineering. In Canada we have maximum settlements much lower than the US and don't see it in the rates. I personally have no problem in suing a person into the poor house if they DWI in a red light and kill someone. The real problem is with juries making feel good judgements, that is they feel sorry for the injured and figure they need money. The wrong way to make the judgement. Like our propeller case in another thread. In no way is the manufacture liable for a idiot boater backing up on a swimmer. Nor a swimmer entering the water with a motor a running. Stupid case shouldn't even be heard. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. Sounds like a gov't takeover to me. Did I mention you're an idiot today? -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke. Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free" from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me $12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay. The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge). People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and treatment. The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug, the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction? They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a small problem to turn into a big problem. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/11/10 2:40 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message m... On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the groceries in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the local mechanic. spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners. the middle class is expendable. I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers. there are no unions in the US. the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them, preferring to be protected by wall street. The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a long rep as a union buster. So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare insurance. Hmm... let's see. The right wing claims unions are all-powerful and now you're claiming they're powerless. At least you're consistently inconsistent. Hey...BiliousBill figured out all on his own that unions don't have much power to make non-unionized workplaces safer... Unionized mines, by the way, have better safety records than non-unionized mines. Bill's last employment was running a home fixit business with undocumented work crews he selected at shape-ups. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/11/10 2:45 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%. I wonder if bilious bill had workers' comp insurance coverage for the undocumented workers he "hired" to handle the work in his home fixit business. What do you think? -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:15:15 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Why not require insurance? Seriously? Every state does http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/v...utominimum.htm Most do not really have enough to deal with what the lawyers would like but you have to have something. BTW they have allowed lawyers to recover more from an insurance company than the policy covers. And so you fine the uninsured. They have no money to pay the fine. In Md and in Florida they will take the tags when your insurance company reports you for canceling your insurance. There is a fine attached too. It is all on the computer now, you can't lie when you renew. Personally I think the insurance companies should be the ones issuing the tags in the first place and do away with the DMV completely. The cops would just be accessing a single national insurance company database instead of 51 state (and DC) databases that don't really talk that well together. Here they just remove the tag from a car and stick it on theirs. I was getting a new license plate for the trailer a couple years ago. Was cheaper to get a new plate and tags then just the tags. Guy next to me was getting replacement tags as his were swiped. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"hk" wrote in message ... On 4/11/10 2:40 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message m... On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe they should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the groceries in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the local legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine shop, the local mechanic. spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners. the middle class is expendable. I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers. there are no unions in the US. the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them, preferring to be protected by wall street. The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a long rep as a union buster. So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare insurance. Hmm... let's see. The right wing claims unions are all-powerful and now you're claiming they're powerless. At least you're consistently inconsistent. Hey...BiliousBill figured out all on his own that unions don't have much power to make non-unionized workplaces safer... Unionized mines, by the way, have better safety records than non-unionized mines. Bill's last employment was running a home fixit business with undocumented work crews he selected at shape-ups. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym Wrong again fat one. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"hk" wrote in message ... On 4/11/10 2:45 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%. I wonder if bilious bill had workers' comp insurance coverage for the undocumented workers he "hired" to handle the work in his home fixit business. What do you think? -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym Did not hire workers. When I owned a business with employees, had insurance, etc. Paid the sales taxes, etc. Unlike you, who have never run a business. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, hk wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%. -- Nom=de=Plume Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from? |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke. Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free" from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me $12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay. The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge). People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and treatment. The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug, the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction? They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a small problem to turn into a big problem. -- Nom=de=Plume Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup? |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 11/04/2010 2:27 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%. -- Nom=de=Plume Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from? plumetoid == BS -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year thanExxonMobil
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:00:24 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:29:40 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup? Exactly my point. It would actually save most people a lot of money and they would be a lot more conscious about what they paid. People would argue about ridiculous bills. We had an article here about hospital bills (Lee Memorial Hospital) and it turns out they bill about 4 times what they actually will take if you negotiate. Hospital bills have to be taken with a large dose of salt. I suspect they are padded quite heavily to aid in insurance company negotiations. While Joe Blow might be able to negotiate the bill, the insurance company often tells the hospital what it is willing to pay, or has pre- negotiated. The end result, those without insurance often pay the highest cost. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:12:42 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare insurance. american unions are powerless. as the free market publication 'the economist' pointed out several weeks ago in its article on 'american exceptionalism', america has the most anti-union environment of any country in the industrialized west which is why the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 year. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:10:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:05:09 -0400, wrote: you really DO believe the right wing fairy tales, don't you? I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall cost. i heard gerald ford's insurance commissioner a few years ago on NPR. he stated insurance companies invest in the market just like the rest of us. when they take a hit, they run to congress and ask for tort reform to cover their losses. more socialism for the rich |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:40:48 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:18:47 -0400, bpuharic wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very low. Cite that. http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/Na...tice-Facts.cfm There is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about four percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995; 84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and 86,480 in 2000. While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52 percent over that time. Insurance companies are raising rates because of poor returns on their investments, not because of increased litigation or jury awards, according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Recent premiums were artificially low. It really doesn't matter anyway. The defendant still gets stuck with a huge legal bill that shows up in his bills to everyone else. If they want to fix torts, make them "loser pays" so the plaintiff has some skin in the game. that should be the law here as it is in the UK. and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where doctors earn minimum wage? I am old enough to remember when we didn't have medical insurance and I didn't remember people dying in the street. and medical science has advanced since 1875. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
|
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:42:23 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:19:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0400, wrote: That is certainly the next step that the left has in mind in spite of all the rosy "you can keep your plan" rhetoric.. ROFLMAO!! the last guy to try that was richard nixon...hardly a liberal Huh? Compared to anyone since Carter, he was damned near a communist. seems anyone to your left is a commie. |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
On 4/11/10 6:51 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:12:42 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare insurance. american unions are powerless. as the free market publication 'the economist' pointed out several weeks ago in its article on 'american exceptionalism', america has the most anti-union environment of any country in the industrialized west which is why the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 year. Americans have yet to realize they are nothing more than chattel to their corporate owners. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:43:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall cost. Cite that. Be sure to include the legal costs of the suits that fail and the defensive medicine, useless tests and unneeded procedures to avoid or blunt a tort. Read up: http://www.factcheck.org/president_u..._costs_of.html -- Using studies that compare tort limits to no tort limits is a red herring. That does net really address costs overall. Simply limiting torts to a quarter of a million does not really affect the number of torts. In fact it may make lawyers file more of them. You can make a very nice living on 33-40% of a quarter million. The other thing that they don't look at in these kinds of statistics are the unsuccessful suits. You chose to throw them out too. The patient may not get a dime but the doctor's lawyer still sends in his bill and we pay that. This is why real tort reform would be "loser pays". How did we all know you were a lawyer before you mentioned it. Most legislators are too. Hmmm I see a pattern here. Well, I'm sure you've got some study somewhere that supports your notion of tort being the factor that's destroying healthcare, but I haven't seen it so far. I have no objection to "loser pays" legislation. I believe that's the case already for some things, and I know there are cases where a truly frivolous case has had the plaintiffs paying. This is true in some arbitration agreements that I've seen. You don't didn't know I was a lawyer before I mentioned I suppose. Do you think I should run for office? :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, hk wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%. -- Nom=de=Plume Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from? From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in 2010. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 11/04/2010 2:27 PM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of aspects to car insurance. That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it? Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement. The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is over $1000 a year in some places Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease dramatically. Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%. -- Nom=de=Plume Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from? plumetoid == BS -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. Canuck == too stupid to use google. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers. Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own problems, It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke. Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free" from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me $12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay. The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge). People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and treatment. The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug, the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction? They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a small problem to turn into a big problem. -- Nom=de=Plume Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup? Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that ingrown hair to turn into gangrene? -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:29:40 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup? Exactly my point. It would actually save most people a lot of money and they would be a lot more conscious about what they paid. People would argue about ridiculous bills. We had an article here about hospital bills (Lee Memorial Hospital) and it turns out they bill about 4 times what they actually will take if you negotiate. Good GAWD! It's not just about "saving money." We're talking about people's health. Sometimes there's a correlation but not always. How would you like to walk around with an ingrown toenail for a couple of months until it festered to the point of amputation? -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message
... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:48:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free" from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me $12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay. The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge). People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and treatment. The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug, the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction? They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a small problem to turn into a big problem. -- Doesn't that fall into the personal responsibility area? If you don't want to take care of your own body, why should we all have to fix it when it breaks? You can bet your ass that if this nanny state government ever did get control of health care they would be forcing you to take care of yourself. Helmet laws and seat belt laws would be the guideline and justification for plenty of other intrusions on your life. They might just ban hazardous activities. Seen a lawn dart recently? So now you're going to expect people to diagnose their own health issues??? How about prostate cancer or breast cancer. All these require regular screening. Feel free to not wear a helmet on your dirt bike. I don't think it's required if you're not on public property. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from? From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in 2010. -- Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the lions share of car insurance liability. Rise "to 17%" of what? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com