Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 25 Jan 2010 07:43 How many people research to find out whether the insurance companies with plans offered by their employers use some of their money to pay for abortions? At any rate, Right to Lifers should be happy that with the Health Care Bill, they are stopping insurance for paying for abortions. Are they supporting this change? -- "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 25 Jan 2010 07:48 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:59:13 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >>People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to reduce >>their own premiums. > >The reason people are against it is because they will end up paying >more than they're already paying for the poor. Prices are going up anyway, nothing has been done to reduce paperwork. But the more valid comparison is the future with or without this bill, and I don't see the above as being obvious. We pay a lot for the poor now. When they go to hospitals for treatment because they can't afford to go to physicians' offices & clinics, it is expensive for us. Getting them to clinics will save us money. -- "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 25 Jan 2010 08:09 In article <4b5d0e71$0$4947$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:50:28 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > On 24-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> 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 make money selling/brokering insurance. http://products.aarp.org/insurance/ Once you join the "association" to get your discount card you are on their list as a potential sale for their other products. AARP is a business.
From: William Clark on 25 Jan 2010 08:13 In article <66c6dafd-b068-4892-80b1-2d161c41c64d(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > 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. You can only do that if you eliminate research in the sciences and technology. It's way too expensive for tuition only revenue streams, which is why relatively little of it in these fields is done in the private schools.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 25 Jan 2010 08:45
On Jan 24, 3:34 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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? The AARP stands to become the mechanism to provide coverage akin to medicare advantage, and stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars from the current incarnation. |