Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 23 Jan 2010 11:28 On 23 Jan 2010 04:00:45 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> only through deeds Howard, talk is cheap, as Obama so vividly >> illustrates. > >I wonder how he's doing on total vacation days. When you don't like what our politicians are doing - root for them to take lots of vacation. -- "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 23 Jan 2010 11:43 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:35:46 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: >> >You can have all of the medical care you can afford. But, when you have >> >to stick your hand into my pocket to fund your medical care you are >> >stealing from me. >> >> That's how insurance works. > >No Howard, Insurance is a contractual relationship. It is entered into on a >voluntary basis. You can choose to not buy insurance, and choose to not work for a business that subsidizes the insurance. But if you do buy insurance, they will use that money to pay for other people's care. That's how insurance works. >> That's how hospitals work when they bill you to pay for their >> treatment of those without money. > >No Howard, hospitals have funds that many give to that fund this, and even >if their overhead is raised, raising prices, it is not the same and the >gov't taking your money and giving it to others. Why, because every business >has its fixed costs; treating the indigent is what they must do. However, >those that are really concerned about the uninsured would do better to give >to the local hospital's fund for this purpose than to back further gov't >intrusion. Still, right now when you buy medical care for yourself and your family, you are also paying for the poor. You can opt out of this by not getting medical care, just as you can opt out of paying taxes by not having money. For most of us, we are currently paying for medical care for the poor. So the issue isn't whether socialized medicine will cause us to pay for medical care for the poor, and that argument doesn't hold water. One can argue that bureaucrats in the government are less or more accountable than bureaucrats in insurance companies. Or with the proposed system, both sets of bureaucrats combined are less accountable than what we have now. Or we can argue that our current paperwork wastes lots of money - but the proposed system isn't going to reduce paperwork. Or that the current system has too much micro management by bean counters, limiting what physicians can do. But that won't change with the proposed system. I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor. -- "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 23 Jan 2010 11:46 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:56:19 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> That's how insurance works. >> That's how hospitals work when they bill you to pay for their >> treatment of those without money. >> >> What do you propose to change this? > >I am not compelled, at the point of a gun, to buy health insurance. True. But if you choose not to buy health insurance, and get into a serious accident, they won't verify this before calling for flight to life, getting you to a hospital, and saving your life. (They also won't check to see if you have the means to pay). They will save your life, and we will pay. -- "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 23 Jan 2010 12:14 In article <cq9ml5127hejfuftu8c85v5t4p4jr0d5ek(a)4ax.com>, howard(a)brazee.net says... > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:56:19 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >> That's how insurance works. > >> That's how hospitals work when they bill you to pay for their > >> treatment of those without money. > >> > >> What do you propose to change this? > > > >I am not compelled, at the point of a gun, to buy health insurance. > > True. But if you choose not to buy health insurance, and get into a > serious accident, they won't verify this before calling for flight to > life, getting you to a hospital, and saving your life. (They also > won't check to see if you have the means to pay). They will save > your life, and we will pay. I should be billed for the services I received. Everyone receiving services in from any business should pay for those services and if the do not pay for the services they receive they should be arrested for theft or sued. Again, why are medical services different from all other services when it comes to paying for the services you receive.
From: Carbon on 23 Jan 2010 12:20
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:59:03 -0800, dene wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > message > news:clark-20A84D.10095522012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> 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. > > No....he's a captalist. You're a socialist. There's more to it than mere capitalism. If it was just about money, I think it would be fairly obvious to everyone that it would be much less expensive to 1) that have everybody pay into a common pool, and 2) get rid of the corporations skimming 30%+ profit off the top. The US the most inefficient in the world, and by a wide margin too. So it can't be about money. So what else is there? There is absolute faith in corporatism on the part of many ideologues. There is this desperate need to prevent "the undeserving" from getting humane health care, even if it means installing a gate-keeping bureaucracy that drives up the cost for the deserving (e.g. white people). So what else is there? There is racism. That's what. |