On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

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

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.

Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

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

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.



"Might" is the operative word. No choice is far more likely, for many
reasons. And the price isn't driven by "competitive forces," but by
whatever the offerers think the traffic will bear. Further, unless you
are a government employee, there's no reasonable way for an individual
to really compare so-called competing plans. It's almost impossible for
individuals to really compare, for example, the so-called Medicare
supplemental programs, and those are somewhat regulated nationally.

About all an individual can get from the private sector health insurance
market is...butt ****ed.

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.


It's time to move on from the worship of the private sector.

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

Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

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

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.



"Might" is the operative word. No choice is far more likely, for many
reasons. And the price isn't driven by "competitive forces," but by
whatever the offerers think the traffic will bear. Further, unless you
are a government employee, there's no reasonable way for an individual
to really compare so-called competing plans. It's almost impossible for
individuals to really compare, for example, the so-called Medicare
supplemental programs, and those are somewhat regulated nationally.

About all an individual can get from the private sector health insurance
market is...butt ****ed.

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.


It's time to move on from the worship of the private sector.



Exactly.. might is the operative word. In theory, sure. In practice,
unlikely.

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.

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 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 21:19:58 -0700, wrote:

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.

The trawler is our second home. Having a second home is something of
a middle class tradition where I come from.

Perpetual vacation? That's called retirement by most people. I'm
not really retired however. My new occupations are investment
management and boat maintenance work. :-)

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 15:47:06 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

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

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.

So, you have a "choice" of providers, except that the insurance
companies decide what the providers provide. We don't need
"competitive forces" involved in people's health. What we need are
good outcomes. As it is right now, we're rated very poorly for a
number of factors, including longevity and treatment outcomes vs.
non-private entities.

There is never, nor has there ever been a "faceless" gov't bureaucrat
deciding people's health outcome. If you take away the word gov't,
then I agree. The insurance companys' faceless bureaucrats are
aplenty.