|
OT health care
On 4/17/10 2:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, wrote: Not really. The government views health care as a money machine. ROFLMAO!! guess he doesn't know about health insurance companies. Quite predictable from a out of control greedy government acually. the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health care...and it works pretty well. it's called 'medicare'. but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way Canuck seems to be on the same evolutionary step as JustWaita-Loogy, and therefore worthy of dismissal. JustWaita-Tosk must be away on some exotic vacation, leaving Loogy with no one to argue. -- http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym |
OT health care
|
OT health care
In article ,
says... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:53:44 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote: I saw a chart of OB/GYN premiums where the cost in Colorado and Wisconsin is $20,000 and in NY and Florida $120,000 for the same coverage. But in Dade county the premium is +$200,000. So just blaming lawyers won't do as an analysis, though I suspect Dade county is a lawyer heaven and that accounts for the high premiums there I suppose the real answer would be to get a comprehensive list of what doctors pay for various specialties across the country. I will see if my ex can come up with that. I bet she already knows someone who has it. That still ignores the defensive medicine costs. You have not defined "defensive medicine." Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means. "Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive medicine." Can you describe such a test? It seems to me that all testing should be done to pinpoint or eliminate a cause of an ailment, either current or predicted. It would be a waste of time to bother your ex for premium rates. They could change tomorrow. I found this, which is a good unbiased look at malpractice insurance. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf The complexities are worse than I thought. And reliable data also less than I imagined. My view is that the federal government with their regulatory authority is the only entity capable of bringing the pieces together to make sense of it and improve it. Similar to the FDIC insurance authority, but this is more complex due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits. This would greatly benefit physicians in some states, but perhaps cost physicians in other states more because premiums would be federally equalized. The goal is taking the malpractice premium worry off the backs of good physicians, and reducing costs, including tort reform to penalize frivolous lawsuit filers. Of course that federalizing will ruffle many "free market" and states rights feathers. Oddly, those are the same states rightists want to federally impose payment caps across all states. But if you prefer the free market, live with the current "system." As always, it will charged with political nonsense. I hear it from my customers all the time, when they attempt to engage me in such political talk. I reply by addressing the actual issues, and asking a few questions about policy. The discussion invariably ends there, and we are back to shoes. But as long as the customer walks away with a well fitting pair of shoes, I'm happy with the outcome. I'm pretty single-minded about that. Peter |
OT health care
|
OT health care
On 17/04/2010 12:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, wrote: Not really. The government views health care as a money machine. ROFLMAO!! guess he doesn't know about health insurance companies. Quite predictable from a out of control greedy government acually. the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health care...and it works pretty well. it's called 'medicare'. but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way If it works so well, why does Obama want to screw with it? Hint for your shallow mind, it is all about the money. That is also why they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast, don't want people to take too long of a look at it. Especially the load of pork. I submit you can't rationalize your own facts and that is why you can't understand what this is really about. Think, Obama is playing you for a fool. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 17/04/2010 12:45 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, wrote: the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health care...and it works pretty well. it's called 'medicare'. but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way If it works so well, why does Obama want to screw with it? of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective... Hint for your shallow mind, it is all about the money. he just keeps repeating it, hoping if he says it 10,000 time it'll be true of course, that's the definition of insanity, not truth That is also why they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast, HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!! it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!! Think, Obama is playing you for a fool. and you're the king of fools |
OT health care
On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600, wrote: On 17/04/2010 12:45 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, wrote: the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health care...and it works pretty well. it's called 'medicare'. but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way If it works so well, why does Obama want to screw with it? of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective... You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending debt-spend government. Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to justify higher taxes eh? Hint for your shallow mind, it is all about the money. he just keeps repeating it, hoping if he says it 10,000 time it'll be true Could say the same with your denial. of course, that's the definition of insanity, not truth Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. That is also why they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast, HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!! it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!! For the lethargic geriatrics in DC, that is fast. Just enough time to pork it up. Think, Obama is playing you for a fool. and you're the king of fools Time will tell. But forgve me if I start laughing now. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:37:50 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600, wrote: of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective... You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending debt-spend government. no one knows what 'less coverage' means. and how much coverage do you have if you cant get ANY coverage? kinda forgot about that, didn't you? Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to justify higher taxes eh? as opposed to higher insurance premiums? Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral and may evenb REDUCE the deficit. That is also why they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast, HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!! it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!! For the lethargic geriatrics in DC, that is fast. Just enough time to pork it up. IOW it's fast only if you say it's fast. golly. i had no idea you had a govt job determining what 'fast' is. Think, Obama is playing you for a fool. and you're the king of fools Time will tell. But forgve me if I start laughing now. wait a year. you seem to think that's fast |
OT health care
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 17/04/2010 11:30 AM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 17/04/2010 9:38 AM, hk wrote: On 4/17/10 11:28 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 17/04/2010 7:19 AM, mmc wrote: Our problem is that our government and government contracting has become a huge social program, we make jobs where no one breaks a sweat and get little in return. Bingo. Which makes us tax paying producers just slaves for the government and associated lard. Tax paying producer? You're unemployed, remember? What the hell do you produce, other than poop out your exhaust pipe? Not yet, but planning on retiring in this decade some time, maybe sooner than later. Depends when I have had enough of working for other people. Ready to drop off the producer tread mill. That way our leaders can borrow more. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. Meta message from Canuck: I'm about to be fired. Sure more lucrative than quitting. Recent pension contributions vests sooner too. My attitude is make my day. But unfortunately not going to happen that way. I pretty much at least have to quit before 54 3/4 as I don't want my pension locked in where I am at. Plus I don't have to pay for the liberal increases in taxes a coming. Added bonus. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. Yeah, and now you'll tell us your employee of the year. You're a joke! Why would anyone want you around as an employee. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
wrote in message
... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:22:20 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote: You have not defined "defensive medicine." Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means. "Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive medicine." An example of defensive medicine is when the doctor gives someone an MRI when there is really nothing in their diagnosis that justifies an MRI but the doctor is afraid if anything ever did go south he would have to defend that decision. I had that happen to me. Why didn't you refuse? I've refused certain procedures. It's no big deal. The patient is the one who's in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
wrote in message
... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to save the healthcare system. Tort reform would save the whole economic system. The lawyers tax is a drag on the whole economy, producing absolutely nothing. ?? Come on. More nonsense. Most lawyers are honest and hardworking. Lawyers founded this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
On 17/04/2010 3:46 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:37:50 -0600, wrote: On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600, wrote: of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective... You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending debt-spend government. no one knows what 'less coverage' means. Less than medicare/medicaid or whatever they call it these days? and how much coverage do you have if you cant get ANY coverage? No such thing as free. kinda forgot about that, didn't you? Nope. Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to justify higher taxes eh? as opposed to higher insurance premiums? Or higher taxes. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...harmacies.html Read the above story carefully. Ontario taxes people about 25% more on gross than the US on average. Here is the deal, they are almost bankrupt offering bonds on the loan market at 4% above the Bank of Canada rate, and the bond offerings still don't fill, no one wants to lend to them. In fact, their credit rating is at risk just like Greece. Too many years of corruption and overspending by leftist governments. So what the politicians do is squeeze a chosen victim, this time pharmacies. They already provide a cost competative service to the US as US people actually come to Ontario to buy the products. But that isn't the point, government is making noise on cutting services is the point. Blackmail of the taxpayer if you will as this part of government spending is less than GM bailouts by a long shot. This will go on for 3-6 months. Then the government will cave and jack the sales taxes or income taxes or both. Probably in the fall session tax increases will be tabled as it is a real sin to cut governemnt waste. As what is really going on is to condition the people that higher taxes are better than less services and to make out that a competative phama business is the problem. Well manged PR to deflect blame. Especially if you are working taxed poor. So look at the health care hammer over the head as justification of higher taxes to fund corrupt auto and pork spending. Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral and may evenb REDUCE the deficit. You haven't looked at the latest release of Congressional budget and predictions have you. How can the government be spending 60% more in 3 short years and be saving money? Obama must have been pretty bad at math or just singing more BS. I really got a kick out of his $30M savings touting on a $1.7 trillion deficit budget. Sucking you in like a bass does to a worm. That is also why they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast, HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!! it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!! For the lethargic geriatrics in DC, that is fast. Just enough time to pork it up. IOW it's fast only if you say it's fast. golly. i had no idea you had a govt job determining what 'fast' is. Think, Obama is playing you for a fool. and you're the king of fools Time will tell. But forgve me if I start laughing now. wait a year. you seem to think that's fast Yep. See if you own up to this in a year when you finally learn there is no such thing as free. If you are capable of learning that is. -- Time to ask ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:26:25 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 17/04/2010 3:46 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:37:50 -0600, wrote: On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600, wrote: of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective... You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending debt-spend government. no one knows what 'less coverage' means. Less than medicare/medicaid or whatever they call it these days? less in what sense? and how much coverage do you have if you cant get ANY coverage? No such thing as free. i repeat: how much coverage do you have if you have NO coverage? dodging the question is not an answer. and why do right wingers want to balance the heathcare budget on the backs of the poor? kinda forgot about that, didn't you? Nope. Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to justify higher taxes eh? as opposed to higher insurance premiums? Or higher taxes. or lower taxes. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...harmacies.html Read the above story carefully. Ontario taxes people about 25% more on gross than the US on average. US healthcare is more expensive than anywhere in the world you right wingers have NO evidence to support your position. none. none. none Here is the deal, they are almost bankrupt offering bonds on the loan market at 4% above the Bank of Canada rate, and the bond offerings still don't fill, no one wants to lend to them. In fact, their credit rating is at risk just like Greece. Too many years of corruption and overspending by leftist governments. and the US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare how much does canada spend? i'll tell you: about 10%. you want a 70% increase in taxes like we have? Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral and may evenb REDUCE the deficit. You haven't looked at the latest release of Congressional budget and predictions have you. How can the government be spending 60% more in 3 short years and be saving money? because that money was going to be spent WITHOUT OBAMA'S INCREASES. obama's budget deficit this year is about 30B less than projected you right wingers have NO evidence. none. Obama must have been pretty bad at math or just singing more BS. I really got a kick out of his $30M savings touting on a $1.7 trillion deficit budget. Sucking you in like a bass does to a worm. says the guy who wants a 70% increase in his taxes wait a year. you seem to think that's fast Yep. See if you own up to this in a year when you finally learn there is no such thing as free. If you are capable of learning that is. says the guy who wants a 70% increase in his taxes to support wall street |
OT health care
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day don't we really just have 2 options. Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system with some minimal benefits as the rest of us. Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is within it's rights to turn you away. I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing? Yes. 3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only be deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in arrears with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government care will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be skimed or reallocated by corrupt congress. Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw taxpayers. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't know about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the streets. Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's way too expensive. Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation you'd be planning? Right now it's free for those who can't pay - including illegal aliens. Hospitals aren't refusing life-saving treatment. |
OT health care
On 17/04/2010 5:36 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:26:25 -0600, wrote: On 17/04/2010 3:46 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:37:50 -0600, wrote: On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600, wrote: of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective... You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending debt-spend government. no one knows what 'less coverage' means. Less than medicare/medicaid or whatever they call it these days? less in what sense? and how much coverage do you have if you cant get ANY coverage? No such thing as free. i repeat: how much coverage do you have if you have NO coverage? dodging the question is not an answer. and why do right wingers want to balance the heathcare budget on the backs of the poor? Dodging nothing you little twirp. I pay abut 50% of my income into taxes of civic, provincial and federal taxes of one kind or another. For this I get basic health care. Because it is "basic", does not cover such things a travel, ward care only, no extras, it is rationed... I have supplimentry insurance as many Canadians do, which I and my employer pay extra for. And that is before I get to the gas pumps. Any sane idiot wants to balance a budget if they want a sustainable anything. You cannot charge it into perpetuity without a chattle on the future and we be expected to pay for this massive debt for losers. Otherwise you are just a snake oil salesment stiring up the discontent of dumb**** voters looking for a free ride. Because when the government is broke, and can't pay for it they will get the tax bill without the benefits. kinda forgot about that, didn't you? Nope. Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to justify higher taxes eh? as opposed to higher insurance premiums? Or higher taxes. or lower taxes. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...harmacies.html Read the above story carefully. Ontario taxes people about 25% more on gross than the US on average. US healthcare is more expensive than anywhere in the world you right wingers have NO evidence to support your position. none. none. none Here is the deal, they are almost bankrupt offering bonds on the loan market at 4% above the Bank of Canada rate, and the bond offerings still don't fill, no one wants to lend to them. In fact, their credit rating is at risk just like Greece. Too many years of corruption and overspending by leftist governments. and the US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare how much does canada spend? i'll tell you: about 10%. you want a 70% increase in taxes like we have? Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral and may evenb REDUCE the deficit. You haven't looked at the latest release of Congressional budget and predictions have you. How can the government be spending 60% more in 3 short years and be saving money? because that money was going to be spent WITHOUT OBAMA'S INCREASES. obama's budget deficit this year is about 30B less than projected you right wingers have NO evidence. none. Obama must have been pretty bad at math or just singing more BS. I really got a kick out of his $30M savings touting on a $1.7 trillion deficit budget. Sucking you in like a bass does to a worm. says the guy who wants a 70% increase in his taxes wait a year. you seem to think that's fast Yep. See if you own up to this in a year when you finally learn there is no such thing as free. If you are capable of learning that is. says the guy who wants a 70% increase in his taxes to support wall street -- Time to ask ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? |
OT health care
On 17/04/2010 5:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 17/04/2010 11:30 AM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 17/04/2010 9:38 AM, hk wrote: On 4/17/10 11:28 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 17/04/2010 7:19 AM, mmc wrote: Our problem is that our government and government contracting has become a huge social program, we make jobs where no one breaks a sweat and get little in return. Bingo. Which makes us tax paying producers just slaves for the government and associated lard. Tax paying producer? You're unemployed, remember? What the hell do you produce, other than poop out your exhaust pipe? Not yet, but planning on retiring in this decade some time, maybe sooner than later. Depends when I have had enough of working for other people. Ready to drop off the producer tread mill. That way our leaders can borrow more. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. Meta message from Canuck: I'm about to be fired. Sure more lucrative than quitting. Recent pension contributions vests sooner too. My attitude is make my day. But unfortunately not going to happen that way. I pretty much at least have to quit before 54 3/4 as I don't want my pension locked in where I am at. Plus I don't have to pay for the liberal increases in taxes a coming. Added bonus. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. Yeah, and now you'll tell us your employee of the year. You're a joke! Why would anyone want you around as an employee. Said the unemployed unemployable looking for "free" healthcare on someone elses dime. -- Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? |
OT health care
Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and cheaper. Just seems odd. All NASA does these days is administer contracts. The current shuttle design has been in service for damn near 30 years with a planned lifespan something like 20 years and a goal of a low cost delivery system to near earth orbit. It has proven to be the most expensive delivery system available and is more sensitive than a teenage girl. And more dangerous. NASA has had 30 years to come up with a replacement and has fallen on it's collective ass. A good friend and former Air Force Commander once told me that "the current NASA generation couldn't put a man on the moon to save thier lives and we're spending $4 billion a year (mid 90s, 8 launches @ $500 million per) to light fires in an oxygen rich environment and watch rats f*ck". Check out a crew list. Aside from the pilots, you'll see a gaggle of people who have no friggin clue as to what they're supposed to be doing up there, that's why they go thru so much training. If you really wanted to get the job done, NASA would send Navy mud divers instead of engineers and school teachers. Divers already know how to work in a weightless environment, they know life support systems and how to work with tools NASA, like FEMA have become stagnent social programs that cannot perform thier missions. Flush them and start over. |
OT health care
On 17/04/2010 5:22 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to save the healthcare system. Tort reform would save the whole economic system. The lawyers tax is a drag on the whole economy, producing absolutely nothing. ?? Come on. More nonsense. Most lawyers are honest and hardworking. Lawyers founded this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. The only explaination I have is lawyers back then were more honest and under a lot more scruteny on the issue of governance. Probably because many of their peers were NOT lawyers and they had to get acceptance from the people. "We the people..." founded the USA. Otherwise the residents would have hung the idiots as traitors to the crown, and they were traitors to the British. But victors write the history books. BTW, I think they did a good job. Just an observation that they were British subjects before they were Americans. -- Time to ask ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? |
OT health care
On 16/04/2010 10:07 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day don't we really just have 2 options. Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system with some minimal benefits as the rest of us. Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is within it's rights to turn you away. I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing? Yes. 3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only be deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in arrears with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government care will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be skimed or reallocated by corrupt congress. Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw taxpayers. -- The Liberal way, take no responsibility. You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't know about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the streets. Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's way too expensive. Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation you'd be planning? Nope, just citing that some people have been known to get a $5K plastic surgery, it goes wrong and they need $100K of publically funded health care to fix it. Stupid abuse really. Nope, keeping my parts and adding nothing. But it is clear you are beyond hope, no medical cure for you exists at any price. -- Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:00:55 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 17/04/2010 5:36 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:26:25 -0600, wrote: and how much coverage do you have if you cant get ANY coverage? No such thing as free. i repeat: how much coverage do you have if you have NO coverage? dodging the question is not an answer. and why do right wingers want to balance the heathcare budget on the backs of the poor? Dodging nothing you little twirp. says the guy who thinks if you have no health insurance, you should be happy because it's more money for wall street I pay abut 50% of my income into taxes of civic, provincial and federal taxes of one kind or another. For this I get basic health care. who cares? again, the US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. canada, about 10% what do we get for that? you refuse to even ADDRESS the issue. all you do is bitch about your free market religion. no one cares about your failed religion. it's like believing in zeus. And that is before I get to the gas pumps. Any sane idiot wants to balance a budget if they want a sustainable anything. You cannot charge it into perpetuity without a chattle on the future and we be expected to pay for this massive debt for losers. the losers are wall street and their puppets like you who believe the free market is god. Otherwise you are just a snake oil salesment stiring up the discontent of dumb**** voters looking for a free ride. Because when the government is broke, and can't pay for it they will get the tax bill without the benefits. our govt IS broke and we pay MORE than you do for healthcare so, go ahead. continue dodging the issue. continue bleating your ignorant faith in wall street's gods. if you want a 70% increase in your healthcare taxes go with the former american system wall street will love you |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:00:47 -0400, Larry
wrote: Bill McKee wrote: Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and cheaper. Just seems odd. That's an interesting point. it's interesting the free market fundies come up with this example BUT... when it's pointed out socialized medicine is cheaper and more efficient they ignore it and bleat that it MUST be opposed because no one gets rich from it |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:04:30 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: Said the unemployed unemployable looking for "free" healthcare on someone elses dime. let's see. in canada you have 'free' healthcare and everyone is covered in the states, our healthcare is 70% more expensive, and doesnt cover everyone. yet you think ours is better. |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:42:07 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and cheaper. Just seems odd. we have free market healthcare NOW. it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'? We still do not have a free market healtcare. Have not had one as long as I am aware of healthcare. Has always been very highly government controlled. Free market, insurance companies could sell across state lines, etc. |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: Not really. The government views health care as a money machine. ROFLMAO!! guess he doesn't know about health insurance companies. Quite predictable from a out of control greedy government acually. the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health care...and it works pretty well. it's called 'medicare'. but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way Medicare is a financial disaster. Very expensive for what we really get. Most everything is covered, via Medicare or the supplemental. Except for the drug donut hole. No copay etc. Seniors go to the doctor and the hospital for simple checkups for entertainment these days. Especially prevalent in Florida from what I understand. |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral and may evenb REDUCE the deficit. The deficit is less than projected. The projected amount was about $1.75 TRILLION. The deficit is lower. Still a record by a long ways. About $1.35 TRILLION. |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:50:53 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to save the healthcare system. Tort reform would save the whole economic system. The lawyers tax is a drag on the whole economy, producing absolutely nothing. if only it were that simple in addition, lawsuits are sometimes the only recouse people have in that absence of legislation. in the name of 'free market' economics, the right has crippled protection for middle class people. sometimes a lawsuit is the only choice they have Yup. Like teenagers, most likely beer or some other alcoholic beverage, and a boat backing over a guy who jumps in the water behind the boat as it backs up. Million plus award. Plus the boat companies attorneys, the appeal costs, the mostly unneeded changes to a product, sort of like the tests ordered to cover malpractice. Cost the nation as whole, maybe 10-20x the judgment costs. Company moves overseas. folds a subsidiary here if they get sued for the product. How much did that bad sheetrock cost China? |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:06:09 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:42:07 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and cheaper. Just seems odd. we have free market healthcare NOW. it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'? We still do not have a free market healtcare. Have not had one as long as I am aware of healthcare. Has always been very highly government controlled. Free market, insurance companies could sell across state lines, etc. yeah. and there's never been 'true communism'. and there's never been 'true christianity' face it. the free market failed in healthcare. it's a failure. state controlled healthcare provides better care at lower cost. if your way worked, the US healthcare market would be the best in the world it's not. it's a failure. the market has failed. that's what the data and the evidence shows. it's time to move on. |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:17:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral and may evenb REDUCE the deficit. The deficit is less than projected. The projected amount was about $1.75 TRILLION. The deficit is lower. Still a record by a long ways. About $1.35 TRILLION. yeah. it's a tragedy what wall street has done to main street |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:09:27 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way Medicare is a financial disaster. Very expensive for what we really get. and our current free market healthcare? the most expensive in the world. does not cover everyone does not cover pre existing conditions healthcare premiums go through the roof the free market has failed. Most everything is covered, via Medicare or the supplemental. Except for the drug donut hole. No copay etc. Seniors go to the doctor and the hospital for simple checkups for entertainment these days. Especially prevalent in Florida from what I understand. and the free market system is on the verge of collapse |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:29:05 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:50:53 -0400, wrote: in addition, lawsuits are sometimes the only recouse people have in that absence of legislation. in the name of 'free market' economics, the right has crippled protection for middle class people. sometimes a lawsuit is the only choice they have Yup. Like teenagers, most likely beer or some other alcoholic beverage, and a boat backing over a guy who jumps in the water behind the boat as it backs up. Million plus award. Plus the boat companies attorneys, the appeal costs, the mostly unneeded changes to a product, sort of like the tests ordered to cover malpractice. Cost the nation as whole, maybe 10-20x the judgment costs. Company moves overseas. folds a subsidiary here if they get sued for the product. How much did that bad sheetrock cost China? would be interesting to see the data instead of the rush limbaugh press releases on the actual costs and costs would be LOWER if free market fundies would allow responsible legislation, like mine safety rules, etc. instead of opposing legislation and FORCING people to sue |
OT health care
|
OT health care
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 17/04/2010 5:22 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to save the healthcare system. Tort reform would save the whole economic system. The lawyers tax is a drag on the whole economy, producing absolutely nothing. ?? Come on. More nonsense. Most lawyers are honest and hardworking. Lawyers founded this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. The only explaination I have is lawyers back then were more honest and under a lot more scruteny on the issue of governance. Probably because many of their peers were NOT lawyers and they had to get acceptance from the people. "We the people..." founded the USA. Otherwise the residents would have hung the idiots as traitors to the crown, and they were traitors to the British. But victors write the history books. BTW, I think they did a good job. Just an observation that they were British subjects before they were Americans. -- Time to ask ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? To be a lawyer in those days, you did not have to indoctrinated by a law school. Just read the books and take the bar exam. |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:06:09 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:42:07 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and cheaper. Just seems odd. we have free market healthcare NOW. it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'? We still do not have a free market healtcare. Have not had one as long as I am aware of healthcare. Has always been very highly government controlled. Free market, insurance companies could sell across state lines, etc. yeah. and there's never been 'true communism'. and there's never been 'true christianity' face it. the free market failed in healthcare. it's a failure. state controlled healthcare provides better care at lower cost. if your way worked, the US healthcare market would be the best in the world it's not. it's a failure. the market has failed. that's what the data and the evidence shows. it's time to move on. Basically state controlled health care. Via control of insurance companies and where they can sell. And you bring up Christianity. Bad place to bring it up. How about the Catholic Church (there are others with hospitals also, very good hospitals)? And part of a Sam Miller statement. "Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. The graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92% The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000 students. The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today " How many atheists have schools and hospitals? You do not have to be Catholic to go to these schools and hospitals. When my father was near death he was in a Seventh Day Adventist run hospital. He had Blue Cross as part of his retirement from UC Berkeley. But the care was outstanding! |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:09:27 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way Medicare is a financial disaster. Very expensive for what we really get. and our current free market healthcare? the most expensive in the world. does not cover everyone does not cover pre existing conditions healthcare premiums go through the roof the free market has failed. Most everything is covered, via Medicare or the supplemental. Except for the drug donut hole. No copay etc. Seniors go to the doctor and the hospital for simple checkups for entertainment these days. Especially prevalent in Florida from what I understand. and the free market system is on the verge of collapse Why should an insurance company cover a pre-existing condition if the person did not have insurance previously? |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:17:39 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a presidential BS line like Obama has for you. except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral and may evenb REDUCE the deficit. The deficit is less than projected. The projected amount was about $1.75 TRILLION. The deficit is lower. Still a record by a long ways. About $1.35 TRILLION. yeah. it's a tragedy what wall street has done to main street And it is a bigger tragedy what Pennsylvania Ave is doing to the future generations. |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:10:02 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:06:09 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: W. it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'? yeah. and there's never been 'true communism'. and there's never been 'true christianity' face it. the free market failed in healthcare. it's a failure. state controlled healthcare provides better care at lower cost. if your way worked, the US healthcare market would be the best in the world it's not. it's a failure. the market has failed. that's what the data and the evidence shows. it's time to move on. Basically state controlled health care. Via control of insurance companies and where they can sell. bull****. if this is 'state controlled' healthcare...then why is TRUE 'socialized medicine'....more efficient than ours? again and again you dodge the issue. again and again you ignore the evidence. and you do so because your wall street god is dead. And you bring up Christianity. Bad place to bring it up. How about the Catholic Church (there are others with hospitals also, very good hospitals)? no one gives a **** about the child raping catholic church and its pimp bishops. And part of a Sam Miller statement. "Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students yeah. a nice little stable of boys to play with everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars to date theyv'e paid out 2 billion in insurance claims. " How many atheists have schools and hospitals? actually, all of them. we support them with our taxes. we just dont rape the chlidren we care for |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:11:33 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:09:27 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: does not cover pre existing conditions healthcare premiums go through the roof the free market has failed. Most everything is covered, via Medicare or the supplemental. Except for the drug donut hole. No copay etc. Seniors go to the doctor and the hospital for simple checkups for entertainment these days. Especially prevalent in Florida from what I understand. and the free market system is on the verge of collapse Why should an insurance company cover a pre-existing condition if the person did not have insurance previously? not very bright here, are you? kinda stupid actually. what happens when you lose your job and have to get another one? or you have to self insure? christ, even for a right wing pimp you're stupid. honest to christ. |
OT health care
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:12:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:17:39 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: yeah. it's a tragedy what wall street has done to main street And it is a bigger tragedy what Pennsylvania Ave is doing to the future generations. you mean restoring jobs? preventing 25% unemployment? yeah, given your hatred of the middle class, i'm sure you're weeping that the rich aren't allowed to eat the children of the poor |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message
... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:10:02 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:06:09 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: W. it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'? yeah. and there's never been 'true communism'. and there's never been 'true christianity' face it. the free market failed in healthcare. it's a failure. state controlled healthcare provides better care at lower cost. if your way worked, the US healthcare market would be the best in the world it's not. it's a failure. the market has failed. that's what the data and the evidence shows. it's time to move on. Basically state controlled health care. Via control of insurance companies and where they can sell. bull****. if this is 'state controlled' healthcare...then why is TRUE 'socialized medicine'....more efficient than ours? again and again you dodge the issue. again and again you ignore the evidence. and you do so because your wall street god is dead. And you bring up Christianity. Bad place to bring it up. How about the Catholic Church (there are others with hospitals also, very good hospitals)? no one gives a **** about the child raping catholic church and its pimp bishops. And part of a Sam Miller statement. "Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students yeah. a nice little stable of boys to play with everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars to date theyv'e paid out 2 billion in insurance claims. " How many atheists have schools and hospitals? actually, all of them. we support them with our taxes. we just dont rape the chlidren we care for What he meant to say was that he believes he's under mind control from Obama. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com... Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and cheaper. Just seems odd. All NASA does these days is administer contracts. The current shuttle design has been in service for damn near 30 years with a planned lifespan something like 20 years and a goal of a low cost delivery system to near earth orbit. It has proven to be the most expensive delivery system available and is more sensitive than a teenage girl. And more dangerous. NASA has had 30 years to come up with a replacement and has fallen on it's collective ass. A good friend and former Air Force Commander once told me that "the current NASA generation couldn't put a man on the moon to save thier lives and we're spending $4 billion a year (mid 90s, 8 launches @ $500 million per) to light fires in an oxygen rich environment and watch rats f*ck". Check out a crew list. Aside from the pilots, you'll see a gaggle of people who have no friggin clue as to what they're supposed to be doing up there, that's why they go thru so much training. If you really wanted to get the job done, NASA would send Navy mud divers instead of engineers and school teachers. Divers already know how to work in a weightless environment, they know life support systems and how to work with tools NASA, like FEMA have become stagnent social programs that cannot perform thier missions. Flush them and start over. FEMA does just fine when properly administered. NASA does just fine for somethings, but they've lost a lot of their edge. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com