REPUBLICANS FOR HEALTH CARE!!!
John Fisher
your best interest to give the American People new hope as we rise of
from a broken system of health delivery. Health care, for this
improving nation, is an investment in the future.
Give health a chance!!! Fight for it, NOW!!!-:) What is being
offered is for all the people, including REPUBLICANS!!!=:) NO MORE
NO'S when it comes to our health care needs!!! No one is immune from
the miserly ways of the health insurance companies and profiteers in
the health care industry. Don't let groups of nuts influence your
thinking on the topic. Amongst the vast amount of people dying too
soon, because they have no health insurance, could be you, your
family, your friends. Very few are so secure that adequate health
care need not be a concern for them.
Fact Attack
Insurance companies are charities, they make money off of you. If you
want to manage your own health care expenses, save money for your
healthcare, that should be totally your choice. People were forced to
buy car insurance and AIG took their money and ran off with it, and
then got bailed out, and are running off with the bail out money.
when will you quit swallowing the insurance industry's load like the
sick dumb fag you are.
Drive-by Poster
whadda buncha crap....
John Fisher
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not ALL Republicans are of the same opinion!!!--:) It appears to me
they've allowed others (fringe groups & bought congress persons) who
don't have their best interests in mind, to speak/think for them/
They've been pretty much closed mouthed on the issue!!
Unlike their representatives not every Republican thinker thinks the
same way.(mnsvho)
They've got to start to speak out against their mis-leaders!!!! While
they still have a voice, let them,use it!!!-:)
Eddie Haskell
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:573daae2-c76b-487f...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> It's not too late!!! Tell your Senators & Congress People to vote in
> your best interest to give the American People new hope as we rise of
> from a broken system of health delivery. Health care, for this
> improving nation, is an investment in the future.
HOW are you going to pay for utopia, stupid??
-Eddie Haskell
John Fisher
> "John Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote in message
With my VOTE!!!!-:) That's what has helped in bringing us the capable
President we now have!!!! Thank you for your support, Mickey!!!!-:)
Utopia may exist in another sphere, Lad!!! I find nothing wrong with
healing and looking for better ways to enhance, and prolong, that
which is currently our lot!!!-:) What better way than with a good
health care program???
John Q Public
Marxist little slave wannabe, only thing BO has been capable of so far
is destroying
you fuckwits chances of retaining power in 2010
John Fisher
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the world will be coming to an end on 12/31/09!!!
Eddie Haskell
On Dec 23, 11:56?pm, "Eddie Haskell" <gaga...@gagagag.com> wrote:
> "John Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:573daae2-c76b-487f...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > your best interest to give the American People new hope as we rise of
> > improving nation, is an investment in the future.
>
> HOW are you going to pay for utopia, stupid??
>
> -Eddie Haskell
> With my VOTE!!!!-:) That's what has helped in bringing us the capable
> President we now have!!!! Thank you for your support, Mickey!!!!-:)
> Utopia may exist in another sphere, Lad!!! I find nothing wrong with
> healing and looking for better ways to enhance, and prolong, that
> which is currently our lot!!!-:) What better way than with a good
> health care program???
I asked you a fucking question, Fisher. How are you going to pay all the
insanely irresponsible spending your masters are engaged in?. The answer is
that you don't give a shit. That's for future generations to worry about.
Fuck your kids. Fuck your grand kids. The simple fact is that this CAN'T be
paid for. Medicare is going shit fucking broke and you just stole 500
billion from it, but that's really nothing compared to the coming hundreds
of trillions in unfounded liabilities you idiots have saddled this nation
with. Future generations will suffer greatly paying all this back or will
suffer greatly in a bankrupt nation that descends into social disorder. You
are a piece of shit, Fisher. A greedy, irresponsible, stupid worthless piece
of shit.
Oh, and what did you accomplish by setting this country up for a fall?
a) Increased insurance premiums.
b) A deficit set to explode.
c) 500 billion stolen from Medicare.
In other words, LESS than NOTHING.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"John Q Public" <my2c...@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009122404084037709-my2cents@mecom...
>>> "John Fisher" <TaxServ...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:573daae2-c76b-487f...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> ote in
>>>> your best interest to give the American People new hope as we rise of
>>>> improving nation, is an investment in the future.
>>>
>>> HOW are you going to pay for utopia, stupid??
>>>
>>> -Eddie Haskell
>>
>> With my VOTE!!!!-:) That's what has helped in bringing us the capable
>> President we now have!!!! Thank you for your support, Mickey!!!!-:)
>> Utopia may exist in another sphere, Lad!!! I find nothing wrong with
>> healing and looking for better ways to enhance, and prolong, that
>> which is currently our lot!!!-:) What better way than with a good
>> health care program???
>
> Marxist little slave wannabe, only thing BO has been capable of so far is
> destroying
> you fuckwits chances of retaining power in 2010
The democrats are going to get an ass-pounding come this November like
nothing ever seen.
-Eddie Haskell
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, that's hte accumulative effect of socialists idiots and
insurance.
Since anymore it's actually the other way around. You have to
at least 2 cars to even get a job, the pay the idiot legal
insurance,
to pay the idiot medical insurance to pay the life inurance to
pay the home inurance. So, the non-moron people still
work on post GM-nomics, and just to say to hell with the
19th Century idiots.
Jerry Okamura
reform, because it is an attack on both your freedom and independence.
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:573daae2-c76b-487f...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Jerry Okamura
reform, because it is an attack on both your freedom and independence.
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:573daae2-c76b-487f...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Jerry Okamura
his adivce if your freedoms are not that important, or you do not mind being
more dependent on government.
"John Fisher" <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:573daae2-c76b-487f...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Jerry Okamura
Why did you avoid answering the quesiton asked? How are we going to pay for
it?
Jerry Okamura
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-C48021.2...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <6a62481d-ad3d-4485...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> the only way to require insurance companies to cover people with
> pre-existing conditions is to have everyone covered by insurance. It
> would simply bankrupt any insurance company, even if was run by the
> government if only the people who signed up for insurance needed it.
Yes, someone is going to have to pay for their higher cost. But it is also
something that you don't hear very much people talk about. If you are going
to allow someone with a pre-existing condition to be able to buy health
insurance, what incentive does anyone have to buy health insurance before
they actually need it? Why not gamble and buy the insurance just before you
needs it. Then after you get what you want, stop making the payments and
buy insurance if you need it again. You cannot deny them that right can
you? It is because of that problem, that they want to try and "force"
everyone to have healt insurance.
Governor Swill
>Yes, someone is going to have to pay for their higher cost. But it is also
>something that you don't hear very much people talk about. If you are going
>to allow someone with a pre-existing condition to be able to buy health
>insurance, what incentive does anyone have to buy health insurance before
>they actually need it? Why not gamble and buy the insurance just before you
>needs it. Then after you get what you want, stop making the payments and
>buy insurance if you need it again. You cannot deny them that right can
>you? It is because of that problem, that they want to try and "force"
>everyone to have healt insurance.
We "force" everyone to have car insurance. You can't get a mortgage
without having bank approved homeowner's insurance. The uninsured
cost the health care system a lot of money. If everyone is covered,
hospitals can no longer pad their prices by blaming treatment for the
uninsured. Presumably, once every hospital can expect to get paid for
every patient and every treatment, costs for treatment should drop.
That said, nobody really expects hospitals to lower their prices.
Swill
--
In the exam room . . .
Doctor: "Public Opt . . ."
Elephant: "SOCIALISM!"
Doctor: "Reflexes good."
Governor Swill
>Don't follow his advice "if" you value your freedom or independence. Follow
>his adivce if your freedoms are not that important, or you do not mind being
>more dependent on government.
Then let's abolish all laws and regulations and god help you if you
ever have to go to the doctor. Btw, you can protect yourself against
crime and terrorism too.
Hope for the Heartless
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's what single payer systems are good for. They set a reimbursement
rate for things like hospital stays, so you they don't get charged $10k
per day.
Jerry Okamura
"Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ti9ij55qh4ka81l4d...@4ax.com...
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't follow his advice "if" you value your freedom or independence.
>>Follow
>>his adivce if your freedoms are not that important, or you do not mind
>>being
>>more dependent on government.
>
> Then let's abolish all laws and regulations and god help you if you
> ever have to go to the doctor. Btw, you can protect yourself against
> crime and terrorism too.
We were talking about healthcare. Having someone else pay for your
healthcare in the world is a redcent phenomena. This world and the people
on it, were more than able to survive without someone else paying for their
healthcare needs.
Jerry Okamura
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, someone is going to have to pay for their higher cost. But it is
>>also
>>something that you don't hear very much people talk about. If you are
>>going
>>to allow someone with a pre-existing condition to be able to buy health
>>insurance, what incentive does anyone have to buy health insurance before
>>they actually need it? Why not gamble and buy the insurance just before
>>you
>>needs it. Then after you get what you want, stop making the payments and
>>buy insurance if you need it again. You cannot deny them that right can
>>you? It is because of that problem, that they want to try and "force"
>>everyone to have healt insurance.
>
> We "force" everyone to have car insurance. You can't get a mortgage
> without having bank approved homeowner's insurance. The uninsured
> cost the health care system a lot of money. If everyone is covered,
> hospitals can no longer pad their prices by blaming treatment for the
> uninsured. Presumably, once every hospital can expect to get paid for
> every patient and every treatment, costs for treatment should drop.
Apples and orange comparison. Car insurance is not going to go up, it will
go down as the car gets older. The cost of insurance on your home, does not
increase when the value of your home increases. The homeowners insurance is
only there to protect the banks who loaned you the money, and their only
interest is to protect their investment. If the value of your property
increases, they are not going to demand that your homeowners insruance
increase. On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that the cost
of health insurance will increase with each passing year. And it will
increase at least by the medical inflation rate which is running at or above
8% per year. That means the cost of the insurance will rise by more than
the inflation rate. And if it increased by just the medical inflation rate,
that means the cost of the insurance will double every every eight or nine
years (or less).
Jerry Okamura
"Hope for the Heartless" <h.hea...@bitbucket.gov> wrote in message
news:hhbae9$mgf$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hospitals have to make a certain amount of money in order to survive. If
they cannot get the money one way, they will get the money another way. If
they cannot do that, they will no longer be a hospital.
John Fisher
wrote:
> "Governor Swill" <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ti9ij55qh4ka81l4d...@4ax.com...
>
> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>Don't follow his advice "if" you value your freedom or independence.
> >>Follow
> >>his adivce if your freedoms are not that important, or you do not mind
> >>being
> >>more dependent on government.
>
> > Then let's abolish all laws and regulations and god help you if you
> > ever have to go to the doctor. �Btw, you can protect yourself against
> > crime and terrorism too.
>
> We were talking about healthcare. �Having someone else pay for your
> healthcare in the world is a redcent phenomena. �This world and the people
> on it, were more than able to survive without someone else paying for their
> healthcare needs.
????????? The world will always survive!! Mankind's ability to
survive is not the question. We are talking about individual human
beings, the quality of life, the sustanance of it, and A RIGHT which
should be that of every person in this country.. Of course, before
the advances we've been making, life expectancy many have been less
than half of what it has become. It is not the system we have that
has done that. Other countries do better than we do, at less expense,
and do not deprive any of their citzens. Survival in uncivilized
jungles is/was not as great as what we now experience. There are
pockets, in this society, which are imperiled. One never knows
whether they, too, may be relegated to one of those pockets. Nothing
is free. We all pay, in some way, for we get!!!.
jane
I once saw a sign in a restaurant:
Good Food - Good Service - Low Price;
Pick any two.
The same with health care. You say that, "Other countries do better
than we do, at less expense,
and do not deprive any of their citzens."
The first item: Good Food.
First, it is not established that "other countries do better". If
you look at 5 cancer survival rates, you will see that the US is at
the top of the list.
The Second item: Good Service.
I have a relative in Canada that had to wait 18 months for an MRI. If
you look at the province of Ontario wait times, you will see that the
Provincial average wait time for an MRI is 117 days. Some provinces
are better and some are worse. I have a relative in the US who got an
elective MRI in less than a week.
Third item: Low price.
You got me there. The US is the highest. SOooo, how do they do it.
As we saw, Canada picks items 1 and 3 (Good Food, Low Price) at the
expense of Item #2 (Good Service). France does it very simply;
dictate what a French doctor makes. US plumbers make more than a
French General Practitioner. The pay range for French doctors is
$55,000 - $100,000.
So, when we have government controlled health care, which two items do
you pick?
Jane
jane
jane
Your statement, "We "force" everyone to have car insurance." is
incorrect.
First: The health bill is different from car insurance. The Health
Bill is a Congressional bill, a FEDERAL BILL. The Federal Government
does NOT force anyone to buy auto insurance.
Second: State Governments do not force everyone to buy auto
insurance. I have several examples: My mother doesn't have car
insurance; she doesn't own a car. My brother-in-law has a car that he
drives and the state does not require him to have insurance; he uses
that particular car on his privately owned farm.
Third, driving on public roads is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. One of
the terms of the privilege is an agreement that you provide proof of
financial responsibility for "liability"; NOT auto insurance . Most
often, it is in the form of liability insurance. It can be in the form
of a bond backed by real estate. If you fail to provide proof of
financial responsibility, the State can revoke your PRIVILEGE to drive
on public roads.
NEXT, you stated that the bank requires homeowners insurance. Once
again you have presented an absurd analogy. It is the Bank, NOT the
Federal Government that requires the insurance. The bank requires
this because the bank wants to protects its ASSETS. Once again,
Homeowners Insurance is NOT a requirement. Neither my father-in-law
nor my mother have homeowners insurance. Both of their homes are paid
for and, listen carefully, HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE IS NOT A FEDERALLY
MANDATED REQUIREMENT. Sorry for shouting, but you really don't seem
to be getting the point.
Jane.
Sid9
"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:891c3e2f-2c59-4aa2...@n16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
.
There is no way to eliminate "existing condition" exclusions without
mandatory health insurance.
Sid9
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5zL_m.9344$pA1....@newsfe17.iad...
.
Humans sometimes only lived to age 35 before modern health care.
In most modern health care systems most beneficiaries pay premiums and pool
their risk.
No where is it free.
Sid9
>
> "Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tb9ij5das0csrs4lt...@4ax.com...
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, someone is going to have to pay for their higher cost. But it is
>>>also
>>>something that you don't hear very much people talk about. If you are
>>>going
>>>to allow someone with a pre-existing condition to be able to buy health
>>>insurance, what incentive does anyone have to buy health insurance before
>>>they actually need it? Why not gamble and buy the insurance just before
>>>you
>>>needs it. Then after you get what you want, stop making the payments and
>>>buy insurance if you need it again. You cannot deny them that right can
>>>you? It is because of that problem, that they want to try and "force"
>>>everyone to have healt insurance.
>>
>> We "force" everyone to have car insurance. You can't get a mortgage
>> without having bank approved homeowner's insurance. The uninsured
>> cost the health care system a lot of money. If everyone is covered,
>> hospitals can no longer pad their prices by blaming treatment for the
>> uninsured. Presumably, once every hospital can expect to get paid for
>> every patient and every treatment, costs for treatment should drop.
>
> Apples and orange comparison. Car insurance is not going to go up, it
> will go down as the car gets older.
====================
Auto liability insurance goes up every year.
That's the mandatory part.
The government and the public don't care if you carry fire, theft, and
collision insurance
====================
The cost of insurance on your home, does not
> increase when the value of your home increases.
=====================
Home owners insurance goes up if the value of your home increases.
=====================
The homeowners insurance is
> only there to protect the banks who loaned you the money, and their only
> interest is to protect their investment. If the value of your property
> increases, they are not going to demand that your homeowners insruance
> increase.
=====================
Homeowners insurance protects the OWNER from lose due to liability, fire,
theft, etc.
=====================
On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that the cost
> of health insurance will increase with each passing year. And it will
> increase at least by the medical inflation rate which is running at or
> above 8% per year. That means the cost of the insurance will rise by more
> than the inflation rate. And if it increased by just the medical
> inflation rate, that means the cost of the insurance will double every
> every eight or nine years (or less).
>
======================
Well you finally got something right!
Congratulations!
Which explains why middle class people need government (community)
intervention in health care costs through a single payer health insurance
program.
Sid9
.
.
Hospitals charge their paying customers for the the care they provide for
people who do not or cannot pay.
If those patients were covered by mandatory health insurance hospitals would
not have to "stick it to" their paying patients
Sid9
.
No Canadians are willing to give up their health care system for what we
have in the USA.
Our Florida Canadian snowbirds are careful to return home in less than six
months in order to retain their health care residency rights.
If you'd like to see how French doctors make out, I recommend Michael
Moore's SICKO, in which he interviews French doctors and French patients.
Your doctor's pay claim is false.
No Frenchman would trade what they have for America's system.
jane
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Don't get me wrong, Sid.
Although our Founding Fathers and those who Died for our Liberty and
Freedom are rolling over in their graves, I am in favor of this new
health plan.
The House bill charges 2.5% for a failure to buy a private product.
With the Senate bill, there is a $750 cap on the penalty for failure
to buy a private product.
$750 is a BARGAIN! Even if I have to pay the full 2.5% it is still a
bargain. OK, this is how it works. I pay my $750/yr until I qualify
for Medicare. IF I get into an accident or get a major illness prior
to Medicare, THEN I buy the insurance. Because our Brilliant (with a
capital "B") Congress has eliminated the pre-existing condition
exclusion, I AM COVERED! I keep my insurance until after I am treated
or cured, after I am cured, I THEN drop my insurance and go back to
paying my paltry $750 penalty.
NOW, all we have to do is convince our Brilliant (with a capital "B")
congress to allow me to buy auto insurance or homeowners insurance
AFTER the accident or AFTER the fire.
Jane.
Sid9
.
Exactly!
You are in the class of freeloaders the bill anticipated!
jane
NO, I am the class of freeloaders that bill will be CREATING. My
statement were to point out to people like you the absurdity of the
Health Bill that YOU want congress to pass.
I have always had an extremely high deductible health insurance to
protect me from catastrophy AND I always paid for my basic health care
with cash.
Taking personal responsibility is something the new generation (and a
few old farts, like yourself) don't understand. These people want to
turn over their personal responsibility to the Nanny State.
Now, just because I believe in personal responsibility, don't give me
any bull shit about not caring for those in need. I believe that we
DO need to take care of those in need.
We have Medicaid for those in need and our Brilliant (with a capital
"B") congress is doing a very very bad job of it. Why do we have
millions who can not afford insurance not be covered???? The answer
is because we have allowed our Brilliant (with a capital "B") congress
to take care of them.
If you love Medicaid, you are going to love National Controlled health
care.
Jane
Sid9
.
.
You obviously are in the class of Americans who don't need the new health
care bill.
The wealthy don't need it
Those on Medicare don't need it.
Those getting health insurance from their employers tax-free don't need it.
Those poor enough to qualify for Medicaid don't need it.
The remainder of Americans face bankruptcy or ruin in the event of a
personal or family illness that is not covered or inadequately covered by
insurance.
The health care bill is far from perfect.
I think the house version is better. No one knows what the House/Senate
conference will produce.
I think private health insurance companies should be dumped and Medicare
should be opened for all Americans.
Not free health insurance, paid Medicare insurance for all Americans. The
premiums should be adjusted to make it a non-profit break even system.
But, that's not going to happen because our campaign finance laws make too
many senators and congressmen beholden to health insurance companies.
jane
You are right. I am in the group who doesn't need the new health care
bill. There is virtually no one who needs the health care bill. The
ones who need the bill are people who SHOULD be receiving assistance,
BUT don't get it from our Brilliant Congress. These are the people who
can't afford health care insurance, BUT make too much for Medicaid.
With the history of Medicaid, we can see that the government does a
deplorable job. What makes you think that they will do an adequate job
with the rest of us in the new bill?
One of the best ideas was the options proposed, and rejected, by
today's congress. Allow citizens to buy insurance across state
lines. Allow private citizens to claim the same health care
deductions their employer is allowed to claim. AND provide public
health care to those between Medicair and those who can afford
insurance.
As for Medicare for all, that sounds great, BUT you are dreaming.
Medicare is currently in the RED. Taiwan is a great example. They
tried to come up with a system that incorporates the best of parts of
all the systems around. They two are in the RED. They can't raise
taxes enough to cover what needs to balance the system.
Jane.
Sid9
=================
Wrong.
An estimated 45 million Americans need it.
That number grows everyday as the unemployed find they cannot pay their
COBRA bill or their COBRA time has run out
=================
>The
> ones who need the bill are people who SHOULD be receiving assistance,
> BUT don't get it from our Brilliant Congress. These are the people who
> can't afford health care insurance, BUT make too much for Medicaid.
That would be "Medicare for all" (not free)
>
> With the history of Medicaid, we can see that the government does a
> deplorable job. What makes you think that they will do an adequate job
> with the rest of us in the new bill?
===========
Nothing is caste in stone. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water
Fix it,
===========
>
> One of the best ideas was the options proposed, and rejected, by
> today's congress. Allow citizens to buy insurance across state
> lines. Allow private citizens to claim the same health care
> deductions their employer is allowed to claim. AND provide public
> health care to those between Medicair and those who can afford
> insurance.
============
The same private insurance ripoffs would continue
When I was employed I sued my health insurance company three times.
They paid off in the court lobby.
They would not face a judge for their outrages.
How much money do they make on their clients who accept their thievery?
My primary doctor refuses any new patients from a number of insurance
companies for late payment, repeated requests for information for the sole
purpose of delaying or denying payment.
I recommend you to Michael Moore's SICKO where you will see court video of
insurance company executives explaining how they do it.
Don't watch the whole thing. Just the part where he testifies under oath.
============
>
>
> As for Medicare for all, that sounds great, BUT you are dreaming.
> Medicare is currently in the RED. Taiwan is a great example. They
> tried to come up with a system that incorporates the best of parts of
> all the systems around. They two are in the RED. They can't raise
> taxes enough to cover what needs to balance the system.
>
> Jane.
===============
I'm covered by Medicare.
They charge me too little. $96.50/month.
My supplementary insurance charges me too much...it's a government sponsored
gravy train for them.
Charge me more for Medicare and provide me with government supplementary
insurance.
The supplements have options at different costs and different coverages, The
options are government regulated.
There's your fix for Medicare.
Call it taxes, call it premiums, call it a penalty for failing to have
insurance.
Call it whatever you like.
Health care is not free.
John Fisher
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice listening to you Sid 'n' Jane!!!-:)
Todd Pollard
empathy for Whites. Not to mention
how stupid they are and that they do not have to pass any classes to get
admission to or complete medical school.
The coming health care reform will mandate which doctor you see and it will
be a negro. Count on it. This is certainty.
If you refuse you will be required to see a psychiatrist, who will be a jew
or a negro and they will say you are 'paranoid' and prescribe medication. If
you refuse, it will be court-ordered by a negro judge.
This is not science fiction. We have all seen enough to know that this is
coming.
Jerry Okamura
Always a tradeoff. You can either have a system that takes care of you
directly or you can have a system that helps you take care of yourself. In
the case of healthcare, when someone else is paying the bill, you will use
the system regardless of how much it cost to use the system. When that
happens, the most effective means that mankind has devised to control cost
is lost. When that happens, costs WILL rise. And when someone else has to
find a way to pay for that increase, since THEY are the ones paying for
healthcare, they have only two choices. Come up with a way to pay for that
increase (in other words, ask everyone of us to pay for it) or resort to
some form of rationing. But ratiioning, like price controls does not solve
the reason prices are rising. All it does is reduce the rate of increase.
Which in turn means more and more raitoning over time.
Jerry Okamura
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hhgati$4m0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:5zL_m.9344$pA1....@newsfe17.iad...
>>
>> "Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ti9ij55qh4ka81l4d...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don't follow his advice "if" you value your freedom or independence.
>>>>Follow
>>>>his adivce if your freedoms are not that important, or you do not mind
>>>>being
>>>>more dependent on government.
>>>
>>> Then let's abolish all laws and regulations and god help you if you
>>> ever have to go to the doctor. Btw, you can protect yourself against
>>> crime and terrorism too.
>>
>> We were talking about healthcare. Having someone else pay for your
>> healthcare in the world is a redcent phenomena. This world and the
>> people on it, were more than able to survive without someone else paying
>> for their healthcare needs.
>>
> .
> .
> Humans sometimes only lived to age 35 before modern health care.
The third party payment system only came to existence in the middle of the
last century. Humans continued to expand live longer long before the advent
of the third party payment system.
>
> In most modern health care systems most beneficiaries pay premiums and
> pool their risk.
Insurance is the same basic problem. The user of the service has no
incentive not to use the system regqardless of cost, because they are not
paying for it directly. And here in the United States with medical
inflation running above 8% per year, that means the cost of that insurance
will double in around 8 years or less, and will double again and again, at
the same interval of time. The only way to reduce the medical inflation
rate is to return the rationing decision back to where it belongs and that
is the user of the service. That is what happens in just about everything
we buy or need. No one pays for the food you need, do they?
>
> No where is it free.
>
>
That is the problem in a nutshell.
Jerry Okamura
NO!!! Auto insruance does not go up every year. The collision part of the
insurance actually goes down with the depreciation of your car, and the
liability part of the insurance stays about the same. And the only people
who are "forced" to have auto insurance is someone who owns a car. A person
with a drivers license, who does not own a car, does not have to buy auto
insurance.
>
> The cost of insurance on your home, does not
>> increase when the value of your home increases.
>
> =====================
That is because the only people who "force" you to have homeowners insurance
is the people who loaned you the money. And their only concern it to
protect their investment. My home for instance is worth a whole lot more
than my loan with the bank. My homeowners insruance is there to ptotect
their investment which is a small fraction of what the property is worth.
Which by the way, never covers the cost of the land, since the land is not
likely to be destroyed, only the house is. But if you own a home outright,
no one is going to "force you" to have home owners insurance. And if you do
not have homeowners insurance, that the home is lost due to fire, you are on
your own as far as finding the money to put up a new house on that same
piece of land. Which then does bring up the question, "if" the government
is going to "force you" to have health insurance, then it stands to reason
that they can also "force you to have homeowners insurance.
> Home owners insurance goes up if the value of your home increases.
> =====================
No it does not, the amount of the insurance stays the same, because the
house value does not increase in value, it decreases in value over time.
>
>
> The homeowners insurance is
>> only there to protect the banks who loaned you the money, and their only
>> interest is to protect their investment. If the value of your property
>> increases, they are not going to demand that your homeowners insruance
>> increase.
>
> =====================
> Homeowners insurance protects the OWNER from lose due to liability, fire,
> theft, etc.
> =====================
>
Only "if" the homeowner want to protect themselves from such costs. No one
"forces" the homeowner to do that.
>
> On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that the cost
>> of health insurance will increase with each passing year. And it will
>> increase at least by the medical inflation rate which is running at or
>> above 8% per year. That means the cost of the insurance will rise by
>> more than the inflation rate. And if it increased by just the medical
>> inflation rate, that means the cost of the insurance will double every
>> every eight or nine years (or less).
>>
>
> ======================
> Well you finally got something right!
> Congratulations!
>
> Which explains why middle class people need government (community)
> intervention in health care costs through a single payer health insurance
> program.
FOREVER Which means the government has to find a way to pay for it. Which
means that the following site will just become worse. Which in turn means
someday the piper has to be paid.
Jerry Okamura
Only because they are not getting enough money from the non paying
customers.
>
> If those patients were covered by mandatory health insurance hospitals
> would not have to "stick it to" their paying patients
Then they will go broke.
Paul Anderson
"Todd Pollard" <toddp...@aol.com> wrote:
No one can be this stupid, can they?
Paul
P.S. Sorry for feeding the troll.
Sid9
Private "insurance" companies serve one master, their bottom line.
They are in the business of withholding as much medical care as they can get
away with.
That's why their "loss ratio" ( the money they spend on health care) is low
compared to government programs. That's why their executive salaries and
bonuses are high compared to government programs.
I urge you to watch one portion of Michael Moore's "SICKO, the portion where
insurance company executives are videoed testifying in court under oath as
to how they cheat.
Shortage of medical care?
There is a programmed withholding of medical education in the United States.
That monopoly needs to be broken, too.
Sid9
++++++++++++++++++++
Liability insurance has gone up almost every year I have owned a care.
Perhaps you have only owned a car for a few year and have not experienced
those increases
++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> The cost of insurance on your home, does not
>>> increase when the value of your home increases.
>>
>> =====================
>
> That is because the only people who "force" you to have homeowners
> insurance is the people who loaned you the money. And their only concern
> it to protect their investment. My home for instance is worth a whole lot
> more than my loan with the bank. My homeowners insruance is there to
> ptotect their investment which is a small fraction of what the property is
> worth. Which by the way, never covers the cost of the land, since the land
> is not likely to be destroyed, only the house is. But if you own a home
> outright, no one is going to "force you" to have home owners insurance.
> And if you do not have homeowners insurance, that the home is lost due to
> fire, you are on your own as far as finding the money to put up a new
> house on that same piece of land. Which then does bring up the question,
> "if" the government is going to "force you" to have health insurance, then
> it stands to reason that they can also "force you to have homeowners
> insurance.
>
>> Home owners insurance goes up if the value of your home increases.
>> =====================
>
> No it does not, the amount of the insurance stays the same, because the
> house value does not increase in value, it decreases in value over time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not have a mortgage. The purpose of home owners insurance is to protect
me from loss in case my house burns down, for example.
It should provide the money to replace the house. Since the cost of
construction has increased every year I have owned a house the premiums have
gone up if I choose to protect my investment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
Health care is not free.
We all pay either through premiums or taxes, or a penalty for not having
insurance when we can pay for it
+++++++++++++++++++
>
> http://www.usdebtclock.org/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Republican Cheney said debt doesn't matter.
Reagan, HW Bush, and bush,jr, the incompetent, followed through on that
philosophy and nearly ruined our country.
Now the adults are in charge and we will repair the damage done.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sid9
Don't you "get" it?
The currently "non paying" patients will become paying patients if they have
health insurance.
Hospitals will get paid.
The burden wont be shifted to paying patients.
Hospitals WONT go broke.
Jerry Okamura
Jerry Okamura
How many years has that been. I have owned cars for around 40 years, in two
states. My liability insurance has never gone up. Besides, if your
liability insurance has gone up, what has been the percentage increase every
year? Did the State "force you" to buy that liability insurance? "If" you
did not own a car, did the state "force" you to buy that liability
insruance? If it did, what state do you live in?
>
>
>
>>>
>>> The cost of insurance on your home, does not
>>>> increase when the value of your home increases.
>>>
>>> =====================
>>
>> That is because the only people who "force" you to have homeowners
>> insurance is the people who loaned you the money. And their only concern
>> it to protect their investment. My home for instance is worth a whole
>> lot more than my loan with the bank. My homeowners insruance is there to
>> ptotect their investment which is a small fraction of what the property
>> is worth. Which by the way, never covers the cost of the land, since the
>> land is not likely to be destroyed, only the house is. But if you own a
>> home outright, no one is going to "force you" to have home owners
>> insurance. And if you do not have homeowners insurance, that the home is
>> lost due to fire, you are on your own as far as finding the money to put
>> up a new house on that same piece of land. Which then does bring up the
>> question, "if" the government is going to "force you" to have health
>> insurance, then it stands to reason that they can also "force you to have
>> homeowners insurance.
>>
>>> Home owners insurance goes up if the value of your home increases.
>>> =====================
You do not know what you are talking about. I have owned homes for around
forty years. In those years I have owend three homes. My homeowners
insruance HAS NOT gone up as the value of my homes increased, and in every
case, the value of my home DID increase and increase substantially. Our
current home has a home mortage of around $400 K. The insurance is only to
cover the value of the home, not the value of the land. And NO ONE, other
than the bank I have a loan with, "forces me" to buy insurance on my home.
And that it only because they are protecting THEIR interests, not mine.
>>
>> No it does not, the amount of the insurance stays the same, because the
>> house value does not increase in value, it decreases in value over time.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I do not have a mortgage. The purpose of home owners insurance is to
> protect me from loss in case my house burns down, for example.
Then let me suggest, before you start talking about a subject matter you
obviously have no experience with, do some homework before making statements
which indicate you do not even know what you are taling about. And yes,
"if" you want to protect your home in case it burns down, you are FREE to do
that. But once again, NO ONE forces you to pay for that insurance. On the
other hand, the healthcare reform bill that is going through Congress as we
speak, WILL FORCE people to buy health insurance, and WILL PUNISH those who
have health insurance that the government refers to as CADILLAC plans. Of
course they have exempted themselves, and the labor unions, but that is
another issue entirely.
>
> It should provide the money to replace the house. Since the cost of
> construction has increased every year I have owned a house the premiums
> have gone up if I choose to protect my investment.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NO!!! The average cost of construction of a home has not increased that
much in cost.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> The homeowners insurance is
>>>> only there to protect the banks who loaned you the money, and their
>>>> only interest is to protect their investment. If the value of your
>>>> property increases, they are not going to demand that your homeowners
>>>> insruance increase.
>>>
>>> =====================
>>> Homeowners insurance protects the OWNER from lose due to liability,
>>> fire, theft, etc.
>>> =====================
>>>
Yes, but you do not HAVE TO have that insurance.
>>
>> Only "if" the homeowner want to protect themselves from such costs. No
>> one "forces" the homeowner to do that.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, you can bet your bottom dollar that the cost
>>>> of health insurance will increase with each passing year. And it will
>>>> increase at least by the medical inflation rate which is running at or
>>>> above 8% per year. That means the cost of the insurance will rise by
>>>> more than the inflation rate. And if it increased by just the medical
>>>> inflation rate, that means the cost of the insurance will double every
>>>> every eight or nine years (or less).
>>>>
>>>
>>> ======================
>>> Well you finally got something right!
>>> Congratulations!
>>>
>>> Which explains why middle class people need government (community)
>>> intervention in health care costs through a single payer health
>>> insurance program.
IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE, pure and simple.
>>
>> FOREVER Which means the government has to find a way to pay for it.
>> Which means that the following site will just become worse. Which in
>> turn means someday the piper has to be paid.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> Health care is not free.
> We all pay either through premiums or taxes, or a penalty for not having
> insurance when we can pay for it
> +++++++++++++++++++
>
No it is not free. It is just a matter of how expensive it will be, and
will it be affordable.
linxlvr
Your talk radio stardom has gotten the best of your clear headed
thinking. Perhaps you should take some more back medication. :-)