From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Jan 24, 12:23 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
wrote:
> In article <MPG.25c536ae94ae9c53989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>  BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <wclark2-38BD28.15204023012...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > state.edu>, wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
>
> > > In article <MPG.25c4f87bb230d53989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > >  BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <cq9ml5127hejfuftu8c85v5t4p4jr0d...(a)4ax.com>,
> > > > how...(a)brazee.net says...
>
> > > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:56:19 -0500, BAR <sc...(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.
>
> > > So health is just a business, is it? Why isn't education "just a
> > > business", then? You are not being billed for the services you receive
> > > there, you are being subsidized by the entire community, including those
> > > that will never take advantage of the education system.
>
> > Does OSU make a profit off of their students? Does OSU charge more than
> > the actual expenses? If yes, then they are a business. In the business
> > of selling education.
>
> No, and no. State universities are subsidized by state taxes, and from
> the overhead on external research funds. Tuition only accounts for about
> 40% of the university budget.  So, we can charge the economic rate in
> fees and tuitions, and then almost none of Ohio's citizens will be able
> to afford to go to college. Go read the Morrill Act and see what the
> intention of those wiser than you was.
>
>
>
> > > > Again, why are medical services different from all other services when
> > > > it comes to paying for the services you receive.
>
> > > Are you paying for your children's education? Oh, yes, by taxes.
>
> > I'm not paying yet. I am saving and I am saving quite a bit. I figure I
> > will need about $30,000 a year saved up for each kid and then there will
> > be about $1,500 a month out of pocket costs to me. Damn kids want to go
> > to Ivy league schools.
>
> You are not paying for their high school education? Surely you have them
> in private schools or home schooled, just on principle. You know,
> personal responsibility and all that.

Absolutely untrue. Private colleges can easily stay in business
charging effectively about $200.00 per credit hour. Get rid of the
deadwood faculty, the excess administration and excess physical plant
and it's no problem. People should *ALWAYS* be able to choose public
vs private in any situation, and either have the public subsidy follow
the *PEOPLE'S* choice, or fund public schools exclusively as a
function of the number of students, with the allocation per student
rigidly attached to the cost per student in private schools.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Jan 24, 12:49 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b5c5a4b$0$4862$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, dene wrote:
> > > "Howard Brazee" <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> > >news:m09ml5522i831lbtmohjqpc0abnompt37t(a)4ax.com...
> > >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:35:46 GMT, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote:
>
> > >> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't
> > >> want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor.
>
> > > People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to
> > > reduce their own premiums.
>
> > It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and
> > suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are
> > manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit.
>
> Race has nothing to do with it.  The bill will not directly reduce premiums
> and it robs from medicare.  It's complicated, corrupt, and too encompassing.
>
> -Greg

It will also reduce medicaid dramatically because states absolutely do
not have the funds to cover the new mandates. Interesting that in
order to cover medicaid mandates schools have had to eliminate PE
programs!
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Jan 24, 12:56 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:49:02 -0800, dene wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b5c5a4b$0$4862$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, dene wrote:
> >>> "Howard Brazee" <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:m09ml5522i831lbtmohjqpc0abnompt37t(a)4ax.com...
>
> >>>> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't
> >>>> want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor.
>
> >>> People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to
> >>> reduce their own premiums.
>
> >> It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and
> >> suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are
> >> manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit.
>
> > Race has nothing to do with it.  The bill will not directly reduce
> > premiums and it robs from medicare.  It's complicated, corrupt, and
> > too encompassing.
>
> I'll accept that your arguments are rational, but by and large peoples'
> decisions about such things are not guided by reason--as advertisers,
> lobbyists and Fox News all know. I argue that some of those who stand to
> benefit most from universal healthcare (lower income whites) are being
> manipulated by vested interests who cynically appeal to sub rosa racism.

Those who will benefit most from the proposed health care legislation
are the likes of the AARP, big pharma, and health insurance companies
among others. Those who will benefit least (bear the greatest cost)
are those who work and earn the coverage they now have.
From: BAR on
In article <4b5c9ec2$0$30831$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com>,
assimilate(a)borg.org says...
>
> On 24-Jan-2010, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you paying for your children's education? Oh, yes, by taxes.
> >
> > I'm not paying yet. I am saving and I am saving quite a bit. I figure I
> > will need about $30,000 a year saved up for each kid and then there will
> > be about $1,500 a month out of pocket costs to me. Damn kids want to go
> > to Ivy league schools.
>
> Hope you are going to require they have a little skin in the game!

They will have skin in the game we have already talked about how free
rides are not appreciated by those who receive them.
From: Carbon on
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:57:28 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:56 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:49:02 -0800, dene wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4b5c5a4b$0$4862$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, dene wrote:
>>>>> "Howard Brazee" <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:m09ml5522i831lbtmohjqpc0abnompt37t(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they
>>>>>> don't want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor.
>>>>>
>>>>> People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to
>>>>> reduce their own premiums.
>>>>
>>>> It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and
>>>> suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are
>>>> manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit.
>>>
>>> Race has nothing to do with it.  The bill will not directly reduce
>>> premiums and it robs from medicare.  It's complicated, corrupt, and
>>> too encompassing.
>>
>> I'll accept that your arguments are rational, but by and large
>> peoples' decisions about such things are not guided by reason--as
>> advertisers, lobbyists and Fox News all know. I argue that some of
>> those who stand to benefit most from universal healthcare (lower
>> income whites) are being manipulated by vested interests who
>> cynically appeal to sub rosa racism.
>
> Those who will benefit most from the proposed health care legislation
> are the likes of the AARP, big pharma, and health insurance companies
> among others. Those who will benefit least (bear the greatest cost)
> are those who work and earn the coverage they now have.

In the bill's current incarnation you are likely quite correct that the
vested interests would be the big winners. But how would AARP stand to
gain? That's the American Association of Retired Persons, correct?