Health care reform bill and competition
ta
1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
less control over their health care?
2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
among insurers?
AZDuffman
1. It will decrease choice. For example you no longer willhave the
choice of no coverage or a high-deductible hospitalization only plan.
The bill is also designed to drive private health insurance companies
out of busienss with a "public option" Amercians do not want per
reliable polls.
2. It will decrease competition. There is never a case where more
regulation in somethibn increased competition.
The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
socialized medicine. 55% of the country is against Obamacare, it
should be killed.
hal
wrote:
>Simple questions:
>
>1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
>less control over their health care?
if you believe what you hear, it will not affect people with private
insurance at all.
>2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
>among insurers?
if works as advertised, it will increase competition because it will
offer an affordable government option if the price of private
insurance remains too high.
hard to tell what will actually get into the final bill though.
Michael Coburn
> Simple questions:
>
> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
> less control over their health care?
The bill passed by the House offers MORE choices. That typically means
more control for the consumer.
> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
> among insurers?
The bill that passed the House will increase competition among _ALL_
providers of health insurance.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 3:50=A0pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Simple questions:
>>
>> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
>> less control over their health care?
>> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
>> among insurers?
>
>1. It will decrease choice. For example you no longer willhave the
>choice of no coverage or a high-deductible hospitalization only plan.
>The bill is also designed to drive private health insurance companies
>out of busienss with a "public option" Amercians do not want per
>reliable polls.
Lie. Americans overwhelmingly favor a public option.
>
>2. It will decrease competition. There is never a case where more
>regulation in somethibn increased competition.
lie. the public option will force private insurers to keep their
costs down or they will lose people to the government plan.
>
>The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
>socialized medicine. 55% of the country is against Obamacare, it
>should be killed.
lie again. Three out of three. I demand you post the polls. It's
more like about 60% are in favor of a public option. Look it up.
Sir Frederick
ONE MORE TIME!
Short, sweet and to the point...
Starner Jones, MD
I am a seventh generation Mississippian
and wanted to come back here after going somewhere
else for college and medical school. My
extracurricular interests are golf, hunting,
fishing and college football.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This should be on the front page of every newspaper in
America �in large bold letters.
This was a "letter to the editor" in August 29th
Jackson , MS newspaper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER,
I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth,
multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and
a new cellular telephone equipped with her
favorite R&B tune for a ringtone.
Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status:
Medicaid.
She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and,
somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care?
Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage
of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture ,
a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on
vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid,
purchase health insurance. A culture
that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone
else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard.
Most of us reap what we sow.
Don't you agree?
STARNER JONES, MD
Jackson , MS
Rod Speed
> Simple questions:
> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals
> with more or less control over their health care?
Depends on the individual's particular circumstances.
Those who cant currently get health insurance because of pre
existing conditions will have more control over their health care.
Those who are happy with their current health care arrangements wont be affected.
> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition among insurers?
Its obviously got to increase it when they will be competing with the govt insurer.
Presumably they will offload the worst risks to the govt
insurer, and will still compete for the better risks as well.
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:06:22 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
> >On Nov 9, 3:50=A0pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Simple questions:
>
> >> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
> >> less control over their health care?
> >> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
> >> among insurers?
>
> >1. It will decrease choice. For example you no longer willhave the
> >choice of no coverage or a high-deductible hospitalization only plan.
> >The bill is also designed to drive private health insurance companies
> >out of busienss with a "public option" Amercians do not want per
> >reliable polls.
>
> Lie. Americans overwhelmingly favor a public option.
>
>
>
> >2. It will decrease competition. There is never a case where more
> >regulation in somethibn increased competition.
>
> lie. the public option will force private insurers to keep their
> costs down or they will lose people to the government plan.
Funny how you think this way but liberals like yourself cry like a
little fairy when Wal-Mart lowers costs.
There is no history to show how regulating something more lowers the
price. I demand you post an example of more regulation lowering
prices in all but a short-term.
> >The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
> >socialized medicine. 55% of the country is against Obamacare, it
> >should be killed.
>
> lie again. Three out of three. I demand you post the polls. It's
> more like about 60% are in favor of a public option. Look it up.
I have cited Rasmussen several times--55% are against. However, as a
liberal you call pollsters and news organizations liars when they
don't agree with you.
tg
Right, and he forgot to mention that she drove up in a cadillac,
driven by Ronald Reagan.
If she is on Medicaid, we are already paying for her. If she weren't
on Medicaid, we would pay for her when the doctor gets paid by
Uncompensated Care, or raises his prices to cover the care---meaning
that everyone's insurance premiums will go up.
One provision of the bill is to force people to buy health insurance,
so WTF is this supposedly educated doctor whining about? He has a
government-enforced monopoly on providing health care; if he wants to
give that up then we can talk about the other issues like cost.
-tg
tg
>
> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
> less control over their health care?
Why would anyone want more control? They are perfectly happy to have
their employer control what insurance they have. They are perfectly
happy to be stuck in a bad job because they have a pre-existing
condition which is covered now but will prevent them from getting
insurance if they make a move.
People are idiots.
-tg
Rod Speed
> On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, hal wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:06:22 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 3:50=A0pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Simple questions:
>>
>>>> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more
>>>> or less control over their health care?
>>>> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease
>>>> competition among insurers?
>>
>>> 1. It will decrease choice. For example you no longer willhave the
>>> choice of no coverage or a high-deductible hospitalization only
>>> plan. The bill is also designed to drive private health insurance
>>> companies out of busienss with a "public option" Amercians do not
>>> want per reliable polls.
>>
>> Lie. Americans overwhelmingly favor a public option.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. It will decrease competition. There is never a case where more
>>> regulation in somethibn increased competition.
>>
>> lie. the public option will force private insurers to keep their
>> costs down or they will lose people to the government plan.
>
> Funny how you think this way but liberals like yourself cry like a
> little fairy when Wal-Mart lowers costs.
> There is no history to show how regulating something more lowers the price.
Another pig ignorant lie. The Japs regulated the prices that can be
charged for medical services and that has produced a price of just
$10 per night stay in hospital if you are happy with a shared 4 bed
ward and $90 per night if you want a private room instead.
> I demand you post an example of more regulation lowering prices in all but a short-term.
See above.
>>> The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
>>> socialized medicine. 55% of the country is against Obamacare, it
>>> should be killed.
>> lie again. Three out of three. I demand you post the polls. It's
>> more like about 60% are in favor of a public option. Look it up.
> I have cited Rasmussen several times--55% are against.
Pity no one else gets anything like that, liar.
> However, as a liberal you call pollsters and news
> organizations liars when they don't agree with you.
Nope, when all the others get the opposite result, liar.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 4:20=A0pm, hal wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:06:22 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 9, 3:50=3DA0pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Simple questions:
>>
>> >> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
>> >> less control over their health care?
>> >> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
>> >> among insurers?
>>
>> >1. =A0It will decrease choice. =A0For example you no longer willhave the
>> >choice of no coverage or a high-deductible hospitalization only plan.
>> >The bill is also designed to drive private health insurance companies
>> >out of busienss with a "public option" Amercians do not want per
>> >reliable polls.
>>
>> Lie. =A0Americans overwhelmingly favor a public option.
>>
>>
>>
>> >2. It will decrease competition. =A0There is never a case where more
>> >regulation in somethibn increased competition.
>>
>> lie. =A0the public option will force private insurers to keep their
>> costs down or they will lose people to the government plan.
>
>Funny how you think this way but liberals like yourself cry like a
>little fairy when Wal-Mart lowers costs.
completely different issue. Walmart sells things at below cost to
drive competition out of business. Predatory pricing like that is
wrong.
>
>There is no history to show how regulating something more lowers the
>price. I demand you post an example of more regulation lowering
>prices in all but a short-term.
>
this is not just regulation, doofus. This is offering an affordable
government option that people can purchase if they can't afford the
expensive private ones. That will provide competition when they don't
have anything but a monopoly now.
>> >The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
>> >socialized medicine. =A055% of the country is against Obamacare, it
>> >should be killed.
>>
>> lie again. =A0Three out of three. =A0I demand you post the polls. =A0It's
>> more like about 60% are in favor of a public option. =A0Look it up.
>
>I have cited Rasmussen several times--55% are against. However, as a
>liberal you call pollsters and news organizations liars when they
>don't agree with you.
you're a liar. You just claiming something doesn't make it so.
http://newsday.today.com/2009/08/20/rasmussen-poll-shows-americans-want-public-option/
AZDuffman
> >Funny how you think this way but liberals like yourself cry like a
> >little fairy when Wal-Mart lowers costs.
>
> completely different issue. Walmart sells things at below cost to
> drive competition out of business. Predatory pricing like that is
> wrong.
Wal-Mart does not sell most of its items below cost to drive
competition out of business, if they did they would be losing money,
which they do not do. But you seem to like predatory pricing in the
form of government selling below cost. It is immoral for a government
to try to drive private companies out of business.
>
>
> >There is no history to show how regulating something more lowers the
> >price. I demand you post an example of more regulation lowering
> >prices in all but a short-term.
>
> this is not just regulation, doofus. This is offering an affordable
> government option that people can purchase if they can't afford the
> expensive private ones. That will provide competition when they don't
> have anything but a monopoly now.
What monopoly does private insurance have? Please cite what state has
only one player?
Even in the states with the least competition there are several to
choose from. Overall there are probably over one hundred companies
offering plans. Go to ECON 101 and they will teach you about the
definition of "monopoly."
AZDuffman
> Another pig ignorant lie. The Japs regulated the prices that can be
> charged for medical services and that has produced a price of just
> $10 per night stay in hospital if you are happy with a shared 4 bed
> ward and $90 per night if you want a private room instead.
Are you Japanese?
And can you cite a source of this other than your repeating it word
for word every time you get made an idiot out of yourself and have
nothing else to say? Also, how rationed is the care? Can you pick
where you go? A low price is meaningless if you have no porduct or
service provided at that price.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> There is no history to show how regulating something more lowers the price.
>> Another pig ignorant lie. The Japs regulated the prices that can be
>> charged for medical services and that has produced a price of just
>> $10 per night stay in hospital if you are happy with a shared 4 bed
>> ward and $90 per night if you want a private room instead.
> Are you Japanese?
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
> And can you cite a source of this
Yep.
http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BCF5AFEB9-A475-46A1-B7D0-03101DFB87D5%7D
http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID=42174
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=japan+%2410+hospital+%2490&
> Also, how rationed is the care?
It isnt rationed at all. You are welcome to see any specialist you like,
with no referral from a GP required at all and no waiting either.
> Can you pick where you go?
Yep. And which doctor you choose to use too.
> A low price is meaningless if you have no porduct or service provided at that price.
They have plenty of both, with no waiting either.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 9, 3:50 pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Simple questions:
>>
>> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
>> less control over their health care?
>
> Why would anyone want more control? They are perfectly happy to have
> their employer control what insurance they have. They are perfectly
> happy to be stuck in a bad job because they have a pre-existing
> condition which is covered now but will prevent them from getting
> insurance if they make a move.
>
> People are idiots.
NO. Only Republican people are idiots.
> -tg
>
>> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
>> among insurers?
--
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:43:33 -0800, tg wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 3:50 pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Simple questions:
>
> >> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
> >> less control over their health care?
>
> > Why would anyone want more control? They are perfectly happy to have
> > their employer control what insurance they have. They are perfectly
> > happy to be stuck in a bad job because they have a pre-existing
> > condition which is covered now but will prevent them from getting
> > insurance if they make a move.
>
> > People are idiots.
>
> NO. Only Republican people are idiots.
WOW--I am just stunned at your witty replies. How do you do it?
James A. Donald
> The bill passed by the House offers MORE choices.
It requires each insurance company to offer the same policy, which is
not choice at all.
The bill offers the same diversity as affirmative action. Just as
affirmative actions means people of many colors all speaking in one
voice, the government's voice, all insurance companies will offer the
same policy, the government's policy.
tooly
> >2. It will decrease competition. There is never a case where more
> >regulation in somethibn increased competition.
>
> lie. the public option will force private insurers to keep their
> costs down or they will lose people to the government plan.
Yea...that's the idea. To drive people to the government option.
Either you are naive...or, I'm sorry...an idiot.
Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with
government subsidized plan. It will not just drive down prices but
will drive them out of business. Most group policy makers will find
it cheaper to go with the government...so of course, they will drop
the private companies in time..and soon, we'll all be under the
government.
No...single payer universal FULLY SOCIALIZED health care is the real
aim of Obama and democrats in general; there are plent of 'on the
record' vidoes and speeches and papers that say as much. The intent
is 'single payer'...it has been all along. All this now is a profound
LIE in congress. They know, we know it...come 2010 and 2012 the
people will remember it.
>
>
>
> >The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
> >socialized medicine. 55% of the country is against Obamacare, it
> >should be killed.
>
> lie again. Three out of three. I demand you post the polls. It's
> more like about 60% are in favor of a public option. Look it up.
Ok...how's CNN...they're pretty much in the tank for Obama aren't
they?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/cnn-poll/
It says:
""Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research
Corporation survey say lawmakers should continue working on the
legislation, a rise of 6 points since August. But only a quarter [25%]
say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third [33%]
suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also
indicates that one in four [25%] say lawmakers should start from
scratch and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care
reform.""
That's CNN though; I could quote a FOX poll [rasmusen perhaps] that
will suggest much the same in stronger terms. America does NOT want
this; not at this time with spending already through the stratosphere.
NOt to worry though; ACORN will save Obama next election by clubbing
people at the polls or something.
hal
wrote:
>
>> >2. It will decrease competition. =A0There is never a case where more
>> >regulation in somethibn increased competition.
>>
>> lie. =A0the public option will force private insurers to keep their
>> costs down or they will lose people to the government plan.
>
>Yea...that's the idea. To drive people to the government option.
>
>Either you are naive...or, I'm sorry...an idiot.
>Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with
>government subsidized plan. It will not just drive down prices but
>will drive them out of business. Most group policy makers will find
>it cheaper to go with the government...so of course, they will drop
>the private companies in time..and soon, we'll all be under the
>government.
>
>No...single payer universal FULLY SOCIALIZED health care is the real
>aim of Obama and democrats in general; there are plent of 'on the
>record' vidoes and speeches and papers that say as much. The intent
>is 'single payer'...it has been all along. All this now is a profound
>LIE in congress. They know, we know it...come 2010 and 2012 the
>people will remember it.
so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's the
big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
exploiting sickness for profit.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
>> >socialized medicine. =A055% of the country is against Obamacare, it
>> >should be killed.
>>
>> lie again. =A0Three out of three. =A0I demand you post the polls. =A0It's
>> more like about 60% are in favor of a public option. =A0Look it up.
>
>Ok...how's CNN...they're pretty much in the tank for Obama aren't
>they?
>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/cnn-poll/
>
>It says:
>""Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research
>Corporation survey say lawmakers should continue working on the
>legislation, a rise of 6 points since August. But only a quarter [25%]
>say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third [33%]
>suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also
>indicates that one in four [25%] say lawmakers should start from
>scratch and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care
>reform.""
doesn't say anything about the public option. Where did you go to
school?
>
>That's CNN though; I could quote a FOX poll [rasmusen perhaps] that
>will suggest much the same in stronger terms. America does NOT want
>this; not at this time with spending already through the stratosphere.
>NOt to worry though; ACORN will save Obama next election by clubbing
>people at the polls or something.
you are wrong. A clearl majority do want it. They know what it is
costing us to not have it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
Michael Coburn
> On 9 Nov 2009 21:17:43 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The bill passed by the House offers MORE choices.
>
> It requires each insurance company to offer the same policy, which is
> not choice at all.
LIE. There are MINIMUM requirements to a product that can be named
"health insurance". You can't sell a tin can and a string and label it
as "health insurance" and you can't sell a bottle of rum as "a cure for
athletes foot".
> The bill offers the same diversity as affirmative action. Just as
> affirmative actions means people of many colors all speaking in one
> voice, the government's voice, all insurance companies will offer the
> same policy, the government's policy.
Lie, after, lie, after lie...
Lie Big, Lie early, Lie often. The Republican fight song.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> The bill passed by the House offers MORE choices.
> It requires each insurance company to offer the same policy,
Like hell it does, you silly little pathological liar.
> which is not choice at all.
Pity about the extra choice of the govt operation, you silly little pathological liar.
> The bill offers the same diversity as affirmative action.
Like hell it does, you silly little pathological liar.
> Just as affirmative actions means people of many colors all peaking in one voice,
Like hell it does, you silly little pathological liar.
> the government's voice, all insurance companies will offer the same policy, the government's policy.
Like hell it does, you silly little pathological liar.
Michael Coburn
>> >2. It will decrease competition. There is never a case where more
>> >regulation in somethibn increased competition.
>>
>> lie. the public option will force private insurers to keep their costs
>> down or they will lose people to the government plan.
>
> Yea...that's the idea. To drive people to the government option.
>
> Either you are naive...or, I'm sorry...an idiot. Private Insurance
> companies will not be able to compete with government subsidized plan.
LIE. The Public Option is not subsidized.
> It will not just drive down prices but will drive them out of business.
If the Public Option drives them out of business then they should be out
of business.
> Most group policy makers will find it cheaper to go with the
> government...
The only problem with that is the fact that the Public Option offers
_ONLY_ individual plans and no group plans. But keep on lying. You are
doing so well...
> so of course, they will drop the private companies in
> time..and soon, we'll all be under the government.
If the private companies are dropped it will be because they offer the
same product at a higher cost or a more robust product at a higher cost
that is not worth the higher premiums.
> No...single payer universal FULLY SOCIALIZED health care is the real aim
> of Obama and democrats in general; there are plent of 'on the record'
> vidoes and speeches and papers that say as much. The intent is 'single
> payer'...it has been all along. All this now is a profound LIE in
> congress. They know, we know it...come 2010 and 2012 the people will
> remember it.
No lie at all. The UNSUBSIDIZED Public Option will survive in
competition with the private insurance companies or it won't. The
"single payer" people are saying that it will survive just fine even
though the private insurance people will still be here offering group
coverage primarily via employers. As such the employer young and healthy
crowd will have the advantage anyway. Hard to understand what the
whiney ass screech monkeys are all upset about.
>>
>>
>> >The whole idea of Obamacare is a first step towards single-payer
>> >socialized medicine. 55% of the country is against Obamacare, it
>> >should be killed.
>>
>> lie again. Three out of three. I demand you post the polls. It's
>> more like about 60% are in favor of a public option. Look it up.
>
> Ok...how's CNN...they're pretty much in the tank for Obama aren't they?
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/cnn-poll/
>
> It says:
> ""Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research
> Corporation survey say lawmakers should continue working on the
> legislation, a rise of 6 points since August. But only a quarter [25%]
> say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third [33%]
> suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also
> indicates that one in four [25%] say lawmakers should start from scratch
> and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care reform.""
>
> That's CNN though; I could quote a FOX poll [rasmusen perhaps] that will
> suggest much the same in stronger terms. America does NOT want this;
> not at this time with spending already through the stratosphere. NOt to
> worry though; ACORN will save Obama next election by clubbing people at
> the polls or something.
I actually agree with the rest of the nation. I am of the opinion that
the Senate needs to continue to fight the House version of health care
reform and especially the Public Option. I want each and every Senator
to stand up and be counted as the Insurance Industry butt suckers they
are. Brown lips LIEberman is now the poster child. He has replaced Max
Baucus as lead butt sucker. And the runner ups are every senator who is
a member of the Republican Party.
Fred Weiss
> People are idiots.
Tiggy excepted of course, which is what he thinks entitles him to tell
everyone what to do.
At the point of a gun.
Isn't that right, Tiggy?
Fred Weiss
James A. Donald
> > It requires each insurance company to offer the same policy, which is
> > not choice at all.
Michael Coburn
> LIE. There are MINIMUM requirements to a product that can be named
> "health insurance".
Which "minimum" requirements look alarmingly gold plated.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn
>>> It requires each insurance company to offer the same policy, which is not choice at all.
Another pathological lie exposed.
>> LIE. There are MINIMUM requirements to a product that can be named "health insurance".
> Which "minimum" requirements look alarmingly gold plated.
Only to terminal fuckwits.
Its an ambit claim, fuckwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambit_claim
ZerkonXXXX
> Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with government
> subsidized plan.
In this "government subsidized plan", where do the subsidies go?
John Stafford
ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
To us, the taxpayers. Gee, what a concept, eh? :)
To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is headed
to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it will hit a
level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability to pay
premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well, the
insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare what
you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line item. You
pay insurance companies more than branches of the government.) All
insurance companies behave in very similar ways. They are a united and
huge player behind domestic power. If not reined in they will have far
too much power than our Republic can risk.
The current administration is reining them in, making them _participate_
in the economy they are exploiting.
And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility that once
again we might have independent family practitioners and, can you
imagine, House Calls? That's what lowered insurance premiums can permit.
Is that not a sign of a healthy market?
tooly
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:50:15 -0800 (PST), ta <paddle...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Simple questions:
>
> >1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
> >less control over their health care?
>
> insurance at all.
>
> >2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
> >among insurers?
>
> offer an affordable government option if the price of private
> insurance remains too high.
>
> hard to tell what will actually get into the final bill though.
Anarcissie
<nhoj-FB396C.0...@news.supernews.com>,
John Stafford <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article <pan.2009.11...@erkonx.net>,
> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0800, tooly wrote:
> >
> > > Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with government
> > > subsidized plan.
> >
> > In this "government subsidized plan", where do the subsidies go?
>
> To us, the taxpayers. Gee, what a concept, eh? :)
>
> To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is headed
> to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it will hit a
> level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability to pay
> premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
Since I read that the "health care bill" (which is
about medical care and insurance, not health, but
never mind that now) is over 1000 pages long, I must
hesitate to even guess what it will do or is supposed
to do. However, in regard to medical insurance
reaching levels at which its price can no longer be
raised, I think that has already happened -- 40 or 50
million people cannot or will not buy medical
insurance, and the number of people outside the system
is rising. The obvious solution is to use government
power to force them to buy, and in those cases where
the targets are too poor to extract money from,
extract money in their name from others. The medical
care system can then resume its growth up to the point
where it destroys the economy it feeds on.
> Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well, the
> insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare what
> you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line item. You
> pay insurance companies more than branches of the government.) All
> insurance companies behave in very similar ways. They are a united and
> huge player behind domestic power. If not reined in they will have far
> too much power than our Republic can risk.
Corporation-versus-government is a false opposition.
They are both branches of the state. The one is
not going to "rein in" the other; they are going to
support one another, as they are doing to account
for the poor management of the financial system
which caused the "meltdown" and the current
"recession" (I'd call 10.2% something else.)
> The current administration is reining them in, making them _participate_
> in the economy they are exploiting.
>
> And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility that once
> again we might have independent family practitioners and, can you
> imagine, House Calls? That's what lowered insurance premiums can permit.
> Is that not a sign of a healthy market?
Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
There is no force available to lower them. The
people may have voted for change, but they got
more of the same, albeit with a different look and
a more urbane style.
AZDuffman
> so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's the
> big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
> socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
> medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
> exploiting sickness for profit.
The big problem with a single payer system is that over time it will
result in les choice and less innovation but more rationing of care.
By your logic we should have a "single-grower" farming system since
companies "exploit my need to eat for profit."
Here is a news flash for you----THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROFIT!
Do you work for free?
> >That's CNN though; I could quote a FOX poll [rasmusen perhaps] that
> >will suggest much the same in stronger terms. America does NOT want
> >this; not at this time with spending already through the stratosphere.
> >NOt to worry though; ACORN will save Obama next election by clubbing
> >people at the polls or something.
>
> you are wrong. A clearl majority do want it. They know what it is
> costing us to not have it.
Latest Rasmussen poll, the most accurate there is, shows 55% against
it.
Rod Speed
> To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is
> headed to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it
> will hit a level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability
> to pay premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
> Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well,
> the insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare
> what you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line item.
You cant compare it with any line item, you have to compare it with the total.
> You pay insurance companies more than branches of the government.)
Nope, not more than the total you pay the govt in all taxes.
And few pay the insurance companys directly either, its mostly paid by the employer.
> All insurance companies behave in very similar ways.
Thats not right either. Kaiser doesnt.
> They are a united and huge player behind domestic power.
Yes, but they still didnt manage to kill off the govt option.
> If not reined in they will have far too much power than our Republic can risk.
Not when there is a govt option they dont.
> The current administration is reining them in, making
> them _participate_ in the economy they are exploiting.
Or attempting to, anyway.
> And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility
> that once again we might have independent family practitioners
Still do.
> and, can you imagine, House Calls?
Still do in some specialised situations like nursing homes etc.
You wont see a return to house calls for those who arent house bound,
essentially because thats a very inefficient use of the practitioners time.
We do see quite a lot of house calls by nurses tho for routine medical proceedures.
> That's what lowered insurance premiums can permit.
Doesnt have a damned thing to do with insurance premiums.
> Is that not a sign of a healthy market?
It aint gunna happen, you watch.
You dont even see many house calls by the unregulated industry, the snake oil merchants etc.
Rod Speed
Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> The people may have voted for change, but they got more of the same,
Like hell they did with the compulsion to be insured and govt competition for the insurance industry.
> albeit with a different look and a more urbane style.
The difference is about a hell of a lot more than just look and style.
Rod Speed
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> 2. It will decrease competition. =A0There is never a case where
>>>> more regulation in somethibn increased competition.
>>>
>>> lie. =A0the public option will force private insurers to keep their
>>> costs down or they will lose people to the government plan.
>>
>> Yea...that's the idea. To drive people to the government option.
>>
>> Either you are naive...or, I'm sorry...an idiot.
>> Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with
>> government subsidized plan. It will not just drive down prices but
>> will drive them out of business. Most group policy makers will find
>> it cheaper to go with the government...so of course, they will drop
>> the private companies in time..and soon, we'll all be under the
>> government.
>>
>> No...single payer universal FULLY SOCIALIZED health care is the real
>> aim of Obama and democrats in general; there are plent of 'on the
>> record' vidoes and speeches and papers that say as much. The intent
>> is 'single payer'...it has been all along. All this now is a
>> profound LIE in congress. They know, we know it...come 2010 and
>> 2012 the people will remember it.
> so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not).
> What's the big problem with a single payer system?
Basically the rabid hate 'socialism' and are so stupid that they dont
even realise that that is precisely what medicare, the military, the
cops, the judicial system, public education etc etc etc is already.
> It works fine for most socialist democracies.
They dispute that, erroneously.
> I say our society can do without a private medical insurance industry.
Corse it can, but it doesnt meed to. Australia has a very viable single
payer system which also allows private medical insurance if you want
to add that to what you get from the single payer system. And that is
basically choice of doctor in hospital, and quicker non urgent medical
services in hospital.
> Clearly they are nothing but vultures, exploiting sickness for profit.
You can say the same thing about the entire medical industry.
Its really only the charity hospitals that arent and they are a trivial part of the entire industry.
Werner
> ...
>
> > Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> > There is no force available to lower them.
>
> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
> on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
> they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
increases, large benefit cuts or both.
http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-security-and-medicare-projections-2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs&feature=related
tg
> On Nov 10, 11:46 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> > > There is no force available to lower them.
>
> > Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> > numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> > its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
> > on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
> > they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
> Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
-tg
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtmlhttp://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
> The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
> combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
> trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
> the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
> debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
> that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
> dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
> the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
> funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
> increases, large benefit cuts or both.http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
>
> Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
> anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
> fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
> paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
> ----http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims
>> when its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
>> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
>> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> Since when can government anything cost less?
When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
Have a look at what the USPS charges to move a
letter to anywhere in the country or the world sometime.
Have a look at what the USPS charges to move media to
anywhere in the world sometime and compare that with
what UPS charges to move the same parcel sometime.
> Check out SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
Neither are bankrupt.
> http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml
> http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
> The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
> combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
> trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
> the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
> debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
> that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
> dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
> the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
> funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
> increases, large benefit cuts or both.
> http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-security-and-medicare-projections-2008
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
<reams of your drivel flushed where it belongs>
John Stafford
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Stafford wrote:
>
> > To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is
> > headed to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it
> > will hit a level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability
> > to pay premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
>
> > Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well,
> > the insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare
> > what you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line item.
>
> You cant compare it with any line item, you have to compare it with the
> total.
There are sources to show what percentage of your taxes are applied
to/given specific government departments.
> > You pay insurance companies more than branches of the government.)
>
> Nope, not more than the total you pay the govt in all taxes.
Speak for yourself! We have single/widowed workers who put 25% of their
total income into insurance, and it's poor insurance at that.
> And few pay the insurance companys directly either, its mostly paid by the
> employer.
>
> > All insurance companies behave in very similar ways.
>
> Thats not right either. Kaiser doesnt.
How, please?
> > They are a united and huge player behind domestic power.
>
> Yes, but they still didnt manage to kill off the govt option.
Good.
> > If not reined in they will have far too much power than our Republic can
> > risk.
>
> Not when there is a govt option they dont.
>
> > The current administration is reining them in, making
> > them _participate_ in the economy they are exploiting.
>
> Or attempting to, anyway.
>
> > And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility
> > that once again we might have independent family practitioners
>
> Still do.
In my typical little part of the USA independent MDs went out of
business over ten years ago.
> > and, can you imagine, House Calls?
>
> Still do in some specialised situations like nursing homes etc.
Being in a nursing home is not a house call. Now there are terminal home
care efforts. IOW, if you are dying you can get 'care'. Harh.
> You wont see a return to house calls for those who arent house bound,
> essentially because thats a very inefficient use of the practitioners time.
>
> We do see quite a lot of house calls by nurses tho for routine medical
> proceedures.
Having had exactly such care, I can assure you it is expensive and
inadequate, even life-threatening.
John Stafford
<857a6611-d1bd-4e6d...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Werner <whet...@mac.com> wrote:
> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
> Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
The government has been stealing from SS for decades!
AZDuffman
> Werner wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> >>> There is no force available to lower them.
> >> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
> >> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims
> >> when its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
> >> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
> >> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> > Since when can government anything cost less?
>
> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
What planet are you on? The government invented paper shuffling.
Rod Speed
>>> To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is
>>> headed to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it
>>> will hit a level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability
>>> to pay premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
>>> Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well,
>>> the insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare
>>> what you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line item.
>> You cant compare it with any line item, you have to compare it with the total.
> There are sources to show what percentage of your taxes
> are applied to/given specific government departments.
Specific govt depts are completely irrelevant when deciding whether
govt has more of your money than you pay for health insurance.
What matters is the total tax you pay.
>>> You pay insurance companies more than branches of the government.)
>> Nope, not more than the total you pay the govt in all taxes.
> Speak for yourself! We have single/widowed workers
> who put 25% of their total income into insurance,
And plenty that are taxed more dollars than their health insurance costs out of their pocket.
> and it's poor insurance at that.
>> And few pay the insurance companys directly either, its mostly paid by the employer.
>>> All insurance companies behave in very similar ways.
>> Thats not right either. Kaiser doesnt.
> How, please?
Different behaviour detail.
>>> They are a united and huge player behind domestic power.
>> Yes, but they still didnt manage to kill off the govt option.
> Good.
>>> If not reined in they will have far too much power than our Republic can risk.
>> Not when there is a govt option they dont.
>>> The current administration is reining them in, making
>>> them _participate_ in the economy they are exploiting.
>> Or attempting to, anyway.
>>> And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility
>>> that once again we might have independent family practitioners
>> Still do.
> In my typical little part of the USA independent MDs went out of business over ten years ago.
Just because they choose to have a number of them
sharing a practice doesnt mean that they arent independant.
>>> and, can you imagine, House Calls?
>> Still do in some specialised situations like nursing homes etc.
> Being in a nursing home is not a house call.
Its near enough.
> Now there are terminal home care efforts.
And doctors do still do house calls to those.
> IOW, if you are dying you can get 'care'. Harh.
And if it isnt practical to get out of the house, some doctors will still call.
>> You wont see a return to house calls for those who arent house bound,
>> essentially because thats a very inefficient use of the practitioners time.
>> We do see quite a lot of house calls by nurses tho for routine medical proceedures.
> Having had exactly such care, I can assure you it is expensive and inadequate, even life-threatening.
Not where there is a decent medical system.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Werner wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
>>>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny
>>>> claims when its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it
>>>> wont need to spend much on advertising either when its premiums
>>>> dont need to be as high because they dont have those massive costs
>>>> of doing business.
>>> Since when can government anything cost less?
>> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
>> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
> What planet are you on?
Same one you are on, unfortunately.
> The government invented paper shuffling.
Another pig ignorant lie. The roman catholic church did, fuckwit.
(David P.)
>
> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it
to happen. Again, the limits of election politics.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
>>> Since when can government anything cost less?
>> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
>> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
> The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it to happen.
They get no say what so ever on that, you watch.
> Again, the limits of election politics.
How odd that every other modern first and second world country has managed it fine.
(David P.)
> David P. wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Werner wrote
> >>> Since when can government anything cost less?
> >> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
> >> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
> > The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it to happen.
>
> They get no say what so ever on that, you watch.
>
> > Again, the limits of election politics.
>
The lobbies told the pols they won't be re-elected
if they pass a Euro-style system.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Urine wrote
>>>>> Since when can government anything cost less?
>>>> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
>>>> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
>>> The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it to happen.
>> They get no say what so ever on that, you watch.
>>> Again, the limits of election politics.
>> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has managed it fine.
> The lobbies told the pols they won't be re-elected if they pass a Euro-style system.
They claimed that in every other modern first and second world country too.
They got re-elected fine when they did.
(David P.)
> David Pee wrote
>
> > The lobbies told the pols they won't be re-elected if
> > they pass a Euro-style system.
>
> They got re-elected fine when they did.
Doesn't matter. When you're at the top of the heap,
you can afford to have stupid clowns driving the bus.
.
.
--
Werner
> On Nov 10, 1:00 pm, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:46 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> > > > There is no force available to lower them.
>
> > > Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> > > numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> > > its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
> > > on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
> > > they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
> > Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
> > Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
>
> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
>
How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
> -tg
>
> http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtmlhttp://capitaldistr...
>
>
>
> > The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
> > combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
> > trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
> > the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
> > debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
> > that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
> > dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
> > the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
> > funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
> > increases, large benefit cuts or both.http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-...
>
> > Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
> > anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
> > fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
> > paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
> > ----http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
> > Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
> > of others. http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtmlhttp://www.investmentu.co...
AZDuffman
TRANSLATION: Rod was made a jerk of yet again, by his statement that
government reduces paperwork, so all he can do is call names and use
foul language, as always.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
That government has bureaucracy is beyond dispute, but major corporations
are far worse.
Social Security runs on 1% administrative overhead. I defy you to point
to any private pension fund that comes within an order of magnitude of
that level of efficiency.
John Galt
Social Security is heading towards insolvency. You may wish to find a
better example.
Efficiency leading to insolvency is nothing to crow about.
JG
Phlip
> Social Security is heading towards insolvency. You may wish to find a
> better example.
How about SS under Clinton?
John Galt
How about it? SS has been careening towards insolvency since the birth
rate crashed in the 70's. What does Clinton have to do with it?
JG
AZDuffman
wrote:
> That government has bureaucracy is beyond dispute, but major corporations
> are far worse.
>
> Social Security runs on 1% administrative overhead. I defy you to point
> to any private pension fund that comes within an order of magnitude of
> that level of efficiency.- Hide quoted text -
Not a valid comparrison. SS only invests in government bonds and just
collects and cuts checks. Corporate pensions must hire professionals
to seek the best rate of return.
A better comparrison is apply for a government job. See how many
forms you must fill out just to get considered vs. applying for a
private sector job.
AZDuffman
It was still heading towards insolvency, just as it has been for
years. Bush had the only good idea out there-let people put a portion
of their contibutions into a private account and get a better rate of
return, and let them pass that private portion along to their heirs.
Rod Speed
> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
>>>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny
>>>> claims when
>>>> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
>>>> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
>>>> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing
>>>> business.
>>> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out
>>> SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
>> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
> How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
There is no bankrupt govt. The national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Rod Speed
Not because of that dramatically lower admin overhead it aint.
> You may wish to find a better example.
No need.
> Efficiency leading to insolvency
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
Michael Coburn
> In article
> <nhoj-FB396C.0...@news.supernews.com>,
> John Stafford <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2009.11...@erkonx.net>,
>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0800, tooly wrote:
>> >
>> > > Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with
>> > > government subsidized plan.
>> >
>> > In this "government subsidized plan", where do the subsidies go?
>>
>> To us, the taxpayers. Gee, what a concept, eh? :)
>>
>> To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is headed
>> to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it will hit a
>> level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability to pay
>> premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
>
> Since I read that the "health care bill" (which is about medical care
> and insurance, not health, but never mind that now) is over 1000 pages
> long, I must hesitate to even guess what it will do or is supposed to
> do.
Actually it is now 2000 pages long because of attempting to mollify the
rightarded.
> However, in regard to medical insurance reaching levels at which
> its price can no longer be raised, I think that has already happened --
> 40 or 50 million people cannot or will not buy medical insurance, and
> the number of people outside the system is rising.
This is true. Shifting the cost of indigent care through insurance
companies and employers has so bloated premiums that the working class
can not afford to use the insurance system.
> The obvious
> solution is to use government power to force them to buy, and in those
> cases where the targets are too poor to extract money from, extract
> money in their name from others.
That is essentially true. There is no other actual solution.
> The medical care system can then
> resume its growth up to the point where it destroys the economy it feeds
> on.
Nope! That is what the monopsony power of a combined Medicare and Public
Option is all about. At present the providers shift any attempt at cost
control to the individual insurance companies and they pass that cost to
the employers who pass it to the employees. If there is a significant
participation in a public option added to the current 40 million Medicare
consumers the cost sifting will create an intolerable situation for the
consumers. Hence, the insurance companies must join with the Medicare
and Public Option people in controlling cost or they will go tits up.
The Republican stupidity play will be to point at the cost shifting as
evidence that government doesn't work screeching that Medicare is the
problem. You have to be a totally brain damaged ignoramus to swallow
that, but that is what Republicans are.
>> Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well,
>> the insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare
>> what you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line
>> item. You pay insurance companies more than branches of the
>> government.) All insurance companies behave in very similar ways. They
>> are a united and huge player behind domestic power. If not reined in
>> they will have far too much power than our Republic can risk.
>
> Corporation-versus-government is a false opposition. They are both
> branches of the state. The one is not going to "rein in" the other;
Ah yes.... The moronic conception of government as "The State" and
analogous to an unelected multinational corporation. The lie that keeps
on giving.
> they are going to support one another, as they are doing to account for
> the poor management of the financial system which caused the "meltdown"
> and the current "recession" (I'd call 10.2% something else.)
Yes... The Republican party screwed the pooch just as they did 1n the
1920's. They allowed the financial sector to run wild and the greed
destroyed the economy.
>> The current administration is reining them in, making them
>> _participate_ in the economy they are exploiting.
>>
>> And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility that once
>> again we might have independent family practitioners and, can you
>> imagine, House Calls? That's what lowered insurance premiums can
>> permit. Is that not a sign of a healthy market?
>
> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered. There is no force
> available to lower them.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Government monopsony power will lower the cost of health care and the
insurance companies can participate or go tits up. You are simply blind
to this fact because of your anarchical religious bent.
> The people may have voted for change, but they
> got more of the same, albeit with a different look and a more urbane
> style.
The people gave yet to GET anything at all. The next few weeks _MAY_
produce something. We will see.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Werner
> Werner wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> >>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
> >>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
> >>>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny
> >>>> claims when
> >>>> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
> >>>> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
> >>>> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing
> >>>> business.
> >>> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out
> >>> SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
> >> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
> > How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
>
> There is no bankrupt govt. The national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
>
>
This isn't ww2. But I'm beginning to wonder if ww3 will soon begin to
get out of bankruptcy or complete catastrophe. You might entertain
that notion as well.
Phlip
If the HMOs would stop bankrupting us, we would free up some revenue (_not_
taxes) to help gov't out too.
Werner, you have a big tick sucking blood out of you, growing larger by the day,
and you are defending it instead of getting rid of it.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Werner wrote
>>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>>>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>>>>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont
>>>>>> need the vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are
>>>>>> used to deny claims when its essentially the insurer of last
>>>>>> resort, and it wont need to spend much on advertising either
>>>>>> when its premiums dont need to be as high because they
>>>>>> dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>>>>> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out
>>>>> SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
>>>> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
>>> How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
>> There is no bankrupt govt. The national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
> This isn't ww2.
Irrelevant, the govt clearly isnt bankrupt when the national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
> But I'm beginning to wonder if ww3 will soon begin
> to get out of bankruptcy or complete catastrophe.
Nope, there wont be any ww3, nukes have eliminated that possibility now.
We just do similar federal govt spending without the world war now.
> You might entertain that notion as well.
I'm not that stupid.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 9, 7:44 pm, hal wrote:
>
>> so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's the
>> big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
>> socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
>> medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
>> exploiting sickness for profit.
>
> The big problem with a single payer system is that over time it will
> result in les choice and less innovation but more rationing of care.
Thee may be a problem with a single payer system. So maybe that's why
the HR 3962 isn't a single payer system. It is a hybrid that will
dramatically improve our ability to control the cost of medical care
while providing competition in the insurance sector.
> By your logic we should have a "single-grower" farming system since
> companies "exploit my need to eat for profit."
False analogy is the favorite of the lying pigs. Crop insurance does not
provide crops and health insurance doesn't provide health or care. HR
3962 isn't a single payer system and even if it were, it would not be in
the market of PROVIDING something any more than the current health
insurance system PROVIDES something. You want to buy some insurance for
your grocery bills, lying pig?
> Here is a news flash for you----THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROFIT! Do
> you work for free?
Profit serves absolutely NO purpose in ANY insurance system that is not
better served by the complete transparency of government.
>> >That's CNN though; I could quote a FOX poll [rasmusen perhaps] that
>> >will suggest much the same in stronger terms. America does NOT want
>> >this; not at this time with spending already through the stratosphere.
>> >NOt to worry though; ACORN will save Obama next election by clubbing
>> >people at the polls or something.
>>
>> you are wrong. A clearl majority do want it. They know what it is
>> costing us to not have it.
>
> Latest Rasmussen poll, the most accurate there is, shows 55% against it.
Latest polls on Obama performance are an example of how Rasmussen is a
screech monkey Republican favoring poll:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Werner
Seems to me those blood suckers are going to be forced on you by
decree. Good luck with that.
John Galt
Kind of an odd perspective where the government is seen as anything
*but* a bloodsucker.
Where the hell does this "wonderful perfect government" fantasy come from?
JG
Rod Speed
> AZDuffman wrote
>> hal wrote
>>> so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's
>>> the big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
>>> socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
>>> medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
>>> exploiting sickness for profit.
>> The big problem with a single payer system is that over time it will result in less choice
How odd that Medicare and the VA system dont.
> and less innovation
How odd that Medicare and the VA system doesnt.
> but more rationing of care.
How odd that Medicare and the VA system doesnt.
In fact there will be LESS rationiion of care, simply because those who currently
dont get care because they dont have insurance will be able to get care.
> There may be a problem with a single payer system.
Nope, it works fine in every other modern first and second world country.
> So maybe that's why the HR 3962 isn't a single payer system.
Nope, because whoever decided to extend the insurance system is a fool.
> It is a hybrid
So is the current system.
> that will dramatically improve our ability to control the cost of medical care
Like hell it will. It may have some effect on the cost
of medical care, but that effect will only be very minor.
Even medicare doesnt have much effect on the cost of medical care.
Its much more about providing a mechanism for
paying for medical care for those who qualify for it.
> while providing competition in the insurance sector.
It will certainly do that, but it may just end up with the worst risk insureds.
>> By your logic we should have a "single-grower" farming
>> system since companies "exploit my need to eat for profit."
> False analogy is the favorite of the lying pigs. Crop insurance does
> not provide crops and health insurance doesn't provide health or
> care. HR 3962 isn't a single payer system and even if it were, it
> would not be in the market of PROVIDING something any more
> than the current health insurance system PROVIDES something.
> You want to buy some insurance for your grocery bills, lying pig?
>> Here is a news flash for you----THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROFIT!
>> Do you work for free?
> Profit serves absolutely NO purpose in ANY insurance system that
> is not better served by the complete transparency of government.
Wrong. Profit is what drives efficiency in an insurance system and every other system.
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> hal wrote
>
>>>> so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's the
>>>> big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
>>>> socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
>>>> medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
>>>> exploiting sickness for profit.
>
>>> The big problem with a single payer system is that over time it will
>>> result in less choice
>
> How odd that Medicare and the VA system dont.
>
>> and less innovation
>
> How odd that Medicare and the VA system doesnt.
>
>> but more rationing of care.
>
> How odd that Medicare and the VA system doesnt.
>
> In fact there will be LESS rationiion of care, simply because those who
> currently dont get care because they dont have insurance will be able to
> get care.
>
>> There may be a problem with a single payer system.
>
> Nope, it works fine in every other modern first and second world
> country.
>
>> So maybe that's why the HR 3962 isn't a single payer system.
>
> Nope, because whoever decided to extend the insurance system is a fool.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Total stupidity in regard to a medical insurance system. The Canadian
system seems to get along pretty well without for profit health insurance.
>>>>> That's CNN though; I could quote a FOX poll [rasmusen perhaps] that
>>>>> will suggest much the same in stronger terms. America does NOT want
>>>>> this; not at this time with spending already through the
>>>>> stratosphere. NOt to worry though; ACORN will save Obama next
>>>>> election by clubbing people at the polls or something.
>
>>>> you are wrong. A clearl majority do want it. They know what it is
>>>> costing us to not have it.
>
>>> Latest Rasmussen poll, the most accurate there is, shows 55% against
>>> it.
>
>> Latest polls on Obama performance are an example of how Rasmussen is a
>> screech monkey Republican favoring poll:
>
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
--
Michael Gordge
> Government monopsony power will lower the cost of health care and the
> insurance companies can participate or go tits up. You are simply blind
> to this fact because of your anarchical religious bent.
Hey ewe stupid cunt, if ewe dare, explain how a fucking parasite (any
and all employess of government departments including especially of
course the fucking politicians) explain who those fuckwits who steal
your dollar from you and who give only a small portion of that dollar
to health care workers who are not of your personal choice, for your
health care, explain how that dopey immoral irrational system works
out as a "lower cost" than ewe giving that same dollar directly to a
doctor of your choice for your health care and only when you need it.
MG
tg
> On Nov 9, 7:44 pm, hal wrote:
>
> > so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's the
> > big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
> > socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
> > medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
> > exploiting sickness for profit.
>
> The big problem with a single payer system is that over time it will
>
> By your logic we should have a "single-grower" farming system since
> companies "exploit my need to eat for profit."
>
> Do you work for free?
What does working have to do with profit? Do you think that someone
who flips burgers is 'making a profit'?
Incredible.
-tg
AZDuffman
> On Nov 10, 10:52 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 7:44 pm, hal wrote:
>
> > > so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's the
> > > big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
> > > socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
> > > medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
> > > exploiting sickness for profit.
>
> > The big problem with a single payer system is that over time it will
> > result in les choice and less innovation but more rationing of care.
>
> > By your logic we should have a "single-grower" farming system since
> > companies "exploit my need to eat for profit."
>
> > Here is a news flash for you----THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROFIT!
> > Do you work for free?
>
> What does working have to do with profit? Do you think that someone
> who flips burgers is 'making a profit'?
Sure he is. He makes say $7/hr in revenue. His cost might be a
uniform if that, and say $2/day to get to work. So assuming full time
$7 * 40 = $280.00 less $2 * 5 = $10, he makes $270 "profit" per week.
I'll ask again, "DO YOU WORK FOR FREE?" If you answered "no" then why
should any business work for fre?
> Incredible.
AZDuffman
> Thee may be a problem with a single payer system. So maybe that's why
> the HR 3962 isn't a single payer system. It is a hybrid that will
> dramatically improve our ability to control the cost of medical care
> while providing competition in the insurance sector.
It is a path to a single-payer system which Obama and many other
democrats are on record as wanting. It does nothing to control costs
except control prices which will limit care just as price controls at-
large int he 1970s caused products to dissapear from the shelves.
> Profit serves absolutely NO purpose in ANY insurance system that is not
> better served by the complete transparency of government.
So we see the problem--you have a religious objection to profit. DO
YOU WORK FOR FREE??????
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 11, 8:27 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Thee may be a problem with a single payer system. So maybe that's why
>> the HR 3962 isn't a single payer system. It is a hybrid that will
>> dramatically improve our ability to control the cost of medical care
>> while providing competition in the insurance sector.
>
>
> It is a path to a single-payer system which Obama and many other
> democrats are on record as wanting.
HR 3962 isn't a single payer system nor is such a system going to come
out if HR 3962 unless the experiment with the Public Option indicates
that such a system would be desirable. I can't see it myself. The
Public Option will serve its purpose of cost control and providing
insurance to those who are less healthy and that is where it will end.
> It does nothing to control costs
> except control prices which will limit care just as price controls at-
> large int he 1970s caused products to dissapear from the shelves.
Lie big, Lie early, Lie often... The Republican fight song.
>> Profit serves absolutely NO purpose in ANY insurance system that is not
>> better served by the complete transparency of government.
>
> So we see the problem--you have a religious objection to profit. DO YOU
> WORK FOR FREE??????
Profit serves absolutely NO purpose in ANY insurance system that is not
better served by the complete transparency of government.
> Latest Rasmussen poll, the most accurate there is, shows 55% against it.
Rasmussen is contradicted by all the other polls on Obama. Rasmussen is
a poll of the racist southern hillbillies.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>> hal wrote
>>>>> so let's just assume for a minute you're right (your not). What's
>>>>> the big problem with a single payer system? It works fine for most
>>>>> socialist democracies. I say our society can do without a private
>>>>> medical insurance industry. Clearly they are nothing but vultures,
>>>>> exploiting sickness for profit.
>>>> The big problem with a single payer system is that over time it will result in less choice
>> How odd that Medicare and the VA system dont.
>>> and less innovation
>> How odd that Medicare and the VA system doesnt.
>>> but more rationing of care.
>> How odd that Medicare and the VA system doesnt.
>> In fact there will be LESS rationiion of care, simply
>> because those who currently dont get care because
>> they dont have insurance will be able to get care.
>>> There may be a problem with a single payer system.
>> Nope, it works fine in every other modern first and second world country.
>>> So maybe that's why the HR 3962 isn't a single payer system.
>> Nope, because whoever decided to extend the insurance system is a fool.
> Politics is the art of the possible.
Every other modern first and second world country managed to do it.
>>> It is a hybrid
>> So is the current system.
>>> that will dramatically improve our ability to control the cost of medical care
>> Like hell it will. It may have some effect on the cost of medical
>> care, but that effect will only be very minor.
>> Even medicare doesnt have much effect on the cost of medical care.
>> Its much more about providing a mechanism for paying for medical care
>> for those who qualify for it.
>>> while providing competition in the insurance sector.
>> It will certainly do that, but it may just end up with the worst risk insureds.
>>>> By your logic we should have a "single-grower" farming
>>>> system since companies "exploit my need to eat for profit."
>>> False analogy is the favorite of the lying pigs. Crop insurance does
>>> not provide crops and health insurance doesn't provide health or
>>> care. HR 3962 isn't a single payer system and even if it were, it
>>> would not be in the market of PROVIDING something any more
>>> than the current health insurance system PROVIDES something.
>>> You want to buy some insurance for your grocery bills, lying pig?
>>>> Here is a news flash for you----THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH
>>>> PROFIT! Do you work for free?
>>> Profit serves absolutely NO purpose in ANY insurance system that is
>>> not better served by the complete transparency of government.
>> Wrong. Profit is what drives efficiency in an insurance system and every other system.
> Total stupidity in regard to a medical insurance system.
Thats very arguable. There are some countrys that have chosen to
proscribe profit in their medical insurance systems, but the obvious
downside with that approach is that it removes the incentive to be efficient.
> The Canadian system seems to get along pretty well without for profit health insurance.
And the Australian system works much better than the Canadian system
and allows for profit health insurance as well as the single payer system.
The Australian system controls what the for profit insurance company can charge
premium wise and controls a lot of the detail on what the for profit insurance companys
can do too. They cant for example have different premiums for different risks.
tg
I'm sure the IRS would like to hear your theories about what
constitutes a legitimate business expense. Just take off the tinfoil
helmet so they can contact you.
-tg
AZDuffman
> Total stupidity in regard to a medical insurance system. The Canadian
> system seems to get along pretty well without for profit health insurance.
As long as long waits and people going to the USA for faster and
better care count as "pretty well" then you could be correct. But
waiting months for treatment you can get the same week or day here is
not "pretty well" to me. The Canadian system is in fact collapsing.
I really wonder why youhae this religious bent against profit? Are
you a communist' are you greedy; or just jealous?
AZDuffman
I'm not talking about taxes, talking economic theory.
One of which is NO ONE WORKS FOR FREE.
Werner
I'm sure you know. When Peter is robbed to pay Paul, Paul gets the
fantasy.
Werner
Rod, when you win a war you make the rules. When you're bankrupt the
creditors make the rules. You may not have noticed. Geithner and
Clinton are going to China. The Chinese counterparts are not coming
here.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 12, 1:20 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Total stupidity in regard to a medical insurance system. The Canadian
>> system seems to get along pretty well without for profit health
>> insurance.
>
> As long as long waits and people going to the USA for faster and better
> care count as "pretty well" then you could be correct. But waiting
> months for treatment you can get the same week or day here is not
> "pretty well" to me. The Canadian system is in fact collapsing.
And the #@#)$^* sky is also falling. You lie constantly. Wait times in
Canada are declining and they weren't all that bad to start with.
> I really wonder why youhae this religious bent against profit? Are you
> a communist' are you greedy; or just jealous?
There should always be e place to get care for a huge amount of money and
maybe it should be Grand Cayman. That way the Canadians like you and the
Americans like you can take a vacation, and get a massage and a blowjob
along with your medical care and you can get it on call. And you can pay
the big bucks for it too. Meanwhile, the American middle class won't be
impoverished by the cost of your "convenience".
Rod Speed
>>> This isn't ww2.
Not the rules of economics you dont.
> When you're bankrupt the creditors make the rules.
The US aint bankrupt any more than it was at the end of WW2.
> You may not have noticed.
I have noticed that the US aint bankrupt any more than it was at the end of WW2.
> Geithner and Clinton are going to China. The Chinese counterparts are not coming here.
They have been in the US.
And they know which side their bread is buttered on too. They wont be stupid enough to pull the
plug on the US because they know that they would be completely fucked if they were that stupid.
AZDuffman
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:20:38 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 1:20 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Total stupidity in regard to a medical insurance system. The Canadian
> >> system seems to get along pretty well without for profit health
> >> insurance.
>
> > As long as long waits and people going to the USA for faster and better
> > care count as "pretty well" then you could be correct. But waiting
> > months for treatment you can get the same week or day here is not
> > "pretty well" to me. The Canadian system is in fact collapsing.
>
> And the #@#)$^* sky is also falling. You lie constantly. Wait times in
> Canada are declining and they weren't all that bad to start with.
I suggest you read fromk something a little more fair and balanced
than "The Daily Worker." Wait times in Canada are long enough that
Canadians come to the USA for care. If you are in Toronto or Montreal
wait times might be just "acceptable." In smaller cities you could
die waiting.
> > I really wonder why youhae this religious bent against profit? Are you
> > a communist' are you greedy; or just jealous?
>
> There should always be e place to get care for a huge amount of money and
> maybe it should be Grand Cayman. That way the Canadians like you and the
> Americans like you can take a vacation, and get a massage and a blowjob
> along with your medical care and you can get it on call. And you can pay
> the big bucks for it too. Meanwhile, the American middle class won't be
> impoverished by the cost of your "convenience".
Boy, you REALLY hate anyone who doesn't want to live like a serf,
don't you? Maybe you want the blowjobs to be availible so you can get
a job you are qualified for?
Werner
>...
>
> And they know which side their bread is buttered on too. They wont be stupid enough to pull the
> plug on the US because they know that they would be completely fucked if they were that stupid.
Banks lose on foreclosures, Rod. But they lose more without
foreclosures. So you see, there are better and worse ways to get
fucked. We now see a lot more foreclosures.
Rod Speed
>>>>> This isn't ww2.
>> And they know which side their bread is buttered on too. They
>> wont be stupid enough to pull the plug on the US because they
>> know that they would be completely fucked if they were that stupid.
> Banks lose on foreclosures, Rod.
Banks arent economys.
> But they lose more without foreclosures.
That is just plain wrong. The biggest banks did much
better with bailouts than Lehmans did with foreclosure.
> So you see, there are better and worse ways to
> get fucked. We now see a lot more foreclosures.
But wont see china pull the plug on the US. They aint that stupid.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 12, 3:32 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:20:38 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
>> > On Nov 12, 1:20 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Total stupidity in regard to a medical insurance system. The
>> >> Canadian system seems to get along pretty well without for profit
>> >> health insurance.
>>
>> > As long as long waits and people going to the USA for faster and
>> > better care count as "pretty well" then you could be correct. But
>> > waiting months for treatment you can get the same week or day here is
>> > not "pretty well" to me. The Canadian system is in fact collapsing.
>>
>> And the #@#)$^* sky is also falling. You lie constantly. Wait times in
>> Canada are declining and they weren't all that bad to start with.
>
> I suggest you read fromk something a little more fair and balanced than
> "The Daily Worker." Wait times in Canada are long enough that Canadians
> come to the USA for care. If you are in Toronto or Montreal wait times
> might be just "acceptable." In smaller cities you could die waiting.
Humans are capable of relocation, moron. We need a new hip we should be
actively looking for the best (soonest) place to get it. If the Canadian
system has a problem with mobility then it should be addressed. I wonder
why we don't send people to India for some particular and very expensive
surgeries. Why not send Canadians here? Oh wait.... they actually do
that.
>> > I really wonder why youhae this religious bent against profit? Are
>> > you a communist' are you greedy; or just jealous?
>>
>> There should always be e place to get care for a huge amount of money
>> and maybe it should be Grand Cayman. That way the Canadians like you
>> and the Americans like you can take a vacation, and get a massage and a
>> blowjob along with your medical care and you can get it on call. And
>> you can pay the big bucks for it too. Meanwhile, the American middle
>> class won't be impoverished by the cost of your "convenience".
>
> Boy, you REALLY hate anyone who doesn't want to live like a serf, don't
> you?
I admit to a deep seated hatred of those who short change the productive
people in order to gain wealth and power. So burn me at the stake for
being a heretic.
> Maybe you want the blowjobs to be availible so you can get a job
> you are qualified for?
You are sooooooooooooooooo protective of the rich. And I am retired and
not looking for a job of any kind, liar. I also have VA medical care
which serves me quite well. So your flirtations with the "envy pony" are
nothing but phony crap. Some of us look for solutions and for justice
while others are much more interested in extending the organized theft of
the the status quo.
John Jones
> Simple questions:
>
> 1. Will the health care reform bill provide individuals with more or
> less control over their health care?
As opposed to there being no control at the moment?
> 2. Will the health care reform bill increase or decrease competition
> among insurers?
Who cares. Get rid of them all.