|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 1:25 pm, Jack wrote: On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201... "Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost health insurance to their employees only because they have received one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly promised they could keep." It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts. Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it, was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite examples. Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How much of that do you like? They won't accept facts, they just keep spouting what Olbermann told them to say. I noted two young adults who lost their insurance because their parents couldn't afford the "new" twenty something insurance costs on their insurance. This is fact, I know these guys and they have both stopped riding because of it. But again, real facts don't matter to the intellectually impaired... So, show us some facts! I'm waiting to be convinced. Opinions aren't facts. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Oct 13, 3:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201.... "Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost health insurance to their employees only because they have received one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody s guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the health care plans they have now plans the president repeatedly promised they could keep." It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts. Why? *You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just presented *your* opinion. *My article, if you had actually read it, was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing their insurance because of obamacare. *As they point out if you are required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or the insurance company will simply close up shop. *Then they cite examples. Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. *Insurance companies are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. *How much of that do you like? I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion. I've cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place. If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion. It's a fact. Mine has gone up, and the insurance company verified it was because of obamacare. Fact. Other company's policies have been verified to have gone up for the same reason. Reported here and in the news. Still other companies are just pulling out because of the increased costs. Reported in my cite and in the news. Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. Your opinions still have no cites, and are not facts. If it's the best you can do, we must agree to disagree. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far. Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in. So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate already, certainly vs. the rest of the world. You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely to change. That is the thing people want to ignore. Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is about 20% higher than ours. "Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is not hard to try for yourself. When I ran mine on the Ontario web site I would have been paying $14,000 more in 2009 (I didn't try 2010 but that would have been worse since 2010 was the lowest tax rate I have paid since 1965 ... when I was in the service.) But.. the point might be that you would and should be paying a lot more to get your country back on a sound financial system. When was the last time your government balanced it's budget...... took in as much as it spent?? Our government was running surpluses until y'all threw the world into financial chaos. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
Jack wrote:
Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. And what "facts" would those be? Foxfacts? Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On 10/13/10 4:20 PM, Jim wrote:
Jack wrote: Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. And what "facts" would those be? Foxfacts? Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts. The health care plan Mickey D's offers its low hourly wage employees is little more than a joke. These are the very people who, if not covered under a parental plan, should be able to participate in a decent "public" plan. --- I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Oct 13, 4:20*pm, Jim wrote:
Jack wrote: Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. And what "facts" would those be? Foxfacts? Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts. I don't watch Fox. http://www.latimes.com/sns-mcdonalds...,7605831.story You must be thinking of the initial knee-jerk report that they may discontinue their coverage of employees. Don't believe that came from Fox. Jack - Don't like knee-jerk "Must be Fox" comments. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 3:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201... "Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost health insurance to their employees only because they have received one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody s guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the health care plans they have now plans the president repeatedly promised they could keep." It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts. Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it, was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite examples. Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How much of that do you like? I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion. I've cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place. If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion. It's a fact. Mine has gone up, and the insurance company verified it was because of obamacare. Fact. Other company's policies have been verified to have gone up for the same reason. Reported here and in the news. Still other companies are just pulling out because of the increased costs. Reported in my cite and in the news. So, you believe what the insurance companies are telling you? Because... they have your best interest in mind? Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. Your opinions still have no cites, and are not facts. If it's the best you can do, we must agree to disagree. McDs? Your "cite" was an opinion piece. It's not been in the news (except Faux News of course). |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 4:20 pm, Jim wrote: Jack wrote: Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. And what "facts" would those be? Foxfacts? Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts. I don't watch Fox. http://www.latimes.com/sns-mcdonalds...,7605831.story You must be thinking of the initial knee-jerk report that they may discontinue their coverage of employees. Don't believe that came from Fox. Jack - Don't like knee-jerk "Must be Fox" comments. So, McD's is the best example of middle-class tax payers? Suddenly, the insurance companies, who supposedly have much lower fraud rates, are concerned about not including those ~minimal~ costs in medical expenses? I'm betting they'd like their executive pay included also! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same indicators that most of us do. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in the population and culture and the differences in geographic locations. In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world. You included the "most material possessions," but failed to include this: "Much of the extra money in the United States is the result of a much wealthier top section of the population. If the top five percent of the population is not included the average Canadian would be wealthier than the average American." |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque wrote: On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote: On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same indicators that most of us do. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in the population and culture and the differences in geographic locations. In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world. http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/ I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did. For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for? They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most of the country. Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a choice. This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing out it was to make our life more convenient. Have you looked at their assumptions: http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/ |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:57 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque wrote: On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote: On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same indicators that most of us do. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in the population and culture and the differences in geographic locations. In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world. http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/ I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did. For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for? They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most of the country. Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a choice. This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing out it was to make our life more convenient. Look at the info sources. -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. Actually, read them. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 1:50 pm, Secular Humouresque wrote: On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote: "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of life. Lack of money and having no material possessions are not indicators of a good quality of life, at least by the vast majority of people. I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items are concentrated in the top percentages. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Exactly. Pardon my skepticism but I'd like you to name a few of these countries and tell us why their quality of life is higher. I've traveled quite a bit and have seen very few places where the average citizen comes even close. Canada is certainly right up there by many measures but they can keep winter. That's why we have so many of them in SWFL. There are a host of countries who's citizens live longer, are happier, and have better medical outcomes. Feel free to google on your own. It's pretty obvious. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:13:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far. Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in. So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate already, certainly vs. the rest of the world. You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely to change. That is the thing people want to ignore. Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is about 20% higher than ours. "Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is not hard to try for yourself. When I ran mine on the Ontario web site I would have been paying $14,000 more in 2009 (I didn't try 2010 but that would have been worse since 2010 was the lowest tax rate I have paid since 1965 ... when I was in the service.) Please tell us who is advocating a Canadian-style system? Nobody here, except maybe some Canadians who like what they have. What is the model you want to follow then? UK? Germany? Japan? Taiwan? I'd like us to find/create our own model that actually works. None of those cited would work well in our system. It will need to be some sort of hybrid. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far. Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in. So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate already, certainly vs. the rest of the world. You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely to change. I didn't conveniently miss anything. All the Teabaggers are complaining about deficits right? So, which programs do they want to cut? I am not a teabagger, not by a long shot. They are just as rabid as the loony left. You can't cut any existing programs because it is politically unacceptable. I already stated that. Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability. If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen. If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible. Your claim that we have a much higher standard of living isn't that accurate. It depends is a more accurate comment. How about infant mortality? How about life expectancy? We have a very diverse population demographic in this country and some of those segments have very unhealthy lifestyles and make bad decisions about lots of other things. No governmental program is going to fix that, and broad based statistics get dragged down as a result. No gov't program is going to fix it, but it can help. People make bad choices all the time, but that doesn't mean we should ignore obvious things to do, such as giving credit for good behavior. How about medical outcomes per dollar spent? I have no idea how to evaluate that. Well, there are several groups that look at that. They have a great way to evaluate it. They look at dollars spend vs. outcome. It's pretty straightforward. Read up. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Oct 13, 6:10*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 3:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message .... On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201... "Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost health insurance to their employees only because they have received one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody s guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the health care plans they have now plans the president repeatedly promised they could keep." It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts. Why? *You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just presented *your* opinion. *My article, if you had actually read it, was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing their insurance because of obamacare. *As they point out if you are required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or the insurance company will simply close up shop. *Then they cite examples. Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. *Insurance companies are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. *How much of that do you like? I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion. I've cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place. If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion. It's a fact. *Mine has gone up, and the insurance company verified it was because of obamacare. *Fact. *Other company's *policies have been verified to have gone up for the same reason. *Reported here and in the news. *Still other companies are just pulling out because of the increased costs. *Reported in my cite and in the news. So, you believe what the insurance companies are telling you? Because... they have your best interest in mind? Maybe you can explain how all this new coverage for millions will come for free? No one has ever thought that there would be no rate increase from obamacare. Except you? Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. Your opinions still have no cites, and are not facts. *If it's the best you can do, we must agree to disagree. McDs? Your "cite" was an opinion piece. It's not been in the news (except Faux News of course). Sorry, you're wrong on both accounts. My "cite" (your word) used facts. You still have not provided a *single* cite for your opinion. And the McD news article did not come from Fox, it appears to have come from the LATimes. Fox and others may have repeated it, but the article I linked is not false at all. You continue to fail. cya |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Oct 13, 6:15*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same indicators that most of us do. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...he:United:Stat... "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in the population and culture and the differences in geographic locations. In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world. You included the "most material possessions," but failed to include this: "Much of the extra money in the United States is the result of a much wealthier top section of the population. If the top five percent of the population is not included the average Canadian would be wealthier than the average American." You do realize that 5% of the US is equal to HALF OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF CANADA? That's why statistics like these are so misleading... they lead many astray if they don't understand the context of the statistic. So you wipe out the 15 million wealthiest people in the US, and the average (not median) income of a canadian rises above the average US resident? Really? You have to wipe out 15 million? That many? Wow!! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Oct 13, 6:17*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 1:50 pm, Secular Humouresque wrote: On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote: "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of life. Lack of money and having no material possessions are not indicators of a good quality of life, at least by the vast majority of people. I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items are concentrated in the top percentages. Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses, big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats. You were saying? |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 6:10 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 3:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201... "Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost health insurance to their employees only because they have received one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody s guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the health care plans they have now plans the president repeatedly promised they could keep." It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts. Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it, was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite examples. Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How much of that do you like? I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion. I've cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place. If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion. It's a fact. Mine has gone up, and the insurance company verified it was because of obamacare. Fact. Other company's policies have been verified to have gone up for the same reason. Reported here and in the news. Still other companies are just pulling out because of the increased costs. Reported in my cite and in the news. So, you believe what the insurance companies are telling you? Because... they have your best interest in mind? Maybe you can explain how all this new coverage for millions will come for free? No one has ever thought that there would be no rate increase from obamacare. Except you? Don't need to explain it, since that's never been claimed. However, cost of insuring people pales in comparison to the cost of not covering people. That's an incontrovertible fact. Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you. Your opinions still have no cites, and are not facts. If it's the best you can do, we must agree to disagree. McDs? Your "cite" was an opinion piece. It's not been in the news (except Faux News of course). Sorry, you're wrong on both accounts. My "cite" (your word) used facts. You still have not provided a *single* cite for your opinion. And the McD news article did not come from Fox, it appears to have come from the LATimes. Fox and others may have repeated it, but the article I linked is not false at all. You continue to fail. Still waiting for link to actual facts and not opinion. Which opinion of mine? Let me know and I'll supply one if possible. If I can't, then it would be an opinion. E.g., The moon is made of cheese... an opinion, not supported by the facts. Bummer about McD's. They'll have to pay more for insuring their workers... people who get pretty close to minimum wage. Why don't you attack me personally. That's what you're leading up to with "You continue to fail." |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 6:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 1:50 pm, Secular Humouresque wrote: On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote: "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of life. Lack of money and having no material possessions are not indicators of a good quality of life, at least by the vast majority of people. I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items are concentrated in the top percentages. Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses, big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats. You were saying? Really, several cars? All of them new I suppose. And, they send them to private schools. And, they only eat caviar I'm guessing. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items are concentrated in the top percentages. Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses, big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats. You were saying? Plume doesn't even think I am middle class ($70-80k) and we have all of that stuff ... paid for ... no debt. I'm sure you are. Some people do fine and pay off their debt. That's not typical, unfortunately. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 6:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same indicators that most of us do. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...he:United:Stat... "The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten." "Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material possessions." While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in the population and culture and the differences in geographic locations. In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world. You included the "most material possessions," but failed to include this: "Much of the extra money in the United States is the result of a much wealthier top section of the population. If the top five percent of the population is not included the average Canadian would be wealthier than the average American." You do realize that 5% of the US is equal to HALF OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF CANADA? That's why statistics like these are so misleading... they lead many astray if they don't understand the context of the statistic. So you wipe out the 15 million wealthiest people in the US, and the average (not median) income of a canadian rises above the average US resident? Really? You have to wipe out 15 million? That many? Wow!! ?? It's from your article not mine. Who said anyone wants to wipe out anyone?? Where are you getting this? Try and be civil and not foam at the mouth when presented with actual facts... one's you've cited! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:18:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life for the majority of their citizens. Exactly. Pardon my skepticism but I'd like you to name a few of these countries and tell us why their quality of life is higher. I've traveled quite a bit and have seen very few places where the average citizen comes even close. Canada is certainly right up there by many measures but they can keep winter. That's why we have so many of them in SWFL. There are a host of countries who's citizens live longer, are happier, and have better medical outcomes. Feel free to google on your own. It's pretty obvious. "Happier" is a relative thing. Americans go out of their way to be unhappy, if not, why do we beat ourselves up with studies about how bad it sucks here? Yes. It's done by polling I suppose. Or, is there some magic incantation to reveal it? I'm pretty happy but I try to be. Good for you! I think other cultures work harder to be happy and most of the people I know do too but I also know a lot of people who just don't know how to be happy and reject it at all costs. It is easier for them to be unhappy and blame it on somebody else. Bob seems to be that way Work harder... umm... like having a whole month off every year vs. two weeks in the US? As for medical outcome, it is not the outcome that is the problem, it is the lifestyles we have that we take to the doctor. Start with out obesity rate. That alone is enough to make our lifespan lower. If you are really sick, you are a lot better off in the American system than you would be anywhere else. That is why you don't see people going to France or Canada for their heart transplant. The problem is our system is too good. Mere mortals can't afford it. Yes, it is the outcome. So obesity is a problem in the US (actually around the world, but ok). Does that mean we've got a better lifestyle than someone in Germany, say, who isn't obese? Ah, so our system is so good, it's bad. Solution... make it worse. I get it. What nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote? |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What is the model you want to follow then? UK? Germany? Japan? Taiwan? I'd like us to find/create our own model that actually works. None of those cited would work well in our system. It will need to be some sort of hybrid. The first thing that all of those other countries have and we are not very comfortable with is rationing. Unfortunately as the entitlements start to overwhelm the GDP, we will all have to get used to that. So, there's no rationing now? Um... hate to tell you, but if you don't have insurance, that's called rationing. We already have rationing, but it's not very equitable is it. As I've said before, SS and Medicare are fixable, and we have time to do that, even if Chick Little's don't think so! |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Well, there are several groups that look at that. They have a great way to evaluate it. They look at dollars spend vs. outcome. It's pretty straightforward. Read up. Dollars spent is a horrible way to judge that as long as we are including all of the cosmetic procedures in the total and all of the unnecessary tests done to cover the doctor's ass from the lawyers. There are plenty of studies that are very specific to types of treatments for specific conditions. So, this cosmetics procedures argument is a bunch of bs. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You can't cut any existing programs because it is politically unacceptable. I already stated that. Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability. If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen. If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible. I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that person is going to lose. Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done. Untrue... there are several ways to fix the deficit. The best approach would be to reduce military spending significantly, end some of the more outrageous subsidies, and address the fraud issues. At the moment, the "entitlements" are deficit neutral. They'll be a problem at some point, but not now. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Oct 13, 10:47*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items are concentrated in the top percentages. Really? *Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses, big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats. You were saying? Plume doesn't even think I am middle class ($70-80k) and we have all of that stuff *... paid for ... no debt. That's because you aren't one of the "I'm entitled to it" crowd. My hat's off to you... there aren't many like you around these days. It seems that a lot of people don't realize that the average "middle- class" family here in the US lives much better than the average "middle-class" family in the European countries they so love. Interseting that 3 different European transplants I know that came to the US many years ago always pined for their home country, saying how much "better" it was. After finally retiring or vacationing back in their home countries, *every one* of them came back to the US to retire and live out their life, finally admitting that it was better here. I know no one that went back to Europe to retire and stayed there. I don't understand where the self-hate comes from. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:42:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg. We got to know a couple from Toronto (big city, eastern Canada) during our cruising adventures last winter. Several years ago he fell from a ladder and shattered his elbow into multiple pieces. It was 12 days before he could get booked into surgery with an orthopedic specialist. Meanwhile they sent him home with pain killers while he waited. They said it was a common experience, that they totally disliked the Canadian healthcare system, and that MDs are leaving Canada to practice elsewhere if they have that choice. Several years ago we met a French doctor who had been practicing in Canada. He was in the process of returning to France because he disliked the system. Be careful what you ask for. |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Oct 13, 10:47 pm, wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items are concentrated in the top percentages. Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses, big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats. You were saying? Plume doesn't even think I am middle class ($70-80k) and we have all of that stuff ... paid for ... no debt. That's because you aren't one of the "I'm entitled to it" crowd. My hat's off to you... there aren't many like you around these days. It seems that a lot of people don't realize that the average "middle- class" family here in the US lives much better than the average "middle-class" family in the European countries they so love. Interseting that 3 different European transplants I know that came to the US many years ago always pined for their home country, saying how much "better" it was. After finally retiring or vacationing back in their home countries, *every one* of them came back to the US to retire and live out their life, finally admitting that it was better here. I know no one that went back to Europe to retire and stayed there. I don't understand where the self-hate comes from. Please show us where there's self-hate. I see self-awareness. So, the middle class in this country lives much better. Certainly the poor don't live at the same level, but beyond that, all you've said is "lives much better." There are, as I've said, plenty of measures out there that seem to disagree. Care you cite some actual facts or are you just giving your opinion? |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:42:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg. We got to know a couple from Toronto (big city, eastern Canada) during our cruising adventures last winter. Several years ago he fell from a ladder and shattered his elbow into multiple pieces. It was 12 days before he could get booked into surgery with an orthopedic specialist. Meanwhile they sent him home with pain killers while he waited. They said it was a common experience, that they totally disliked the Canadian healthcare system, and that MDs are leaving Canada to practice elsewhere if they have that choice. Several years ago we met a French doctor who had been practicing in Canada. He was in the process of returning to France because he disliked the system. Be careful what you ask for. You've described anecdotal evidence. That's a bit limited. Interestingly, the doctor is returning to France? So, are you saying the French system is good and the Canadian system isn't? Again, by that one case, it's pretty hard to tell. E.g., I have a friend who had some stomach pain... not that bad really, so he took some antacids and lived with it for a week because he didn't have a way to get a doctor easily. The pain got worse. Finally, he was able to get someone to give him a ride to the doctor (at Kaiser). The doc thought he had some acid reflux (as I recall) and gave him something stronger. He went home. After a few days, he couldn't stand the pain any more and went back. It took a few days to get an appointment. The doc sent him to a specialist. Yet another delay. Finally, the specialist saw him and immediately admitted him for surgery. Turns out, he had severe ulcerative colitis and had to have most of his colon removed to save his life. He went from 200 lbs to 140. So, does this mean his care was rationed or that Kaiser is a bad place to go? Certainly the first is accurate. If he was better off, he would have gone in sooner. Is Kaiser a bad place to go? Maybe. In any case, it doesn't say much about the general case. (He's getting great care at Kaiser now, and has totally recovered, sans colon pieces.) |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. and here it's rationed by price. if you're 90 years old, have a 2 week life expectancy, and can pay, you get the best medical care if you're a 1 year old with asthma whose parents work but cant afford medical insurance, you die. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? wrong. almost no canadians come to the US for healthcare. and about 165,000 americans yearly go overseas for healthcare because ours costs too much |
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
|
Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote: We use more health care than canadians. Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even to severe injuries like fractures. Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't it? Depends on what you mean by "right away". I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged handsome' appearance. ;-) It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with liquid nitrogen. This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny. Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger marks remained. I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling back in case he has cancellations between now & then. I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in Florida, but the price is right. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com