Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Sep 2009 21:54 On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >Not necessarily. In some cases yes, in others no. A real reform would >be to just facilitate the big ticket items through insurance, and not >force people to pay for routine things through "insurance". You can >pay for those things yourself! When someone fails to have medical maintenance, we often end up paying far more later. It's not obvious to me that your proposal will be a net gain or a net loss to our wallets. -- "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
From: BAR on 9 Sep 2009 21:30 William Clark wrote: > In article <l5uca5d39v9sqb069e2dkooaruvri6es2i(a)4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On 08 Sep 2009 06:30:26 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> His SAT and LSAT scores would be very interesting. You can get a >>>> pretty good idea of IQ from both of those scores. I wonder why he >>>> hasn't released them. >>> For the same reason that he didn't release his birth certificate to >>> those birther loons: there is no upside to pandering to retards. >> Actually he did release his birth certificate. > > It is in the public records. He didn't have to "release" anything. He did not release a copy of his original birth certificate that was issued at the time of his birth. There is a difference.
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Sep 2009 21:59 On 09 Sep 2009 22:54:03 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> You almost had me until the last sentence. TANSSAAFL. > >I didn't mean to imply that it was completely free. But the cost is >lower and--this is the important part--you're not subject to shakedowns >by greedy hospitals who apparently use magic 8-balls when doing their >billing. It is lower, when we include your taxes and our insurance, not counting other hospital subsidies we have. Your paperwork is much less expensive. We can find more expensive services in more hospitals. When I see my hospital bills that I would have to pay if I didn't have insurance, and compare them to what my insurance company, with its lawyers pays, I know the system is broken. -- "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
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Sep 2009 22:05 On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:56:34 -0700, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Because there a few points that must be in the bill or Obama won't >sign it. Or maybe because each insurance company has paid for some bill for it, >If you broke them up individually many of these points might never get >passed. Then those individual parts must not be what the majority of legislators want. Is that because they are bad? Or is it because they are owned by Big Medicine? >I am sticking to my original prediction that something will be passed, >but it will be so watered down that nobody will care. > >___________________ > >Would Obama refuse to sign a bill that makes it possible >for health insurance companies to sell in all 50 states? How >could he say no? It must be the political game. Colorado use to proscribe branch banking. They changed this a few years ago, and most of the local banks got bought up by big holding companies. I don't see evidence that this was a good thing for the consumer. -- "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
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Sep 2009 22:10
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >One thing we don't need from insurance companies is "preventative >care". Individuals can pay for that themselves, although I have no >problem subsidizing poor people seeking such care. We don't need the >govt top provide preventative care either. One exception most people will agree with - prevent epidemics. The other issue that concerns some is when it is cheaper to provide preventative care than to wait until they need it more. Should Medicare have excluded preventative care? -- "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 |