Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: gray asphalt on 8 Apr 2010 18:53
Okay ... let me understand ...
AARP is an insurance company and that is why
they support health insurance reform? ... while
all of the other companies were against it.
Makes sense to me, not. And I guess the AMA
supported the health insurance reform bill because
they are all lawyers.
From: BAR on 8 Apr 2010 19:14
In article <Z7tvn.62115$y13.39749(a)newsfe12.iad>, dontwrite(a)gmail.com
> Okay ... let me understand ...
> AARP is an insurance company and that is why
> they support health insurance reform? ... while
> all of the other companies were against it.
> Makes sense to me, not. And I guess the AMA
> supported the health insurance reform bill because
> they are all lawyers.
You haven't got a clue about health insurance.
From: Carbon on 8 Apr 2010 19:27
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:04:34 -0700, dene wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks
>>> newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox
>>> News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that?
>> Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance.
>> On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality.
> I don't see how you can count Fox as fluff. They interview both sides,
> which is something you don't see with Rachel or MSNBC.
I wouldn't call screeching "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!" interviewing...
From: Carbon on 8 Apr 2010 19:32
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:37:59 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <clark-F81C4F.08010608042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>> In article <4bbd01a7$0$4955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>> Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks
>>>> newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox
>>>> News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that?
>>> Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance.
>>> On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality.
>> Indeed, it's because Fox News is not a news channel, it's an
>> entertainment channel for the hard of thinking. Apples and oranges.
> So the election of Obama was a popularity contents and it is not a
> measure of his quality.
Correct. Although he is superior to his predecessor in every measurable
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Apr 2010 10:48
On Apr 7, 7:06 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(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
> > consequences.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
> > -Greg
> 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?
People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided
by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to
suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company)
employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as
much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their
employers making those choices.