Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 19 Sep 2009 19:42 Alan Baker wrote: > In article <M6WdnbYz3-CMoCjXnZ2dnUVZ_jNi4p2d(a)giganews.com>, > BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > >> Alan Baker wrote: >>> In article <J9qdnaCKM4KipCjXnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >>> BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: >>> >>>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> In article <UvudnS9v9pL2aSnXnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >>>>> BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>>>>> In article <1mj7b5l0umpauc87t8v2nd987vir6og53u(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:15:16 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I never said anything of the sort. I don't think that there's any >>>>>>>>>> doubt that he was born in Hawaii. So, whatever the reason he hasn't >>>>>>>>>> released his original birth certificate, it's not because he wasn't >>>>>>>>>> born in the US. Other than that, I have no idea why he hasn't >>>>>>>>>> released it. >>>>>>>>> He has released his birth certificate, Jack. That much is completely >>>>>>>>> clear. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Be an adult and admit as much. >>>>>>>> He has released a Certificate of Live Birth, There are also Birth >>>>>>>> Certificates which contain more information than the document that he >>>>>>>> released. I have no doubt that he was born in the US. I don't care >>>>>>>> if he wants to release the more inclusive birth certificate or not. >>>>>>>> What he did release and the microfilm copies of the two newspapers >>>>>>>> announcing his birth back in 1961 is good enough for me. >>>>>>> Jack... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't be pig-headed about this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He released the only birth certificate the State of Hawaii issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The only birth certificate the State of Hawaii issues now. Will it >>>>>> change in 20 years when technology changes? >>>>> What does that have to do with anything? >>>>> >>>> Show me the original birth certificate, not the one they are >>>> distributing now. >>> Why? >>> >>> Do you agree that the one that has been shown is what the State of >>> Hawaii issues? >>> >> I want the original birth certificate released. I don't care what the >> State of Hawaii is sending now. > > Why? What difference would that make? Do you think the State of Hawaii > is lying on the current certificate? > Why do you care what I want to see. Is you life so boring and banal that you hav to be consumed with what I do?
From: Alan Baker on 19 Sep 2009 20:42 In article <raydnd6wdb_R8SjXnZ2dnUVZ_uli4p2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: > >>>>>>> He released the only birth certificate the State of Hawaii issues. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> The only birth certificate the State of Hawaii issues now. Will it > >>>>>> change in 20 years when technology changes? > >>>>> What does that have to do with anything? > >>>>> > >>>> Show me the original birth certificate, not the one they are > >>>> distributing now. > >>> Why? > >>> > >>> Do you agree that the one that has been shown is what the State of > >>> Hawaii issues? > >>> > >> I want the original birth certificate released. I don't care what the > >> State of Hawaii is sending now. > > > > Why? What difference would that make? Do you think the State of Hawaii > > is lying on the current certificate? > > > > Why do you care what I want to see. Is you life so boring and banal that > you hav to be consumed with what I do? You amuse me. It amuses me to see you wriggling away from simply answering the question... ....as you've just done again. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 20 Sep 2009 21:02 "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:lloydparsons-9A46AA.17420920092009(a)port80.individual.net... > I haven't watched MSNBC in some time. Mostly CNN and Fox, broadcast > news and NPR and public tv. By the time I get that done, it's time to > play golf and say f**k it to this stuff... :) Hell yeah!!! -Greg
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 21 Sep 2009 12:36 On Sep 19, 3:36 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:a7ec8d84-295f-4f3f-9b0c-9c00d32894ed(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 12, 2:39 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7_Dgm.54312$sC1.29585(a)newsfe17.iad... > > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > > > a. allow individuals to buy out of state insurance (one bill) > > > > b. require insurance for preexisting conditions (one bill) > > > Amen to 1a. However, 1b should be limited to individuals being given a one > > time chance to join an individual plan without regard to pre-ex. If you > > mandate it beyond that, there will not be an individual plan available to > > anybody. It's like lending money to somebody who can't afford it. > > > > c. require portability of insurance between jobs and in the case of > > > lost jobs. > > > Amen. > > > > d. do something about preventative medicine. Stop filling the > > > emergency rooms with people who could have treated and cured > > > by simple means before serious consequences occur. Stop giving > > > primary care to medicaid and uninsured at expensive ERs. > > > That's helpful but not a cure-all. > > > > e. Audit insurance company payouts. One doctor testified before > > > congress that her job was to deny claims and she admitted that her > > > actions had killed patients and that she was totally unaccountable, > > > she was promoted as a good employee. This is just sick. > > > It is....and it's unusual. Most states have robust insurance depts. who > > guard against this sort of practice. Nonetheless, a federal law banning > > this wouldn't hurt. > > > > f. Require payment based on outcomes, not on number of tests and > > > procedures ... Necessary tests will be done if outcome is taken > > > into account. > > > You're getting into rationing and having other people, other than Drs., > > decide tests and procedures. > > > -Greg > > You can't allow every claim, so even a govt plan will have to deny > claims, and such denials will always correlate with patient deaths, > these people are ill anyways...in any event the argument that some > claim was denied and some person died will always be with us. For me, > it's just a matter of knowing what your insurance actually does > provide. Most people don't, and get upset when faced with reality! > Just speaking for myself, I have an organ transplant and a cancer add > on to my insurance because there are holes in my policy in these > areas, The add ons are very cheap, BTW. > > _________________________ > > This is one of the most important ponts (above). I'd like > to know how, though, that you found what your policy > does and does not cover. I'm guessing that you'll say > "read your policy". Is it that simple? Talk to your insurer....instead of just assuming that any old thing is covered and then blaming the company when it is not.
From: gray asphalt on 22 Sep 2009 01:17
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message news:885bd0aa-5806-4c97-ae1f-2ca23b054fd3(a)v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... On Sep 19, 3:36 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:a7ec8d84-295f-4f3f-9b0c-9c00d32894ed(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 12, 2:39 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7_Dgm.54312$sC1.29585(a)newsfe17.iad... > > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > > > a. allow individuals to buy out of state insurance (one bill) > > > > b. require insurance for preexisting conditions (one bill) > > > Amen to 1a. However, 1b should be limited to individuals being given a > > one > > time chance to join an individual plan without regard to pre-ex. If you > > mandate it beyond that, there will not be an individual plan available > > to > > anybody. It's like lending money to somebody who can't afford it. > > > > c. require portability of insurance between jobs and in the case of > > > lost jobs. > > > Amen. > > > > d. do something about preventative medicine. Stop filling the > > > emergency rooms with people who could have treated and cured > > > by simple means before serious consequences occur. Stop giving > > > primary care to medicaid and uninsured at expensive ERs. > > > That's helpful but not a cure-all. > > > > e. Audit insurance company payouts. One doctor testified before > > > congress that her job was to deny claims and she admitted that her > > > actions had killed patients and that she was totally unaccountable, > > > she was promoted as a good employee. This is just sick. > > > It is....and it's unusual. Most states have robust insurance depts. who > > guard against this sort of practice. Nonetheless, a federal law banning > > this wouldn't hurt. > > > > f. Require payment based on outcomes, not on number of tests and > > > procedures ... Necessary tests will be done if outcome is taken > > > into account. > > > You're getting into rationing and having other people, other than Drs., > > decide tests and procedures. > > > -Greg > > You can't allow every claim, so even a govt plan will have to deny > claims, and such denials will always correlate with patient deaths, > these people are ill anyways...in any event the argument that some > claim was denied and some person died will always be with us. For me, > it's just a matter of knowing what your insurance actually does > provide. Most people don't, and get upset when faced with reality! > Just speaking for myself, I have an organ transplant and a cancer add > on to my insurance because there are holes in my policy in these > areas, The add ons are very cheap, BTW. > > _________________________ > > This is one of the most important ponts (above). I'd like > to know how, though, that you found what your policy > does and does not cover. I'm guessing that you'll say > "read your policy". Is it that simple? Talk to your insurer....instead of just assuming that any old thing is covered and then blaming the company when it is not. _________________________ To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful thinking to believe that the current insurance companies are going to treat you fairly. If they wanted to be up front about what they do and do not cover there would be a list. |