Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 22 Jan 2010 08:14 In article <wclark2-99DBF6.20181221012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <vbthl55s3k72de3131hts63lp1s5pqaddk(a)4ax.com>, > Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:48:26 -0500, William Clark > > <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > >Which is precisely what makes insurance an idiotic vehicle for > > >determining health care. Health care should be determined by what is > > >wrong with you that needs treating, not the fine print in some > > >unreadable insurance policy. What next "I'm sorry, I can't have kidney > > >failure today, my insurance company won't allow it?" This is simply nuts. > > > > On the other hand, half of the money spent on medical care is on > > people who die in 6 months anyway. We can save lots of money by > > spending our money on universal care, but only for people who are > > likely to survive a year. > > Indeed, Bertie would be for triaging those people out onto the street - > they cost him money to keep alive. Unless, of course, it was him. I am in favor of people getting what they can pay for. When I go to the grocery store I have the opportunity to buy the low quality meat or the high quality meat. I would have a better life if I could eat the high quality meat. I can't afford to eat the high quality meat every night of the week so I have to make a choice. Is it fair no, because its not what I want. It just is. Medical insurance is not a right.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Jan 2010 08:48 On Jan 21, 7:48 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:48:26 -0500, William Clark > > <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > >Which is precisely what makes insurance an idiotic vehicle for > >determining health care. Health care should be determined by what is > >wrong with you that needs treating, not the fine print in some > >unreadable insurance policy. What next "I'm sorry, I can't have kidney > >failure today, my insurance company won't allow it?" This is simply nuts.. > > On the other hand, half of the money spent on medical care is on > people who die in 6 months anyway. We can save lots of money by > spending our money on universal care, but only for people who are > likely to survive a year. > There's the rub. Universal health care is unaffordable. So the question becomes how do you allocate? Let the people do it, or have the govt do it. Most govts don't trust the people in this area. After all, some people are more industrious than others, and have more personal resources available, and this is a bad thing, at least to progressives. Of course if you slap down those industrious people, the economy declines, which is terrible, but it just goes to show that you can't trust the people to do the right thing. This doesn't make any sense, but neither does it make sense to say you want to add 30% more people to the health care system, but it will cost less with no reduction of service to anyone. I admit that I am the kind of idiot who thinks that 90% of the people can take care of themselves with minimal govt.
From: William Clark on 22 Jan 2010 10:08 In article <MPG.25c36ed380619933989a75(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-99DBF6.20181221012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <vbthl55s3k72de3131hts63lp1s5pqaddk(a)4ax.com>, > > Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:48:26 -0500, William Clark > > > <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > >Which is precisely what makes insurance an idiotic vehicle for > > > >determining health care. Health care should be determined by what is > > > >wrong with you that needs treating, not the fine print in some > > > >unreadable insurance policy. What next "I'm sorry, I can't have kidney > > > >failure today, my insurance company won't allow it?" This is simply nuts. > > > > > > On the other hand, half of the money spent on medical care is on > > > people who die in 6 months anyway. We can save lots of money by > > > spending our money on universal care, but only for people who are > > > likely to survive a year. > > > > Indeed, Bertie would be for triaging those people out onto the street - > > they cost him money to keep alive. Unless, of course, it was him. > > I am in favor of people getting what they can pay for. When I go to the > grocery store I have the opportunity to buy the low quality meat or the > high quality meat. I would have a better life if I could eat the high > quality meat. I can't afford to eat the high quality meat every night of > the week so I have to make a choice. Is it fair no, because its not what > I want. It just is. > > Medical insurance is not a right. "Medical insurance" is not the issue - health care is. Any civilized society regards it as a high priority for all its citizens. I can only conclude that you cannot be included in that definition.
From: William Clark on 22 Jan 2010 10:09 In article <MPG.25c36ed380619933989a75(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-99DBF6.20181221012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <vbthl55s3k72de3131hts63lp1s5pqaddk(a)4ax.com>, > > Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:48:26 -0500, William Clark > > > <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > >Which is precisely what makes insurance an idiotic vehicle for > > > >determining health care. Health care should be determined by what is > > > >wrong with you that needs treating, not the fine print in some > > > >unreadable insurance policy. What next "I'm sorry, I can't have kidney > > > >failure today, my insurance company won't allow it?" This is simply nuts. > > > > > > On the other hand, half of the money spent on medical care is on > > > people who die in 6 months anyway. We can save lots of money by > > > spending our money on universal care, but only for people who are > > > likely to survive a year. > > > > Indeed, Bertie would be for triaging those people out onto the street - > > they cost him money to keep alive. Unless, of course, it was him. > > I am in favor of people getting what they can pay for. When I go to the > grocery store I have the opportunity to buy the low quality meat or the > high quality meat. I would have a better life if I could eat the high > quality meat. I can't afford to eat the high quality meat every night of > the week so I have to make a choice. Is it fair no, because its not what > I want. It just is. > > Medical insurance is not a right. So everyone should only go to a school they can pay for? Everyone should only drive on the roads they van afford to buy? You're nuts.
From: Jack Hollis on 22 Jan 2010 10:19
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:59:40 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: >On 21-Jan-2010, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> > When it comes to uniting the American people, nobody beats Obama. He has >> > singlehandly united the country....against him. >> >> Hooboy. That's some fine, nuanced analysis! > >I got yer nuance right here buddy! :-D > >-- >bill-o I'm sure that the "progressive" wing of the democratic party is happy to see this week at an end. What a nightmare it's been for them. Tuesday, they lose their filibuster proof majority. That's bad enough, but the fact that it was Ted Kennedy's old seat that they lost makes it a lot worse. On Wednesday, it became apparent that the health care bill, that they worked on for almost a year at a terrible political cost, was dead in the water. Yesterday Nancy had to admit that the health care bill was dead. Then, 45 minutes after Obama threatens the banks with restrictions on their business, the SCOTUS announces that it's lifting all restrictions on corporate campaign donations. The election in November was going to be bad for the Dems, but now they have to face the prospect of huge donations going to the Republicans from the corporations. Suddenly, being anti-business has a bigger price attached to it. And as a side note, Air America went belly up. I guess George Soros got sick of wasting his money on those bunch of losers. In more media news, Fox News had around 75% of the viewers watching cable news on election night with CNN and MSNBC splitting the remaining 25%. Greta and Sean both had more viewers than Jay Leno and all of the ABC prime time lineup. When cable news starts outdrawing the broadcast networks you know that something is happening. |