Harryk wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 17, 4:55 pm, wrote:
On 4/17/2011 1:07 PM, wrote:



On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:
OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.
It's a bunch of nonsense. Feel free to blame poor people for your
problems.
We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.
We need to get away from private financial institutions. They're in it
for the money, not for the public wealth. We need to get away from
public officialdom. They are in it for the money, not the public good.
We need to get away from public and private sector employment. They are
in it for the money as well. You are such a dumb ass

Odd, I talked to someone from Switzerland two weeks ago about this
topic and he told me that they have private health insurance but are
required to have it. He specifically said it was private.

In Switzerland, private health insurance companies all offer the same
basic health insurance to all comers at the same price. It doesn't
matter whether you pick Company A, B, or C. If you can afford the
premiums, you pay. There are different deductibles. If not, the premiums
are subsidized. The insurance companies are not allow to make a profit
on these plans. Young and old pay the same basic premium. No one can be
refused coverage.

In exchange for offering the same basic policies, the insurance
companies are able to offer their customers various kinds of
supplemental health insurance policies at market rates and on these they
can make a profit.

That's certainly better than what we have here. Interesting that the
Swiss, the most capitalistic people in the world, regulate their health
insurance industry so closely.

Oh...the Swiss live longer than we do, too.

The system we have...stinks.


Our private health insurance industry runs like a variation of the
Pentagon, it is full of corruption and waste, and it seems to exist
mostly to protect its own.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:33:55 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Apr 17, 4:55*pm, HenryK wrote:
On 4/17/2011 1:07 PM, wrote:



On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
*wrote:

OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. *Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". *We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. *However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. *Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. *At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. *This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

It's a bunch of nonsense. Feel free to blame poor people for your
problems.

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

We need to get away from private financial institutions. They're in it
* for the money, not for the public wealth. We need to get away from
public officialdom. They are in it for the money, not the public good.
We need to get away from public and private sector employment. They are
in it for the money as well. You are such a dumb ass

Odd, I talked to someone from Switzerland two weeks ago about this
topic and he told me that they have private health insurance but are
required to have it. He specifically said it was private.

It's heavily regulated, they have a longer life expectancy and better
outcomes.

If a one-payer system in this country causes an apoplectic reaction
among those of the extreme right, then I'd be happy with a heavily
regulated private system.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:13:45 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

You're such an apologist for the big business private sector, Wayne. And
what has that sector done for us the last 25 years or so? It's helped
destroy the middle class and make the wealthy class wealthier.

That's more liberal/socialist hog wash. It is true that I support the
free enterprise system. It has served the country well since its
inception and has served most of us well. Free enterprise is still
arguably better than any of the alternatives.

And who says the middle class has been destroyed? That's more hog
wash. I'm middle class as are most of my friends and neighbors. The
value of our homes has gone down but everyone except the highly
leveraged are doing just fine. In my opinion most of the highly
leveraged got greedy and ignored the facts.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:27:53 -0700, wrote:

It's heavily regulated, they have a longer life expectancy and better
outcomes.

And the Swiss don't have 10 to 20 percent of the populace leading
unhealthy lifestyles. On the other hand the former Soviet Union has
a *major* chronic lifestyle problem (alcoholism) and their average
life expectancy is about age 60 regardless of their socialized health
care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/opinion/17Schrad.html?src=twrhp

If you want to get a true picture of US life expectancy and health,
eliminate all of the inner city substance abusers and criminals from
the statistics.

Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:13:45 -0400,
wrote:

You're such an apologist for the big business private sector, Wayne. And
what has that sector done for us the last 25 years or so? It's helped
destroy the middle class and make the wealthy class wealthier.

That's more liberal/socialist hog wash. It is true that I support the
free enterprise system. It has served the country well since its
inception and has served most of us well. Free enterprise is still
arguably better than any of the alternatives.

And who says the middle class has been destroyed? That's more hog
wash. I'm middle class as are most of my friends and neighbors. The
value of our homes has gone down but everyone except the highly
leveraged are doing just fine. In my opinion most of the highly
leveraged got greedy and ignored the facts.


The social contract that emerged out of the Great Depression and built
the middle class is pretty much dead, and your party wants to bury it in
its casket. The modern conservative interpretation of the free
enterprise system no longer serves the middle class or those trying to
get into the middle class.

I do love your claim about being "middle class," though. It's quite a
chuckle.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:17:31 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I do love your claim about being "middle class," though. It's quite a
chuckle.

Please explain the humor. We're about as middle class as you can
get.

On Apr 16, 10:56*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. *Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". *We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. *However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. *Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. *At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. *This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

LOL...just like the You Tube video where I suggested that Unemployment
Contributions go into a personal escrow, to be drawn on later. An
escrow that only the CONTRIBUTOR can draw from. Everyone thought I was
nuts, when I thought the plan was great.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:54:43 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:13:45 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

You're such an apologist for the big business private sector, Wayne. And
what has that sector done for us the last 25 years or so? It's helped
destroy the middle class and make the wealthy class wealthier.

That's more liberal/socialist hog wash. It is true that I support the
free enterprise system. It has served the country well since its
inception and has served most of us well. Free enterprise is still
arguably better than any of the alternatives.

I wonder how far your "support" for free enterprise goes. Apparently,
it goes further than your support for those less fortunately, since
they surely have not and will not benefit from the destructive nature
of the private insurance companies and other huge corporations
motivated by nothing more than self-interest and profit.

And who says the middle class has been destroyed? That's more hog
wash. I'm middle class as are most of my friends and neighbors. The
value of our homes has gone down but everyone except the highly
leveraged are doing just fine. In my opinion most of the highly
leveraged got greedy and ignored the facts.

In your opinion... you've got yours and to hell with everyone else,
apparently. I guess you haven't been watching or don't care about the
news of the millions of people who've been financially destroyed.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:35:29 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:17:31 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I do love your claim about being "middle class," though. It's quite a
chuckle.

Please explain the humor. We're about as middle class as you can
get.

Really? How big is that trawler of yours? You're on perpetual vacation
aren't you? If that's middle class, I'm sure a lot of people would
love to sign up.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:09:11 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:27:53 -0700, wrote:

It's heavily regulated, they have a longer life expectancy and better
outcomes.

And the Swiss don't have 10 to 20 percent of the populace leading
unhealthy lifestyles. On the other hand the former Soviet Union has
a *major* chronic lifestyle problem (alcoholism) and their average
life expectancy is about age 60 regardless of their socialized health
care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/opinion/17Schrad.html?src=twrhp

If you want to get a true picture of US life expectancy and health,
eliminate all of the inner city substance abusers and criminals from
the statistics.

Not sure why you would cite the former Soviet Union. What point are
you trying to make? Their healthcare system was horrible.

The Swiss have highly regulated insurance.

Feel free to blame the "inner city" for whatever you care to, but
it's, as usual, a nonsense, blame everyone else, attitude. You
obviously are devoid of the facts and devoid of simple human kindness
and fairness. I really pity you.