Earth to Obama
dene
problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
concept.
HMO. Been there...done that.
Trouble is....Americans don't tolerate intermediaries very well. When our
feet hurt, we want to see the podiatrist, pronto. We do not want to wait
for a week to see a PCP, who may or may not refer to a specialist, then wait
another couple weeks for an appointment.
When the details are announced, I suspect most Americans are suddenly going
to become quite satisfied with their existing plan and quick access to Drs.
They will not want further government intrusion in the form of public health
plan (Medicare-lite) or rules governing how Drs. administer care (e.g.
requiring a referral from a PCP).
Nonetheless, there is a role in government in having all interests bite the
bullet and thus become more efficient. More important than this effort is
how the 45 million uninsured will become insured. One in three uninsured
are under 30. So what is the carrot and stick that is going to force these
healthy slackers into joining the insured pool? So far...no details, except
talk about taxing health benefits. Boy that's a helluva solution. Premiums
have doubled in the last 5 years so what does the government want to
do....make insurance even more expensive.
I thought it was interesting that Gibson and Sawyer asked some hard
questions, as did members of the audience. Unfortunately, no concrete
answers were given. Just losts of cerebral fluff from our dear leader.
Sarcasm aside....I'm glad he has the guts to deal with this issue but he
needs to abandon his core values which says our debt-ridden government is
the answer.
-Greg
The moderator
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
news:7ai411F...@mid.individual.net...
I watched part of the House hearing on the draft proposal last night on
C-Span. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius was knocked off her
chair with the first question. How is this going to be funded? Obama has
made it very clear that this will be a self sustaining program, but right
off the bat Sebelius was unable to explain to Rep. Barton the costs or
funding. Huh? Rep. Barton calculated a 60 Billion dollar a year deficit
for just one category of individuals.
I think she helped write the draft. Didn't funding come up at all?
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=287249-1
Lloyd Parsons
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
> problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
> solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
> supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
> concept.
>
> HMO. Been there...done that.
>
Or just modern medicine as practiced right now in more than just HMOs.
With all the specialists out there, someone has to be the coordinator of
care. Frankly, HMOs don't do it and damn few medical practices do it
very well.
I watched this up close and personal with my dad in his final year.
Overmedicated to a near death experience because dr. a didn't talk to
dr. b and c and, well you get the picture.
> Trouble is....Americans don't tolerate intermediaries very well. When our
> feet hurt, we want to see the podiatrist, pronto. We do not want to wait
> for a week to see a PCP, who may or may not refer to a specialist, then wait
> another couple weeks for an appointment.
>
> When the details are announced, I suspect most Americans are suddenly going
> to become quite satisfied with their existing plan and quick access to Drs.
> They will not want further government intrusion in the form of public health
> plan (Medicare-lite) or rules governing how Drs. administer care (e.g.
> requiring a referral from a PCP).
>
IF, and it is a damn big IF, the insurance companies were disallowed of
cancelling policies except in the case of fraud, people might get on
board better. But the stories are piling up about how the insurance
company that was very happy to take the premium, started looking for all
sorts of ways to not pay for treatment.
This is big, it needs more attention and the spotlight put on it.
And for all its faults, medicare is cheaper in operational costs than
are the insurance companies. And I would say that a gov't worker is no
worse at being in between the patient and doctor than is the insurance
worker. And the gov't worker doesn't have the same incentive to cut
payouts as does the insurance guy/gal.
> Nonetheless, there is a role in government in having all interests bite the
> bullet and thus become more efficient. More important than this effort is
> how the 45 million uninsured will become insured. One in three uninsured
> are under 30. So what is the carrot and stick that is going to force these
> healthy slackers into joining the insured pool? So far...no details, except
> talk about taxing health benefits. Boy that's a helluva solution. Premiums
> have doubled in the last 5 years so what does the government want to
> do....make insurance even more expensive.
>
One change that could be made and should result in lower costs is to get
rid of the 'group insurance' scam. If company A insures 1 million
people, all those people are part of that 'group'. But that isn't the
way it is done, is it?
At this point in time, those under 30 are not insured as you note. But
getting them to join the insurance pool is going to be difficult. They
are generally healthy with no or little incentive to want insurance.
And all too many are working for pay that won't allow them to buy the
insurance anyway.
> I thought it was interesting that Gibson and Sawyer asked some hard
> questions, as did members of the audience. Unfortunately, no concrete
> answers were given. Just losts of cerebral fluff from our dear leader.
>
> Sarcasm aside....I'm glad he has the guts to deal with this issue but he
> needs to abandon his core values which says our debt-ridden government is
> the answer.
>
> -Greg
I'm also glad he's taking a run at it. It is a subject that has long
needed some discussion and action. We might argue about what is the
best way, but I think we can agree that what is in place right now isn't
working for too many.
dene
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-1ECC...@port80.individual.net...
> In article <7ai411F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>
> > I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
> > problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
> > solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
> > supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
> > concept.
> >
> > HMO. Been there...done that.
> >
> Or just modern medicine as practiced right now in more than just HMOs.
>
> With all the specialists out there, someone has to be the coordinator of
> care. Frankly, HMOs don't do it and damn few medical practices do it
> very well.
HMO's...at least the ones in Oregon and Washington, did a great job with
coordinating care. Trouble is....people didn't have the stomach for it.
> I watched this up close and personal with my dad in his final year.
> Overmedicated to a near death experience because dr. a didn't talk to
> dr. b and c and, well you get the picture.
My Uncle had the same problem with the V.A. Nobody was talking to each
other and his lymphoma went undiagnosed until it destroyed his kidneys.
Diagnosis finally came when he saw a private practice Dr. and by then, it
was too late to save his kidneys.
referral from a PCP).
> >
> IF, and it is a damn big IF, the insurance companies were disallowed of
> cancelling policies except in the case of fraud, people might get on
> board better. But the stories are piling up about how the insurance
> company that was very happy to take the premium, started looking for all
> sorts of ways to not pay for treatment.
> This is big if, it needs more attention and the spotlight put on it.
Stories are right. I've been in this business for 20+ years and never seen
an insurance company cancel somebody because of a claim. I've seen them
withdraw from a particular state. Either scenario is avoided by going with
a repuable insurer in your particular state.
> And for all its faults, medicare is cheaper in operational costs than
> are the insurance companies.
Are you sure about that? Most people have Advantage plans which means the
gov't is paying the premium to have a private insurer adminster medicare.
The premium ain't cheap.
And I would say that a gov't worker is no
> worse at being in between the patient and doctor than is the insurance
> worker. And the gov't worker doesn't have the same incentive to cut
> payouts as does the insurance guy/gal.
I'm not following you on this one.
> One change that could be made and should result in lower costs is to get
> rid of the 'group insurance' scam. If company A insures 1 million
> people, all those people are part of that 'group'. But that isn't the
> way it is done, is it?
Still not following you?
> At this point in time, those under 30 are not insured as you note. But
> getting them to join the insurance pool is going to be difficult. They
> are generally healthy with no or little incentive to want insurance.
> And all too many are working for pay that won't allow them to buy the
> insurance anyway.
Premiums for under 30 are no more than $150/mo.....and that's for an
excellent plan. A moderate plan is $100/mo. Given that, it's not a
question of affordability but one of priorities.
> >
> > Sarcasm aside....I'm glad he has the guts to deal with this issue but he
> > needs to abandon his core values which says our debt-ridden government
is
> > the answer.
> >
> > -Greg
>
> I'm also glad he's taking a run at it. It is a subject that has long
> needed some discussion and action. We might argue about what is the
> best way, but I think we can agree that what is in place right now isn't
> working for too many.
Or discover it's better than we thought, given the alternatives....
-Greg
John B.
You seem to misunderstand what Obama proposes. He is not for a
government take-over of the health care system. He is for a government-
sponsored option to private health insurance plans. If you have
insurance coverage that you like, you can keep it. If you see a doctor
whom you like, you can continue seeing him or her. The idea is that
subjecting the health insurance industry to competition will force it
to lower costs and improve care. It's also that a government-sponsored
option will extend health insurance coverage to most people who now
can't afford it and whose employers don't provide it. Will it work? I
don't know. But I haven't heard any better ideas. BTW, whatever health
care reform we end up with will come out of Congress, not the White
House. But I thank the Lord that we no longer have a president who
says there's not problem with health care - the uninsured can just go
to the emergency room.
R&B
> I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
> problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
> solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
> supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
> concept.
>
> HMO. Been there...done that.
We agree that HMOs are not the ideal solution.
Although it would be unfair to rule them out as a better option for
some people than what they can afford right now (which is no insurance
at all).
Where we disagree is in having INSURANCE COMPANIES decide what's best
for the patient.
What Obama is saying is that PHYSICIANS (i.e., "doctors") should be the
ones cast in the role of deciding what's best for the patient, NOT
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be pointed out that Greg
works for an insurance company.
He didn't bother mentioning it here.
> Trouble is....Americans don't tolerate intermediaries very well.
Yet they've been dealing with "intermediaries" all along. Insurance
companies are the intermediaries in the health care chain right now.
They don't heal anyone. They merely ration out health care coverage to
those who qualify for coverage or are striken with a health malady that
is covered by the policies they've sold. Even then, there's so much
fine print, people with health care get rejected for coverage every
single day because of some technicality.
> When our
> feet hurt, we want to see the podiatrist, pronto. We do not want to wait
> for a week to see a PCP, who may or may not refer to a specialist, then wait
> another couple weeks for an appointment.
And we don't want an insurance company saying we can't get coverage to
see one because our condition is pre-existing, or that our case is
unique somehow, so we don't qualify for coverage.
And we damn sure don't want the insurance company telling us that even
though we've made our premium payments for years, the fine print in our
insurance policy tells us we're not covered at all in our unusual
circumstances.
Greg has made a career of working for insurance companies that
routinely deny coverage to customers. I don't say this out of spite
for Greg. His company is not unique in this. ALL insurance providers
do this. It's how they make money. Greg knows it. You know it. I
know it. Everybody knows this. It's just a fact.
Insurance companies don't make money by PROVIDING health care. They
make money by DENYING health care coverage. Anyone with half a brain
can see this.
This is at the very heart of what's wrong with health care in America.
Insurance companies, not doctors (and in too many cases, not patients),
are the ones deciding who gets health care.
The incentives are all back-assward in the present system. Insurance
providers have a profit incentive to deny coverage. That's easy enough
to see.
Yet the government has an incentive to keep us healthy and productive.
That way we can keep working, keep paying taxes, and keep contributing
to the national economy.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for nationalized health care, and
the elimination of insurance companies as the middlemen in the health
care industry.
A person's health shouldn't be a pawn in a for-profit industry.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which one of those is
available to a person who doesn't have their health?
None.
> When the details are announced, I suspect most Americans are suddenly going
> to become quite satisfied with their existing plan and quick access to Drs.
Most people ARE satisfied with their coverage. That's why the
President has said all along that if Congress fashions legislation the
way he'd like to see it, people who are insured already and are
satisfied with it can keep what they've got. And if they aren't
satisfied with the insurance they've got, or have no insurance, they'll
have a public health insurance alternative...as an option.
Insurance providers, of course, are complaining that such a public
option will be far inferior to what's already available through
insurance providers. If that's true, then they should get the lion's
share of new customers. But then, in the next breath, insurance
providers tell us that a government-offered public option would put an
end to insurance companies because so many people will opt for the
government's public insurance option.
If the government option is so inferior, then why are insurance
providers so afraid that most people will opt for the public insurance
alternative? What are insurance providers so afraid of?
The answer is obvious. They're afraid that their own history of
denying coverage will come back and bite them in the ass.
It's about damn time.
> They will not want further government intrusion in the form of public health
> plan (Medicare-lite) or rules governing how Drs. administer care (e.g.
> requiring a referral from a PCP).
What I've yet to see anyone discuss is the reality that we already have
fully-run government health care, and I'm not talking about the
often-referenced health insurance provided to members of Congress. I'm
talking about the government-run health care available to all active
duty military personnel on every Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine base
right here in the USA and around the world today. Ask any active duty
military man or woman and they'll tell you that the government doctors
and hospitals on-base provide as a high a quality of health care as
they'd ever want or need, with the possible exception of extreme
circumstances, when a specialist needs to be called in (and that is
already available to them right now).
I know that when my son's wife had their first child, they opted to go
with the doctors right there at the base hospital -- you know, doctors
that were on the government payroll, working at a government-run
hospital, through government-provided health care coverage. Everything
about their health care was paid for by you and me. (Thank you very
much. Your tax dollars at work.)
> Nonetheless, there is a role in government in having all interests bite the
> bullet and thus become more efficient. More important than this effort is
> how the 45 million uninsured will become insured. One in three uninsured
> are under 30. So what is the carrot and stick that is going to force these
> healthy slackers into joining the insured pool?
It's always that they're "slackers" to you, isn't it, Greg? You can be
a real condescending prick sometimes.
Well, all the time, actually.
I can name dozens of people off the top of my head who are anything but
slackers -- they're hard-working people (most of them professionals)
who don't have health insurance simply because the cost is too high and
their employer (if they're not self-employed) doesn't offer it. I know
of at least two small business owners who cannot provide health care
benefits to their employees because it's too expensive (if they want to
stay in business), and still more major companies that have recently
stopped providing health care benefits due to the exhorbidant costs.
Are all their employees who haven't been able to afford replacing those
benefits with health insurance on their own dime "slackers" in your
view?
While it's a debateable point as to whether being caught uninsured in a
time of health crisis is a cost no one can afford to pay, the simple
truth is, when it comes down to a choice between having health
insurance and keeping a roof over their family's head and food on the
table, many people will roll the dice with their health knowing that no
food on the table and no roof over their family's head is not a viable
option, either. It's a risk they'd rather not take, but starving while
living under a bridge is the only other choice. Slackers? I think not.
To lump all these people together as "slackers" is just a simple-minded
dismissal of their situation, and fails to grasp the real-life issues
that are in play.
> So far...no details, except
> talk about taxing health benefits. Boy that's a helluva solution. Premiums
> have doubled in the last 5 years so what does the government want to
> do....make insurance even more expensive.
Not surprisingly, all the viable options in your view point back to
insurance companies being the gatekeepers of health care.
I would expect nothing different from someone in the insurance business.
> I thought it was interesting that Gibson and Sawyer asked some hard
> questions, as did members of the audience. Unfortunately, no concrete
> answers were given. Just losts of cerebral fluff from our dear leader.
"No concete answers" that YOU wanted to hear. Okay, fine.
Your solution to the health care crisis, I suppose, would result in
keeping insurance companies as the gatekeepers.
Americans, in large numbers, are so past that. They see that insurance
providers have only one interest in mind -- their own bottom line.
Doctors, on the other hand, took the hypocratic oath (not to be
confused with the hypocritical oath that it seems most Republicans have
taken) to first do no harm, and to commit their professional lives to
the work of being HEALERS instead of WHEELERS AND DEALERS.
> Sarcasm aside...I'm glad to see he has the guts to deal with this issue
> but he needs to abandon his core values which says our debt-ridden
> government is the answer.
Let me get this straight: You're asking the President to "abandon his
core values." When Bush was President, you liked him because he stuck
to his core values.
In the words of Bush, "Elections have consequences."
The values you espouse were rejected at the polls.
Insurance companies profit from rejecting insurance claims. Yet the
question is never asked:
Why would you deny health care to ANYONE? What kind of monster are you?
Would you ever deny health care you anyone in your own family?
I didn't think so.
So why do you side with insurance companies that do? (And every one of
them, including the one you work for, does it EVERY SINGLE DAY.)
Randy
Kommienezuspadt
> signature database 4189 (20090625) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
So what do you call the insurance company person that refused to pay for my
prescription today?
No -- I am not kidding -- they decided my treatment - not my doctor.
Tell us again how this differs...
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4189 (20090625) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Kommienezuspadt
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
news:2009062518454816807-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
> On 2009-06-25 16:17:29 -0400, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> said:
>
>> I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
>> problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
>> solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
>> supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
>> concept.
>>
>> HMO. Been there...done that.
>
>
> We agree that HMOs are not the ideal solution.
>
> Although it would be unfair to rule them out as a better option for some
> people than what they can afford right now (which is no insurance at all).
>
> Where we disagree is in having INSURANCE COMPANIES decide what's best for
> the patient.
>
> What Obama is saying is that PHYSICIANS (i.e., "doctors") should be the
> ones cast in the role of deciding what's best for the patient, NOT
> INSURANCE COMPANIES.
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, it should be pointed out that Greg
> works for an insurance company.
>
> He didn't bother mentioning it here.
>
>
Gee -- how am I not shocked?
Alan
the
| problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is
the
| solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care
Physicians
| supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
| concept.
|
| HMO. Been there...done that.
|
| Trouble is....Americans don't tolerate intermediaries very well. When
our
| feet hurt, we want to see the podiatrist, pronto. We do not want to
wait
| for a week to see a PCP, who may or may not refer to a specialist,
then wait
| another couple weeks for an appointment.
I can get an appointment with my 'doctor' (PCP) in days, or even hours
depending upon the need, and again depending upon the need, a referal
to a specialist in a similiar timeframe. I just saw 'chief' specialist
yesterday,
as I do every 3 months. Other specialists (only two others for me)
report to
the 'chief' specialist, who in turn reports to my 'doctor' (PCP). In
fact I
witness this report (and can add comments) as he records a summation
of my current condition.
Thus there is 'doctor' (family doctor), 'chief' specialist
(cardiologist),
specialist (respiratory), specialist (geriatric). I'm suffering from
sleep
apnea, congestive heart failure, fluid retention, low blood pressure,
irregular heart beat, short term memory loss.
Medications:
folic acid 5mg daily in morning - vitamin B9
methylphenidate hcl 10mg daily - prevent dozing off during day
apo furosemide 20mg daily - prevent fluid retention
zaroxolyn 1.125mg 3 times a week - prevent fluid retention
apo ramipril 2.5mg daily - heart
aricept 15mg daily - memory loss
lorazepam 15mg daily (at night) - sleeping
doxazosin 4mg daily - prostrate (my father died of prostrate cancer)
I've always had very low blood pressure, something that has
confused many doctors over the years :-) Case in point: I was
medically discharged from 'National Service' (Britain) because
of this - and I was just beginning to enjoy being a 'trooper' in
the 4th/7th tanks after the gruelling 'basic training'.
Drug costs (as a senior) $200/year. Anything more $6.11 per
prescription. Doctors/specialists' costs: nil (from our taxes).
It seems to me that you in the USA have to 'follow the money'
that the insurers are making in profits (capitalism at its worst?)
to reduce the costs of health care.
Note: there is movement within Canada to create 'private'
(for profit) hospitals, and it is well known that many Canadian
doctors have left Canada for the USA, following the money -
but I don't see any big changes taking place in my lifetime
(crossing my fingers).
Alan
R&B
> Or discover it's better than we thought, given the alternatives....
The simple truth is, the US ranks #37 in the world in quality of health care.
Yet we rank #1 in cost.
I would have no real problem with insurance companies if it weren't for
the fact that their incentive is to DENY paying for treatment, not PAY
FOR IT.
When someone can convince me that insurance companies have the best
interest of patients as their primary incentive, not their own bottom
line, then maybe I'll sign on to believing that they shouldn't be
completely removed from the health care equation.
The only "bottom line" that should be in play when it comes to health
care, is the patient's health. Not some company's profits.
Yet Americans are pre-conditioned to believe that profit is good.
However, some would argue (and I'm one of them), that a person's health
is different. The profit incentive should be removed entirely from the
equation when you're talking about a person's health.
I'm guessing that in a solitary moment of self-reflection, even you
would admit that your own health is too important to you to allow a
for-profit company whose incentive is to deny you treatment to be the
sole decider as to whether treatment ought to be covered when the
doctor says it is essential. Yet we all know that every single day,
insurance companies deploy whole departments to research cases with the
expressed intention of refusing to pay for a percentage treatments that
doctors insist are necessary...all in the name of insurance company
profits. Honestly, I can't think of anything sicker than that.
I suppose you would argue that insurance companies are in a better
position to decide what's best for the patient? (Good luck convincing
anyone of that.)
Randy
Dinosaur_Sr
The problem with govt is too often they gather together the top
expertsw on some subject, determine the least appropriate solution to
a problem and enact it in the name of political compromise.
With health care no "solution" will work. There is no perfect system.
An egalitarian solution is the worst in such a case. Nothing is worse
than the govt setting the cost for health care. People will spend all
their money for the sake of their health. The govt won't go to that
extreme. The one payer system will take away the freedom to use
whatever wealth you have for the sake of your health...the only care
allowed is that approved by the govt.
We had this inj Ontario Canada years ago with a system called extra
billing. They punted it because some providers preferred to to
business with people who would pay for extra treatments, leaving those
who couldn't/wouldn't feeling somehow cheated. The same will happen
here. We all have to be the same...get the same health cares with
standards set by the govt and it's desire to balance it's budget.
So what if Americans want to spend 25% of GDP on health care? It
should not be the role of govt to require it be say 14% ande ration
accordingly. People should be free to choose treatments in concert
with providers, with zero input from govt. Govt has no expertise at
all in the area of healt care, and to go the Canadian route, and have
your access to health care be a function of govt budgetary processes
as opposed to your own resources is just plain wrong.
Of course the dems will pass something, and they will own it...and it
will function as say the GOPs market based social security would have
functioned if the dems had let is pass a few years ago. It will be an
unmitigated disaster of Biblical proportions...and it will hit
ordinary working people like you and I the hardest...we will pay more
and get less and no one else will get more.
Dinosaur_Sr
Of course people like you will look to ponying up at least another
$350.00 per month to cover the costs...I just look at the fact
mymedicare deduction has aleeady gone up substantially...and I see no
evidence at all of a tax cut....what happened to that anyways...just a
giveaway to deadbeats? How ill this health care be any different?
Dinosaur_Sr
> In article <7ai411F1uqm5...@mid.individual.net>,
No system canb guarantee that Dr.s will make the right call on
anything. As it is now, you can always choose to pay for treatments
yourself. FWIW, I know of several people in the US who came down with
cancer, and they were all diagnosed and treated immediately. I know
one person in Canada for whom it took weeks to diagnose following the
initial symptoms and then weeks to begin treatments...in each case in
the name of limitation of facilities which in turn it done in the name
of balancing the national budget.
The Moderator
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4a43dfec$0$23768$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>
> I watched part of the House hearing on the draft proposal last night on
> C-Span. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius was knocked off her
> chair with the first question. How is this going to be funded? Obama has
> made it very clear that this will be a self sustaining program, but right
> off the bat Sebelius was unable to explain to Rep. Barton the costs or
> funding. Huh? Rep. Barton calculated a 60 Billion dollar a year deficit
> for just one category of individuals.
>
> I think she helped write the draft. Didn't funding come up at all?
>
> http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=287249-1
What? Can nobody see my posts anymore? Nobody seems to be concerned that
Obama has no plan to pay for this.
BAR
> On 2009-06-25 17:26:53 -0400, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> said:
>
>> Or discover it's better than we thought, given the alternatives....
>
>
>
>
> The simple truth is, the US ranks #37 in the world in quality of health
> care.
>
> Yet we rank #1 in cost.
>
> I would have no real problem with insurance companies if it weren't for
> the fact that their incentive is to DENY paying for treatment, not PAY
> FOR IT.
You don't have to buy health insurance. Just pay your bill when your go
to the doctor's office.
> When someone can convince me that insurance companies have the best
> interest of patients as their primary incentive, not their own bottom
> line, then maybe I'll sign on to believing that they shouldn't be
> completely removed from the health care equation.
What's the difference between your health insurance company, your auto
insurance company and your home insurance company?
> The only "bottom line" that should be in play when it comes to health
> care, is the patient's health. Not some company's profits.
Again, open your wallet and pay for it yourself.
> Yet Americans are pre-conditioned to believe that profit is good.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
> However, some would argue (and I'm one of them), that a person's health
> is different. The profit incentive should be removed entirely from the
> equation when you're talking about a person's health.
Why not take the profit out of food and clothing? Why not take the
profit out of education and housing?
> I'm guessing that in a solitary moment of self-reflection, even you
> would admit that your own health is too important to you to allow a
> for-profit company whose incentive is to deny you treatment to be the
> sole decider as to whether treatment ought to be covered when the doctor
> says it is essential. Yet we all know that every single day, insurance
> companies deploy whole departments to research cases with the expressed
> intention of refusing to pay for a percentage treatments that doctors
> insist are necessary...all in the name of insurance company profits.
I like reading your screeds, it just proves that you haven't got a clue
as to how waste and fraud are controlled and reduced.
> Honestly, I can't think of anything sicker than that.
You don't need your fancy new HD TV do you. But, you wanted it and you
paid for it from your profits. You cruel heartless pig.
> I suppose you would argue that insurance companies are in a better
> position to decide what's best for the patient? (Good luck convincing
> anyone of that.)
You don't have to buy health insurance. You can pay as you go and make
all of your decisions yourself.
R&B
I repeat the question:
Why would you support denying health care to someone who needs it?
Randy
BAR
You can have all of the health care you can buy. Just like you can have
all of the food you can buy. You need food more than you need health care.
The Moderator
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
news:JYednf-PQrU1i9nX...@giganews.com...
Bar makes a lot of sense.
Kommienezuspadt
"The Moderator" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
news:4a441d97$0$23742$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Yeah and you can just avoid the emergencies! You two make stupid look
smart.
William Clark
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
Because the poor are poor by their own shiftlessness, not for any other
reason. So they deserve to be poor, and consequently deserve to get sick
and die, just as pillars of the community like Bert, who have a job for
now, should get all the resources and so survive.
Sick view of the world, isn't it?
Perfect Impact
insurance company denies ANYONE of health care. They make contracts with
people for specific purposes, i.e., if you....., then we ..... IT IS ABOUT
PAYING FOR things.
Suppose I have no insurance and I need medical care. A doctor/hospital can
deny me care because I can not pay for it. That is between doctor and
patient. In one respect, it is no business of the doctor if I DO or do NOT
have "INs'rance" at all: because I pay for the insurance anyway.
Suppose you buy a fire insurance policy on your house that pays $100,000 in
the event of a total fire. You have a total fire, and you discover your
replacements/repair costs $150,000. So, using the reasoning you apply to
health insurance for this case, you would say "The INs'rance company has to
pay me $150,000, because that's what my repairs will cost." The company
replies, "We owe you $100,.000, because that is the contract."
No amount of whining is going to change the arms-length agreement you and I
made at the outset. BUT if the gummint comes in a abrogates the most
fundamental of principles of society by over-riding the amount and tells the
co. they have to pay $150,000 because "that poor man hasn't any other way to
get his house fixed," you destroy the fabric of human society. THAT is what
Obama-man is doing to the car companies, to the banks, and what he wants to
do now in many other areas. IT'S NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.
NOW, if you have a different SOCIAL PURPOSE for having universal health
care, that is a fair position to take, but not for the reason you mistakenly
attribute to the insurance company.
And I will agree with you on another point: many insurance companies are
indeed expoitative and dishonest, and make impossible hoops for their
clients: which is a different issue. It was the situation here in FL a few
years ago that when you called the state of Fl consumer hot-line to get
information about whether a given company was licensed to do business in FL,
you would have to wait for THREE VOICE MAIL MESSAGES first before being
connected: They were: "If you are calling about the Prudential Ins. Co.
settlement, press 1: if you are calling about the Met Life settlement, press
2; if you are calling about the ......co settlement, press 3. For all other
calls, press 4." Because of the very thing you describe: dishonest dealings
with clients. (in one cases nurses, in another it was about annuities I
think, and back in 1979 there was the notorious case of the FTC and
government requiring ALL of some clauses in their whole life policies to be
printed in red ink; for which, of course, the entire PAGES were then printed
in red ink...
And my wife reported to me a sign on the window of her dermatologist: "We do
not accept insurance assignments for or from United Health Care (the AARP
co.)." When she asked, the office mgr rolled her eyes and said "they never
pay: their business is "Pay your premiums, and we get to keep your money."
The DOCTOR is the one getting shafted, since the patient insists, "I have
INs'rance for that; you collect from THEM!"
So the issue you bring up is about whether other people should be forced by
government to pay for health services for people who cannot afford them, and
for whom doctors or providers will not serve without payment. Gummint
health care is not the only solution for this, if you were to do some
looking around at many alternative and proven effective ways of handling the
issue. So it's about a political system, not about health insurance
companies denying health care. Which is a whole nuther newsgroup.
William Clark
"The Moderator" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
It's just that nobody gives a damn about any of the unread links you
keep passing on as gospel. The game is up.
I suggest you spend your time giving thought about what is to be done
about Mark Sanford and John Ensign. After all, you are so indignant when
any Democrat is close to a whiff of scandal, so this should put your
blood pressure off the charts.
BAR
You come across as an idiot.
Have you read your life insurance policy? Most have exclusions for suicide.
Have your read your auto insurance policy? Most have exclusions if you
use your auto in the commission of a crime.
If you accept the limitations and restrictions of your health insurance
policy then stop complaining. If you haven't read the policy the shut
the hell up and read it.
Bobby Knight
<sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
>
>"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
>news:4a43dfec$0$23768$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>
>> I watched part of the House hearing on the draft proposal last night on
>> C-Span. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius was knocked off her
>> chair with the first question. How is this going to be funded? Obama has
>> made it very clear that this will be a self sustaining program, but right
>> off the bat Sebelius was unable to explain to Rep. Barton the costs or
>> funding. Huh? Rep. Barton calculated a 60 Billion dollar a year deficit
>> for just one category of individuals.
>>
>> I think she helped write the draft. Didn't funding come up at all?
>>
>
>What? Can nobody see my posts anymore?
>
Maybe if you were a little less off-the-wall........
bk
Bobster
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-F18232...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
So I guess you aren't concerned who is going to pay for this? Figures.
Bobby Knight
You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. Bert is
either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. Probably
both.
BK
BAR
Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility and you
should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone else become
ill or destitute.
The Hammer
> On 2009-06-25 20:30:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > R&B wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Having worked in the health care arena for many years, I have yet to
see anyone who needs health care get denied anything. Have never
seen it. That is a myth for which the likes of you like to
perpetuate, it has very little factual basis. Anyone who is truly
sick and needs care will get treated in any ER. If you need emergency
surgery, like an appendectomy, it will be taken out. No hospital will
send you home with an infected, ruptured appendics. I have never seen
anyone having a heart attack kicked out the door. I have seen people
who have been diagnosed with cancer get long courses of chemo and go
into remission, with no insurance. Most hospitals have financial
counselors that work with patients, There are an amazing number of
state and federal programs out there already. Truth is that hospitals
are not very aggressive, compared to other industries, when it comes
to collections, they write off more losses than probably any other
industry out there. And there are an amazing amount of free
clinics. Folks might just have to get off their rumps and research
where they are, god forbid!
Not to say there are imperfections in the system, but very few people
who are truly sick ever get refused treatment. That is a myth, a scare
tactic.
A lot of people who do not have insurance do that by choice. How many
people whine about insurance costs, yet live in houses far in excess
of what they need or drive cars far in excess of what they need. I
have one friend, he owns three dogs. He whines about his lack of
insurance, yet he won't hesistate to spend thousands on vet bills.
How many people here don't fret about spending money on expensive golf
clubs or golf trips, yet whine about the cost of health care. Health
care plans can be expensive, but there are plans out there that guard
against catastrophic loss that are quite reasonable, you just don't
get first dollar coverage. So stop eating out, all the sudden you
will have a decent plan.
Botton line, I am all in favor of government asistance programs for
those who are truly in need. But providing health care for a country
this big is an overwhelming task, it will get screwed up. It will
create a bureaucracy like none other, you think you have problems
being on hold with your insurance company now?
Personally, I have never had a problem submitting a claim, whether it
be dental or medical. It is wrong to make a blanket statment that
insurance companies intentionally reject claims, most are readily
accepted. Most that are rejected are because of poor documentation.
And people should read their plans, how many folks take the time to
read their plan docments. If something is not covered or requires
pre-authorization, then don't complain when you didn't follow the
guidelines, they are often there for a reason.
If you are fat or smoke or abuse drugs or indulge in any type of risky
behavior, sure it might be tougher to get insurance. Why, because you
are a high risk. You did it to yourself. Now face the
consequences. So, you should pay more. And if someone is 300
pounds overweight or you are a diabetic that doesn't follow what your
doctor tells you and now you have body parts are falling off, don't
blame the rest of us because no one wants to insure you, I sure
didn't force those doughnuts down your throat. I sure didn't try and
stop you from taking your insulin shots. There is something called
personal responsibility, many who are uninsureable or who have to pay
a higher premium have done this to themselves. Because they wouldn't
listen when they were told about their own health status and just kept
on doing whatever they wanted. Those of us who are responsible in
our health practices resent subsidizing those who are irresponsible.
We already subsidize people enough. Grow up, start taking stock of
your health, and maybe you won't be a poor victum.
A disastor waiting to happen. Good time to re-evaluate your life
style and maybe change a few things like diet, exercise regimen,
stressors, etc. You will not want to get sick. Prevention is really
the key, you hear so little about that. you take care of yourself,
that is where it all starts. We can all get sick , things happen.
But a lot of it is preventable. Some of you should take a look in the
mirror and look at the fat, disgusting guts. How does it feel to know
you might be a heart attack waiting to happen? When was the last
time you went to the gym or even took a walk?. When was the last time
you read a book about nutrition or other health issues? How many of
you lard asses spend hours upon hours here behind your
PC's, when it would be better served exercising or working a second
job to pay for the insurance you whine about. I have insurance,
would not be without it. If I had to flip burgers to pay for it, so
be it. It is called personal responsibity, a concept quite foreign
to some, no many! Like I said, I am all in favor of helping those
who truly need it, we should be a sympathetic society. But many
people get sick because of what they do to themselves. And they lack
insurance, because they have other "priorities" they deem more
important. You make decisions, yet don't want to deal with the
consequences of those decisions. And then ask those of us who try to
do everything right with our health and work hard to pay for you. I
say a lot of nerve!
Bobby Knight
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
>> illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. Bert is
>> either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. Probably
>> both.
>
>Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility and you
>should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone else become
>ill or destitute.
You ARE shallow Bert. The concept of empathy is beyond you.
BK
BAR
Give a man a fish and he eats today or teach a man to fish and he eats
everyday, which is a better expression of empathy?
The Hammer
He might be the most kindest, caring person in the world, how do you
know!
But your insult does not detract from the fundamental question as to
how much can one government do with limited resources? Where is the
money to come from? How much can you tax the people when they are
already being taxed too much already? How many more burdens can you
place on business?
I am all in favor of seeing that people get the health care they need,
if they are truly indigent. I say the money is already there. We
should be outraged with this war. We should be outraged with the pet
projects put through each day. We should be outraged that cities
allways seem to have money for new stadiums and city halls, while
hospitals and clinics are closing. The money is there , it needs to
be spent more wisely, no one says this. They just want to spend more.
Askng questions and being cynical is not being uncaring or lacking
empathy. If you are truly a caring person, you will oppose this
governement attempt to highjack our health care system because the
government is not equipped to take this on. It will be a disastor.
The current system far from perfect, but scrapping it and letting the
feds run it, good lord one can only imagine what a disastor it will
be. I say you show caring by going against the current grain. There
needs to be a long dialog on this agreed, but letting Washington run
this is the antithesis of what a caring, empathetic person would
want. It will get screwed up and who will suffer the most, those who
are sick, frail, and weak.
Bobby Knight
Which is a trite bromide?
BK
Bobby Knight
<GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 25, 9:48�pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:23:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
>> >> illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. � Bert is
>> >> either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. �Probably
>> >> both.
>>
>> >Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility and you
>> >should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone else become
>> >ill or destitute.
>>
>> You ARE shallow Bert. �The concept of empathy is beyond you.
>>
>> BK
>
>He might be the most kindest, caring person in the world, how do you
>know!
He's the person who asked Randy if his grand daughter was a bastard
child. QED
BK
John B.
When my mother was dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease and was lucky enough
to have insurance for round-the-clock nursing care, the insurance
company would regularly send someone to her apartment to "make sure
she was getting the best possible care." That was a lie. They were
looking for something, anything, that violated the terms of her policy
so they could void it.
John B.
Read my lips, son: Obama is not proposing a Canada-style single-payer
system. Why don't you learn something about what's being proposed
before spouting off again.
BAR
I teach my kids to fish.
John B.
> "BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
>
> news:JYednf-PQrU1i9nX...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > R&B wrote:
Right. So did Marie Antoinette.
BAR
And you would bitch and moan if your neighbor was collecting disability
from his job yet he was building a deck, landscaping his yard, and
playing golf everyday.
John B.
Wow, what a lot of wasted breath. There is no serious proposal extant
in either the Obama administration or in Congress to have the
government take over the health care system. I keep saying this, but
some people are just hellbent on believing that Obama wants to shove a
single-payer system down our throats. He has never said anything like
that and it ain't going to happen.
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
The insurance company has a responsiblity under the law to make
periodic checks as this. It is to prevent fraud and abuse. And to
assure quality care? How does the insurance company know that a
given patient has not expired or returned to an improved status of
health?. There have been many cases of benefits pain to dead people
for several years. And people pretending to be disabled were proven
not to when an insurance rep showed up unannounced.
I once had a part-time job with a home health agency, my job was to
do what they called "supervisory visits". We made sure the nurses
were doing their jobs right, like doing good dressing changes, good
wound care, making sure the patients were clean and well groomed. The
interest was not looking for an excuse to void care, it was assuring
good care, and making sure that the agencies monies were being well
spent. Sometimes, based on a home visit, we would actually end up
spending more money than before, like ordering better equipment or
supplies. All is not bad with the private sector, a lot of good gets
done and their are a lot of truly caring and talented people. How
naive to think it will be any better when the Feds take it all over.
How naive can one truly be?
Carbon
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:05:34 -0400, William Clark
>> <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>> In article <2009062520490116807-noneofyourbusiness@allcom>, "R&B"
>>> <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-06-25 20:30:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> said:
>>>>> R&B wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-06-25 17:26:53 -0400, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> said:
>> yone of that.)
>>>>
>>>>> You don't have to buy health insurance. You can pay as you go and
>>>>> make all of your decisions yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I repeat the question:
>>>>
>>>> Why would you support denying health care to someone who needs it?
>>>
>>> other reason. So they deserve to be poor, and consequently deserve
>>> to get sick and die, just as pillars of the community like Bert, who
>>> have a job for now, should get all the resources and so survive.
>>>
>>> Sick view of the world, isn't it?
>>
>> You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
>> illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. Bert is
>> either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. Probably
>> both.
>
> Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility and
> you should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone else
> become ill or destitute.
It's easy to be uncaring when poverty seems so far away. With the
economy the way it is, you may wish to remember that your livelihood
could evaporate at any time. Will you still have that same smug survival
of the richest mentality after you lose your house and health insurance?
How about when family members get sick and you can't afford to pay the
exorbitant fees to care for them? Are you still going to say, "Oh well!
I guess I must deserve it!"? Please advise. Bonus points for honesty.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
>problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
>solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
>supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
>concept.
He promised us change, but in too many issues, he followed GWB's lead.
Corporate welfare, deficit budgets, & foreign wars are the obvious
examples of more of the same.
>Trouble is....Americans don't tolerate intermediaries very well. When our
>feet hurt, we want to see the podiatrist, pronto. We do not want to wait
>for a week to see a PCP, who may or may not refer to a specialist, then wait
>another couple weeks for an appointment.
Maybe so - but Americans are going through intermediaries now. Our
insurance companies tell us what to do and tell our physicians what to
do.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
Understand this, the private sector cannot compete with a public
plan. Obama is palying a game, he is a smart fellow for sure. In
time, the public plan will prevail, as the private plans cannot
compete. They have overhead, taxes, and limited funding while the
government has incredible economies of scale and unlimited resources.
The whole thing is a contrived plot, with the goal of eventually being
a single payor system. If you don't see this, you have my
sympathies. In fact, my profound sympathies.
Howard Brazee
>
>So I guess you aren't concerned who is going to pay for this? Figures.
Who pays for it right now when the uninsured get treated in expensive
hospitals which can't turn them down the way cheaper clinics will?
We always pay.
BAR
Yeah, right.
Obama is a control freak. He want's to control everything.
Obama believes that he can use the private sector to fund his public
policy initiatives. But, what he doesn't understand is that in a global
economy the private sector is not tied to the US for anything but sales.
Steve Balmar of Microsoft stated it in no uncertain terms, if Obama's
corporate tax plans are enacted Microsoft will move jobs out of the US.
Obama's biggest problem is that companies will flee the US for more
favorable contries. What is the US government going to do, stop using
Microsoft products if Microsoft moves to Canada?
Howard Brazee
<none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>The simple truth is, the US ranks #37 in the world in quality of health care.
>
>Yet we rank #1 in cost.
The simple truth is that our care is much better than most ranked
ahead of us. How can this be? Because cost is figured in to the
equation. Because our care is more expensive, the rating bumps us
down. (that was the intention of the evaluators). We can afford
better health care because we are richer. I'd like to see a similar
evaluation made from the right and compare the two.
Admittedly, way too much is spent on paperwork, and it is a crime that
insurance companies can get away with paying 1/3 of what my latest
hospital bill when I would have to have paid it all.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
Since that comes from you -- I wil simply laugh at you.
> Have you read your life insurance policy? Most have exclusions for
> suicide.
>
So what? That means nothing to me.
> Have your read your auto insurance policy? Most have exclusions if you use
> your auto in the commission of a crime.
>
So what? That means nothing to me.
> If you accept the limitations and restrictions of your health insurance
> policy then stop complaining. If you haven't read the policy the shut the
> hell up and read it.
>
So what? That means nothing to me.
As the idiot said -- don't buy it --- pay for your health care out of
pocket & never -- I mean never have a health emernegy -- it's all too
simple for your type --
BTW -- I am in a hospital's administraion ----- I think I may have some
insights into the field.
But you just go run along whistling past your graveyard...
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4190 (20090626) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4190 (20090626) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Kommienezuspadt
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa1e278f-ab22-4377...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
===
You sure do shoot for the moon!
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right on! Most people don't comprehend that most large corporations
are multinational. They are not tied to America, America is but one
market of many. You push too hard, these corporations will leave and
go where there is a more favorable climate for them to do their
business. Without a strong private sector, there will be no hope of
a strong recovery. You scare away these big employers, we are dead
meat. This President and his Congress could not be doing a better
job. And four years from now, no party or candidate will be able to
fix it. It will be irreversibly damaged. Change we can believe
in........right!
Kommienezuspadt
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:n0d845topk72r3j3n...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:17:51 -0700, "Bobster" <b...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>So I guess you aren't concerned who is going to pay for this? Figures.
>
> Who pays for it right now when the uninsured get treated in expensive
> hospitals which can't turn them down the way cheaper clinics will?
>
> We always pay.
>
I can tell you --- We have written off millions this year at our
hospital --- with no end in sight ---
> --
> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> - James Madison
>
BAR
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:17:29 -0700, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
>> problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
>> solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
>> supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
>> concept.
>
> He promised us change, but in too many issues, he followed GWB's lead.
> Corporate welfare, deficit budgets, & foreign wars are the obvious
> examples of more of the same.
What the hell is corporate welfare? If there are no corporations then
there is no tax revenue. No tax revenue then no government employees.
Howard I would expect that you would understand the concept of a war and
its use in diplomatic relations.
>> Trouble is....Americans don't tolerate intermediaries very well. When our
>> feet hurt, we want to see the podiatrist, pronto. We do not want to wait
>> for a week to see a PCP, who may or may not refer to a specialist, then wait
>> another couple weeks for an appointment.
>
> Maybe so - but Americans are going through intermediaries now. Our
> insurance companies tell us what to do and tell our physicians what to
> do.
You don't have to go through the "intermediaries." Don't buy insurance,
pay as you go from your wallet.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
I pity your kids.
Kommienezuspadt
"The Hammer" <GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f30e22a-5aac-459c...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
===
I thought private enterprise is more effiecient --
BAR
Big freaking deal, you work in hospital administration. Businesses buy
insurance against loss of income. You can buy insurance for just about
any type of loss, you have to be willing to pay the premiums.
What is the difference between health insurance and auto insurance?
Answer: nothing.
You do not have a right to health care and health insurance, however,
you can purchase all of the health care and health insurance you can
afford just like you can purchase all of the food, car, clothes or house
you can afford. Your "rights" stop where my property begins.
Kommienezuspadt
===
And where will they go? To countries with nationalized health care
systems?
BAR
>
> "BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
> news:1_qdnazY98UIs9nX...@giganews.com...
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:01:34 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:23:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>>> You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
>>>>>>> illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. Bert is
>>>>>>> either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. Probably
>>>>>>> both.
>>>>>> Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility
>>>>>> and you should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone
>>>>>> else become ill or destitute.
>>>>> You ARE shallow Bert. The concept of empathy is beyond you.
>>>> Give a man a fish and he eats today or teach a man to fish and he
>>>> eats everyday, which is a better expression of empathy?
>>>
>>> Which is a trite bromide?
>>
>> I teach my kids to fish.
>>
>
>
> I pity your kids.
Why? They won't go hungry. They won't come knocking on your door looking
for a handout. They won't be look to the government to solve their
problems. In fact my kids asked me about opening up mutual fund accounts
today, they are interested in saving $1 per day now towards their
future. They figure that the from their allowance and lawn mowing and
snow shoveling they will be able to save $30 per month. Not a bad way to
start saving money and building for future needs and wants.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
Well you don't have to buy a car -- try not having health....
> You do not have a right to health care and health insurance, however, you
> can purchase all of the health care and health insurance you can afford
> just like you can purchase all of the food, car, clothes or house you can
> afford. Your "rights" stop where my property begins.
>
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
And don't get too sick -- you are just showing how shallow you think.
BAR
Stick to hospital administration.
Lloyd Parsons
"The Moderator" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
> "The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4a43dfec$0$23768$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> >
> > I watched part of the House hearing on the draft proposal last night on
> > C-Span. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius was knocked off her
> > chair with the first question. How is this going to be funded? Obama has
> > made it very clear that this will be a self sustaining program, but right
> > off the bat Sebelius was unable to explain to Rep. Barton the costs or
> > funding. Huh? Rep. Barton calculated a 60 Billion dollar a year deficit
> > for just one category of individuals.
> >
> > I think she helped write the draft. Didn't funding come up at all?
> >
> > http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info
> > &products_id=287249-1
>
> What? Can nobody see my posts anymore? Nobody seems to be concerned that
> Obama has no plan to pay for this.
I don't think things are even close to finalized. But there should be
some cost figures being talked about I would think.
Of course, the Republicans have a different view of this and have
proposed some plan, but just like the rest of their stuff so far, no
cost figures in it either.
BAR
You didn't answer the question. But, I'll play along for a little while...
Try not having good health or try not having bad health?
BAR
Does your employer provide your with health insurance or cover health
related expenses? If yes, how much does it cost your employer?
My employer pays about $12,000 for my health insurance and my
contribution is $3,000 per year. This is part of my total compensation
package. I have worked for this employer for the past 7 years. That adds
up to $105,000. I have not incurred $105,000 in health related expenses
over the past 7 years. I would have been better off if I had taken the
benefit in cash. For the health related expenses I did incur I could
have offered the providers 80% because they would not have to do any
paper work and they would have received the cash now rather than having
to wait for it.
So, tell me Mr. I Work In Hospital Administration would you rather have
80% now in cash or would you rather have to write off 80% and wait 6 to
8 months for the 20% from the insurance company?
Lloyd Parsons
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-1ECC...@port80.individual.net...
> > In article <7ai411F...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
> > > problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
> > > solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
> > > supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
> > > concept.
> > >
> > > HMO. Been there...done that.
> > >
> > Or just modern medicine as practiced right now in more than just HMOs.
> >
> > With all the specialists out there, someone has to be the coordinator of
> > care. Frankly, HMOs don't do it and damn few medical practices do it
> > very well.
>
> HMO's...at least the ones in Oregon and Washington, did a great job with
> coordinating care. Trouble is....people didn't have the stomach for it.
>
> > I watched this up close and personal with my dad in his final year.
> > Overmedicated to a near death experience because dr. a didn't talk to
> > dr. b and c and, well you get the picture.
>
> My Uncle had the same problem with the V.A. Nobody was talking to each
> other and his lymphoma went undiagnosed until it destroyed his kidneys.
> Diagnosis finally came when he saw a private practice Dr. and by then, it
> was too late to save his kidneys.
>
> referral from a PCP).
> > >
> > IF, and it is a damn big IF, the insurance companies were disallowed of
> > cancelling policies except in the case of fraud, people might get on
> > board better. But the stories are piling up about how the insurance
> > company that was very happy to take the premium, started looking for all
> > sorts of ways to not pay for treatment.
> > This is big if, it needs more attention and the spotlight put on it.
>
> Stories are right. I've been in this business for 20+ years and never seen
> an insurance company cancel somebody because of a claim. I've seen them
> withdraw from a particular state. Either scenario is avoided by going with
> a repuable insurer in your particular state.
>
Except they are not just 'stories' pulled out of thin air, they are
stories that are well documented and coming from all parts of the
country. You can stick your head in the sand over this issue if you
like, but it is being done and it is being done by the big name insurers
as well as the smaller ones.
>
>
> > And for all its faults, medicare is cheaper in operational costs than
> > are the insurance companies.
>
> Are you sure about that? Most people have Advantage plans which means the
> gov't is paying the premium to have a private insurer adminster medicare.
> The premium ain't cheap.
>
Most people don't have Advantage plans, or at least I can find no proof
of that. There was some studies done fairly recently that showed that
Medicare's cost to service claims was very low, much lower than the
private insurers. If I remember correctly it was 3% for Medicare.
> And I would say that a gov't worker is no
> > worse at being in between the patient and doctor than is the insurance
> > worker. And the gov't worker doesn't have the same incentive to cut
> > payouts as does the insurance guy/gal.
>
> I'm not following you on this one.
>
If you're not following, it is because you don't want to. The insurance
companies have strong financial incentives to not pay, gov't workers
don't.
> > One change that could be made and should result in lower costs is to get
> > rid of the 'group insurance' scam. If company A insures 1 million
> > people, all those people are part of that 'group'. But that isn't the
> > way it is done, is it?
>
> Still not following you?
>
OK.
Let's use an example pulled from the sky....
BigInsure has 1 million clients. Different rates for different size
groups and so forth, and much higher rates for individuals.
My point is that the group really is the entire 1 million clients. The
cost should be equal to each client, not all over the place like it is
now.
> > At this point in time, those under 30 are not insured as you note. But
> > getting them to join the insurance pool is going to be difficult. They
> > are generally healthy with no or little incentive to want insurance.
> > And all too many are working for pay that won't allow them to buy the
> > insurance anyway.
>
> Premiums for under 30 are no more than $150/mo.....and that's for an
> excellent plan. A moderate plan is $100/mo. Given that, it's not a
> question of affordability but one of priorities.
>
And that is the problem. Under 30s aren't spending anything going to
the doctor now, because they are healty. So that $150 or $100 might not
look like too much, but it is $150 or $100 more than they are paying now.
And what the hell kind of insurance is that going to buy? Major medical
I suspect.
>
> > >
> > > Sarcasm aside....I'm glad he has the guts to deal with this issue but he
> > > needs to abandon his core values which says our debt-ridden government
> is
> > > the answer.
> > >
> > > -Greg
> >
> > I'm also glad he's taking a run at it. It is a subject that has long
> > needed some discussion and action. We might argue about what is the
> > best way, but I think we can agree that what is in place right now isn't
> > working for too many.
>
> Or discover it's better than we thought, given the alternatives....
>
> -Greg
True, we may find that that is the case. I doubt it though. The
current system is only good for those with the money to buy the
insurance or have enough to pay out of pocket.
For those others, and that number is growing, it sucks.
Frankly, I don't know why I bitch about it. It doesn't apply to me as
I've got Tri-Care for Life and Medicare.
Lloyd Parsons
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
Really? Do the auto insurers use recission rules to cancel your policy
when you make your claim?
Dinosaur_Sr
> On Jun 25, 8:01 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I watched his Health Care Hour last night on ABC. Obama understands the
> > > problem but he definitely thinks increase government intervention is the
> > > solution. One key item he emphasized was having Primary Care Physicians
> > > supervise one's care throughout treatment. There is a word for that
> > > concept.
>
> > > HMO. Been there...done that.
>
> > > feet hurt, we want to see the podiatrist, pronto. We do not want to wait
> > > for a week to see a PCP, who may or may not refer to a specialist, then wait
> > > another couple weeks for an appointment.
>
> > > to become quite satisfied with their existing plan and quick access to Drs.
> > > They will not want further government intrusion in the form of public health
> > > plan (Medicare-lite) or rules governing how Drs. administer care (e.g.
> > > requiring a referral from a PCP).
>
> > > Nonetheless, there is a role in government in having all interests bite the
> > > bullet and thus become more efficient. More important than this effort is
> > > how the 45 million uninsured will become insured. One in three uninsured
> > > are under 30. So what is the carrot and stick that is going to force these
> > > healthy slackers into joining the insured pool? So far...no details, except
> > > talk about taxing health benefits. Boy that's a helluva solution. Premiums
> > > have doubled in the last 5 years so what does the government want to
> > > do....make insurance even more expensive.
>
> > > I thought it was interesting that Gibson and Sawyer asked some hard
> > > questions, as did members of the audience. Unfortunately, no concrete
> > > answers were given. Just losts of cerebral fluff from our dear leader.
>
> > > needs to abandon his core values which says our debt-ridden government is
> > > the answer.
>
> > > -Greg
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And if you read what I wrote, the Canadian system wasn't single payer
to start. The thing that is not needed is the govt as an insurer. That
doesn't work.
Carbon
> John B. wrote:
>
>> When my mother was dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease and was lucky enough
>> to have insurance for round-the-clock nursing care, the insurance
>> company would regularly send someone to her apartment to "make sure
>> she was getting the best possible care." That was a lie. They were
>> looking for something, anything, that violated the terms of her
>> policy so they could void it.
>
> And you would bitch and moan if your neighbor was collecting
> disability from his job yet he was building a deck, landscaping his
> yard, and playing golf everyday.
What the hell are you talking about?
Don Kirkman
<rs2dncG_HPOQsdnX...@giganews.com>:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:23:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>> You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
>>>> illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. Bert is
>>>> either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. Probably
>>>> both.
>>> Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility and you
>>> should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone else become
>>> ill or destitute.
>> You ARE shallow Bert. The concept of empathy is beyond you.
>Give a man a fish and he eats today or teach a man to fish and he eats
>everyday, which is a better expression of empathy?
How does that help when the creek runs dry?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
You are their father.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
Is that to be your answer?
I pity you.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
Except most people do not pay the money -- that is what we are writing
off -- you might be the exception -- but I seriously doubt it.
And -- what are you talking about? -- your numbers make zero sense -- are
you trying to tell us you think insurance companies only pay 20% of a bill?
BTW -- I own my own company & pay insurance for my employees -- I am a
trustee of the hospital.
John B.
> On Jun 25, 10:08 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 7:01 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2009-06-25 17:26:53 -0400, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> said:
>
> > > > Or discover it's better than we thought, given the alternatives....
>
> > > The simple truth is, the US ranks #37 in the world in quality of health care.
>
> > > Yet we rank #1 in cost.
>
> > > I would have no real problem with insurance companies if it weren't for
> > > the fact that their incentive is to DENY paying for treatment, not PAY
> > > FOR IT.
>
> > > interest of patients as their primary incentive, not their own bottom
> > > line, then maybe I'll sign on to believing that they shouldn't be
> > > completely removed from the health care equation.
>
> > > care, is the patient's health. Not some company's profits.
>
> > > is different. The profit incentive should be removed entirely from the
> > > equation when you're talking about a person's health.
>
> > > would admit that your own health is too important to you to allow a
> > > for-profit company whose incentive is to deny you treatment to be the
> > > sole decider as to whether treatment ought to be covered when the
> > > doctor says it is essential. Yet we all know that every single day,
> > > insurance companies deploy whole departments to research cases with the
> > > expressed intention of refusing to pay for a percentage treatments that
> > > doctors insist are necessary...all in the name of insurance company
>
> > > I suppose you would argue that insurance companies are in a better
> > > position to decide what's best for the patient? (Good luck convincing
> > > anyone of that.)
>
>
> > When my mother was dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease and was lucky enough
> > to have insurance for round-the-clock nursing care, the insurance
> > company would regularly send someone to her apartment to "make sure
> > she was getting the best possible care." That was a lie. They were
> > looking for something, anything, that violated the terms of her policy
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> periodic checks as this. It is to prevent fraud and abuse. And to
> assure quality care? How does the insurance company know that a
> given patient has not expired or returned to an improved status of
> health?. There have been many cases of benefits pain to dead people
> for several years. And people pretending to be disabled were proven
> not to when an insurance rep showed up unannounced.
>
> I once had a part-time job with a home health agency, my job was to
> do what they called "supervisory visits". We made sure the nurses
> were doing their jobs right, like doing good dressing changes, good
> wound care, making sure the patients were clean and well groomed. The
> interest was not looking for an excuse to void care, it was assuring
> good care, and making sure that the agencies monies were being well
> spent. Sometimes, based on a home visit, we would actually end up
> spending more money than before, like ordering better equipment or
> supplies. All is not bad with the private sector, a lot of good gets
> done and their are a lot of truly caring and talented people. How
> naive to think it will be any better when the Feds take it all over.
> How naive can one truly be?
The feds aren't going to take it all over.
John B.
> On Jun 25, 10:23 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 10:02 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> plan. Obama is palying a game, he is a smart fellow for sure. In
> time, the public plan will prevail, as the private plans cannot
> compete. They have overhead, taxes, and limited funding while the
> government has incredible economies of scale and unlimited resources.
> The whole thing is a contrived plot, with the goal of eventually being
> a single payor system. If you don't see this, you have my
> sympathies. In fact, my profound sympathies.
Well, aren't you a conspiracy theory nut. It's you who needs to be
pitied, not me.
BAR
Does the government have magical and mystical powers that will make the
waters in the creek flow again and the fish reappear?
Keep praying at the alter of the almighty government for all good things
in your life and you will be forever disappointed.
BAR
General Motors and Chrysler are two examples of government interference
in private business gone very wrong. If you think that politicians and
beaureaucrats aren't frothing ah the mouth to get control of your health
care you are deluded. All of the money and all of the control of other
lives.
BAR
Yes and it is my job to teach them to become responsible and self
sufficient. I don't start life lessons with "when you fail you can
always come back home."
BAR
Yes. You say you are a businessman. If you are a large multi-national
business with 100,000 employees and you could reduce your personnel
costs by 25%, this includes salary and benefits, would you do it? Your
productivity would remain the same?
> I pity you.
Great, I am happy you are wasting your emotions on me.
The moderator
"Bobster" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ddudneZWrOkgvNnX...@giganews.com...
>
> "William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-F18232...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> In article <4a441453$0$23754$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
>> "The Moderator" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4a43dfec$0$23768$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>> >
>>> > I watched part of the House hearing on the draft proposal last night
>>> > on
>>> > C-Span. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius was knocked off
>>> > her
>>> > chair with the first question. How is this going to be funded? Obama
>>> > has
>>> > made it very clear that this will be a self sustaining program, but
>>> > right
>>> > off the bat Sebelius was unable to explain to Rep. Barton the costs or
>>> > funding. Huh? Rep. Barton calculated a 60 Billion dollar a year
>>> > deficit
>>> > for just one category of individuals.
>>> >
>>> > I think she helped write the draft. Didn't funding come up at all?
>>> >
>>> > http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info
>>> > &products_id=287249-1
>>>
>>> What? Can nobody see my posts anymore? Nobody seems to be concerned
>>> that
>>> Obama has no plan to pay for this.
>>
>> keep passing on as gospel. The game is up.
>>
>> I suggest you spend your time giving thought about what is to be done
>> about Mark Sanford and John Ensign. After all, you are so indignant when
>> any Democrat is close to a whiff of scandal, so this should put your
>> blood pressure off the charts.
>
> So I guess you aren't concerned who is going to pay for this? Figures.
He doesn't have a clue. I posted a video link and he complains I didn't
read it. Clark more concerned about making grade school insults than
dealing with the real world.
William Clark
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:05:34 -0400, William Clark
> > <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <2009062520490116807-noneofyourbusiness@allcom>,
> >> "R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2009-06-25 20:30:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> said:
> >>>
> >>>> R&B wrote:
> >>>>> On 2009-06-25 17:26:53 -0400, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> said:
> > yone of that.)
> >>>> You don't have to buy health insurance. You can pay as you go and make
> >>>> all of your decisions yourself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I repeat the question:
> >>>
> >>> Why would you support denying health care to someone who needs it?
> >>>
> >>> Randy
> >> Because the poor are poor by their own shiftlessness, not for any other
> >> reason. So they deserve to be poor, and consequently deserve to get sick
> >> and die, just as pillars of the community like Bert, who have a job for
> >> now, should get all the resources and so survive.
> >>
> >> Sick view of the world, isn't it?
> >
> > You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
> > illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. Bert is
> > either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. Probably
> > both.
>
> Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility and you
> should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone else become
> ill or destitute.
Actually, it is my (moral) responsibility as a member of this society to
see that everyone gets a fair opportunity in life. It's called humanity,
but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
William Clark
BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
It's "altar", Bert. But I am not surprised, as you don't strike me as
someone who spends much time in church - that would require too much
Christian charity.
William Clark
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
That is truly amazing coming from you. Truly amazing.
William Clark
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Anything to avoid addressing the Sanford/Ensign disaster. How about you
give us a view of it, or should we simply continue to label you as the
ultimate hypocrite?
The moderator
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-4D19A4....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Please William. You brought up Sanford/Ensign to avoid talking about the
cost of Obama's health care.
I don't know what you want to discuss about these guys. I have been
consistent in my rebuke of people who fail to maintain a standard of
behavior befitting their position. Both of these men should resign.
Now, what about Obama bankrupting the country with this social programs?
John B.
Oh, get real, Bert. No one in government is trying to engineer a take-
over of the health care system. You and certain others here are
fomenting a conspiracy theory for which you have no evidence
whatsoever. You're the one that's deluded.
MNMikeW
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
news:2009062519015975249-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
> On 2009-06-25 17:26:53 -0400, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> said:
>
>> Or discover it's better than we thought, given the alternatives....
>
>
>
>
> The simple truth is, the US ranks #37 in the world in quality of health
> care.
>
> Yet we rank #1 in cost.
>
MNMikeW
And just what exactly are you doing to make sure everyone gets a fair shake?
Kommienezuspadt
More predictions from the gang that got pretty much nothing right for the
last 8+ years...
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <Sc...@You.Com> wrote in message
I guess you never got the compassion part in your life --- your loss.
William Clark
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
No, I didn't. I brought it up as follow up after explaining to you why
no one bothers to respond to your posts. You asked the question,
remember?
>
> I don't know what you want to discuss about these guys. I have been
> consistent in my rebuke of people who fail to maintain a standard of
> behavior befitting their position. Both of these men should resign.
Good - perhaps they should be impeached?
>
> Now, what about Obama bankrupting the country with this social programs?
The country was bankrupted by last September by, oh, gosh, what was his
name . . ? Obama is simply left to try to clean up the mess.
MNMikeW
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa1e278f-ab22-4377...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Read my lips, son: Obama is not proposing a Canada-style single-payer
system. Why don't you learn something about what's being proposed
before spouting off again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his speech yesterday to the American Medical Association in Chicago,
President Obama said not once, but twice that if you have health insurance
today and like it, you will be able to keep it under his reform. Shortly
afterwards, the congressional budget Office released its initial scoring of
the health care bill drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and the Senate
Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP), concluding that it
would result in roughly 23 million people losing the insurance they
currently have. Oops!
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/16/if-you-have-health-insurance-today-you-can-keep-it-or-not/
I would take everything Obama says with a grain of salt.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Paying my taxes, giving to charity, volunteering my time, working in a
vocation, and so on. Just the normal routine of anyone with a modicum of
compassion.
MNMikeW
LOL! Nice dodge Billy.
MNMikeW
MNMikeW
Anything to avoid adressing how Obama is going to pay for his plan.
MNMikeW
So basically you are doing no more than most everyone else.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Right - and you are an expert on that.
Even you can do better than this lame dog, surely?
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Dodge, nothing. The original question was "why doesn't anyone respond to
my posts" from LameBrain. That was conclusively answered - the rest is
just free advice.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Well, that was not the original question. Wouldn't want to wander off
topic, lest the wingnut thought police get excited.
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that BAR wrote in article
>> <rs2dncG_HPOQsdnX...@giganews.com>:
>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:23:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> wrote:
>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>> You don't have to be poor to experience a completely devastating
>>>>>> illness that would break anyone not a multimillionaire. Bert is
>>>>>> either a shallow thinker or just likes to be obstinate. Probably
>>>>>> both.
>>>>> Life is not fair and it is not your's or Billy's responsibility and you
>>>>> should not be obligated to take care of me if I or anyone else become
>>>>> ill or destitute.
>>>> You ARE shallow Bert. The concept of empathy is beyond you.
>>> Give a man a fish and he eats today or teach a man to fish and he eats
>>> everyday, which is a better expression of empathy?
>> How does that help when the creek runs dry?
>Does the government have magical and mystical powers that will make the
>waters in the creek flow again and the fish reappear?
Does *any* organization have magical and mystical powers that will
make the waters in the creek flow again and the fish reappear?
Thought not.
>Keep praying at the alter of the almighty government for all good things
>in your life and you will be forever disappointed.
Or keep praying at the altar of big pharma/big finance/big
military/big science for all good things in your life--and still be
disappointed.
It's the human condition; ain't no perfect being or organization so
long as it involves humans. Be rational and try to find the best
thing for the most people. There's a long line of philosophers who
have argued for that, and a very short line of those who argue that
the individual is the be all and end all of humanity.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Clearly a lot more than Bert. In reality you are confusing the nature of
the actions with the extent of them. Giving 0.001% of your RDI is not
the same as giving 10% of it. Or actually caring about those less
fortunate than yourself.
Dene
> R&B wrote:
> > On 2009-06-25 20:30:27 -0400, BAR <Sc...@You.Com> said:
>
> >> R&B wrote:
>
> >>>> Or discover it's better than we thought, given the alternatives....
>
> >>> The simple truth is, the US ranks #37 in the world in quality of
> >>> health care.
>
> >>> Yet we rank #1 in cost.
>
> >>> for the fact that their incentive is to DENY paying for treatment,
> >>> not PAY FOR IT.
>
> >> go to the doctor's office.
>
> >>> When someone can convince me that insurance companies have the best
> >>> interest of patients as their primary incentive, not their own bottom
> >>> line, then maybe I'll sign on to believing that they shouldn't be
> >>> completely removed from the health care equation.
>
> >> insurance company and your home insurance company?
>
> >>> The only "bottom line" that should be in play when it comes to health
> >>> care, is the patient's health. Not some company's profits.
>
>
> >>> Yet Americans are pre-conditioned to believe that profit is good.
>
>
> >>> However, some would argue (and I'm one of them), that a person's
> >>> health is different. The profit incentive should be removed entirely
> >>> from the equation when you're talking about a person's health.
>
> >> profit out of education and housing?
>
> >>> I'm guessing that in a solitary moment of self-reflection, even you
> >>> would admit that your own health is too important to you to allow a
> >>> for-profit company whose incentive is to deny you treatment to be the
> >>> sole decider as to whether treatment ought to be covered when the
> >>> doctor says it is essential. Yet we all know that every single day,
> >>> insurance companies deploy whole departments to research cases with
> >>> the expressed intention of refusing to pay for a percentage
> >>> treatments that doctors insist are necessary...all in the name of
> >>> insurance company profits.
>
> >> clue as to how waste and fraud are controlled and reduced.
>
> >>> Honestly, I can't think of anything sicker than that.
>
> >> paid for it from your profits. You cruel heartless pig.
>
> >>> I suppose you would argue that insurance companies are in a better
> >>> position to decide what's best for the patient? (Good luck
>
> >> You don't have to buy health insurance. You can pay as you go and make
> >> all of your decisions yourself.
>
> > I repeat the question:
>
> > Why would you support denying health care to someone who needs it?
>
> all of the food you can buy. You need food more than you need health care.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good answers. Another answer is that nobody is denied health care in
this country. It's the law. The question is.....who is going to pay
for the health care. Most grown ups buy health insurance to pay for
future claims. Others, like our resident socialist slacker, wait
until they are sick, then bitch like crazy when nobody, especially an
evil insurance company, will pay the bill.
Took a call today from a slacker family. Mom and pop have jobs but
refuse to buy health insurance for themselves and 4 kids for years.
Now one of the kids has a spot on his jawbone....and now they are
shopping for health insurance.
-Greg