health care
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 12 Feb 2010 07:27 In article <oy0dn.144819$kQ5.41489(a)newsfe08.iad>, dontwrite(a)gmail.com says... > > I said give me the same options ... can you read? > Feds have to pay for their insurance but the profit > of the insurance is restricted and they have a bunch > of options. I guess this issues isn't important to you. > Tell me why please. You can have all of the health care you pay for, just like you can have all of the food you can pay for, just like you can have all of the house you can pay for, and just like you can have all of the car you can pay for. Nobody is stopping you, now, from obtaining any type, kind or amount of health care except yourself.
From: BAR on 12 Feb 2010 07:32 In article <4b749a6f$0$20327$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net says... > > "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:oy0dn.144819$kQ5.41489(a)newsfe08.iad... > >I said give me the same options ... can you read? > > Feds have to pay for their insurance but the profit > > of the insurance is restricted and they have a bunch > > of options. I guess this issues isn't important to you. > > Tell me why please. > > > > > > dene is more than a little biased towards the insurance industry - hence the > knee jerk --- > > posted while wondering how dene will defend Wellpoint / Anthem's 39% rate > increase in California & the 31% increase planned for at least some in > Indiana while reporting an almost 5 billion dollar profit in the last 3 > months --- and admitting that their medical costs went up @ 8% last year -- > must be they want the lobbying money they spent back -- real quick & with a > mega profit. It would help if you would provide the whole story and not just part of the story that fits your blame the insurance company argument. The first three paragraphs of the article below are enlightening and shoot holes through your argument. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2010-02-11-wellpoint- explains-hike_N.htm?csp=34 INDIANAPOLIS ? Health insurer WellPoint blames a shift in demographics and rising medical costs for its planned 39% rate hike for some California customers. In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, WellPoint tells Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that because of the weak economy, healthy people are dropping coverage or buying cheaper plans. The decline in premium revenue means there's less money to cover claims from sicker customers who are keeping their coverage. That resulted in a 2009 loss for the unit. The insurer says its 2010 rates aim to cover the shortfall expected from the continuation of that trend. WellPoint said a minority of customers will see 39% increases and that those customers have an option to choose plans with a lower premium but higher out of pocket costs.
From: Moderate on 12 Feb 2010 08:32 "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:IX%cn.114833$fu3.56340(a)newsfe12.iad... > Just one quesion - ask your elected officials if > they have any reason for not giving the American > people, me for instance, the same health care > options as senators, representatives and federal > employees. Harry Reid stubled around and > couldn't answer. I bet John Bohner has the same > problem. If you are a veteran then nevermind, > apparently you already have an excellent program. Veterans health care is wage based. If your income is above $32,000 you get nothing. That is not the deal that many of us signed up for, but simply another sacrifice veterans have to make.
From: Howard Brazee on 12 Feb 2010 12:06 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:49:54 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: >One major difference Kenn is that employers fund these benefits from >operating revenue and have profit left over after that. As such these >benefits are sustainable. The Government must tax or borrow to pay for these >benefits. I would rather all insurance de-coupled from employers, including >the public sector. I'd rather see insurance used to pay for disasters, not maintenance. There is a certain amount of health care most everybody wants to see paid for by the state - mainly that involved in preventing epidemics. But the option doesn't seem to be between paying for the poor or not paying for the poor. It seems to be between pretending we aren't paying for the poor and acknowledging that we are paying for the poor. Also - the medical industry is making sure that all of the "reform" proposals that can be passed will make it more money. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: gray asphalt on 12 Feb 2010 12:37
"BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25df131f2ce10960989b97(a)news.giganews.com... > In article <oy0dn.144819$kQ5.41489(a)newsfe08.iad>, dontwrite(a)gmail.com > says... >> >> I said give me the same options ... can you read? >> Feds have to pay for their insurance but the profit >> of the insurance is restricted and they have a bunch >> of options. I guess this issues isn't important to you. >> Tell me why please. > > You can have all of the health care you pay for, just like you can have > all of the food you can pay for, just like you can have all of the house > you can pay for, and just like you can have all of the car you can pay > for. > > Nobody is stopping you, now, from obtaining any type, kind or amount of > health care except yourself. Is the part where health care insurers are making a 15% - 20% profit on the general public and 1% on federal - is that relevant or just another liberal talking point? 8-\ |