|
OT health care
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... 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? Said the business owner who's finances you could only dream about while you sit on your porch and smoke crack. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message
... 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. He's got it so screw everyone else. He's a great humanitarian. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
wrote in message
... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:21:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. The short answer, My wife's insurance was supposed to cover it. It turns out, about half of it. That is part of the problem with insurance. As long as something is covered, people will do it, whether they need to or not. You're still under no obligation to have a procedure you don't agree with. Just because a doctor says it doesn't make it God's law. Example: I jammed my finger a couple years ago. I went to the urgent care because it swelled up like crazy and turned red. The PA ordered an X-ray and put me on anti-biotics for the obvious infection. I was told to make an appointment in a week with my regular doc just to be sure. It was quite a bit better, but I went in anyway, since it was still a little swollen and it's my right hand. My doc said it was possible that I had a hairline fracture and wanted to do another X-ray, since his equipment was digital and he'd be able to see it. I asked what the treatment would be if it was broken vs. just tendon bruising. No difference. Thus, I said, no X-ray. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
wrote in message
... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:22:17 -0700, "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. Most bookies are honest and hard working too but that doesn't mean they are good for the community. It's fair disengenous to equate lawyers and bookies. Outside of a few areas in the country, bookmaking is illegal. Lawyers are doing the work of the courts. If lawyers were trolling the streets in 1776 advertising for victims they would have been run out of town on a rail. In those days lawyers defended people from the government, they didn't take on the powers of the government to punish people, beyond the limits of what is constitutional. If polar bears showed up in Miami, they would be captured and removed. So, your first sentence means nothing. Secondly, lawyers did much the same work they do now. They did significantly more then "defend people from the gov't." As to the rest of the sentence, that also makes no sense. Lawyers work within the laws that have been established, and sometimes, depending on the case, they cause the court to action that changes law. This is basic stuff. -- Nom=de=Plume |
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? You're wrong. "We the people" was written (primarily) by Jefferson, a lawyer. The people didn't write anything. Also, you're an idiot. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "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. Only partially correct. You had to apprentice with an established lawyer, much as John Adams did. As usual, you know little about what you write. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"Larry" wrote in message
... 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. You're looney. Please tell us what penile implants and sex change operations for illegal aliens have to do with life-saving treatment. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... 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? "Some people" right. From Mars maybe. Do you have parts to keep? I doubt it. Certainly no brain to speak of. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
|
OT health care
|
OT health care
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article m, says... 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 Most of the government just administers contracts. Government contracting is a big industry in the Washington DC area. You can't walk through Arlington, Crystal City, Tysons Corner, Reston or Herndon without tripping over an 8A firm or other firm that is surviving on Government contracts. Halliburton, KBR, Northrup Grumman, etc, etc, etc, . Those 8As are in good? company. |
OT health care
|
OT health care
|
OT health care
|
OT health care
|
OT health care
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:50:31 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:16:47 -0400, bpuharic wrote: obama care will reduce costs, cover everybody, reduce mortality, How will that happen? He did absolutely nothing to reduce costs. The drug industry is unfettered, the medical conglomerates were not touched and the insurance companies just got 15 million new customers at the point of a government gun with no meaningful restriction of what they could charge them. You forgot about no changes to tort reform. Obama wouldn't want to harm his brothers and sisters in the Trial Lawyers Assn. Torts are a minor cost in healthcare. the right thinks of this as a boogeyman, but it shows how morally bankrupt the right wing is |
OT health care
|
OT health care
On 4/18/10 1:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:04:35 -0400, wrote: On 4/18/10 11:54 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:16:47 -0400, wrote: obama care will reduce costs, cover everybody, reduce mortality, How will that happen? He did absolutely nothing to reduce costs. The drug industry is unfettered, the medical conglomerates were not touched and the insurance companies just got 15 million new customers at the point of a government gun with no meaningful restriction of what they could charge them. You seem to think what was recently passed is the be-all and end-all. It isn't. To the contrary, I doubt it was much more than a symbolic victory for the Democrats. If anything it is part of a long term plan to destroy the insurance industry and substitute that public plan the democrats want. The only problem with that idea is we would then have to bail out insurance company workers. Nobody really wants to cut into 17% of the economy, no matter how hard they rail against it. I am entirely in favor of destroying the health insurance industry, and replacing it with a system whose primary consideration is the best outcome for patients. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
OT health care
|
OT health care
On 4/18/10 1:45 PM, Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In , says... On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:41:09 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote: You seem to think what was recently passed is the be-all and end-all. It isn't. I believe you are right. As different parts of the health care bill go into effect, pricing will change due to market forces and tax burden. I see this in the shoe business all the time. The marketplace at work. It is as old as humanity. I just think this bill is trying to shove a size 12 foot into a size 7 shoe. It was designed to fail and it will. We'll see. Much will depend on design and marketing. Air Jordans have become more affordable over the years, while maintaining quality. I love that shoe. OTOH, you couldn't give the original Earth Shoes away. We quit offering them long ago. No matter what the claimed orthopedic advantage (still disputed) customers were immediately turned off by their appearance. Who wants to walk uphill all the time? Peter If you are referring to the original Kalso Earth Shoes, I thought the company that produced them was long, long gone. I owned a pair of Kalso Earth Boots, and I thought they were terrific. They were good sellers in markets where literacy was high. BTW, which long-time poster here are you really? -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
OT health care
On 4/18/10 1:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:32:15 -0400, wrote: On 4/18/10 1:14 PM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:04:35 -0400, wrote: You seem to think what was recently passed is the be-all and end-all. It isn't. To the contrary, I doubt it was much more than a symbolic victory for the Democrats. If anything it is part of a long term plan to destroy the insurance industry and substitute that public plan the democrats want. The only problem with that idea is we would then have to bail out insurance company workers. Nobody really wants to cut into 17% of the economy, no matter how hard they rail against it. I am entirely in favor of destroying the health insurance industry, and replacing it with a system whose primary consideration is the best outcome for patients. There you go. ;-) So much for "you can keep your existing plan" huh? Why? What *I* favor and what our political system will allow, in health care insurance, are hardly the same thing. Frankly, I think the plan I have is pretty good; the shame is that it isn't available to most Americans. How it would be paid for if it were universal is an entirely separate discussion. -- The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name. |
OT health care
In article ,
says... On 4/18/10 1:45 PM, Peter (Yes, that one) wrote: In , says... On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:41:09 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote: You seem to think what was recently passed is the be-all and end-all. It isn't. I believe you are right. As different parts of the health care bill go into effect, pricing will change due to market forces and tax burden. I see this in the shoe business all the time. The marketplace at work. It is as old as humanity. I just think this bill is trying to shove a size 12 foot into a size 7 shoe. It was designed to fail and it will. We'll see. Much will depend on design and marketing. Air Jordans have become more affordable over the years, while maintaining quality. I love that shoe. OTOH, you couldn't give the original Earth Shoes away. We quit offering them long ago. No matter what the claimed orthopedic advantage (still disputed) customers were immediately turned off by their appearance. Who wants to walk uphill all the time? Peter If you are referring to the original Kalso Earth Shoes, I thought the company that produced them was long, long gone. I owned a pair of Kalso Earth Boots, and I thought they were terrific. They were good sellers in markets where literacy was high. BTW, which long-time poster here are you really? Mr. HK, I only recently stumbled upon this newsgroup. Perhaps you missed my posting of who I am, and my family history. I don't know if Kalso still exists as the original company, but I did carry their Earth shoes in a few flavors many years ago. They bombed severely. That store had typical middle and working class clientèle. I thought them literate enough. But I do not test my customers in any way, except for what can lead me to fit them with a shoe that will make them happy. That, my friend, is the secret of sales success. Respect your customer, and do right by them. By the way, I actually still move penny loafers, even those of relatively low quality. Earth shoes? Sold 3 pairs in a full year of display. Actually had browsers in the mall stop by to laugh at them. I felt I was working in the "Scotch Tape Boutique," if you happen to be familiar with that SNL skit. I was quite happy when we dropped that line. Peter |
OT health care
|
OT health care
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:52:18 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:21:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:57:27 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:16:47 -0400, bpuharic wrote: obama care will reduce costs, Like this? http://www.news-press.com/article/20...et-big-pay-day see chart 1 he http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...43&emailView=1 That all assumes we do what we told CBO we would do. so why should we believe your right wing assumptions when, if you were right, we wouldnt even be HAVING this discussion? That never happens. CBO makes projections based on the fairy tale congress tells them. They have never been right. nor has milton friedman. |
OT health care
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:14:04 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:04:35 -0400, hk wrote: On 4/18/10 11:54 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:16:47 -0400, wrote: obama care will reduce costs, cover everybody, reduce mortality, How will that happen? He did absolutely nothing to reduce costs. The drug industry is unfettered, the medical conglomerates were not touched and the insurance companies just got 15 million new customers at the point of a government gun with no meaningful restriction of what they could charge them. You seem to think what was recently passed is the be-all and end-all. It isn't. To the contrary, I doubt it was much more than a symbolic victory for the Democrats. If anything it is part of a long term plan to destroy the insurance industry and substitute that public plan the democrats want. god, i hope so. if we do away with the insurance companies perhaps we'll have a REAL healthcare system The only problem with that idea is we would then have to bail out insurance company workers. Nobody really wants to cut into 17% of the economy, no matter how hard they rail against it. and, of course, tomorrow it will be 20, then 25% then 30... |
OT health care
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:25:30 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:00:42 -0400, hk wrote: I am entirely in favor of destroying the health insurance industry, and replacing it with a system whose primary consideration is the best outcome for patients. There you go. ;-) So much for "you can keep your existing plan" huh? Why? What *I* favor and what our political system will allow, in health care insurance, are hardly the same thing. Frankly, I think the plan I have is pretty good; the shame is that it isn't available to most Americans. How it would be paid for if it were universal is an entirely separate discussion. I suspect the Democratic leadership is more in tune with your thinking than what the senate passed (basically a bill written by 2 United Health Care lobbyists). That is why Dean was raising so much hell. I am sure they cooled him out by telling him this was just the first step to a single payer system but they have to kill off all the insurance companies first. This should do it. I really don't have a dog in this fight since I will be on Medicare next year anyway so I am already going to be on a government single payer system, like it or not. Be prepared to be inundated with ads for a Medicare supplement. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
OT health care
On 17/04/2010 7:29 PM, bpuharic wrote:
[ bpuharic nonsense clip ] You are a good little Democrat brownshirt. I have lived more than 10 years on each side of the US/CAN border. Even 2 years in UK. If I took my tax savings while working in the US and subtract hy health care premiums and expenses for my wife and I, I was still far better off in the USA by a long shot. Dumb****s like you know squat. To you crossing the state line is a big deal as your parole officer might find out. Just a 2 bit loser. -- Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? |
OT health care
On 18/04/2010 4:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:
and here in PA they just started a medical school in scranton...there are several others underway That will take years, I said now. the added patients will take years, too. 2014. More like when uncle Obama pays for it, big mouths don't pay bills. fine. let's wait and see. right now the economy is growing, unemployment is coming down, wall street is up and there are plans to regulate the excesses of wall street. The economy is growing because government spending is going up well DUH!! remember you guys opposed this, opting, instead, for 25% umemployment... If I had my way, it would be below 5%. and most economists don't think the TARP was big enough to carry the economy forward to this level. the economy's growing because people are starting to spend and businesses are doing likewise Agreed, TARP is too small for this size of debt/dysfunction problem congress created. Deployed wrong too, should have been a tax reduction package to help out all of America, not just the sacred chosen few. . Where are the displaced auto workers and construction people going to go to find their $50,000-60,000 job? How about the whole infrastructure that supported them? same place my dad did when the pittsburgh steel mills shut down I will believe this recovery when I start hearing about people actually getting real jobs. Right now most of the recovery is in those same wall street slime balls that you blame for the problem in the first place. the banks are making out. which is why the GOP wants to defend them and to ensure they can suck the public tit forever If banking is making out, how come this is a record year for bank closures? Government numbers... And what happens when Obama can't borrow more without crashing the USD? -- Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government? |
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 Same reason mean teach grammar school? Are you a closet pedophile? |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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. If you have insurance when you lose your job, you can continue insurance. You are stupid. Cobra if the company is still in buiness. HIPPA if your Cobra runs out. And as I said before. If someone has insurance, then the next company should be required to grant coverage. If no insurance, then you are **** out of luck! I guess you think you should be able to buy fire insurance the day after your house burns, and be covered. |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:38:26 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:11:33 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Why should an insurance company cover a pre-existing condition if the person did not have insurance previously? They have to now, imagine what that will do to our premiums. aw, gee whiz. why the **** not just shoot the *******s when they get sick let's become spartans. put sick babies out on the rocks so they die of exposure is that your logic? You would not recognize logic if it bit your arse. |
OT health care
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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 25%, 35% unemployment will probably have been better than stealing from future generations to prevent the pain now. Instead of putting the babies out in the cold on rocks, they should be putting the current generations out to die. We have priced this country out of the world market for most things. We now pay our people 10x what an Asian country will pay. Used to be about 3x. So how the hell are we to do manufacturing competitively in this country? We can not survive as a "Service Provider" country. We are even outsourcing the call service centers to Inida and Pakistan. Can not even be a competitive Service Provider"! |
OT health care
"hk" wrote in message m... On 4/18/10 11:54 AM, wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:16:47 -0400, wrote: obama care will reduce costs, cover everybody, reduce mortality, How will that happen? He did absolutely nothing to reduce costs. The drug industry is unfettered, the medical conglomerates were not touched and the insurance companies just got 15 million new customers at the point of a government gun with no meaningful restriction of what they could charge them. You seem to think what was recently passed is the be-all and end-all. It isn't. And what if it takes 10 years and 20 bills and it is still screwed up? Why pass such a flawed bill? |
OT health care
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "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. Only partially correct. You had to apprentice with an established lawyer, much as John Adams did. As usual, you know little about what you write. -- Nom=de=Plume I read no where of Lincoln apprenticing with an established lawyer. I think he was already a state senator when he took the bar. |
OT health care
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "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 Same reason mean teach grammar school? Are you a closet pedophile? The mean teach grammar school????? -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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 25%, 35% unemployment will probably have been better than stealing from future generations to prevent the pain now. Instead of putting the babies out in the cold on rocks, they should be putting the current generations out to die. We have priced this country out of the world market for most things. We now pay our people 10x what an Asian country will pay. Used to be about 3x. So how the hell are we to do manufacturing competitively in this country? We can not survive as a "Service Provider" country. We are even outsourcing the call service centers to Inida and Pakistan. Can not even be a competitive Service Provider"! More bs. You have no concept of what that would be like. Bread lines? People starving to death? No medical help? You're a moron. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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. If you have insurance when you lose your job, you can continue insurance. You are stupid. Cobra if the company is still in buiness. HIPPA if your Cobra runs out. And as I said before. If someone has insurance, then the next company should be required to grant coverage. If no insurance, then you are **** out of luck! I guess you think you should be able to buy fire insurance the day after your house burns, and be covered. If you don't, you're screwed. If you use COBRA, it's wildly expensive. SOL is your idea of a civil society. got it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
wrote in message
... On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:11:33 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Why should an insurance company cover a pre-existing condition if the person did not have insurance previously? They have to now, imagine what that will do to our premiums. In that Frontline show I talked about the insurance company lobbyist put her finger right on it. She said their actuaries immediately went to work computing what the effect was going to be on premiums. These people are bookies., They don't care which team you pick, they just adjust the line and take your bet. That is the wild card nobody wants to talk about. More bs. Pre-existing conditions could be something minor and usually are. The "actuaries" are always at work. They don't determine policy. They only define risk. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT health care
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:38:26 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:11:33 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: Why should an insurance company cover a pre-existing condition if the person did not have insurance previously? They have to now, imagine what that will do to our premiums. aw, gee whiz. why the **** not just shoot the *******s when they get sick let's become spartans. put sick babies out on the rocks so they die of exposure is that your logic? You would not recognize logic if it bit your arse. I'm guessing you use a lot of soothing cream. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com