My Doctors comments on the Health Care Bill
DoubleOwSeven
care debate. He said he wasn't following it closely because it keeps
changing. He did offer a couple comments, one of which I have not
seen mentioned much or at all in the typical media reports. One was
that he sees many instances of well off people who cannot get health
insurance at any price, not even for $20 - $30 per year. We didn't
get into details but I assume it's mainly due to pre-existing
conditions or similar things that make them look like bad risks to a
for-profit system. From his comments this happens a lot more then you
might think. The second major comment he had was the economic effect
of people's inability to get insurance. I have seen media reports
that talk about how it makes it "hard to change jobs" because you'd
lose your coverage but his comment was related to not so much changing
"jobs" but the ability of people to go out and start a small business.
Because of the expense and/or inability to even get coverage, many
people who might become entrepreneurs and start a small business can't
do it because of the health insurance costs/unavailability. He thinks
this has been a fairly significant part of the US's difficulty in
coming out of this depression. I'm not sure I buy it entirely but I
can see it could be a factor.
jloomis
I cannot believe the lobbyist from insurance companies lining the pockets of
those fighting against a health care reform bill.
I just recieved a bill from the Dr. that stated the insurance coverage I
have would not cover it because it is considered an "encounter"
I was livid and called the insurance co.....Blue Cross of Calif. Anthem.
They said they used the wrong code.......hummm
I really wonder or did they just see if I would take the bait and pay the
bill?
It was a standard Dr. visit, checkup.
Now when you go to a car mechanic for a vehicle maintenance watch
out.....They may call it an encounter and charge more.......
Something has to change....
john
"DoubleOwSeven" <double...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tmrtf59sib1ffielp...@4ax.com...
gvk2
> people who cannot get health
> insurance at any price, not even for $20 - $30 per year. We didn't
> get into details but I assume it's mainly due to pre-existing
> conditions or similar things that make them look like bad risks to a
> for-profit system. From his comments this happens a lot more then you
> might think. The second major comment he had was the economic effect
> of people's inability to get insurance. I have seen media reports
> that talk about how it makes it "hard to change jobs" because you'd
> lose your coverage
> Because of the expense and/or inability to even get coverage, many
> people who might become entrepreneurs and start a small business can't
> do it because of the health insurance costs/unavailability.
Yes, despite what those on the right suggest, our "current system" is
much more like the old Soviet Union in many respects.
Because of the private insurance companies strangle hold on the
system, you essentially have to get permission to change jobs or to
start a new business and still be able to carry over your health
insurance under similar rates.
My plan is a good example. I live in Northern California and am under
the Kaiser Plan.
A very good plan, but if you ever needed to or wanted to move
anywhere else in the nation, you would essentially have to get
"permission" from the plan to move.
Oh sure, you could move to Hawaii or Colorado, but those Kaiser
regions would then make you pass "medical review".. and have the right
to not only decline you, but to exempt any pre-existing medical
conditions.
Now you tell me what percent of men from age 50 and up don't have some
pre-existing conditions.
Look at your record, suppose you have even one PSA result above 4.0,
even if caused by prostatitis, and that can be grounds for exempting
any further responsibility for potential prostate cancer.
Or more likely to decline you altogether.
In effect, under the current system that so many are defending, a man
aged 50 or above is just about stuck living where he is until he
reaches age 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare.
We ARE living in the old Soviet Union where you can't move from area
to area or from job to job, without permission of the "government)
(aka, the health insurance company).
Oh sure, you can ignore what they say, if you can self insure against
that $100,000 hospital bill, or if you can afford to pay a monthly
premium of perhaps $2,500 to $3,000 for you and your 50+ wife.
The current system sucks. Millions of American citizens are
imprisoned by the health care system.
This just one part of the current system that so many of those
objecting to any change refuse to see.
They refuse to see how the current system IS taking away some of the
basic rights of American citizens.
Rights they only get back when they turn age 65 and get onto Medicare.
But most of these old objectionists are the kind of people who live
their entire lives in one town or area and care not what happens to
others that are not so set in their ways.
Then they sit back and blame others for not being responsible and not
saving enough money.
Tell me, you are 55 years old. Your company shuts down, and you are
in a depressed economic area.
You need to move elsewhere, but your new health care premiums are
greater than your projected salary in that new lower paying job, which
carries few benefits.
Or the new employer doesn't want to pay the extra premium for a older
worker.
I know, all those objecting to health care reform will just say to
those men in that situation "let them eat cake"...
That somehow they must have been responsible. No matter that they
worked for one of the many "solid" companies that just went bankrupt.
Too bad, you lose, now go directly to the poorhouse.
That is why many of us who don't care all that much for government,
insist on ending the current system. A system made for company
profits rather than for good lives of the people.
Doctors see and hear these horror stories every single day.
Those who tear apart health care reform sit back and think of it all
in the theoretical while good Americans suffer from this distorted
system. All in the name of freedom and anti-socialism.
They ignore the shackles the current system puts on so many Americans.
Rick Merrill
> Saw my PCP yesterday and asked him if he'd been following the health
> care debate. He said he wasn't following it closely because it keeps
> changing. He did offer a couple comments, one of which I have not
> seen mentioned much or at all in the typical media reports. One was
> that he sees many instances of well off people who cannot get health
> insurance at any price, not even for $20 - $30 per year.
Did you intend to write $20k-$30k (or $20,000) per year?
That is one of the biggest problems: people can die unless they go to
the emergency room and that costs us all a lot more!
> We didn't
> get into details but I assume it's mainly due to pre-existing
> conditions or similar things that make them look like bad risks to a
> for-profit system. From his comments this happens a lot more then you
> might think. The second major comment he had was the economic effect
> of people's inability to get insurance. I have seen media reports
> that talk about how it makes it "hard to change jobs" because you'd
> lose your coverage but his comment was related to not so much changing
> "jobs" but the ability of people to go out and start a small business.
> Because of the expense and/or inability to even get coverage, many
> people who might become entrepreneurs and start a small business can't
> do it because of the health insurance costs/unavailability. He thinks
> this has been a fairly significant part of the US's difficulty in
> coming out of this depression. I'm not sure I buy it entirely but I
> can see it could be a factor.
Let us hope that that can be improved!
Steve Kramer
news:hdmts...@news7.newsguy.com...
: I was livid and called the insurance co.....Blue Cross of Calif. Anthem.
: They said they used the wrong code.......hummm
It once took more than 1� years to resolve an errantly typed code. You
would not believe how many times people to who I talked blamed the computer.
Steve Kramer
news:20091114-2...@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
: Funny. I don't see anyone here who insists that the present health care
: system in the US is quite good enough. No right wing nuts and GOP
: NOsayers?
Yeah, us right wing nuts are still equating priveleges and responsibility.
Rick Merrill
Same thing with Blue Cross of Massachusetts ... yup!
gvk2
>
> Yeah, us right wing nuts are still equating priveleges and responsibility.
Where is "responsibility" when a 50 year old guy who has been employed
for 25 years loses his job, runs through his COBRA time limits (if he
could even afford it in the first place) and then is denied coverage
by insurance companies either via outright refusal of general
coverage, refusal on pre-existing conditions, or given coverage if he
will only pay a mere $2,800 per month for him and his wife.
I guess if he can't be covered under the above circumstances then he
is just a "irresponsible" guy. Heck, he should have known it was
going to cost him $2,800 a month between age 52 and 65, and prepared
himself rather than expecting to be a drag on society.
Too bad he only nets $2,700 a month from his new job which doesn't
supply health care coverage.
Yes, he should be more responsible.
He should have waited until age 65 to become "needy" when he could
then be covered like Seniors, congressmen and federal government
employees.
Steve Kramer
news:652451d0-a76b-4dae...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 14, 4:28 pm, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, us right wing nuts are still equating priveleges and responsibility.
Where is "responsibility" when a 50 year old guy who has been employed
for 25 years loses his job, runs through his COBRA time limits (if he
could even afford it in the first place) and then is denied coverage
by insurance companies either via outright refusal of general
coverage, refusal on pre-existing conditions, or given coverage if he
will only pay a mere $2,800 per month for him and his wife.
==> If I understand your hypothetical and the 50 year old has been on the
heathcare roles for his adult life and is now being refused insurance for
preexisting issues, I would consider that to be INEQUAL. I didn't say
priveleges < responsibility; I said equal. He WAS responsible all his life
and the insurance company SHOULD (and in my experience, does) cover him.
Furthermore, his preexisting condition should not figure into his
actuarials. I'll even go further.
==> I've been paying into the same company since I was 17 years old.
Considering that I went to the doctor or ER maybe six or seven times in the
next 35 years, I should be paid up for life -- but that's another issue.
safire
In Kramer's perverse mind a newly born child that doesn't immediately
insure itself only has to blame itself if it is later denied coverage
based on the pre-existing condition exception. A country that allows
health insurers to exclude people based on pre-existing conditions is
immoral. Kramer, not having the "privelege" of an IQ>75 or a weight <
160 lbs, doesn't understand that if anyone should be denied coverage on
the ground of irresponsibility, it is Kramer himself for failing to
control his weight.
jloomis
issue with and concerning Health Insurance Policies not including Blue
Cross.
Go figure?
Happen once....ok
Happen again...hummm
3 times......
"Steve Kramer" <skr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hdnhnj$vn1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
jloomis
something needs to change.
johnnews:hdopg0$ht5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
gvk2
> ==> If I understand your hypothetical and the 50 year old has been on the
> heathcare roles for his adult life and is now being refused insurance for
> preexisting issues, I would consider that to be INEQUAL. I didn't say
> priveleges < responsibility; I said equal. He WAS responsible all his life
> and the insurance company SHOULD (and in my experience, does) cover him.
Please go out into the real world---- "and in my experience, does
cover him."
In the real world, if you change your job, if you start your own
business, if you move to another state, and for other reasons, many
if not most insurance companies can and will deny you coverage. If
they don't outright deny you coverage, they will deny you coverage
for almost any pre-existing condition, or they will charge you a
monthly payment that no normal person could afford.
> Furthermore, his preexisting condition should not figure into his
> actuarials. I'll even go further.
>
> ==> I've been paying into the same company since I was 17 years old.
> Considering that I went to the doctor or ER maybe six or seven times in the
> next 35 years, I should be paid up for life -- but that's another issue.
Again, please, go out into the real world. Find out how many men
aged 50 and above have been covered by the same insurance company
since age 17..
Perhaps 1 person in 100 is what you will find.
That also brings to mind, that you no doubt have lived in the same
area all that time. Are you unaware that if you were between 50 and
65 and simply moved to another state, you would be required to
undergo medical review and that all your pre-existing conditions would
be cited to either deny you coverage, or for those conditions to not
be covered by insurance, or for them to be included, but your monthly
payments to be increase from $500 per month to $1,600 per month.
Are you so unaware of reality that you don't know these things?
How many people stay at the same job for 35 years, live in the same
state for 35 years, keep the same insurance for 35 years, don't
accumulate any pre-existing conditions for 35 years...
Its hard to believe that you actually think...
"insurance company SHOULD (and in my experience, does) cover him."
My mouth hangs wide open that a person, such as yourself, should
actually believe such a myth.
Rick Merrill
What you say is what most of us understand HAS BEEN the situation, and
it needs to change!
I.P. Freely
> Folks, the HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS BROKEN!
When your late model Toyota's auto tranny fails, do you burn the car and
spend a year's income on a new VW with dismal reliability statistics, or
keep the Toyota and spend a month's pay on a new AT?
> The insurance companies do not have your interests at heart.
Anyone who thinks Nancy Pelosi gives a hoot in hell about our welfare is
dreaming. She wants 51% of the voting public dependent on the federal
government, forever, period.
> That's one scam. [ins companies] just don't pay claims.
I've used many health ins companies and have huge folders full of
medical records. I've never yet had a claim denied (except the one case
when I chose the doc who refused Medicare in advance).
> How can you possible defend this system?
How can anyone defend throwing away one of the world's best health care
systems and spending trillions each year on a whole new system which
violates the law (the Constitution) and has been proven over (Medicare)
and over (the U.K.) and over (Canada) and over (the VA) to FAIL? Why
would any responsible citizen want to obligate his children and
grandchildren to paying scores of thousands of dollars for this
disproved model?
> Medicare is no walk in the park either. You can spend a lot of time puzzling
> out just what the hell they want you to submit before they will pay. But if
> you get all your Is dotted and Ts crossed they will pay
Huh? I call a specialist physician, asks whether he accepts Medicare,
get an appointment within a day or two, walk in, get treated, walk
across the hall or street to get any lab work required, drive to Walmart
to pick up any resulting prescription, and drive home. Total cost: $1.50
in gasoline and $9 on the spot for the prescription. Total hassle:
driving 10-20 miles. Total paperwork? Zero. Nada. Zip. Only if I choose
a doctor who rejects Medicare do I have to pay any real money, and the
only paperwork is writing the check.
I.P.
jloomis
What form of medical insurance do you have?
Or, what kind of program do you have.?
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:BV%Lm.530$cX4...@newsfe10.iad...
DoubleOwSeven
wrote:
I work for the gvt and when I talk to co-workers about the health
insurance issue they are just like you described. They/We have pretty
good coverage at a pretty good price and they seem to think everyone
else has about the same thing. They simply don't seem to comprehend
what it's like for someone working in the lower paid sections of the
private sector. Yet we see many many people who are of retirement age
but who keep putting it off because our health insurance costs go way
up when we retire - for the lower paid staff it becomes a huge bite
out of their retirement check. Most simply have no choice but to work
till they are old enough to just go on Medicare.
I.P. Freely
> Hi IP
>
> What form of medical insurance do you have?
> Or, what kind of program do you have.?
My primary insurance is Medicare, into which I paid cash all my working
life, including my military service.
My secondary health care policy is Mailhandlers, as a dependant on my
wife's federal government health insurance plan she bought while
employed and still buys as a federal retiree. The drawback is that
doctors who don't accept Medicare also refuse Mailhandlers; doctors
hate government-run health insurance now, and it's simple first-grade
arithmetic that Obamacare will be worse. I've felt compelled to call my
government health insurance carriers several times to expedite the
pittance they pay our doctors (the government openly admits they wait as
long as they possibly can to pay the doctors; I've seen them run a year
late.)
My tertiary coverage is Tricare for Life, the "free medical care"
military retirees have been promised since I was a kid but which was
denied until a few years ago. I had to pay for Tricare during active
duty and right up to age 65.
When all those still leave my medical bills unpaid, there's the VA ...
IF I went to them in the first place ... a choice I recommend to no one
with ANY other options or who has not already researched his problem
thoroughly enough to prescribe his own treatment.
Yet STILL my "free lifetime medical care" costs me several thousand
dollars in cash every year.
I thought until 2-3 years ago that I would benefit from Democrat health
care plans, but was strongly opposed to it even then because of the
certain threat it posed to our nation's overall health care (it failed
drastically in the states that implemented it under the Clinton
administration's supervision). Pelosicare is far, FAR more dangerous in
many ways.
I.P.
Tom Cular
old and new coverage. For me to pick up COBRA coverage it would have cost
about $2000 a month. I bought the least expensive HMO that BC/BS of NJ
offered to an individual subscriber at $950 a month. I did that to avoid the
pre-existing condition clause for non- continuous coverage and for
protection in the event of a major medical emergency during that period.
Tom
"DoubleOwSeven" <double...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tmrtf59sib1ffielp...@4ax.com...
safire
> jloomis wrote:
>> Hi IP
>>
>> What form of medical insurance do you have?
>> Or, what kind of program do you have.?
>
> My primary insurance is Medicare, into which I paid cash all my working
> life, including my military service.
Which just shows you that IP is an egotistic fraud. He opposes public
health care as a matter of principle, yet profiteers from it. Notice his
stupid rationalization "I paid cash all my working life".
IP, admitting watching five hours of Fox disinformation daily, believed
the death panel lies. Here's the true story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/opinion/15blumenauer.html
>
Steve Kramer
: With all this ranting and raving it surely points to a "Broken Down
: something needs to change.
It points to a system that requires a tune-up. The answer may lie in less
government involvement. The problem with the government is it sees a system
that is sometimes unfair to its customers and it determines to right the
wrong by making it unfair to everyone and skim hundreds of thousan...
mill... billion... nope, now trillions off the top.
Steve Kramer
On Nov 15, 3:42 am, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
Please go out into the real world---- "and in my experience, does
cover him."
In the real world, if you change your job, if you start your own
business, if you move to another state, and for other reasons, many
if not most insurance companies can and will deny you coverage. If
they don't outright deny you coverage, they will deny you coverage
for almost any pre-existing condition, or they will charge you a
monthly payment that no normal person could afford.
Its hard to believe that you actually think...
"insurance company SHOULD (and in my experience, does) cover him."
My mouth hangs wide open that a person, such as yourself, should
actually believe such a myth.
==> It's a lie, gvk. One that you have obviously inculcated. My son-in-law
has an inverted heart. He's had it since birth. He had wires implanted
during major surgery as an infant for a pace maker he expected by 21. He
expected to need a heart valve before he was 30. He changes jobs every few
years advancing up what he considers the path to his goal. These have been
in Indianapolis, Boston, Rhode Island, and Cincinnati. He tried his own
business and lost it a little less than a year ago. Now, he's an employee
again. Based on the lies you have heard, he would be the least likely to be
insured, yet he has had heathcare insurance throughout. Different plans, to
be sure. Needed Cobra for awhile, certainly. But, he and his family were
and are insured. He gets his valve right after Christmas and it's almost
100% covered.
The difference is my S-I-L has determined that healthcare is a priority for
his family and before he makes a move he assures he will maintain it.
People who do not have healthcare in their sights when they're young
sometimes pay for it when the age. Only a sap would expect someone else to
pay for their myopia.
--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA undetectable since; last checked on 06/04/09
Illegitimati non carborundum
safire
> "jloomis" <jlo...@ocean.net> wrote in message
> news:hdp4g...@news6.newsguy.com...
> : With all this ranting and raving it surely points to a "Broken Down
> System"
> : something needs to change.
>
> It points to a system that requires a tune-up. The answer may lie in less
> government involvement.
Great idea. Abandon Medicare and VA health services. And while we're at
it, let's privatize the IRS.
Steve Kramer
: In article
: <25d5b9ee-0715-4f2a...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
: gvk...@yahoo.com says...
: >On Nov 15, 3:42 am, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
:
: Fully one-third of all claims are denied.
:
: Many are later reinstated after appeals are pursued. But the amount the
: insurer pays compared to what the practice charged is often so small it's
not
: worth pursuing.
:
: How can you possible defend this system?
I have yet to hear anyone defend a single abuse by personnel or managers of
some or all current insurance companies. Almost to a man, we have all
agreed that the "system" needs some intelligent analysis, actual problems
should be identified, and solutions should be considered and implemented.
The worst thing we can do is make changes without analysis, without
identifying the actual problems, and implementing solutions that makes
politicians rich and powerful and does nothing for the healthcare system but
make it worse and reduce the level of medical care.
safire
> "Gogarty" <Gog...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in message
> news:20091115-2...@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
> : In article
> : <25d5b9ee-0715-4f2a...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> : gvk...@yahoo.com says...
> : >On Nov 15, 3:42 am, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> :
>
> : Fully one-third of all claims are denied.
> :
> : Many are later reinstated after appeals are pursued. But the amount the
> : insurer pays compared to what the practice charged is often so small it's
> not
> : worth pursuing.
> :
> : How can you possible defend this system?
>
> I have yet to hear anyone defend a single abuse by personnel or managers of
> some or all current insurance companies.
> actual problems
> should be identified,
Apart from obese, Kramer must be deaf and blind. The "actual problems"
are that 47 millions Americans cannot afford health insurance and that
medical care in the U.S. as a % of GNP is twice as expensive as it is in
other civilized countries, but far less effective in terms of life
expectancy.
>
>
I.P. Freely
> Most simply have no choice but to work
> till they are old enough to just go on Medicare.
That's just rhetoric. Most of O's infamous 45M uninsured earn up to
$78,000 a year, are illegal aliens, do not want to buy health insurance
because they're young, choose to earn low wages, and/or prioritize kids
and bling over insurance. The truly involuntarily needy are a small
minority of that group, a statistical and fiscal drop in the national
bucket easily covered at a single-digit-percentage of the cost of UHC.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> "Steve Kramer" wrote:
>
>> Yeah, us right wing nuts are still equating priveleges and
responsibility.
> Where is "responsibility" when a 50 year old guy who has been employed
> for 25 years loses his job, runs through his COBRA time limits (if he
> could even afford it in the first place) and then is denied coverage
> by insurance companies either via outright refusal of general
> coverage, refusal on pre-existing conditions, or given coverage if he
> will only pay a mere $2,800 per month for him and his wife.
>
> I guess if he can't be covered under the above circumstances then he
> is just a "irresponsible" guy. Heck, he should have known it was
> going to cost him $2,800 a month between age 52 and 65, and prepared
> himself rather than expecting to be a drag on society.
> Too bad he only nets $2,700 a month from his new job which doesn't
> supply health care coverage.
>
> Yes, he should be more responsible.
> He should have waited until age 65 to become "needy" when he could
> then be covered like Seniors, congressmen and federal government
> employees.
Those seniors and feds (including the military) paid cash for much of
their health insurance (and SS), and keep paying for it until the day
they die. Yet Commander in Chief Obama wanted the soldiers to BUY THEIR
OWN DAMNED HEALTH INSURANCE after being shattered in combat.
According to the AARP::
* Nearly one in five Americans polled said they stopped or reduced
putting money into a 401(k), IRA or other retirement account due to the
current economic slowdown.
* Just under two-thirds have never estimated future healthcare costs
* Many Americans - 45% - believe life will be discovered on other
planets before they'll see affordable healthcare for retirees
SO WHY AREN�T THEY SAVING MORE?
Your hypothetical median 50-YO has <$25,000 in savings, meaning he
invested only $250/year throughout his working life.
*$250 PER YEAR!*
The odds are his family still buys $50 sneakers and movie popcorn, their
house costs 3X their annual gross income, he works only one job, and
they had two kids. i.e., he spent his retirement money, and now expects
those who didn�t to carry him by force of law. In that regard he sounds
much like the 75% of 17-24-yo Americans today who are unfit for military
service because they are physically unfit, quit high school, or have
criminal records. There�s no way that group automatically deserve a free
ride at the forced expense of people who earn their way through life.
Spending millions on separating and insuring the genuinely handicapped
2% (?) of that group beats spending billions rewarding the 98% slackers.
Your 50-YO may not be a slacker, but neither is he an innocent victim.
Your 50-YO could and should have saved more like $10k a year, making him
a millionaire by now (that, not high earnings, is how most millionaires
got to be millionaires). Where�s the$10k come from? Heck, just by
investing the money many spend on movie junk food once a week a family
of four could would fund a custom home on an acre of land with two
Cadillacs in the driveway at retirement.
Retirement Reality Check: Want to Retire One Day? Get Planning.
* 43% of Americans spent more time planning their most recent
vacation than they have spent planning for retirement
* 28% spent more time watching reality TV in the last month than
they have spent planning and preparing for retirement over the last 10 years
Literally dozens of buds hound me incessantly about my not spending my
winters in Baja windsurfing with them. Sorry, buds ... I have
responsibilities. The winter two years ago that we spent revamping our
finances held our losses to 10% when the market puked, and we're doing
it again now in anticipation of the collapse of Obama�s economic house
of cards. While others watch �Dancing With the Stars�, we�re reading and
acting on piles of books like �Financial Management for Dummies, �Buy
Gold Now�, and �Should You Buy Long Term Care Insurance?� (we surely
better, because Pelosi and Obama are stripping our health care to insure
younger slackers, younger illegal aliens, abortions (that�s law unless
it is explicitly excluded from Pelosicare), and, oh, yes, the few
million younger people who actually deserve a free ride due to mental
and/or physical incapacity. Obama has said he prefers to redistribute
existing wealth than generate more wealth for everyone, and that
principle also clearly applies to not just health care funding but
health care itself.
R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y, not welfare => privileges. Codifying and
rewarding reliance on society will drag the nation down, and the poor
with it.
Why do none of the UHC supporters care that it is against the law -- the
Constitution itself -- to compel the public to purchase UHC?
Isn�t it telling that that clause was put into the health care bill
because polls showed that, without it, only *two percent* of the public
would buy it?
What rational person thinks it�s the government�s job to mandate
uniformity in our lives by requiring that everyone, regardless of his
circumstances or abilities, should have the same car, or house, or
health care?
Why are only 2/3 (?) of the people in this country (the richer half and
the moral and informed faction of the other half) outraged that Obama
has said repeatedly that he intends to balance wealth by taking the
excess (Huh?) from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn�t
-- especially including taxpayer-funded government-run UHC -- even
though he knows this will harm the economy, rather than growing the
entire economy so EVERYONE can earn more?
Doesn�t it bother anyone in the left third that the administration hid
the $250 BILLION-dollar �Doctor Pay� bill outside the UHC balance sheet?
Or that without the tort reform missing from this bill to appease the
lawyers, our doctors will keep on spending $240 BILLION each year on
unnecessary tests just to prevent law suits?
Or that Obama�s UHC arithmetic balances only if he starts charging us
for it 5 years before we receive it but counts only 10 years in his
balance sheet (i.e., it costs and always will cost twice as much per
year as he claims it does � unless, of course, its cost overruns match
those of Medicare: 800%)?
What�s to stop the federal government from simply stealing an extra 10%
of your gross income, as CA has just begun doing, just because it pissed
away your LEGAL tax revenues on countless giveaway programs?
You folks don�t have to take Fox News� or talk radio�s word for
anything, but in pure self- and national defense you should at least use
what they�re saying as a heads-up for the research you do while
everybody else is watching some stupid ball game on TV. The million
dollars you already owe on our unfunded national debt -- which you
and/or your offspring *will* pay -- is at stake.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> I cannot believe the lobbyist from insurance companies lining the pockets of
> those fighting against a health care reform bill.
Where's my share?
I.P.
jloomis
$17,000 per year for 2 people with no prior health issues.
Premiums always get higher...........
A large deductible with part pay.
No coverage for dental or eye.........
Blue Cross of Calif. Had it for years......
Only use preferred Dr.s...
Insurance Co. sets the rates for the Dr.s
I cannot change over to other insurance policy.....will not get coverage for
existing conditions.
Now, if everyone......."all" paid into a general insurance policy ran by the
government, and ironed out all the loopholes over time, the premiums would
get lower, and the services would be on the table.......not hidden in small
print.
All would be covered.......eye and dental.....Dr.s would get paid....
No high profits going into the insurance companies pockets rather going to
Dr.s paying for services.
I do not feel that this is too much to ask.
john
"Steve Kramer" <skr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hdrehf$rbj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I.P. Freely
> DoubleOwSeven wrote:
>> Because of the expense and/or inability to even get coverage, many
>> people who might become entrepreneurs and start a small business can't
>> do it because of the health insurance costs/unavailability.
Only an uninformed pie-eyed optimist would begin a business under the
current threats of much higher taxes, mandatory health care insurance
for employees, the cap & trade coffin nails, and vastly increased
government controls across the board.
> ... if you ever needed to or wanted to move
> anywhere else in the nation, you would essentially have to get
> "permission" from the plan to move.
> In effect, under the current system that so many are defending, a man
> aged 50 or above is just about stuck living where he is until he
> reaches age 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare.
Simple: change the federal law forbidding selling insurance across state
lines and make health insurance transportable like a 401k. That's FREE,
which is cheaper than $1,000,000,000,000.
Besides, Obama is changing that by increasing the size of the government
at record rates, as he promised his stimulus packages would do. Just get
one of those cushy jobs and your health care insurance will follow you
anywhere.
> Now you tell me what percent of men from age 50 and up don't have some
> pre-existing conditions.
> Look at your record, suppose you have even one PSA result above 4.0,
> even if caused by prostatitis, and that can be grounds for exempting
> any further responsibility for potential prostate cancer.
> Or more likely to decline you altogether.
A long-term health care ins co told me my rates would probably be lower
than normal if my PSA remains low for 5 years after treatment, because
that reduces their likelihood of paying for PC. (My life insurance costs
me peanuts and is not subject to medical review when I renew it. They're
stuck with me at their lowest rate for my age until I die or stop paying
my premiums.)
> if you can afford to pay a monthly
> premium of perhaps $2,500 to $3,000 for you and your 50+ wife.
My 60+ brother and his wife have a long list of preexisting conditions.
They pay $1,500 a month for cadillac health care insurance. Sounds like
your 50-YO has little to lose and much to gain by moving to a cheaper
state.
> many of those objecting to any change refuse to see.
Who's doing that?
> They refuse to see how the current system IS taking away some of the
> basic rights of American citizens.
And GOING TO PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS for not buying insurance doesn't
violate our rights?
> many of us who don't care all that much for government,
> insist on ending the current system.
You lost us. UHC is intended as 100% government-run ASAP. You move
across the street, or your copay changes, and you SHALL change to
single-payer government-run UHC.
> A system made for company
> profits rather than for good lives of the people.
Who besides providers working in sub-African villages is in it purely
for good lives of the people?
> They ignore the shackles the current system puts on so many Americans.
Your shackle is the next American citizen's or rich sheik's superior
health care.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> With all this ranting and raving it surely points to a "Broken Down System"
> something needs to change.
How does that justify destroying our health care system AND contributing
to the bankruptcy of the nation? Do you throw your sick child in a
dumpster or do you treat his illness?
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> if you change your job, if you start your own
> business, if you move to another state, and for other reasons, many
> if not most insurance companies can and will deny you coverage.
That would be LAW under HB 3962.
> Find out how many men
> aged 50 and above have been covered by the same insurance company
> since age 17..
> Perhaps 1 person in 100 is what you will find.
Changing to single-payer government-run health care would be LAW under
HB 3962 the minute that kid changes his ins co.
> your monthly
> payments to be increase from $500 per month to $1,600 per month.
Just the *increase* in your premium under UHC will be $1,375/mo, as
explained earlier.
> Are you so unaware of reality that you don't know these things?
>
> How many people stay at the same job for 35 years, live in the same
> state for 35 years, keep the same insurance for 35 years, don't
> accumulate any pre-existing conditions for 35 years...
That's what the administration is counting on to force you, by law, into
single-payer government-run UHC within a year after UHC becomes law.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> Now, if everyone......."all" paid into a general insurance policy ran by the
> government, and ironed out all the loopholes over time, the premiums would
> get lower, and the services would be on the table.......not hidden in small
> print.
> All would be covered.......eye and dental.....Dr.s would get paid....
> No high profits going into the insurance companies pockets rather going to
> Dr.s paying for services.
>
> I do not feel that this is too much to ask.
Ask all you want. What HB 3962 gives you in return is a premium increase
of $16,500 per year, drastic service cutbacks for everyone and
especially seniors, 45% fewer physicians, the remaining ones getting
even less pay to treat far more patients, and soaring taxes. That's not
right-wing propaganda; it's Economics 101, extensive objective research,
and solid precedence (e.g., Canada, the U.K., Medicare).
If the government could iron out loopholes, why has Medicare criminal
fraud run at 60-100 BILLION dollars per YEAR for decades?
I.P.
gvk2
>
> SO WHY AREN’T THEY SAVING MORE?
>
> Your hypothetical median 50-YO has <$25,000 in savings, meaning he
> invested only $250/year throughout his working life.
> *$250 PER YEAR!*
If you weren't frothing so much, you'd check your math.
Are you suggesting this 50-YO has been working 100 years?
> their
> house costs 3X their annual gross income, he works only one job, and
> they had two kids.
Lets see, he works "ONLY" one job... Shame on him.
"His house costs a 3X his annual gross income"...
Yes, 70% of those folks should be in trailers instead of houses. One
wonders where you live in the USA .
> Your 50-YO may not be a slacker, but neither is he an innocent victim.
You know, I go to sites on the internet where folks who eat "perfect"
vegan and vegetarian diets say that people who get diseases are
largely responsible for their condition.
They would suggest those sick folks are NOT "innocent victims".
In those categories of people being responsible for their conditions
they include diabetes, most coronary heart disease and most cancers.
I find your labeling of this 50-YO very similar to how those groups
label those I mention above.
>
> Your 50-YO could and should have saved more like $10k a year, making him
> a millionaire by now (that, not high earnings, is how most millionaires
> got to be millionaires).
OK, BTW, can you please give me this guys annual return that turns
his 10,000 into 1 million by age 50?
Just curious in how you do your math.
Please include the tax rates, capital gain, etc. Unless you are
suggesting every cent was in a ROTH IRA or you weren't counting the
taxes he pays on removing those funds from the normal 401K
The winter two years ago that we spent revamping our
> finances held our losses to 10% when the market puked,
I see, YOU....YOU are the hindsight genius, who only lost 10%, when
even Warren Buffet lost over 40% at the bottom and is still down 30%
from the top.
So you, are a better investor than even Warren Buffet.
Our hats are off to you.
>
> R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y, not welfare =>
>
> What rational person thinks it’s the government’s job to mandate
> uniformity in our lives
> Why are only 2/3 (?) of the people in this country (the richer half and
> the moral and informed faction of the other half)
Love that one... "the moral and informed faction"
I see, "morality" is also on your side.
I guess we could call it the "moral" majority, huh?
Under that banner, Bush and Co. robbed this nation blind and led us
into useless war, while the average guy lost ground.
> You folks don’t have to take Fox News’ or talk radio’s word for
> anything, but in pure self- and national defense you should at least use
> what they’re saying as a heads-up for the research you do while
> everybody else is watching some stupid ball game on TV. The million
> dollars you already owe on our unfunded national debt -- which you
> and/or your offspring *will* pay -- is at stake.
Yes, I should listen to Fox News...just like I should have all during
the Bush-Cheney tenure in office.
Those two nearly ran this nation off a cliff both domestically and
internationally.
Let us not forget Fox News cheer leading all the way.
Leading us into war in Iraq, spending hundreds of billions with no end
in sight to that rat hole all while Cheney's company Haliburton earned
$27-$34 per meal it served to the typical GI... A simple tray of
food, in a secure facility, and cha-ching, $30 dollars a meal, 3
times a day.
AS they say, follow the money. Look at how nicely BUSH and CO said it
was fine to waste money as long as it went to their chosen
friends....culminating in sending a trillion dollars to bail how the
same firms he had allowed to run rampant without oversight.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I see those extreme opposites
to your point of view.
Both sides, when on the extreme seem to live in worlds that bear
little relationship to reality.
I have ZERO doubt, but were similar issues being debated 40 years ago
and 70 years ago, you would have been against both Social Security
and Medicare.
Marching under the banner of "responsibility"....
gvk2
One was
> that he sees many instances of well off people who cannot get health
> insurance at any price, not even for $20 - $30 per year. We didn't
> get into details but I assume it's mainly due to pre-existing
> conditions or similar things that make them look like bad risks to a
> for-profit system. From his comments this happens a lot more then you
> might think. The second major comment he had was the economic effect
> of people's inability to get insurance.
I am in Northern California Kaiser. Known as a very good not-for-
profit plan. A good reputation in treating people fairly.
Yet even they have practices under the current health care system that
make one gasp with the realization that normal everyday people are
getting crushed as they lose jobs, and then any chance at affordable
health care...
Below is a link of a article speaking about a woman who lost her job
at Wachovia, as they were going under (essentially, but Wells Fargo
bought them).
Wachovia was going down due the the practices of those who had owned
Golden West Financial which Wachovia had bought.
In other words, this woman in the article was losing her health
insurance because some bank CEO had made the wrong bet by buying a
financial firm from a man who is a multi-multi billionaire.
This woman, as you will read, had been a Kaiser member for 25 years
through her employer, and now she was being kicked out due to pre-
existing conditions, which she had gotten while a Kaiser health plan
member!!!
Read the article, and then you'll probably see a follow-up by IP
Freely telling us how this woman should have been more "responsible".
This passes for "health care" in America.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_13789378
Please note, in the computer generated letter she received, the also
included "prostate cancer" in the same category, refuting what some
have implied was not a "pre-existing" condition if you had been
treated and your PSA numbers were still undetectable.
I do not believe that would exclude you from a "pre-existing"
condition as far as this health care plan is concerned.
NO, you'd be out the door, just like this poor lady who had breast
cancer.
Fox News, "responsibility" system at work.
If only this woman had been responsible and eaten only tofu and
seaweed since age 5, then she probably could have avoided getting
ill.
I.P. Freely
> In article <NxfMm.25347$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>,
> fuhghed...@noway.nohow says...
>> gvk2 wrote:
> .
>> That's what the administration is counting on to force you, by law, into
>> single-payer government-run UHC within a year after UHC becomes law.
>>
>> I.P.
>
Then why do you care if we keep wasting oil and polluting the planet?
Both screw the next generation.
> Beats anything we have now.
That's not a rational, informed statement.
> I am on Medicare. I already have my single payer system.
I hope to live long enough to care for my own sake when Medicare goes
bankrupt and/or begins stripping care from its recipients; both are
near. All of us should care that the boomers will get screwed as
Medicare crumbles.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> In article <SlfMm.17847$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
> fuhghed...@noway.nohow says...
>> gvk2 wrote:
> (Snip)
>> And GOING TO PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS for not buying insurance doesn't
>> violate our rights?
>>
Totally different concept.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> On Nov 16, 7:03 am, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
>
>>
>> Your hypothetical median 50-YO has <$25,000 in savings, meaning he
>> invested only $250/year throughout his working life.
>> *$250 PER YEAR!*
>
> If you weren't frothing so much, you'd check your math.
> Are you suggesting this 50-YO has been working 100 years?
Compound interest on his investments.
> Lets see, he works "ONLY" one job... Shame on him.
If he works only one job, what on earth gives him the right to take
taxes at (Sheriff's) gunpoint from people who have two jobs?
> "His house costs a 3X his annual gross income"...
> Yes, 70% of those folks should be in trailers instead of houses.
What gives the average middle class citizen any right to buy twice the
home I do relative to income, then demand that I pay his mortgage and/or
his health insurance when he fails?
>> Your 50-YO may not be a slacker, but neither is he an innocent victim.
> In those categories of people being responsible for their conditions
> they include diabetes, most coronary heart disease and most cancers.
I'm talking about health care insurance economics, not medicine. Unless
he is mentally and/or physically unable to both earn and save more
money, what legal or moral right does he have to take money at gunpoint
from people who DO earn and save more?
You know, I'm getting increasingly convinced that you feel everyone
should have the same quantity of everything.
> OK, BTW, can you please give me this guys annual return that turns
> his 10,000 into 1 million by age 50?
> Just curious in how you do your math.
Plug the numbers into any compound interest calculator, as I did, and
realize I'm using round numbers. Actually, it's not hard to save >$10k a
year on the $78,000 that still qualifies for having you pay for his
insurance; Anyone earning that much should be able to save tens of
millions in his working lifetime.
> Please include the tax rates, capital gain, etc.
Why, when the next guy could save up twice as much AFTER taxes.
> I see, YOU....YOU are the hindsight genius, who only lost 10%, when
> even Warren Buffet lost over 40% at the bottom and is still down 30%
> from the top.
His objective is quite different from mine.
>> Why are only 2/3 (?) of the people in this country (the richer half and
>> the moral and informed faction of the other half)
> I guess we could call it the "moral" majority, huh?
Print my full sentence: "Why are only 2/3 (?) of the people in this
country (the richer half and the moral and informed faction of the other
half) outraged that Obama has said repeatedly that he intends to balance
wealth by taking the excess (Huh?) from those who earned it and giving
it to those who didn�t -- especially including taxpayer-funded
government-run UHC -- even though he knows this will harm the economy,
rather than growing the entire economy so EVERYONE can earn more?"
Do you think it's moral to punish success and reward failure at the
expense of the national (and by implication global) economy, as Obama
said he is willing to do?
> Then irrelevant Bush stuff
I.P.
I.P. Freely
>
> Below is a link of a article speaking about a woman
So because one woman ... or 10,000 ... got hosed, we should destroy our
whole health care system? I can't comprehend that thought process.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
>
> Must be hard for you to live in such a world where all is gloom and doom and
> certain catastrophe
Some issues are simple arithmetic. You buy term rather than whole life
insurance, weight control is all about calories in minus calories out,
and SS and Medicare are going broke unless some drastic changes are
made. Accepting those and acting accordingly gets us closer to solutions.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> In article <BuiMm.786$tz6...@newsfe02.iad>, fuhghed...@noway.nohow
> says...
So using tax dollars to build freeways is equivalent to using them to
buy me a mansion? Great; build it on Maui's North Shore, please.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
>
> When I graduated from college I was the highest paid member of my
> graduating class. $371/month. Awfully hard to see how I could have become a
> millionaire on that.
Man, you must be OLD! ;-)
I'll bet you made much more in your last 30-40 years.
I.P.
He'sDeadJim
wrote:
>I.P. Freely wrote:
>> jloomis wrote:
>>> Hi IP
>>>
>>> What form of medical insurance do you have?
>>> Or, what kind of program do you have.?
>>
>> My primary insurance is Medicare, into which I paid cash all my working
>> life, including my military service.
>
>Which just shows you that IP is an egotistic fraud. He opposes public
>health care as a matter of principle, yet profiteers from it. Notice his
> stupid rationalization "I paid cash all my working life".
>
>IP, admitting watching five hours of Fox disinformation daily, believed
>the death panel lies. Here's the true story:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/opinion/15blumenauer.html
>>
Yep I.P is a complete fraud a fox news brainwashed neanderthal. He 's
here on government healthcare. he uses a labor unions insurance yet
he'll march to the right wing anti union anti healthcare mantra. What
a hypocrite.
BTW IP I 'm a federal retiree and we have many of the same insurance
options. I would hope imperfect as they are that others can have the
choices we have. You want to keep it to yourself. What a selfish
prick.
Yeah best healthcare in the world. Go to a a health fair and see if
you say that afterward. It's all about money people. Just die off
quickly and take what little is tossed your way until you do. Even
that IP will be against as he drives to his next government insured
medical appointment.
gvk2
wrote:
> I would hope imperfect as they are that others can have the
> choices we have. You want to keep it to yourself. What a selfish
> prick.
>
I've got to admit, until I read his list of providers I didn't realize
how fully covered he is from A-Z on full "government" medical care
systems...
My gosh, I've never met someone so "in bed" with the government plans
and largess.. He's got this one and that one, and if that one doesn't
fill his needs he's got the next one, finally ending up with the VA
if all else doesn't meet his needs...
My God, he's a classic medical "double or triple dipper"..
He makes the typical public employee look like a amateur when it comes
to gaming the subsidized health care system to the hilt.
He just doesn't want anyone else in the country to get his gifts..
Oh gee, I shouldn't have called it "gifts"...because as he tells us
"he paid cash" for everything all his life.
The reality is the full amount he ever paid or is paying now, only
covers perhaps 50% of what he is taking out of the system.
I really never knew in all his posts this hypocrisy on the health care
debate was so outrageous.
> IP will be against as he drives to his next government insured
> medical appointment.
You got that right. Why, he is a poster boy for government health
care plans.
Steve Kramer
news:hdrq7...@news6.newsguy.com...
: Now, if everyone......."all" paid into a general insurance policy ran by
the
: government, and ironed out all the loopholes over time, the premiums would
: get lower, and the services would be on the table.......not hidden in
small
: print.
: All would be covered.......eye and dental.....Dr.s would get paid....
: No high profits going into the insurance companies pockets rather going to
: Dr.s paying for services.
:
: I do not feel that this is too much to ask.
Yeah, and then we could all pay for everybody to have a house. Then we
could regulate their thermostats and water usage. And we could all put into
one fund and everyone could have a car - and we could put governors
rheostats to prevent them from going too fast and we can put on sensors so
we don't run over any endangered species. Then we could make sure that
every 2� people have a refrigerator and it would only allow wholesome foods
inside. Let's see, what else can we socialize?
I'm sorry to sound patronizing. I do it only to make a point. This country
was founded on the idea that people take responsibility for themselves and
their families. It was further determined, by some of the finest minds that
ever met as a group, that a federal government should not poke its nose into
internal affairs, as those were the province "of the States or of the
People". These ideas were accepted and ratified by all the states in
existence at the time and agreed to by all states that have since come into
the union. As screwed up as the health care systems in some states are, it
is within their purview to screw it up, but not in that of the United States
Congress or President.
--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA undetectable since; last checked on 06/04/09
Illegitimati non carborundum
Steve Kramer
: In article <SlfMm.17847$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
: fuhghed...@noway.nohow says...
: >gvk2 wrote:
: (Snip)
: >And GOING TO PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS for not buying insurance doesn't
: >violate our rights?
: >
: See how far you get not paying your auto insurance,
Totally different concept. Federal healthcare is not insurance and this
bill is the antithesis of insurance.
But, it is similar in its fairness. People voluntarily drive cars. If you
don't want insurance, you should not be forced to purchase it. If you can't
afford to pay off medical payments and damage from wrecks for which you are
fault, then you should go to jail. No one should ever go to jail who has no
insurance and has no accidents.
But, like I said, that has nothing to do with federally mandated health
care.
Steve Kramer
news:6c096d7d-0092-4c33...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> I would hope imperfect as they are that others can have the
> choices we have. You want to keep it to yourself. What a selfish
> prick.
>
I've got to admit, until I read his list of providers I didn't realize
how fully covered he is from A-Z on full "government" medical care
systems...
My gosh, I've never met someone so "in bed" with the government plans
and largess.. He's got this one and that one, and if that one doesn't
fill his needs he's got the next one, finally ending up with the VA
if all else doesn't meet his needs...
My God, he's a classic medical "double or triple dipper"..
He makes the typical public employee look like a amateur when it comes
to gaming the subsidized health care system to the hilt.
---
I find it amazing how many people believe they have a say, much less than an
intelligent opinion, with regard to the occupational benefits of another
person. If they're civil service or military, "I pay your salary!" If
they're rich CEOs, "I pay your salary!" It they're UAW retirees, "I paid
your salary!"
Whatever happened to men who take note of the mistakes they have made, the
things that have happened to them that were not of their making, and took
charge of their lives and tried to make up for lost time as best they could?
Now, it's more convenient to complain about somebody else's benefits and
treasurer after a life-long pattern of hard work, good decisions, and some
luck. I want you to pay for me. Wah! Wah!
Sure,Not
> In article
> <17f94a72-cd0c-4f1a-8d60-31454aa5d...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> gvk2...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Nov 16, 7:03 am, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
>
> >> SO WHY AREN’T THEY SAVING MORE?
>
> >> Your hypothetical median 50-YO has <$25,000 in savings, meaning he
> >> invested only $250/year throughout his working life.
> >> *$250 PER YEAR!*
>
> >If you weren't frothing so much, you'd check your math.
> >Are you suggesting this 50-YO has been working 100 years?
>
> >> their
> >> house costs 3X their annual gross income, he works only one job, and
> >> they had two kids.
>
> >Lets see, he works "ONLY" one job... Shame on him.
>
> >"His house costs a 3X his annual gross income"...
> >Yes, 70% of those folks should be in trailers instead of houses. One
> >wonders where you live in the USA .
>
> >> Your 50-YO may not be a slacker, but neither is he an innocent victim.
>
> >You know, I go to sites on the internet where folks who eat "perfect"
> >vegan and vegetarian diets say that people who get diseases are
> >largely responsible for their condition.
> >They would suggest those sick folks are NOT "innocent victims".
> >In those categories of people being responsible for their conditions
> >they include diabetes, most coronary heart disease and most cancers.
>
> >I find your labeling of this 50-YO very similar to how those groups
> >label those I mention above.
>
> >> Your 50-YO could and should have saved more like $10k a year, making him
> >> got to be millionaires).
>
> >OK, BTW, can you please give me this guys annual return that turns
> >his 10,000 into 1 million by age 50?
> >Just curious in how you do your math.
>
> When I graduated from college I was the highest paid member of my
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cite the year.
I.P. Freely
edification of others equally uninformed and/or misguided about serving
one�s country. I hope it will return he dialog to the real issue: the
impacts of UHC on our medical care and our nation.
(Do civilians have any idea how pathetic and incredible they sound
whining about the veterans -- many of whom can�t afford better insurance
-- whose sacrifices keep them safe, merely because they can�t or won�t
address any of the dozens of economic, health care, social, political,
individual freedom, and legal objections to Single Payer Government-Run
UHC presented here?)
gvk2 wrote:
> He'sDeadJim wrote
>> I would hope imperfect as they are that others can have the
>> choices we have. You want to keep it to yourself. What a selfish
>> prick.
I want to keep SPGRUHC to myself? Huh? I�ve presented dozens of reasons
I wouldn�t wish it on anyone this side of Bernie Madoff.
> I've got to admit, until I read his list of providers I didn't realize
> how fully covered he is from A-Z on full "government" medical care
> systems...
> My gosh, I've never met someone so "in bed" with the government plans
> and largess [sic]
Don�t get out much. do you? There are millions of military and civilian
fed retirees out there. The difference between that and SPGRUHC is that
the latter threatens us with prison for opting out, whereas we ended the
draft decades ago.
> My God, he's a classic medical "double or triple dipper"..
> He makes the typical public employee look like a amateur when it comes
> to gaming the subsidized health care system to the hilt.
�Gaming�? Please tell us how serving one�s country is �gaming�, and tell
us what other viable health care insurance options are available to
those who do?
> He just doesn't want anyone else in the country to get his gifts.
�Gifts�? How is a federal job a �gift�?
Can people in the private sector lose their job and/or be imprisoned for:
� Watching porn or visiting the wrong political website on a computer?
� Publicly voicing their politics, as we�re doing here?
� Accepting a gratuity (lunch, a party, a ticket, a trip) from a contractor?
� Talking to unapproved foreign nationals without documenting the
conversation?
� Attending a public demonstration?
� Getting a bad sunburn or being overweight?
� ANY contact with ANY recreational drugs?
� A misdemeanor?
� Adultry, sex with a subordinate, not paying your rent on time,
incurring large debts?
� Failure to show up for work?
How often were you in heavy combat [I was not, but I was fortunate,
considering that I was drafted in 1968]?
Is whiners� pay from 50% to 10% of civilians doing the same job,
presuming there IS a comparable private sector job?
Did they manage $10B global programs for well below a Walmart
pharmacist�s pay?
How often do the whiners have to move across the nation or the world on
short notice?
Do whiners have to dump the wife and kids at the new location for them
to find housing, schools, job, etc. while the soldier worked 15-hour
days at dangerous jobs (again, not me, but only by luck; many soldiers do.)
> The reality is the full amount he ever paid or is paying now, only
> covers perhaps 50% of what he is taking out of the system.
So you -- as Obama recommended -- would deny medical care beyond
immediate battlefield care to soldiers dismembered in combat? That�s
sick. (I�d be glad, BTW, NOT to have so many medical hassles.)
Tell me what other choice I had after being drafted:
� Medicare is not optional; it was taken out of every paycheck whether
we liked it or not. It refuses twice as many claims as do private
insurance companies, and more doctors every day refuse to accept it.
� Mailhandlers is the only rational choice my federally employed wife
had. It is refused by many doctors now, with more bailing every day.
� TriCare is all the military offers families, and we paid for it until
age 65. It pays only the copay segment of Medicare and Mailhandlers; it
pays zero if those don�t pay.
� Next you'll tell us military retirees don't deserve last-resort,
bare-bones VA care, such as it is, for their service-connected injuries
(only those are treated free, and only if our income is below specified
levels).
Lastly, don't tell me you actually think UHC will cost you LESS than
what private insurance costs now, or provide half the care private ins
cos do? No professional apolitical study I�ve found shows that.
And tell us � besides paying the same taxes feds do � what have you done
for your country lately ?
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> There are better ways to make a living than writing.
Sure are, but we can't expect the next guy, who probably hates his more
lucrative job, to subsidize our love of writing.
I.P.
jloomis
"Steve Kramer" <skr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hduajq$7qb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That is it.....Take responsibility and "pay" into a Health Insurance
Plan.(damit)
I am sick and tired of paying high insurance bills and medical bills for
those that skate and do not participate in any insurance.
If we "all paid" rates would lower, and hospitals would get paid for
services rendered........
Most complaining about insurance and the medical bills being proposed are
those that have a comfortable plan i.e. government issued.........
and
> their families. It was further determined, by some of the finest minds
> that
> ever met as a group, that a federal government should not poke its nose
> into
> internal affairs, as those were the province "of the States or of the
> People".
It sure pokes its nose into medicare and Veterans Benefits and Congress and
Social security....to name a few.....
Why not Medical Insurance......How many damned lobbyist and congressmen are
paid off by Insurance Companies to keep the profits in the INsurance
Companies Banks....
I.P. Freely
> I am sick and tired of paying high insurance bills and medical bills for
> those that skate and do not participate in any insurance.
> If we "all paid" rates would lower
That pipe dream, based only on a campaign promise from an inexeperienced
politician, ignores the facts listed in this stupid internet thread,
national and international news, the leaders of many nations, many
nonpolitical professional economic studies, UHC's abject failures in
Canada, the U.K., Massachussetts, Washington, Tennessee, and even
Medicare's impending bankruptcy, all of which disprove your statement.
> and hospitals would get paid for
> services rendered........
See above. Physicians are leaving by the thousands.
> Most complaining about insurance and the medical bills being proposed are
> those that have a comfortable plan i.e. government issued.........
led by the nation's and world's economists.
> It sure pokes its nose into medicare
I've posted 7-8 fatal flaws in that. Are you even reading?
and Veterans Benefits
See U.S. Constitution, Section 8.
> and Congress
Read the very first sentence in the Constitution.
> Social security
Bankrupt.
> Why not Medical Insurance
See my opening paragraph.
Why do people ask questions, then ignore the answers and ask the same
questions again?
......How many damned lobbyist and congressmen are
> paid off by Insurance Companies to keep the profits in the INsurance
> Companies Banks.
What's wrong with profits? If there were none, government revenues would
cease. Anyone who prefers communism can move to a communist nation ...
if they can still find one.
I.P.
jloomis
deductibles and part pay.........and no prior health history?
And also, the premiums keep rising while I keep aging........
And that is for my self and my wife.....only......!
What is wrong with this picture, when a homeless man can go to the emergency
and get medical attention, and never pay a dime!
What is wrong when a carpenter is layed off work, and runs out of
employment, and cannot afford medical insurance......
As you stated...."What's wrong with profits?" They are killing the average
american worker.........
You can sit there and complain and yet have this huge umbrella policy
covering you, while millions are trying to make the next house payment at
least.
Yes, the System is broken, and yes we need a repair...........
john
What is wrong when a family has lost work, lost a good paying job, cannot
afford food let alone medical insurance.....
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:v4DMm.35378$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
gvk2
>
> Whatever happened to men who take note of the mistakes they have made, the
> things that have happened to them that were not of their making, and took
> charge of their lives and tried to make up for lost time as best they could?
> Now, it's more convenient to complain about somebody else's benefits and
> treasurer after a life-long pattern of hard work, good decisions, and some
> luck. I want you to pay for me. Wah! Wah!
You entirely avoid the issue. IP Freely is non stop against all this
government stuff, from excessive costs of covering guys like himself
to any partial freebies for others.
He doesn't even want the average guy, who is denied coverage, to be
able to purchase coverage from a public plan.
Instead, this guy who sits in a tub with "government" health care up
to his neck, won't even allow that average Joe to purchase care from a
"public plan"...
Instead, he apparently suggests they either die or go to the emergency
room when near death.
Yet he, himself, is loaded to the gills with ALL the systems he
doesn't want others to be eligible for.
He is covered, let the others suffer and/or die.
Mr. "I'm against big government", is virtually bathing in government
health care programs.
Its like the preacher who on Sunday speaks to the flock about avoiding
the evils of the flesh, who is then caught out Monday night with the
hooker.
gvk2
>
> The health care system is broken.
You see, I.P. Freely doesn't want to see that woman who is suffering.
He's got his multilevel government benefited health care plan and
anyone who doesn't have what he's got is a "irresponsible" good-for-
nothing who didn't work for the government like I.P. Freely and his
wife did.
You see anything he gets is "earned" while anything anyone else gets
is welfare.
On never mind that I.P. Freely and his wife, not only get government
health care and government pensions, but they also live in a home
that was subsidized by the government.
No, he won't admit that, but when those "poor" folks were paying all
their earnings for rent, good old I.P. Freely was quite happy to
accept that home mortgage interest deduction which paid for about 30%
of his monthly payments.
But he "earned every cent" and that interest deduction gift was only
what he deserved.
Too bad the "poor" folks who are so irresponsible never got such a
huge subsidy for their rent payments.
He views everything about fairness only through his own circumstances.
Everything he receives from the government is deserved, while almost
everything others receive is just waste, fraud and abuse.
He likes Socialism only when it goes under a different name and
provides him with freebies and subsidies.
Sounds like a Mid-West corn farmer who gets subsidized for his corn
crop and then gets another huge subsidy for turning it into
ethanol....
Yet who goes into the local diner and complains about all those
government welfare programs.
Yep, this way of viewing the world is a form of blindness.
Blind enough to ignore that suffering woman and just think of her as a
anecdotal aberration.
I.P. Freely
> What is wrong with my Health Insurance Premium that is 17,000
It goes up under UHC.
> And also, the premiums keep rising while I keep aging
Your CARE ITSELF goes down with age with UHC.
> What is wrong with this picture, when a homeless man can go to the emergency
> and get medical attention, and never pay a dime!
Nothing wrong with that. But should he get the same care as a person
paying for insurance?
> What is wrong when a carpenter is layed off work, and runs out of
> employment, and cannot afford medical insurance
Discussed at great length earlier.
> As you stated...."What's wrong with profits?"
> They are killing the average american worker
THE AVERAGE WORKER WOULD HAVE NO JOB IF IT WEREN'T FOR PROFITS, and if
that worker had no profits -- income above cost of living -- how's he
going to get through life?
> You can sit there and complain and yet have this huge umbrella policy
> covering you, while millions are trying to make the next house payment at
> least.
Who do you think paid for my house AND my insurance AND my education AND
everything else I bought with money I earned?
> Yes, the System is broken, and yes we need a repair...........
Discussed earlier.
I.P. Freely
> IP Freely is non stop against all this government stuff
> any partial freebies for others.
> He doesn't even want the average guy, who is denied coverage, to be
> able to purchase coverage from a public plan
> won't even allow that average Joe to purchase care from a public plan
> suggests they either die or go to the emergency room when near death.
> loaded ... with ALL the systems he doesn't want others to be eligible for.
> He is covered, let the others suffer and/or die.
Back up every one of those fabrications from the archives or look like a
fool. Then shoot down a preponderance of the economic and health care
facts I've presented. Anything less is off-topic ad hominem.
DAMN, but I love the printed record.
I.P. Freely
> I.P. wrote
>> we can't expect the next guy, who probably hates his more
>> lucrative job, to subsidize our love of writing.
> What has that to do with prostate cancer?
Everything, if the PC pt can't afford preventive medicine or insurance
because he chose to be unable to afford preventive medicine or insurance.
I.P.
Steve Kramer
"gvk2" <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb653077-76e0-4d6d...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 6:20 am, Gogarty <Goga...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote:
>
> The health care system is broken.
You see, I.P. Freely doesn't want to see that woman who is suffering.
He's got his multilevel government benefited health care plan and
anyone who doesn't have what he's got is a "irresponsible" good-for-
nothing who didn't work for the government like I.P. Freely and his
wife did.
==> gvk2, it would seem you came to this newsgroup for purposes other than
to give or receive support for prostate cancer. I cannot recall any
on-point comments by you and far too many personal attacks to consider you a
valid contributor. Fortunately, this is not a moderated newsgroup, but I
can, and immediately will, PLONK you. If you really have cancer, I hope you
survive it. But, I believe you to be a troll and will not encumber any more
of my computer's memory for your nonsense.
Steve Kramer
: That is it.....Take responsibility and "pay" into a Health Insurance
: Plan.(damit)
: I am sick and tired of paying high insurance bills and medical bills for
: those that skate and do not participate in any insurance.
Hmmmmmmmm. We may be closer on this that I thought.
: If we "all paid" rates would lower, and hospitals would get paid for
: services rendered........
: Most complaining about insurance and the medical bills being proposed are
: those that have a comfortable plan i.e. government issued.........
I agree that IF we all paid, insurance would be less expensive. But, two
very general principals have to be overcome to cause this, even if it proved
to be the solution. One, the Federal government has been shown to be almost
completely incompetent to force assure ALL pay for anything. Two, the
Federal goverment is specifically prohibited from doing so.
I.P. Freely
School of Medicine, in the WSJ today, includes:
� �The people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.�
� The proposed legislation will not tackle cost, access, or quality.
� It includes no measures to substantively control cost increase or
improve care quality.
� Dozens of health care leaders and economists nearly unanimously agree
that the FINAL VERSION of this legislation will markedly accelerate
national health care spending while doing little or nothing to improve
health care quality or delivery.
� The present bill would undermine any potential for real insurance
innovation or care provision.
� It overregulates heath care in favor of special interests such as
insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations, and Big
Pharma and *at the expense of the patient!* [and the winner is � the
unions, especially the SEIU, which *wrote much of the bill*]
� Overall result: accelerated health care costs and perpetuation of the
current dysfunctional system at the same time the workload increases.
� The biggest hit will be to our capacity to innovate and develop new
medical technology.
� His closing line: �We should not be making public policy in such a
critical area by keeping the electorate ignorant ��
The sad part is that all of this has been all over centrist and
conservative news, news analysis, business, and talk shows for years,
but only half the country pays any attention.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
Has health care rationing for seniors already begun?
Many medical associations are strongly condemning the decision by the
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force -- which includes no oncologist or
radiologist and has not been peer reviewed -- to delay breast cancer
screening. I strongly suspect administration pressure is involved, as
has been done for decades for various agendas. The agenda this time
would obviously be a first step towards rationing health care.
Or IS this the first step? Is the prior similar downward pressure on PSA
screening of similar origin � political expedience rather than medical
science?
I.P.
He'sDeadJim
Unless you plonk someone initially all it means to do so later is the
same as raising a white flag or putting your fingers in your ears
scream Lalallalalala I DON'T HEAR YOU.. From a newsgroup veteran who
knows.
He'sDeadJim
The above are talking points handed down from the rich many who are
born into wealthy families for the brainwashed peons to keep repeating
until they actually believe it.
BTW the fox news guys all have excellent health insurance.
gvk2
>
> ==> gvk2, it would seem you came to this newsgroup for purposes other than
> to give or receive support for prostate cancer. I cannot recall any
> on-point comments by you and far too many personal attacks to consider you a
> valid contributor. Fortunately, this is not a moderated newsgroup, but I
> can, and immediately will, PLONK you. If you really have cancer, I hope you
> survive it. But, I believe you to be a troll and will not encumber any more
> of my computer's memory for your nonsense.
Well, in your bias in reading this thread and the other one, you seem
to completely overlook that both of them are entirely focused on the
very controversial subject of health care reform.
They are not discussing prostate cancer or prostate cancer treatments.
Why do you single me out and avoid IP Freely when making this
accusation regarding these two threads? Because he has a longer
track record on all the normal prostate cancer issues?
In these threads, he is at least as contentious and inflammatory as I
am, yet you choose to single out me.
Hardly a balanced look at the exchange.
Hundreds of thousands of men are out there with prostate cancer.
Many of them are facing very difficult circumstances in dealing with
it BECAUSE the don't have and cannot get health insurance.
They don't have the option to sort out treatment options A thru Z
because they can hardly even afford any option, let alone the very
optimal one.
They don't all have 3 or 4 levels of care available to them like IP
Freely does.
I have contributed to this newsgroup long before this health care
issue came up and I doubt you can point to any prior post dealing with
the normal prostate cancer issues where you would suggest I was being
a "troll".
Clearly you have a bias in how you are viewing the exchange in this
thread.
The health care debate had leaked into all manner of newsgroups and
boards all over the internet. Everyone is passionate about it, as is
the entire nation. I certainly don't view them all as being trolls.
On the other hand, it is probably a safe bet that someone like IP
Freely is never going to change his mind, so our exchanges are just
wasting time.
He reads the Wall Street Journal and passes its views on as being the
voice of reason and moderation.
Steve Kramer
news:38i8g5pilbjv5iga8...@4ax.com...
: Unless you plonk someone initially all it means to do so later is the
: same as raising a white flag or putting your fingers in your ears
: scream Lalallalalala I DON'T HEAR YOU.. From a newsgroup veteran who
: knows.
:
Maybe, if you're third grade girl.
Steve Kramer
: The above are talking points handed down from the rich many who are
: born into wealthy families for the brainwashed peons to keep repeating
: until they actually believe it.
I appreciate the vaulted assessment, but I developed independent thought
before there was cable T.V. and have been arguing similar points since
before there was a Fox Network; or a WWW for that matter. The simpleton
thoughts you have come forth with are the perfect example of dependent
thought. It's a shame the people on whom you rely for your thoughts also
have none of their own.
safire
>
> Hundreds of thousands of men are out there with prostate cancer.
> Many of them are facing very difficult circumstances in dealing with
> it BECAUSE the don't have and cannot get health insurance.
> They don't have the option to sort out treatment options A thru Z
> because they can hardly even afford any option, let alone the very
> optimal one.
> They don't all have 3 or 4 levels of care available to them like IP
> Freely does.
>
> I have contributed to this newsgroup long before this health care
> issue came up and I doubt you can point to any prior post dealing with
> the normal prostate cancer issues where you would suggest I was being
> a "troll".
>
> Clearly you have a bias in how you are viewing the exchange in this
> thread.
Why do you care about what people that aren't able to think
independently think about you? From what I've read about
Kramer and his family members they are low income folks and would be
prime beneficiaries of universal health insurance. But he claims people
with birth defects shouldn't be a burden to society. In his view they
just have bad luck and "in America, you are responsible for your own life".
>
> The health care debate had leaked into all manner of newsgroups and
> boards all over the internet. Everyone is passionate about it, as is
> the entire nation. I certainly don't view them all as being trolls.
>
> On the other hand, it is probably a safe bet that someone like IP
> Freely is never going to change his mind, so our exchanges are just
> wasting time.
> He reads the Wall Street Journal and passes its views on as being the
> voice of reason and moderation.
He reads its selectively, because the story he quoted from, written by a
medical professional, unbiased of course, doesn't exactly agree with
Leaky's assessment that the U.S. health care system is the best in the
world. It says: "Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost,
access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives
employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs
upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed."
Leaky also continues to claim that the Canadian, British and European
health care systems are disasters that the U.S. should avoid at any
price. But as poll after poll shows and others on this board have
confirmed, people in those countries are generally very happy with their
systems. But hey, if you would watch FNC for five hours each day, your
world view would also be seriuosly distorted.
>
He'sDeadJim
Or an ignorant middle aged man who need to plonk people after many
posts arguing with them.
He'sDeadJim
Wow where are you that cable TV was so recent? Yeah I'm the one with
dependent thoughts not you with your daily republican right wing kook
talking points. Yeah I'm sure you're the one who came up with all
those initially.
Isn't it time you plonk me too? You know I go back to usenet in the
mid 90s primarly from the mp3 hierarchy and in all that time I never
read another poster who would make me so afraid or whatever reasons
you decide to plonk anyone.
Make the bad man go away...Plonk me independent thinker. <seg>
I.P. Freely
> [I.P.�s posts] are not discussing prostate cancer or prostate cancer
treatments.
How are these items irrelevant to middle-aged and senior men with or
without prostates:
� Health care access, costs, quality, rationing, and technical
innovation (e.g., new PC prevention, detection, staging, and curative
protocols?
� Funneling mandatory UHC premiums to unions and Big Pharma?
� Dramatic Medicare cuts?
� A health care system modeled after other failed systems?
Which of those does not directly impact the men here and their prostate
cancer treatment?
> IP Freely ... is at least as contentious and inflammatory as I am
I presented cold, hard, supportable facts with no personal attacks. You
countered *only* with fabricated personal attacks. Is that because you
have no opposing facts, or simply because you *choose* to counter only
with fabricated personal attacks?
> Hundreds of thousands of men are out there with prostate cancer.
How are they helped by reducing their screening, raising their insurance
costs, dramatically cutting back on PC research, curtailing their access
to PC experts, driving 360,00 physicians out of medical practice, and,
finally, denying counseling to end stage PC pts?
> Many of them are facing very difficult circumstances in dealing with
> it BECAUSE the don't have and cannot get health insurance.
What good is an insurance policy if they can�t get access to a doctor?
Two words: Canada, England.
> They don't all have 3 or 4 levels of care available to them like IP
Freely does.
So do Bill Gates and hundreds of millions of other people. What�s that
got to do with anything?
> someone like IP Freely is never going to change his mind
Finally we agree on something. As long as new facts and very educated
analyses like that of Harvard Med School Dean Flier emerge every day to
further condemn SPGRUHC, no rational person (I don't consider socialists
or Marxists rational, given their track records), you're darn right I
will not support anything remotely resembling the current proposal. I'm
a pragmatist, not an ideologue.
> so our exchanges are just wasting time.
Not for a rational lurker willing to examine the facts.
> He reads the Wall Street Journal and passes its views on as being the
> voice of reason and moderation.
More like information. When a liberal institution like Harvard speaks
out so vehemently against a liberal program, I take notice. You'd prefer
I cite the Huffington Post or Moveon.org?
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> "He'sDeadJim" wrote
>
> : Unless you plonk someone initially all it means to do so later is the
> : same as raising a white flag or putting your fingers in your ears
> : scream Lalallalalala I DON'T HEAR YOU.. From a newsgroup veteran who
> : knows.
Yup. At some point, with some people, that's all we can do to reduce the
amount of $#!+ in our lives.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> So what is your complaint?
My sister, schmysister. Sorry, but I consider "anecdotal evidence" an
oxymoron. The heads of their medical systems and their countries say
both systems have failed, and back it up with near-third-world access
and cancer morbidity statistics.
I.P.
Steve Jordan
(snip good news)
> So what is your complaint?
"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'"
--Al Bothe, Jr., MD, University of Chicago
Regards,
Steve J
Rick Merrill
.. unless the anecdote was a datum ...
I.P. Freely
> Neither the Brits nor the Canadians are about to give up their
> health care systems based on bad experience anecdotes. They will keep
> their systems based on the fact that in general they work very well for
> most people. The outcomes for my family and friends are the norm, not
> the exception.
They keep their system because *it's better than nothing* and they've
been brainwashed into thinking it's free.
17 weeks to see a specialist AFTER you get to see a GP for referral is
the norm. Is that acceptable to you?
I.P.
Rick Merrill
That's fer feriner's like u.
:-)
gvk2
wrote:
Sir, will you please give us the sum total international experience
you have?
Where have you traveled during your life?
How much time did you spend in those countries wherein you gained all
this insight on how bad those nation's health care plans are?
If you spent any time in other nations please tell us how much of that
time was while in the military, under military health care, and how
much was while availing yourself of the particular nation's health
care.
I get the impression you have little experience overseas, other than
some military time where you typically don't use the nations health
care.
I've lived in many nations where national health care plans were in
place. Without exception the people were thankful for their system
and would be very upset if it were to be replaced with the USA model.
But please, give us the list of places you have lived in or visited
for more than a 7 day visit, and how long you spent in those nations.
I.P. Freely
> I've lived in many nations where national health care plans were in
> place.
But you live in a world of rhetoric, not facts. You haven't even tried
yet to shoot down any of the dozens of specific SPGRUHC facts I've
presented. When you tackle a few of them, maybe we'll talk.
> Without exception the people were thankful for their system
Just as I'd be thankful for liver if it were the only food I had ...
until, of course, it killed me.
> and would be very upset if it were to be replaced with the USA model.
17 weeks ... extreme cancer morbidity rates ... bankruptcy ... 8.5% GDF
limits ... rationing ... Facts, dude, FACTS, not rhetoric.
> But please, give us the list of places you have lived in or visited
> for more than a 7 day visit, and how long you spent in those nations.
I've already explained what "anecdotal evidence" means compared to the
testimony of experts, right up to their presidents and prime ministers.
I.P.
gvk2
> blank-- with regards to the question posed.
Thanks for the response. I take it you've probably never spent more
than a few days in other nations, unless of course during your
military career you were stationed overseas, then using only military
medical care during that stint.
Perhaps I'm wrong and you have done more than a 7 days, 6 nights tour
of Europe.
To live with a people, to see their daily, monthly interaction with
their medical care system, gives one a realistic view of how it
works, rather than just conjuring up some "comic book" views of the
rest of the world.
The people of Japan, Germany, Switzerland, are hardly a bunch of poor
ignorant scientifically backward fools.
Did you realize that by a national vote in 1994 the very well educated
and wealthy nation of Switzerland voted to make their health care a
national program where everyone was covered.
The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a
highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical
industries.
The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's
still far cheaper than U.S. health care.
I.P. Freely
> World travel stuff
> Swiss stuff
I take it you're unable to dispute any of the dozens of devastating
facts presented herein about SPGRUHC, all irrelevant to where anyone
lives or travels. Thus I must assume your support of it is purely
ideologically driven despite its harm to the nation, as Obama admitted
in part to the world in the ABC presidential campaign debate.
(While the Swiss system of socialized medicine violates the most basic
law of our land -- the U.S. Constitution -- usable parts if it are being
considered.)
I.P.
gvk2
wrote:
> gvk2 wrote:
> > World travel stuff
>
> > Swiss stuff
>
> I take it you're unable to dispute any of the dozens of devastating
> facts presented herein about SPGRUHC, all irrelevant to where anyone
> lives or travels.
I do not believe that if "one word" is changed by my provider, that
my provider and my entire relationship with them will be thrown out
the door as you have portrayed it.
The final health care bill, after the blending process in conference,
will be quite different than either of the bills going in. You know
that quite well but choose to take 2,000+ pages and pick out short
clauses and bits.
In the mean time you classify all other systems that we might emulate
parts of as being socialism and terrible medicine even though several
of those nations have better outcomes than we do.
That is why I even wonder if you have ANY experience whatsoever
outside the USA...
There really are areas of life and science where the USA is not #1 in
all aspects. We can learn from some of their examples, or we can
just spend all our time at the ranch in Crawford clearing brush.
I liken this absence of a realistic view of the world to that of
George W. Bush prior to becoming president.
Essentially over his whole life he had not really experienced the
world. A few trips across the border to Mexico and something else
while Governor of Texas (treated only then as a VIP), plus one brief
trip to visit his father in China (again, only as a isolated VIP) when
his father was special envoy to China.
I'm telling you, if you haven't experienced the rest of the world you
just don't know what is and is not the reality of comparative
systems. Really smart people in really advanced nations are very
happy with systems entirely different than our model and those nations
are spending far less overall.
I.P. Freely
> On Nov 20, 12:45 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow>
> wrote:
>> gvk2 wrote:
>>> World travel stuff
>> > Swiss stuff
>>
>> I take it you're unable to dispute any of the dozens of devastating
>> facts presented herein about SPGRUHC, all irrelevant to where anyone
>> lives or travels.
>
> I do not believe that if "one word" is changed by my provider, that
> my provider and my entire relationship with them will be thrown out
> the door as you have portrayed it.
It's not important whether you or I "believe" it. It is in the bill,
right in the section I quoted and cited. When pro-huge-government
extremist national leaders (voting record and public record statements,
not ad hominem) *say* they'll push us towards big government and
*legislate same*, I start hoing my PSA shoots up, because I don't want
to be around to see this nation look like Europe, let alone China.
> The final health care bill, after the blending process in conference,
> will be quite different than either of the bills going in.
It sure will, and that should scare the crap out of everyone. Pelosi
already admitted the Stupac Amendment prohibiting using federal funds
for abortion was inserted just for the initial vote, with intentions to
remove it ASAP. Sure enough, it's gone from the latest bill. That's why
Rangle refused to say whether he would vote for it; he knew it was a ruse.
> You know
> that quite well but choose to take 2,000+ pages and pick out short
> clauses and bits.
Of course. None of us peons has the comprehension to see the bill's
bottom line beyond the assessments of the experts I cited. THEIR bottom
line is worse care, higher premiums, bankruptcy of at least UHC and
quite likely the nation, dramatically higher cost of living for all of
us, ...
> In the mean time you classify all other systems that we might emulate
> parts of as being socialism
dictionary
> and terrible medicine
Canada, U.K., according to their own prime ministers and health care
officials.
> even though several of those nations have better outcomes than we do.
Disproved with hard numbers in previous threads.
> That is why I even wonder if you have ANY experience whatsoever
> outside the USA...
The Prime Ministers of Canada and the UK have more experience outside
the USA than I do. I'll take their word that their systems have failed,
especially since I've also seen their numbers.
I.P.
gvk2
> gvk2 wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 12:45 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow>
> > wrote:
> >> gvk2 wrote:
because I don't want
> to be around to see this nation look like Europe,
I take it you're including Germany and Switzerland in that category.
Both prosperous, capitalistic nations with universal health care.
China, completely different than those two.
>
> > That is why I even wonder if you have ANY experience whatsoever
> > outside the USA...
>
> The Prime Ministers of Canada and the UK have more experience outside
> the USA than I do. I'll take their word that their systems have failed,
> especially since I've also seen their numbers.
I see, apparently my guess was correct. From your indications you
have not traveled to any of those countries wherein the people choose
to keep their health care systems that cover everyone.
Haven't you even been to Canada?
Amazing that you could suggest a place like Switzerland is some kind
of nation you'd never think would be a nice place to live.
I'm not saying you'd have to live there, but good gosh almighty the
place is beautiful, clean, prosperous and has health care coverage for
all, while spending far less than we do.