OT: A simple fix for health care.
Wes
proceedure. How about submitting the proposed bill first and let me decide after I know
what it is going to cost me if I want to have it?
Wes
Tim Wescott
<rant>
Not anymore! It'll all be taken care of by your favorite mint. Not
peppermint, spearmint, or even double mint -- no, by the Governmint!!!
I am just furious at the Republican't party for staying out of the whole
health care thing. It was a tactical hardball politics decision, made
in the hopes that by sniping from the sidelines they could bring the
whole thing down an hand Obama and the Democrats a huge loss. Instead,
they handed them a huge win.
Had they actually _participated_, they could have either thrown enough
sand in the gears to stall this thing until Obama died of old age, or
they could have made it much more reasonable. But no, they had to
listen to Rush Drugbaugh.
And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums, unless I
go to work for da man!!! So I'm just screwed screwed screwed unless I
want to check my stomach lining into the Betty Ford Clinic and go to
work for some poor middle manager who's squeezed between the needs of
his employees and the supercilious desires of some idiot in a corner
office somewhere.
</rant>
--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
RogerN
"Tim Wescott" <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote in message
news:peydnf3H_vBYczbW...@web-ster.com...
If the Republicans win the majority in the November election, they plan to
refuse to fund Obamacare. Then the Obamanation will have his health care
bill that the majority didn't want but he won't have the funding to pay for
it. Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress to
pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against their will.
And the individual mandate has never been done before. If the people stay
with America they will have litigation until November, no funding for
Obamacare after that, and the SOB thrown out a couple of years later.
RogerN
RogerN
Tim Wescott
> refuse to fund Obamacare. Then the Obamanation will have his health care
> bill that the majority didn't want but he won't have the funding to pay for
> it. Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress to
> pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against their will.
> And the individual mandate has never been done before. If the people stay
> with America they will have litigation until November, no funding for
> Obamacare after that, and the SOB thrown out a couple of years later.
Or they'll lose really, really big.
And either way, I -- and every other honest self-employed person in the
US -- will still have to pay taxes on my insurance premiums while Rupert
Murdoch's butt-buddies at Fox don't.
Gee, I'm so happy now.
Ignoramus30639
> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
companies.
It is called car insurance.
Apparently, it is considered constitutional.
Many professions are required to maintain liability insurance, as well.
i
John R. Carroll
> On 2010-03-25, RogerN <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
>> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
>> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
>
> There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
> companies.
>
> It is called car insurance.
>
> Apparently, it is considered constitutional.
Driving is recognized by the courts as a privilege and it's a matter of
State, not Federal, law.
>
> Many professions are required to maintain liability insurance, as
> well.
Same thing here.
So far, the only real constitutional issue I've seen discussed revolves
around capitation.
--
John R. Carroll
Roger Shoaf
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:hogq0b$an8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress perceives
that our health care system is way too expensive and should be more
reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be built and
funded where the best and the brightest could then be educated tuition free
to those who qualify.
The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service in
public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently pay for
Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are on a
limited budget.
This system would exist parallel to the current system and in fact compete
with it. By increasing the supply of doctors and other medical
professionals (nurses, x-ray techs etc.) this would drive the prices down
and the level of service up.
The last time I was stuck in the hospital I had gashed open my scalp and
spent about a half an hour in the O/R and spent overnight in the hospital.
Somehow the bill came to around 10 grand. I looked at the bill and noticed
things like 2 plastic urinals at $20 a piece, $120 for a pair of rubber
stockings.
I figure things a bit different from a value based system.
A night in a first class hotel with 3 meals $300
2 doctors for 2 hours each @ $300 per hour $1,200
3 nurses 3 shifts @ $300 per shift $900
misc. supplies $400.
That comes to $2,800 if there is no economy of scale as there would be if
nurses could care for more than one patient at a time or the doctors time
could be billed differently.
Alternatively, I probably could have gone home after I came to and not taken
up a bed for "observation". If that was the case, the cost could have been
less than half that.
My daughter had a softball pop out of her mitt and gave her a shiner and
split open a gash about 3/8" above her eye. My ex took her to the emergency
room and our share of the bill was $700 after insurance. The treatment
consisted of an ice pack and a little super glue to close the wound and a
band-aid.
I am convinced that there is vast room for cost reductions in medical care.
--
Roger Shoaf
About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.
.
news:12695647...@news01.syix.com:
> I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress
> perceives that our health care system is way too expensive and should
> be more reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be
> built and funded where the best and the brightest could then be
> educated tuition free to those who qualify.
>
Affirmative Action will insure that only the dumbest will be accepted to
those schools and, then, you will be required to use their services
exclusively.
Is that what you TRULY want?
Gunner Asch
But its not the same thing. Car insurance is for those who drive
vehicles on public roadways. If you dont drive on public
roadways..insurance is not required.
Same with "many professions"
Making EVERY American buy insurance is going to put 30 million people
out on the street.
I made $18,000 last year, gross. Making me pay $15,000 for insurance
out of that $18k...will have me living in a cardboard box.
Thats not a solution, but a death sentence
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Steve W.
> On 2010-03-25, RogerN <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
>> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
>> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
>
> There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
> companies.
>
> It is called car insurance.
Really, New Hampshire and Wisconsin don't require auto insurance. Note
that this is a STATE requirement not a Federal one.
Also all of the state that have compulsory insurance have different
requirements. For instance none of them require you to buy collision
insurance, just liability which pays the people you hit or collide with.
>
> Apparently, it is considered constitutional.
Nope, because it isn't in violation of the US Constitution.
>
> Many professions are required to maintain liability insurance, as well.
And many more are not. Again it depends on the STATE your in.
>
> i
--
Steve W.
Steve W.
>
> I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress perceives
> that our health care system is way too expensive and should be more
> reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be built and
> funded where the best and the brightest could then be educated tuition free
> to those who qualify.
Will you also be allowing people from other countries to attend like
they do now? Take a look at current medical schools and see how many
people that make it through stay in the U.S.
>
> The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service in
> public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently pay for
> Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
> hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are on a
> limited budget.
Indentured servitude is illegal. Oh and this is the predominant area
that the Medicaid and Medicare money now goes.
>
> My daughter had a softball pop out of her mitt and gave her a shiner and
> split open a gash about 3/8" above her eye. My ex took her to the emergency
> room and our share of the bill was $700 after insurance. The treatment
> consisted of an ice pack and a little super glue to close the wound and a
> band-aid.
>
> I am convinced that there is vast room for cost reductions in medical care.
>
Yep, Stop covering every sneeze of folks on Medicaid and Medicare and
stop paying for illegals health care.
EX: Pregnant female has someone call 911 to tell them she is pregnant
and having labor pains.
911 sends an ambulance who transports patient to hospital for $1740.00
Hospital admits patient and delivers child for close to $12,000.00
Baby is born with a "minor" heart defect which they correct in surgery
4 days after child is born. $22,463.00
Mother and child stay in hospital for 9 days (@ 2,300 a day) $20,700.00
Total amount that the family paid - $51.00
Medicaid (YOU and I who pay taxes) picked up the $243,332.00 remainder.
Courtesy of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
Why? Well because it was "Emergency care" and the parent was an illegal
alien from Mexico who "returned to Mexico" a week later
(At least the return part is what the ambulance co. was told when they
tried to collect payment and discovered that the family was gone.)
--
Steve W.
Wes
>And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums, unless I
>go to work for da man!!!
Fixing that would have made a lot of sense. Of course that would be in conflict with the
true goal of single payer (only one choice, the government).
Wes
Michael A. Terrell
Those are state laws, and are in fact not in violation of the US
constitution.
--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'
Michael A. Terrell
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:50:25 -0500, Ignoramus30639
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30639.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 2010-03-25, RogerN <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
> >> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
> >> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
> >> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
> >
> >There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
> >companies.
> >
> >It is called car insurance.
> >
> >Apparently, it is considered constitutional.
> >
> >Many professions are required to maintain liability insurance, as well.
> >
> >i
>
> But its not the same thing. Car insurance is for those who drive
> vehicles on public roadways. If you dont drive on public
> roadways..insurance is not required.
>
> Same with "many professions"
>
> Making EVERY American buy insurance is going to put 30 million people
> out on the street.
>
> I made $18,000 last year, gross. Making me pay $15,000 for insurance
> out of that $18k...will have me living in a cardboard box.
>
> Thats not a solution, but a death sentence
Try it on a $11,820 fixed income when you aren't allowed to work. :(
Michael A. Terrell
They could adopt the VA model.
John
The larger hospitals in Thailand, the ones that cater to foreigners at
least, all do exactly that. Before you have any procedure you are
presented with a form that lists the maximum cost which you are
required to sign that you agree and return.
John B.
John R. Carroll
> Roger Shoaf wrote:
>
>>
>> I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress
>> perceives that our health care system is way too expensive and
>> should be more reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools
>> could be built and funded where the best and the brightest could
>> then be educated tuition free to those who qualify.
>
> Will you also be allowing people from other countries to attend like
> they do now? Take a look at current medical schools and see how many
> people that make it through stay in the U.S.
>
>>
>> The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service
>> in public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently
>> pay for Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
>> hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are
>> on a limited budget.
>
> Indentured servitude is illegal. Oh and this is the predominant area
> that the Medicaid and Medicare money now goes.
Rural communities are doing this now. They relieve the student/doctor's debt
in exchange for a period of practicing in the community.
--
John R. Carroll
chaniarts
> On 2010-03-25, RogerN <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
>> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
>> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
>
> There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
> companies.
wrong. a lot of states require you to have an amount of liability coverage.
the easiest way is to buy insurance. you can also self cover if you have
enough assets (in az, minimum is 40k set aside for this purpose).
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ne9oq5d3piq5vj3al...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:50:25 -0500, Ignoramus30639
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30639.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-03-25, RogerN <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>>> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
>>> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
>>> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
>>
>>There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
>>companies.
>>
>>It is called car insurance.
>>
>>Apparently, it is considered constitutional.
>>
>>Many professions are required to maintain liability insurance, as well.
>>
>>i
>
>
> But its not the same thing. Car insurance is for those who drive
> vehicles on public roadways. If you dont drive on public
> roadways..insurance is not required.
>
> Same with "many professions"
>
> Making EVERY American buy insurance is going to put 30 million people
> out on the street.
>
> I made $18,000 last year, gross. Making me pay $15,000 for insurance
> out of that $18k...will have me living in a cardboard box.
>
> Thats not a solution, but a death sentence
>
> Gunner
Gunner, you'll wind up having to pay nothing, or close to nothing, with your
income. For the first time since you were laid off, you'll have access to
preventive care and early care, and you won't have to take vet meds to
survive.
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<sh...@nospamsyix.com> scrawled the following:
>
>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:hogq0b$an8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> One of the things I would like seeing is for non emergency care, an up
>front price for a
>> proceedure. How about submitting the proposed bill first and let me
>decide after I know
>> what it is going to cost me if I want to have it?
>>
>>
>> Wes
>
>I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress perceives
>that our health care system is way too expensive and should be more
>reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be built and
>funded where the best and the brightest could then be educated tuition free
>to those who qualify.
>
>The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service in
>public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently pay for
>Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
>hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are on a
>limited budget.
Exactly my thoughts. We'll need to replace all the aging doctors (not
to mention those who won't put up with any further gov't screwups) in
the immediate future, anyway. Growing their own seems only logical.
Which is likely why it isn't done. <sigh>
They already have medical schools in the military. Those could also be
upgraded and expanded.
>This system would exist parallel to the current system and in fact compete
>with it. By increasing the supply of doctors and other medical
>professionals (nurses, x-ray techs etc.) this would drive the prices down
>and the level of service up.
Precisely.
>The last time I was stuck in the hospital I had gashed open my scalp and
>spent about a half an hour in the O/R and spent overnight in the hospital.
>
>Somehow the bill came to around 10 grand. I looked at the bill and noticed
>things like 2 plastic urinals at $20 a piece, $120 for a pair of rubber
>stockings.
We won't ask about the last item. I promise. ;)
>I figure things a bit different from a value based system.
>
>A night in a first class hotel with 3 meals $300
$100 in my world, or $150 1st class.
>2 doctors for 2 hours each @ $300 per hour $1,200
WTF,O? Where'd you get 4 hours of doctor attention in an overnight
situ?!? That's unprecedented, except for ICU, and then it would also
mostly be nurse attention, not doctor. Wow!
I'd figure $300 for two doctor visits, 1 with nurse's data review.
>3 nurses 3 shifts @ $300 per shift $900
Use actual time for a $200 (max) total.
>misc. supplies $400.
Eyepiece cone $1, earpiece cone $1, suture $1, needle $2, betadyne $4,
gauze pads $2, razor $1, scalpel $2, doobie^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsuture holder
$8 (Paki), gown $5, socks $2. Hmm, I get $29, not $400.
>That comes to $2,800 if there is no economy of scale as there would be if
>nurses could care for more than one patient at a time or the doctors time
>could be billed differently.
I get $679.
>Alternatively, I probably could have gone home after I came to and not taken
>up a bed for "observation". If that was the case, the cost could have been
>less than half that.
Or one SIXTEENTH?
>My daughter had a softball pop out of her mitt and gave her a shiner and
>split open a gash about 3/8" above her eye. My ex took her to the emergency
>room and our share of the bill was $700 after insurance. The treatment
>consisted of an ice pack and a little super glue to close the wound and a
>band-aid.
I'll bet your insurance company paid less than you did. The hospitals
severely discount costs to them. Your actual co-pay is likely 50% or
more. A friend was accidentally sent the ins co bill. His $43k heart
episode cost the company only $7k, not $43k. Since he's paying on the
total, isn't that collusion on the hospital and ins co's part?
>I am convinced that there is vast room for cost reductions in medical care.
As am I. Which is why my average cost of medical care is below $200
annually, including my chiro visits and maybe one hour of massage.
When I see other people's medical costs I want to scream.
--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey
Larry Jaques
<csr...@NOTyahoo.com> scrawled the following:
>Roger Shoaf wrote:
>
>>
>> I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress perceives
>> that our health care system is way too expensive and should be more
>> reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be built and
>> funded where the best and the brightest could then be educated tuition free
>> to those who qualify.
>
>Will you also be allowing people from other countries to attend like
>they do now? Take a look at current medical schools and see how many
>people that make it through stay in the U.S.
What's the rate? (no time now)
>> The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service in
>> public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently pay for
>> Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
>> hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are on a
>> limited budget.
>
>Indentured servitude is illegal.
You'd better tell the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB, because they sign people
on for so many years of service and train them before each season.
>> I am convinced that there is vast room for cost reductions in medical care.
>>
>
>Yep, Stop covering every sneeze of folks on Medicaid and Medicare and
>stop paying for illegals health care.
Amen to that!
>EX: Pregnant female has someone call 911 to tell them she is pregnant
>and having labor pains.
>
>911 sends an ambulance who transports patient to hospital for $1740.00
>Hospital admits patient and delivers child for close to $12,000.00
What a TOTAL crock of shit those prices are.
>Baby is born with a "minor" heart defect which they correct in surgery
>4 days after child is born. $22,463.00
>Mother and child stay in hospital for 9 days (@ 2,300 a day) $20,700.00
>
>Total amount that the family paid - $51.00
>Medicaid (YOU and I who pay taxes) picked up the $243,332.00 remainder.
>Courtesy of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
<sigh>
>Why? Well because it was "Emergency care" and the parent was an illegal
>alien from Mexico who "returned to Mexico" a week later
>(At least the return part is what the ambulance co. was told when they
>tried to collect payment and discovered that the family was gone.)
Grrrr...
My other niece, twice removed, is a textbook Welfare mother. She
learned that she could live well on the money she gets for care of her
kids and has had SEVEN of the little monsters. All the kids are
problems, two of the fathers were molesting some of them, etc. ad
nauseum.
My neighbor tells of a family who lost a partner and is getting Social
Security checks for himself and each of his kids. The family of 6
(mother died) is raking in $3,500/mo.
It's abuses like these we need to prune out, too.
rangerssuck
> "Gunner Asch" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Right, and then his brain will explode trying to figure a way to
complain about it.
Steve W.
>>
>>> I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress perceives
>>> that our health care system is way too expensive and should be more
>>> reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be built and
>>> funded where the best and the brightest could then be educated tuition free
>>> to those who qualify.
>> Will you also be allowing people from other countries to attend like
>> they do now? Take a look at current medical schools and see how many
>> people that make it through stay in the U.S.
>
> What's the rate? (no time now)
Last number I saw was close to 50% made it through the schools and 25%
of those were going back to their home countries. Of course there are a
lot of doctors who leave the U.S. and go to other countries as well,
mostly because they don't find work here.
>
>
>>> The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service in
>>> public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently pay for
>>> Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
>>> hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are on a
>>> limited budget.
>> Indentured servitude is illegal.
>
> You'd better tell the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB, because they sign people
> on for so many years of service and train them before each season.
Big difference. You don't even get looked at by these folks unless you
already know and play the games. Plus they pay you in BIG money.
The way you outlined it the money we spend now would pay for the
education and the doctors would be assigned their work. No pay for the
doctors.
>
>>> I am convinced that there is vast room for cost reductions in medical care.
>>>
>> Yep, Stop covering every sneeze of folks on Medicaid and Medicare and
>> stop paying for illegals health care.
>
> Amen to that!
The problem is that it is never going to happen.
>
>
>> EX: Pregnant female has someone call 911 to tell them she is pregnant
>> and having labor pains.
>>
>> 911 sends an ambulance who transports patient to hospital for $1740.00
>> Hospital admits patient and delivers child for close to $12,000.00
>
> What a TOTAL crock of shit those prices are.
You may not like them but they are actual prices. I have seen more than
one in the same price range.
>
>
>> Baby is born with a "minor" heart defect which they correct in surgery
>> 4 days after child is born. $22,463.00
>> Mother and child stay in hospital for 9 days (@ 2,300 a day) $20,700.00
>>
>> Total amount that the family paid - $51.00
>> Medicaid (YOU and I who pay taxes) picked up the $243,332.00 remainder.
>> Courtesy of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
>
> <sigh>
It is just another example of "unintended consequences" when a law is
enacted.
>
>
>> Why? Well because it was "Emergency care" and the parent was an illegal
>> alien from Mexico who "returned to Mexico" a week later
>> (At least the return part is what the ambulance co. was told when they
>> tried to collect payment and discovered that the family was gone.)
>
> Grrrr...
Trust me they said a LOT more than that. The kicker is that nobody is
sure they left the country, they may have just moved again, but they
have not been seen in the area since.
>
>
> My other niece, twice removed, is a textbook Welfare mother. She
> learned that she could live well on the money she gets for care of her
> kids and has had SEVEN of the little monsters. All the kids are
> problems, two of the fathers were molesting some of them, etc. ad
> nauseum.
>
> My neighbor tells of a family who lost a partner and is getting Social
> Security checks for himself and each of his kids. The family of 6
> (mother died) is raking in $3,500/mo.
>
> It's abuses like these we need to prune out, too.
Yep, but again it won't happen until people wake up and realize this is
common. I can think of at least 4 similar cases around this area.
--
Steve W.
Tim Wescott
While I think that much of the criticism of the democrats is vastly
overblown, I can't help but think that it's worse than that: I think the
Dems are against the self-employed for no other reason than we tend to
not be union. There's simply no advantage -- and some disadvantage --
to unions to have me be on an equal footing with a 'full' employee.
I don't even think it has to be a conscious thing on the part of the
legislators* -- although I'm sure that the union lobbyists have it in mind.
* "has to be" isn't "isn't", by the way -- some of them are probably
doing it a-purpose.
Tim Wescott
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:14:58 -0400, the infamous "Steve W."
> <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> scrawled the following:
>
>> Roger Shoaf wrote:
> My other niece, twice removed, is a textbook Welfare mother. She
> learned that she could live well on the money she gets for care of her
> kids and has had SEVEN of the little monsters. All the kids are
> problems, two of the fathers were molesting some of them, etc. ad
> nauseum.
>
> My neighbor tells of a family who lost a partner and is getting Social
> Security checks for himself and each of his kids. The family of 6
> (mother died) is raking in $3,500/mo.
>
> It's abuses like these we need to prune out, too.
I've heard of a similar case, made more frustrating because the dad
_didn't_ want to be on welfare and was working his butt off at every job
he could find -- so _she_ left _him_ so that she'd stay eligible. He's
a dim bulb, but damn the man has drive!
The solution is simple. You go in, you get your contraceptive implant
checked, and you get your money. No implant*, no money.
Find a "pro-life" republican who'll sign up for _that_ little bit of
common sense!
* Granted, this is a lot easier to do to a woman than a man -- to my
mind this just means that we need to work harder on reversible
contraceptives for men.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Roger is a sore loser.
I would love to see the Republicans underfund health care...it would
guarantee a Democrat win in 2012.
Also...PLEASE run Sarah Palin for President....I and David Letterman
would love to see that happen.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got that box picked out yet.
Sell your guns and you can supersize that box...and have your health
insurance paid....and a few of your creditors.
TMT
Roger Shoaf
"." <.@-.org> wrote in message news:Xns9D46E16F...@74.209.131.10...
How do you construe the phrase "the best and the brightest" to mean "only
the dumbest"?
--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.
Roger Shoaf
"Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hohfsf$1l5$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Roger Shoaf wrote:
>
> >
> > I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress
perceives
> > that our health care system is way too expensive and should be more
> > reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be built and
> > funded where the best and the brightest could then be educated tuition
free
> > to those who qualify.
>
> Will you also be allowing people from other countries to attend like
> they do now? Take a look at current medical schools and see how many
> people that make it through stay in the U.S.
An education visa is not a work visa, so theose forign candidates would not
qualify unless they were elegible for the catch to the free education ie
being able to work for theten year period.
> >
> > The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service in
> > public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently pay
for
> > Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
> > hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are on a
> > limited budget.
>
> Indentured servitude is illegal. Oh and this is the predominant area
> that the Medicaid and Medicare money now goes.
Depends on how you were to word the contract. For instance, if the tuition
subsidy was contingent on the service, failure to provide the service
agreed would then make the tuition due and payable with interest. Also the
docs would be getting a salary for their work so I don't think that makes
them indentured servants.
Roger Shoaf
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@diversify.invalid> wrote in message
news:asfpq5d66r4mdpta8...@4ax.com...
They told nme they were anti embulism stockings to prevent blood clots from
forming.
>
>
> >I figure things a bit different from a value based system.
> >
> >A night in a first class hotel with 3 meals $300
>
> $100 in my world, or $150 1st class.
>
>
> >2 doctors for 2 hours each @ $300 per hour $1,200
>
> WTF,O? Where'd you get 4 hours of doctor attention in an overnight
> situ?!? That's unprecedented, except for ICU, and then it would also
> mostly be nurse attention, not doctor. Wow!
I assume the doc has to leave where ever he is and travel to the hospital
and back. The plumber charges for his time to come to you, the doctor is
also entitled to his time.
>
> I'd figure $300 for two doctor visits, 1 with nurse's data review.
>
>
> >3 nurses 3 shifts @ $300 per shift $900
>
> Use actual time for a $200 (max) total.
>
>
> >misc. supplies $400.
>
> Eyepiece cone $1, earpiece cone $1, suture $1, needle $2, betadyne $4,
> gauze pads $2, razor $1, scalpel $2, doobie^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsuture holder
> $8 (Paki), gown $5, socks $2. Hmm, I get $29, not $400.
Whatever. The point was only to show that the bill was way over priced.
Besides you should probably consider the cost of the frammus they used to
hold back the scalp to flush out any crud that may have been there.
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote:
>>
>>> And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums, unless I
>>> go to work for da man!!!
>>
>>
>> Fixing that would have made a lot of sense. Of course that would be in conflict with the
>> true goal of single payer (only one choice, the government).
>
>While I think that much of the criticism of the democrats is vastly
>overblown, I can't help but think that it's worse than that: I think the
>Dems are against the self-employed for no other reason than we tend to
>not be union. There's simply no advantage -- and some disadvantage --
>to unions to have me be on an equal footing with a 'full' employee.
>
>I don't even think it has to be a conscious thing on the part of the
>legislators* -- although I'm sure that the union lobbyists have it in mind.
As far as Democrat legislators, it is on their mind. Unions are one of their interest
groups. Consider the bail out of GM. Stimulus funding to state government and 'shovel
ready' funding of projects that since they have federal funds are subject to the
Davis-Bacon 'Prevailing Wage' law. Unions figure large in all of it.
I truly believe Democrats rely on people that look to government and labor unions to
provide for their wants and needs. Someone that stands on his hind two legs and goes into
business for himself isn't their type of person. That type of person is likely to turn
into a Republican of some form or a center right moderate.
What I find perplexing is there are successful businessmen in the Democratic party. Frank
Lautenberg created ADP the payroll processing company. The senator from Washington or
Oregon was part of Realnetworks. Then there is Herbert Kohl, Senator from Wisconsin.
I'd have thought them and other members of the Democratic caucus that actually ran a
business would be sympathetic to giving the self employed a equitable tax treatment. After
all, they had to start from ground zero once.
>
>* "has to be" isn't "isn't", by the way -- some of them are probably
>doing it a-purpose.
You have a sharp mind. :)
Wes
.
>
> "." <.@-.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D46E16F...@74.209.131.10...
>> "Roger Shoaf" <sh...@nospamsyix.com> wrote in
>> news:12695647...@news01.syix.com:
>>
>> > I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress
>> > perceives that our health care system is way too expensive and
>> > should be more reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical
>> > schools could be built and funded where the best and the brightest
>> > could then be educated tuition free to those who qualify.
>> >
>>
>> Affirmative Action will insure that only the dumbest will be accepted
>> to those schools and, then, you will be required to use their
>> services exclusively.
>>
>> Is that what you TRULY want?
>
> How do you construe the phrase "the best and the brightest" to mean
> "only the dumbest"?
>
You must have been taught by Affirmative Action graduates.
The Affirmative Action definition of the phrase "the best and the
brightest" is otherwise referred [by the non-politically-correct] as the
most illiterate, under-priviledged, racist, idiot that the AA people can
find during a Law Enforcement Anti-Gang Sweep of a ghetto.
You must still suffer from the delusion that Affirmative Action Activists
have ever yielded even a scintilla of their power within the Federal
Government and now, with an Affirmative Action President to broadcast
their positions, their power increases significantly.
Wes
Today, I recieved a bill for a echo cardiogram that I had back in December. When I got
the first one, my jaw dropped, 2xxx for 15 minutes work tops. Today, I get the bill from
the radiologist. Three freaking months to get that to me? It is chump change in
comparison but damn, screw that single payer stuff, how about single billing? I'd like to
know when I'm done paying.
Wes
Wes
>Right, and then his brain will explode trying to figure a way to
>complain about it.
I've noticed that those that support the current 'reform' are now bitching that dental
isn't covered. Bread and circuses, our nation is in decline. First time though for a
country with thermonuclear weapons. This could be interesting.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Wes
>>> The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service
>>> in public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently
>>> pay for Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
>>> hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are
>>> on a limited budget.
>>
>> Indentured servitude is illegal. Oh and this is the predominant area
>> that the Medicaid and Medicare money now goes.
>
>Rural communities are doing this now. They relieve the student/doctor's debt
>in exchange for a period of practicing in the community.
Pretty smart investment too. At the least they get a doctor for a period of time, at best
they get a doctor that becomes one of them and sticks around for life.
Wes
Ned Simmons
wrote:
>
>And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums, unless I
>go to work for da man!!! So I'm just screwed screwed screwed unless I
>want to check my stomach lining into the Betty Ford Clinic and go to
>work for some poor middle manager who's squeezed between the needs of
>his employees and the supercilious desires of some idiot in a corner
>office somewhere.
Why? As far as I know, if you're running a legitimate business, i.e.,
you file taxes, have income, and earn a profit, you can deduct health
insurance premiums.
--
Ned Simmons
John R. Carroll
Only if you are able to participate in a small group to get coverage through
your business.
Otherwise, you are covered through the private market as an individual and
policy premiums come out of your after tax earnings.
--
John R. Carroll
Stuart Wheaton
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:50:25 -0500, Ignoramus30639
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30639.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-25, RogerN <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>>> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
>>> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
>>> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
>> There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
>> companies.
>>
>> It is called car insurance.
>>
>> Apparently, it is considered constitutional.
>>
>> Many professions are required to maintain liability insurance, as well.
>>
>> i
>
>
> But its not the same thing. Car insurance is for those who drive
> vehicles on public roadways. If you dont drive on public
> roadways..insurance is not required.
>
> Same with "many professions"
>
> Making EVERY American buy insurance is going to put 30 million people
> out on the street.
You know, 15 years ago, when the Republican party first floated this
idea, it was called Personal responsibility, every American should be
required to buy health insurance so that the taxpayer isn't on the hook
for the care of those who are not responsible enough to buy their own.
Why do you want to wear your irresponsibility like some kind of badge of
honor?
>
> I made $18,000 last year, gross. Making me pay $15,000 for insurance
> out of that $18k...will have me living in a cardboard box.
>
> Thats not a solution, but a death sentence
>
> Gunner
Obviously, Gummy hasn't heard anything true about the new Law. Once
implemented, Gummy, you can get a huge subsidy.
Ned Simmons
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>Ned Simmons wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:16:04 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums,
>>> unless I go to work for da man!!! So I'm just screwed screwed
>>> screwed unless I want to check my stomach lining into the Betty Ford
>>> Clinic and go to work for some poor middle manager who's squeezed
>>> between the needs of his employees and the supercilious desires of
>>> some idiot in a corner office somewhere.
>>
>> Why? As far as I know, if you're running a legitimate business, i.e.,
>> you file taxes, have income, and earn a profit, you can deduct health
>> insurance premiums.
>
>Only if you are able to participate in a small group to get coverage through
>your business.
But that's a result of distortions in the insurance market, not tax
policy.
>Otherwise, you are covered through the private market as an individual and
>policy premiums come out of your after tax earnings.
As I understand it, those premiums are deductible on your personal
income tax. Clearly not as desirable as a pre-tax deduction, but a
whole lot better than nothing.
--
Ned Simmons
John R. Carroll
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:21:19 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Ned Simmons wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:16:04 -0700, Tim Wescott
>>> <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums,
>>>> unless I go to work for da man!!! So I'm just screwed screwed
>>>> screwed unless I want to check my stomach lining into the Betty
>>>> Ford Clinic and go to work for some poor middle manager who's
>>>> squeezed between the needs of his employees and the supercilious
>>>> desires of some idiot in a corner office somewhere.
>>>
>>> Why? As far as I know, if you're running a legitimate business,
>>> i.e., you file taxes, have income, and earn a profit, you can
>>> deduct health insurance premiums.
>>
>> Only if you are able to participate in a small group to get coverage
>> through your business.
>
> But that's a result of distortions in the insurance market, not tax
> policy.
The result is the same.
>
>> Otherwise, you are covered through the private market as an
>> individual and policy premiums come out of your after tax earnings.
>
> As I understand it, those premiums are deductible on your personal
> income tax. Clearly not as desirable as a pre-tax deduction, but a
> whole lot better than nothing.
Medical expenses are deductable once they exceed a fixed percentage of
income.
Every State that has an income tax sets there own policy in addition to what
Federal law stipulates.
--
John R. Carroll
Ned Simmons
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>Ned Simmons wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:21:19 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
>> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>> Ned Simmons wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:16:04 -0700, Tim Wescott
>>>> <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums,
>>>>> unless I go to work for da man!!! So I'm just screwed screwed
>>>>> screwed unless I want to check my stomach lining into the Betty
>>>>> Ford Clinic and go to work for some poor middle manager who's
>>>>> squeezed between the needs of his employees and the supercilious
>>>>> desires of some idiot in a corner office somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Why? As far as I know, if you're running a legitimate business,
>>>> i.e., you file taxes, have income, and earn a profit, you can
>>>> deduct health insurance premiums.
>>>
>>> Only if you are able to participate in a small group to get coverage
>>> through your business.
>>
>> But that's a result of distortions in the insurance market, not tax
>> policy.
>
>The result is the same.
Sure, but Tim was blaming the government.
>
>>
>>> Otherwise, you are covered through the private market as an
>>> individual and policy premiums come out of your after tax earnings.
>>
>> As I understand it, those premiums are deductible on your personal
>> income tax. Clearly not as desirable as a pre-tax deduction, but a
>> whole lot better than nothing.
>
>Medical expenses are deductable once they exceed a fixed percentage of
>income.
>Every State that has an income tax sets there own policy in addition to what
>Federal law stipulates.
This page agrees with my understanding...
http://www.wwwebtax.com/adjustments/self_emp_health.htm
"If you are self employed (including general partners in partnerships,
limited partners receiving guaranteed payments, and taxpayers who
receive wages from S-corporations in which they own more than 2% of
the common stock) and have a net profit for the tax year, you can
deduct 100% of the self employed health insurance premiums you paid
in 2009 for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents on Form 1040,
Line 29. You can include the tax deductible portion of the self
employed health insurance premiums paid for tax qualified long term
care policies. Additional rules apply."
--
Ned Simmons
John R. Carroll
Yeah.
What they are talking about is the copay on group coverage.
I wrapped up my sub-S four years ago and have been taxed on this stuff since
entering the individual market in spite of the fact that I contract my
services to earn a living.
--
John R. Carroll
Larry Jaques
<csr...@NOTyahoo.com> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
Well, I was thinking $50-100k for the docs, a very decent wage. It's
too bad there are very few doctors which take their occupation
seriously, like a life's calling. It's all just business now. Cops,
too. When I was last at court, outside, waiting for the judge to nail
the illegal who broke into my house, I listened to all the cops
waiting to go into the courtroom to testify. It was all just a day job
to them and they didn't seem to care a whit about any of it. <sigh>
>>>> I am convinced that there is vast room for cost reductions in medical care.
>>>>
>>> Yep, Stop covering every sneeze of folks on Medicaid and Medicare and
>>> stop paying for illegals health care.
>>
>> Amen to that!
>
>The problem is that it is never going to happen.
Not with this PC government.
>> My other niece, twice removed, is a textbook Welfare mother. She
>> learned that she could live well on the money she gets for care of her
>> kids and has had SEVEN of the little monsters. All the kids are
>> problems, two of the fathers were molesting some of them, etc. ad
>> nauseum.
>>
>> My neighbor tells of a family who lost a partner and is getting Social
>> Security checks for himself and each of his kids. The family of 6
>> (mother died) is raking in $3,500/mo.
>>
>> It's abuses like these we need to prune out, too.
>
>Yep, but again it won't happen until people wake up and realize this is
>common. I can think of at least 4 similar cases around this area.
I wonder if it might help to call it in, wait a week, and call it in
to the supervisor. Naaah...they're gov't workers and union workers
and couldn't give 2 shits.
--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
Larry Jaques
<sh...@nospamsyix.com> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <lja...@diversify.invalid> wrote in message
>news:asfpq5d66r4mdpta8...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:52:01 -0700, the infamous "Roger Shoaf"
>> <sh...@nospamsyix.com> scrawled the following:
>> >things like 2 plastic urinals at $20 a piece, $120 for a pair of rubber
>> >stockings.
>>
>> We won't ask about the last item. I promise. ;)
>
>They told nme they were anti embulism stockings to prevent blood clots from
>forming.
Aw, shucks. I had much more colorful meaning for them. ;)
>> >2 doctors for 2 hours each @ $300 per hour $1,200
>>
>> WTF,O? Where'd you get 4 hours of doctor attention in an overnight
>> situ?!? That's unprecedented, except for ICU, and then it would also
>> mostly be nurse attention, not doctor. Wow!
>
>I assume the doc has to leave where ever he is and travel to the hospital
>and back. The plumber charges for his time to come to you, the doctor is
>also entitled to his time.
No, the doctors are almost always on duty there at the hospital. They
only call others in if it's a particularly special case. A split
scalp is fairly minor.
>> >misc. supplies $400.
>>
>> Eyepiece cone $1, earpiece cone $1, suture $1, needle $2, betadyne $4,
>> gauze pads $2, razor $1, scalpel $2, doobie^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsuture holder
>> $8 (Paki), gown $5, socks $2. Hmm, I get $29, not $400.
>
>Whatever. The point was only to show that the bill was way over priced.
>Besides you should probably consider the cost of the frammus they used to
>hold back the scalp to flush out any crud that may have been there.
Comfy Vise Grips $13. Are we OK now? <g>
Nob...@nowhere.org
The WA Senator you're thinking of is Maria Cantwell, and Realnetworks
originated as Progressive Networks. She was a freshman Represenative
in the WA state House of Represenatives when I first met her. She's
not business friendly, never has been.
Her role with Progressive networks was as an investor on her fathers
recommendation, and with his money. She'd have never amounted to a
hill of beans on her own merits. I do have to say that her daddy did
teach her well though, that woman can lie with the best of them.
http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Maria_Cantwell
Newb
Wes
>>What I find perplexing is there are successful businessmen in the Democratic party. Frank
>>Lautenberg created ADP the payroll processing company. The senator from Washington or
>>Oregon was part of Realnetworks. Then there is Herbert Kohl, Senator from Wisconsin.
>
>The WA Senator you're thinking of is Maria Cantwell, and Realnetworks
>originated as Progressive Networks. She was a freshman Represenative
>in the WA state House of Represenatives when I first met her. She's
>not business friendly, never has been.
>
>Her role with Progressive networks was as an investor on her fathers
>recommendation, and with his money. She'd have never amounted to a
>hill of beans on her own merits. I do have to say that her daddy did
>teach her well though, that woman can lie with the best of them.
>
>http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Maria_Cantwell
>
>Newb
Thanks for that tid bit of info.
Wes
Roger Shoaf
"." <.@,.org> wrote in message news:Xns9D47AD00...@74.209.131.10...
> >> to those schools and, then, you will be required to use their
> >> services exclusively.
> >>
> >> Is that what you TRULY want?
> >
> > How do you construe the phrase "the best and the brightest" to mean
> > "only the dumbest"?
> >
>
> You must have been taught by Affirmative Action graduates.
>
> The Affirmative Action definition of the phrase "the best and the
> brightest" is otherwise referred [by the non-politically-correct] as the
> most illiterate, under-priviledged, racist, idiot that the AA people can
> find during a Law Enforcement Anti-Gang Sweep of a ghetto.
>
> You must still suffer from the delusion that Affirmative Action Activists
> have ever yielded even a scintilla of their power within the Federal
> Government and now, with an Affirmative Action President to broadcast
> their positions, their power increases significantly.
My suffering aside I point out to you that my use of the phrase best and the
brightest was not within the context of any debate on affirmative action.
So to be clear to you, what I am talking about is the kids that work hard
and earn good grades and score well on tests. If you want to believe that
this means somehow that what I really mean is something else than by all
means believe whatever you want.
P.S.
I think you may need to add a layer or two to your tin foil cap. It appears
that some of the rays are sneaking by.
.
I understood fully what YOU meant but felt compelled to show you what
would ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
While the concept is laudable the result would be laughable if it weren't
so serious.
That Affirmative Action is not only well but thriving is proven by the
fact that the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington,
D.C. got there as a result of Affirmative Action.
Never forget that, in today's world, appearance is everything and
substance is meaningless.
Yah, it really HAS gotten that bad...