Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: dene on 7 Apr 2010 19:06
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
On Apr 7, 5:36 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
> The thing of it is is that we will all spend a lot of health care
> money. The idea that some large bulk of healthy people will pool
> resources to pay for the rare catastrophe is a 100% invalid approach
> to health care.
> Health care has been a great growth industry for several decades now.
> People are in fact consuming more and more health care, and there is
> absolutely nothing wrong with this. What is wrong here is the notion
> that health care is somehow free. It's not; you have to pay for it.
> Right now, we pay through insurance companies; but this is, for any
> situation other than the rare health catalepsy, an idiotic way to pay
> for health care, although not as bad as paying through the government.
> Sooner or later, one way or another people will have to realize they
> need to pay for their own routine health care themselves. Doctor
> visits, pills, whatever...broken bones, diabetes treatments, are all
> well within an ordinary person's ability to pay, and over time for
> most people will represent far less than they pay for housing...and
> what is more important...quality of health or quality of housing?
> Routine health care cannot be offered through insurance companies,
> it's too expensive to do it that way..and as it is even more expensive
> through government, that route too has to fail.
> We can subsidize the poor, and buy health insurance for catastrophic
> health issues and then pay for the rest ourselves; making our own
> decisions on health care, and being responsible for the consequences.
> You want a big house at the expense of health care? That's your
> choice, and you, not society, should have to deal with the
> You're talking about self insuring and that trend is already happening.
> average insurance plan is $1000 deductible. Self insuring the routine
> doesn't impact premiums that much. We're only talking about a $120 office
> visit bill. It's the catastrophic hospital bill that hits home, especially
> since a significant portion of it goes toward the uninsured's unpaid
> bills. Eliminate that from the equation and the result will be stable
> premiums, as you see with other types of insurance.
IMHO, we need to go to something like $5,000 and $10,000 deductibles.
No co-pays, nothing like that. It just seems to me that we need to get
to the point where people realize that health care is something you
have to pay for. There are no free Dr. visits! FWIW, the spell checker
is acting weird today!
People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best
choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's,
having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the
pre-natal and delivery?
From: BAR on 7 Apr 2010 19:02
In article <io%un.33180$u62.13487(a)newsfe10.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net
> >> so it's only bias if you don't like is it -- I get it.
> >> Fox News is up - yet you whine about the main stream media.....
> > I am not whining I am reveling in the news.
> BUT -- that makes them the main stream media you hate.....
Not yet, but soon.
From: BAR on 7 Apr 2010 19:07
In article <823u4cF8hbU1(a)mid.individual.net>, dene(a)remove.ipns.com
> "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
> > In article <822l3eFj4bU1(a)mid.individual.net>, dene(a)remove.ipns.com
> > There is not economic driver to buy insurance ahead of time. We are
> > finding out the the IRS has not method of enforcement as long as you owe
> > them money, even $1 each year on your federal tax return.
> > And, even when someone is in court for failure to pay their penalty the
> > judge will look at them and see that they have a $10 an hour job and
> > that they can't afford the 2% penalty. Is the judge going to throw that
> > person in jail for 5 years. Then if someone of means is before the same
> > judge for the same failure to pay the penalty what will the judge do? If
> > both people are not treated in the same manner then the 14th amendment
> > kicks in.
> > This whole Health Care Reform thing has turned out to be the worst piece
> > of legislation cobbled together behind the locked doors of the Speakers
> > office and the Senate majority leaders office.
> > Life is hard, life isn't fair and sometimes the bear eats you.
> You're forgetting a couple of facts. Mr. $10/hr. will have most of his
> insurance paid for. All he has to do is sign up and pay his share. Also,
> the primary reason people buy insurance is still at play here. People buy
> it to protect their assets and to insure they get quality care. If
> hospitals become aggressive in seizing the assets of deadbeats, then there
> is even more incentive to buy insurance.
> Nonetheless, I fully agree that the penalty isn't particularily strong, in
> of itself. People will have the right to be irresponsible, anti-social, and
> stupid. However, the consequences for such decisions will be stiffer and
> more apparent than before.
The penalty is useless.
Mr. $10 an hour will pay a penalty of $416.
Mr. $50K per year will pay a penalty of $1000.
Mr. $100K per year will pay a penalty of $2500.
From: BAR on 7 Apr 2010 19:11
In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117716(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net
> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents
> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in
> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed
> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the
> benefit too will go.
> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the
> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program
> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug
> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than
> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors.
> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses
> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits,
> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall.
> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as
> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off as
> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type
Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage
employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the
"worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help.
How many people were hired by the poor today?
From: Kommienezuspadt on 7 Apr 2010 19:20
"BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
> In article <io%un.33180$u62.13487(a)newsfe10.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net
>> >> so it's only bias if you don't like is it -- I get it.
>> >> Fox News is up - yet you whine about the main stream media.....
>> > I am not whining I am reveling in the news.
>> BUT -- that makes them the main stream media you hate.....
> Not yet, but soon.
so you are going to hate Fox News soon? good on ya!