| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. which has been going on for a number of different things for quite awhile 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. of course, we should ALSO require that increases in productivity should be more equitably distributed rather than having the US continue down the path of plutocracy |
Financing healthcare
On 4/16/2011 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. How about this mandatory boat ownership, in case of floods...one hundred percent tax credit though. |
Financing healthcare
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. A better idea would be to get rid of our system of primary private health care insurance entirely, and replace it with good, basic health insurance for everyone, with payment for that based upon a sliding scale based upon income. Such plans would cover just about everything with some exceptions, such as a fully private hospital room, plastic surgery for strictly cosmetic purposes, et cetera, and those could be covered to some degree by separately purchased supplement health insurance. The basic plans could be offered by private insurers, so long as everything was closely and properly regulated. Oh, those really backwards Swiss handle health insurance as I've described. My Norwegian buddies have a more socialistic based health insurance program which is far superior to our patchwork quilt here. All our health insurance system here does is enrich insurance companies. They add nothing of value to the health care system. |
Financing healthcare
On 16/04/2011 9:11 PM, bob 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. which has been going on for a number of different things for quite awhile 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. of course, we should ALSO require that increases in productivity should be more equitably distributed rather than having the US continue down the path of plutocracy Well, if you don't like plutocracy, how come you vote Obama? You know this depression will come to an end when the middle class rise, take back control of government and just say no to the leaches be they corporate or low life individuals. And tell politicians, less taxes and live inside your means. Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed politician do the voting when people can vote directly? It isn't 1780 when a pony had to go across Arizona in the heat to bring in the results. But you know why it will never happen? Because real democracy never existed, you are a well managed herd on a stage show. You leaders are corrupt hand picked ponies. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
Financing healthcare
Canuck57 wrote:
Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed politician do the voting when people can vote directly? You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you? |
Financing healthcare
On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed politician do the voting when people can vote directly? You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you? I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave like herd animals and are managed that way. Yep, you are a well managed herd animal. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
Financing healthcare
Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed politician do the voting when people can vote directly? You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you? I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave like herd animals and are managed that way. Yep, you are a well managed herd animal. For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like to think it is. |
Financing healthcare
Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed politician do the voting when people can vote directly? You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you? I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave like herd animals and are managed that way. Yep, you are a well managed herd animal. For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like to think it is. not need, seen. sheesh. |
Financing healthcare
On 17/04/2011 10:29 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed politician do the voting when people can vote directly? You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you? I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave like herd animals and are managed that way. Yep, you are a well managed herd animal. For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like to think it is. Been there done that. Bottom line is ass kissing people who don't give a damn about anything else. Minds too small to see beyond their noses promoted or elected beyond their level of competence. Appeal to their need of personal greed and you can sell anything. Very few in politics operate outside of the envelope of pure unadulterated personal greed. While I have never been to congress, I can envision it as a bunch of idiots, too much lobster and booze...all worried about perception and not the greater good. That is why you can't get anything decent done. And that is why USA is destined to fail economically. A revolution as people are taxed too much, realize the real failure of government and perhaps something better will come from the ashes. But decay is part of a counties life cycle, just like getting old. Companies and countries are no different. They get born, prosper, get old then wither. It takes on hell of a leadership to avoid the cycle. And I just don't see this leadership in DC. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed politician do the voting when people can vote directly? You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you? I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave like herd animals and are managed that way. Yep, you are a well managed herd animal. For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like to think it is. not need, seen. sheesh. Don should be here to chastise you at any time. |
Financing healthcare
|
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
|
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
|
Financing healthcare
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! |
Financing healthcare
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. |
Financing healthcare
Harryk wrote:
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. Here you go, ignorant little boy: http://www.cnbc.com/id/41995236/A_Wo..._Higher_Prices |
Financing healthcare
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... 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. Poor little pedophile creeper, harry krause... Here are her own words... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
Financing healthcare
In article ,
says... Harryk wrote: 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. Here you go, ignorant little boy: http://www.cnbc.com/id/41995236/A_Wo..._Higher_Prices Not even interested in your links creeper. Just leave the conversation to those of us who have not lied about our education here.... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
Financing healthcare
I_am_Tosk wrote:
I_am_Tosk wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... 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. Poor little pedophile creeper, harry krause... Here are her own words... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... 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. Poor little pedophile creeper, harry krause... Here are her own words... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY Pelosi has nothing to do with worldwide oil speculation and the gas prices that result, moron. It doesn't matter what she said in 2007. Hey, if you are so upset that your kid's motorbike racing venues are reduced this summer, steer her efforts into something else...like something academic. That way, she won't have to go through life as a common laborer, as you have. |
Financing healthcare
I_am_Tosk wrote:
Not even interested in your links creeper. Just leave the conversation to those of us who have not lied about our education here.... Scotty Ingerfool, ignorance üeber alles. Speaking of education, it's obvious you don't have any. |
Financing healthcare
|
Financing healthcare
Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:22:54 -0700, wrote: 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. It's good to know that your heartfelt experssions of compassion have not lost their luster. Now, if you could just learn to stay on topic and stop trying to twist the statistics to suit your socialist leanings... Tell us again how "middle class" you are, W'hine. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com