Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 23 Jan 2010 12:33 In article <m09ml5522i831lbtmohjqpc0abnompt37t(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > 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. Amen.
From: BAR on 23 Jan 2010 12:52 In article <wclark2-11D082.12305423012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <MPG.25c4b3ad9df97f99989a86(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <06lkl55i62upu4acbsl3e0e8s5p3beilv2(a)4ax.com>, > > howard(a)brazee.net says... > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:11:51 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> 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. > > > 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. > > > > All companies price their goods and services so that they can cover > > their expenses. If someone orders a box of widgets and does not pay for > > them, then that is a cost of doing business. If I find out that the > > business is lousy at qualifying its buyers I have the choice of going to > > another business to buy my widgets from. > > > > 1) Health insurance is not a right. > > No one says it is. It is health CARE that should be a right. Health care is a service that someone provides you, it is not a right. If there are no doctors how do you get your health care? > > > > 2) Nobody is refused health care in life threatening situations, we have > > made that illegal. > > And then the hand goes into your and my pocket to pay for it. The person receiving the health care services should pay for the health care services they receive. If they need to negotiate a payment plan then they should do that. But, expecting other people to pay for your health care is selfish and immoral. > > > > 3) Stop thinking in terms of shared responsibility and think of personal > > responsibility. We have too big and too wide of a safety net in the USA. > > BS. You are against personal responsibility? I thought so!
From: BAR on 23 Jan 2010 12:55 In article <4b5b2fc6$0$5119$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>> 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. > Do you work for a corporation? If yes, I would suggest that you resign on Monday so that you can be true to your values and to yourself. Why do you want to support and perpetuate organizations that you abhor and that you see as the most corrupting influences in the world?
From: Howard Brazee on 23 Jan 2010 13:09 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:14:19 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >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. But that's not what happens now. There are two ways around this now: 1. Buy insurance to get someone else to pay in case disaster happens. 2. Say you can't pay. >Again, why are medical services different from all other services when >it comes to paying for the services you receive. First - all other services are subject to bankruptcy laws now. And businesses that are Too Big To Fail don't even have to go that far. Second - medical care has to get started *now*. Do you want to wait until you have set up a contract for the Flight for Life to pick up your unconscious body from your accident? Third - There are significant societal costs to not getting medical care to those who need it. Losing workers is expensive. Spreading epidemics is expensive. Paying those costs is cutting off our nose to spite our face. It's cheaper to have healthy workers and epidemic control. Fourth - This discussion isn't about eliminating care for the poor. That's not an option on the table, no politician is proposing that hospitals turn away the indigent. -- "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: Carbon on 23 Jan 2010 13:48
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:55:55 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b5b2fc6$0$5119$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>> >>>>> 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. > > Do you work for a corporation? If yes, I would suggest that you resign > on Monday so that you can be true to your values and to yourself. > > Why do you want to support and perpetuate organizations that you abhor > and that you see as the most corrupting influences in the world? Once again, you have totally missed the point. |