"Don White" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

Let the "poor" buy their own health services? They don't need cable. They
don't need to take the family out to dinner. They *don't need the new
ca*r. Its all about decisions.


The poor down your way must be a lot better off than the poor up here.


Most have cars, TV, cell phones, etc. Go to Mexico or South America if you
want to see poverty. Funny thing is the poor in the latter countries work
hard to survive and improve. Most of the welfare ones here do not try to
work hard and understand how to work the system. Years ago, I owned a
construction equipment leasing company. We would hire some of the local
White Trash to clean up the yard at times. They would offer to work for
free for the day if we would give them a $350 check and they would sign it
back to us. Gave them enough income to get unemployment for another
quarter. When you see as on TV tonight a 500 pound person, that has not
left their home in a couple of years, you have to understand the welfare
system is broken. They are incapacitated by their own actions. Why do we
need to support them? May be a hard line action, but those like that can
just take a dirt nap. I am all for supporting those who are actually
incapacitated. The mentally challened, the Autistic, those with illness's
that keep them from making a living. The neighbors daughter is on welfare.
Her husband is lazy and a fan of illicit drugs. The girl does not work as
then she can not be a stay at home mom. Lots of people that would like to
be stay at home moms, are working to help support the family and paying
taxes to support the lazy stay at home mom. And it will not be fixed by any
of the candidates running!

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:12:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to
the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access.

I love comments like this.

Unreal.

Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain
hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my
comment about the poor is unreasonable.

I only going to say this.

I pay a staggering amount of money every year for a treatment for my
particular cluster of ailments related to a screwed up immune system.
Those same treatments for similar diseases for people who are in
halfway houses or unable to pay for whatever reason are free and paid
for by the state of CT and MA.

I'm not exactly sure, but it seems to me that's not rationing.

I will say this - the healthcare system is screwed up, but the
solution isn't single payer system. The solution is to shoot all the
ambulance chasers who create untenable situations for physicians of
all types who would be willing to provide care on a reduced basis in
open clinics on a part time basis if only they didn't have to worry
about paying outrageous premiums for ommission/commission and
malpractice insurance.

With respect to access, if you are indigent and unable to pay,
hospitals are required to provide care by law. That's what the
problem is. The cost of running a hospital is considerable (for much
the same reasons I might add) and placing a obligation to provide care
under all circumstances is killing their ability to provide services.
The solution is to indemnify physicians who can, and often will, run
clinics for those whose ability to pay is nonexistant or limited.

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:33:27 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
m...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only
thing
anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance
card.
I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally
for
"better" care.

Eisboch

If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card.

------------------------------------

As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law.
It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this
state.

Eisboch

What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure?


Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the
months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were
television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that
were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through
their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk
program as well.

What happened was that if you didn't select a plan or provide proof of
a plan, the state charged you a set amount of money - I think it was
$249.

After that, kids who didn't have health insurance because the base
plan was $1,400 a year just paid the fine because it was cheaper than
getting health insurance.

Now, as I understand it, the fine is higher than the base insurance
level. :)

By the way, it cost the citizens of MA a lot more than Mitt
anticipated - WAY more.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:33:27 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only
thing
anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance
card.
I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally
for
"better" care.

Eisboch
If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card.

------------------------------------

As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law.
It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this
state.

Eisboch
What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure?

Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the
months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were
television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that
were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through
their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk
program as well.

What happened was that if you didn't select a plan or provide proof of
a plan, the state charged you a set amount of money - I think it was
$249.

After that, kids who didn't have health insurance because the base
plan was $1,400 a year just paid the fine because it was cheaper than
getting health insurance.

Now, as I understand it, the fine is higher than the base insurance
level. :)

By the way, it cost the citizens of MA a lot more than Mitt
anticipated - WAY more.



Mitt...hehehe.

He's "loaned" his campaign #35 million so far.

But he does have some really nice suits.

BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to
the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access.
I love comments like this.

Unreal.

Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain
hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my
comment about the poor is unreasonable.

Poor example Chuck. The very best cars are rationed. The very best food
is rationed. I could go on and on.

You are a person of substantial means, Tom. I hope you have access to
the best available care.

Chuck, I can't afford to buy the $495,000 Mercedes I saw at the auto
show last week. Can you spare a couple of hundred thousand?

Neither portion of the statement is unreal, so how can the total
statement be unreal?

How much of your time and money do you donate to provided the
underfunded "access" to health care?


BAR,
You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only
problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We
can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency
room. I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance.
It provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group
plan at work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that
they don't think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new
car, they are subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is
a much cheaper way for all of us.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html

Eisboch wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only
thing
anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance
card.
I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally
for
"better" care.

Eisboch
If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card.

------------------------------------

As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law.
It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this
state.

Eisboch
What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure?


Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the
months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were
television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that
were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through
their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk
program as well.

Eisboch



They are fining them when they do their taxes, in 2009 if you don't have
the mandatory health care insurance, you will be fined half the cost of
the insurance. They will continue to increase the fines to "encourage"
people to join the plan.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..

BAR,
You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only
problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We
can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency room.
I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance. It
provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group plan at
work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that they don't
think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new car, they are
subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is a much cheaper
way for all of us.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html


We'll see in a year or two. I still pay for our coverage and the premiums
continue to go up.

Eisboch

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to
the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access.
I love comments like this.

Unreal.

Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain
hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my
comment about the poor is unreasonable.

Poor example Chuck. The very best cars are rationed. The very best
food is rationed. I could go on and on.

You are a person of substantial means, Tom. I hope you have access to
the best available care.

Chuck, I can't afford to buy the $495,000 Mercedes I saw at the auto
show last week. Can you spare a couple of hundred thousand?

Neither portion of the statement is unreal, so how can the total
statement be unreal?

How much of your time and money do you donate to provided the
underfunded "access" to health care?


BAR,
You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only
problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We
can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency
room. I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance.
It provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group plan
at work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that they
don't think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new car,
they are subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is a
much cheaper way for all of us.

The problem is that people will still show up at the emergency room with
the sniffles and they will still be seen.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html

Ah, I work for a Mass. headquartered company. I know about the
escalating health care costs and what the company is doing to reduce costs.

Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
BAR,
You already are paying for them to have access to health care, the only
problem is you are paying way to much money to give them bad access. We
can pay less money by providing health care outside of the emergency room.
I like the MA program where everyone must have health insurance. It
provides a group plan for those who are not covered by a group plan at
work. If the person really can not afford it, not just that they don't
think they need it or would rather have cable and/or a new car, they are
subsidized, but everyone must pay for healthcare. This is a much cheaper
way for all of us.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/s..._460735_1.html


We'll see in a year or two. I still pay for our coverage and the premiums
continue to go up.

Eisboch


You really want to keep your current plan, it probably provides better
coverage.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:33:27 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

On Feb 1, 12:36?pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
In my limited personal experience with health care issues, the only
thing
anybody has ever asked me was for my BlueCross/BlueShield insurance
card.
I've never been asked how much income I make or if I can pay personally
for
"better" care.

Eisboch
If you were poor, you wouldn't have that insurance card.

------------------------------------

As of January 1st, I better have in MA or I'd be in violation of the law.
It is now *mandatory* to have health insurance of some type in this
state.

Eisboch
What's the penalty for not having one? What if you choose to self insure?

Duck, I don't know the answer to either question. I know that in the
months leading up to Jan 1st when the law went into effect, there were
television and radio ads reminding everyone of the new law and options that
were available to those who didn't or couldn't obtain insurance through
their employers. I believe the state mandated an "affordable" shared risk
program as well.

What happened was that if you didn't select a plan or provide proof of
a plan, the state charged you a set amount of money - I think it was
$249.

After that, kids who didn't have health insurance because the base
plan was $1,400 a year just paid the fine because it was cheaper than
getting health insurance.

Now, as I understand it, the fine is higher than the base insurance
level. :)

By the way, it cost the citizens of MA a lot more than Mitt
anticipated - WAY more.

My son was living in MA, and was talking about the need for Universal
Health Care, when I told him he NOW had UHC, he decided he would prefer
to keep them money in his pocket. I reminded him if he socialized
medicine it would be taken out of his paycheck automatically, he just
pretended i didn't point out the obvious. He was saving up for 6 months
of traveling in SE Asia, Asia and India. He like all the young, knew he
would NEVER need healthcare so he didn't sign up. He is now in Bangkok,
and I have no idea what kind of healthcare program they have.