" jim--" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed
in
the
House
last
year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee
for
16
months
while
the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to
garner
enough
votes
to
make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor.
The
National
Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the
majority
of
its
political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying
group)
behind
their
passage.


The majority of working Americans who have no health
insurance
work
for
sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this
any
more
than they buy into anything else to help their employees.

They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax
break)
for
them
to contribute to employees' health insurance

I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that
small
businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan
for
all
employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent
coverage.




You know of course that local unions are major proponents
of
the
concept
of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice
to
see
a
smal
business association buy into the concept of collective
bargaining,
if
not for their employees.

As you stated, unions are already able to band together in
association
health plans. Small businesses aren't.

They should be allowed.


It's not that we won't buy into the
concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance
companies

lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the
control
of
each
state's insurance commission, rather than under the control
of
the
Federal
government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress
has
the
responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm
buying
insurance
from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress
regulate
such a
transaction.


As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a
multi-state
insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy
differences to
accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But
we
need a
high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some
********
state
might like to impose.


Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health
insurance
that's
currently given to employees of the Federal Government.


Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from
which
to
choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the
average
premium of the five largest plans.

I pay 85% of a grossly inflated premium for coverage. If those
premiums
fell, I'd pay 100%.


(I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest
FEHBA
plans)

But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or
another.

*TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between
jobs
and
actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly
disabled
and unable to work.

There is plenty of cheap short term insurance availible....most
people
would rather buy toys than insurance...it is their choice......and not
the
guvmint's responsibility.



Health care insurance costs have exploded under Bush, period.

Actually they started to soar in 1997 and throughout the remainder of
Clinton's second term. They have actually declined for the past year
under
Bush.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1215/csmimg/p21a.gif


You expect asslicker to make any sense when he is fully emploteed doing
polyp inspections on harry??

John Gaquin wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget.

At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43.

Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not.

We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the
difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though.




And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between
running a deficit and piling up the debt.

--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"JohnH" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget.

At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43.

Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not.

We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the
difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:09:46 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


Look at Kerry's running mate as one of the reasons for soaring medical
costs. Someone has to pay the multi-million dollar costs of litigation.

Lawyers make easy targets, but they are a very small part of medical
costs. The Congressional Budget Office states that malpractice costs
account for less than 2% of health care spending.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...3/prsa0223.htm

$24 billion is a lot of cash the insurance companies have to pay out. And
is probably only a mid percentage of the actual costs. The threat of suits
cost money also. The $24 billion also has a time value cost as well as the
direct cost. How many extra tests are required to cover the medical fields
butts in case of suit. Those tests are run every time. As my friends aunt,
used to like to ride in the ambulance, every time she had a pain, she had
the rest home send her to the hospital. The emergency room always did a
full array of tests, no matter that her complaint was a sore arm. These
also add to the $24 Billion. Big time addition. Most doctors are not
getting filthy rich like Union bosses (gratuitous dig), but are upper middle
class money. But after 10 years of school and residency, they should be
well paid. All this adds to the cost of medical care. Yes, drugs should
not cost anywhere as much as they do here. The drug companies can make a
profit in Canada and Mexico and Europe, just not the amount of margin made
in the USA. And the fact that most of the research was paid for by the US
taxpayer through university funding and the drug companies just take the
research the last few feet, should warrant lower prices to the US over other
countries. We should be able to recoup some of our research costs.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"JohnH" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget.

At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43.

Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not.

We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the
difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though.

Oh, I know full the the differences. BUT, unlike YOU, I also know
there is a direct correlations between the two.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Oh, I know full the the differences. BUT, unlike YOU, I also know
there is a direct correlations between the two.

Help....My eye's are burning!!!!!!!!!!!

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:14 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget.

At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43.

Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not.

We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the
difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun,
though.




And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between
running a deficit and piling up the debt.

*Whose* crippled mind? Do you know where this came from?
_______________________________________

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget.

Did bassie really say that there was no *debt*?

"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:25:19 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:14 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser)
wrote:

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A
balanced
budget.

At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43.

Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not.

We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the
difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun,
though.




And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between
running a deficit and piling up the debt.

*Whose* crippled mind? Do you know where this came from?
_______________________________________

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget.

Did bassie really say that there was no *debt*?


He said what I said he said! I'm still laughing, but he won't clarify how
Clinton got the entire national debt paid off in three months. Maybe he
used the
advance from his book,

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And Hillary's. :-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between
running a deficit and piling up the debt.

No, I didn't say that. But B'ass uses the terms interchangeably, and shows
no comprehension of the difference.

" jim--" wrote in message news:NPWdnVW5Is2Wj9_cRVn-

And Hillary's. :-)

maybe they found a trunkful of cash right under the Rose billing records.