From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.25c6710d664e4ee3989aaa(a)>,
BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

> In article <4b5c9ec2$0$30831$882e0bbb(a)>,
> assimilate(a) says...
> >
> > On 24-Jan-2010, BAR <screw(a)> 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.

Or college educations, apparently, by those that did not.
From: William Clark on
In article <4b5c9f0a$0$31182$882e0bbb(a)>,
assimilate(a) wrote:

> On 24-Jan-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)> wrote:
> > > > Nonsense. Hospitals at public institutions, such as those attached to
> > > > major universities, have no such funds. Nor do the hospitals in the
> > > > big
> > > > corporate hospital chains. They simply absorb those costs by what they
> > > > charge the fully insured.
> > >
> > > You are just ig-nant then.
> >
> > Uh?
> all hospitals have such funds, how they are booked is just an accounting
> detail

Good, then show me where a university teaching hospital keeps its hidden
money. Let's try Ohio State for starters.
From: William Clark on
In article <dm6pl5tt9743ofllo17s3e76iq5rkesdk4(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:40:01 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)>
> wrote:
> >On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)>
> >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.
> >
> >Sure, it's a lousy excuse for a health care bill that doesn't do much.
> >But people are against it because their premiums won't change?
> Most Americans are quite happy with their health care and why not,
> it's the best in the world. What they're are not happy with is the
> cost. If Congress actually passed some legislation that would reduce
> costs then people would support it. It also would allow more poor
> people to be able to afford insurance.

Those who have it tend to be happy, desperately happy, just to have it.
The rest, not so much. One good way to reduce costs would be to cut out
the insurance companies as wasteful middle men. The costs go directly to
the consumer, and the doctors get out from under the mountain of
paperwork that piecework for insurance companies requires.
> Tort reform is one easy way to reduce cost. Of course, the Democrats
> are owned by the trial lawyers so that's not on the table. Then you
> could allow people to buy insurance in any state they want. This
> would also reduce costs because people could only buy the insurance
> coverage they want.

Nonsense, tort reform accounts for little more than 1% of health care
costs. Even you can do better than this.
From: William Clark on
In article <kc6pl5tql0cpa5uh2gu4h646dk7g5q5agl(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:10:08 GMT, assimilate(a) wrote:
> >On 23-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> wrote:
> >
> >> > IOW, rationing. Americans will never accept this and she agreed.
> >> > It's a contrast of two cultures. You are wasting text discussing
> >> > single payor in the US, Carbs.
> >>
> >> Greg, be serious. More rationing happens in the US than in any other
> >> first world country.
> >
> >please explain yourself, as this is absurd on it's face.
> Carbon thinks that if someone doesn't have health insurance that they
> don't have health care. In reality people in the US without health
> insurance have access to much better health care than anyone in
> Canada.

So someone with no health insurance can just pop in to see a family
doctor when they feel something coming on? BS.

They get "access to health care" when they wind up in the emergency room
because a minor ailment untreated has become one that needs urgent (and
very expensive) care. That costs all of us extra money.
From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:50:28 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> > On 24-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >
> > At present, AARP is nothing more than an Insurance company
> I didn't know that. I thought they were mainly some sort of advocacy
> group.

They do both. As for the insurance end, they allow one particular company
(Secure Horizons of United Health Care) to use their name on the plans they
offer. Of course, they are getting a nice cut for that. I think AARP is
disingenous and I'm glad members are turning on them. I plan to never join,
even though I market a couple of their endorsed UHC medicare plans.