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

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.

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.

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.

In article c807a431-e0c1-4a2b-8a61-435d07f7e4e3
@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, says...


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.

No reason not to educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
For basic health care no profit allowed for the insurers.
They can make profit on supplementals.
After 8% of a persons income goes toward the basic premium, the
government pays the rest.
It's socialism to you, so fuggetaboutit.
Switzerland is a civilized country of intelligent people.
That's why the same health care there doesn't take 18% of GDP.
About half that. Because they are smart and civilized.
So it won't work here.
And you're just one example on this newsgroup that proves that.

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 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.

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.

In article ,
says...

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.

You can skirt the facts all you want. When Pelosi took over she promised
to look at gas prices first. She and Obama have done nothing but destroy
the industry in the US. Now the gas prices are $4.06 a gallon yesterday
when there is no need except to make the American economy sink...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
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.

You can skirt the facts all you want. When Pelosi took over she promised
to look at gas prices first. She and Obama have done nothing but destroy
the industry in the US. Now the gas prices are $4.06 a gallon yesterday
when there is no need except to make the American economy sink...



Poor dumb little Snotty...absolutely clueless about...everything. At the
moment, the world is awash in oil. The prices are where they are because
of speculators.