health care
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 24 Feb 2010 09:04 In article <MPG.25eee5eba382fbec989c4d(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-AE7862.09022523022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > Not much market? Are you serious? Have you ever set foot in a major > > > city? Have you ever used public transportation in NY or DC or > > > Chicago? > > > > 30,000 people commute into Columbus every day down SR 315. I am one of > > them. Every car on the road has but one occupant, and there is no public > > transport alternative. That is just stupid. > > What are you doing about it other than making statements? Have you > gotten a group of people together to commit to purchasing bus passes for > 10 years to fund the bus route? > > Talk is easy, action is hard. We know what you do best. http://tiny.cc/pQdJ9
From: dene on 24 Feb 2010 11:45 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:66a382e7-477b-4f03-8100-bc74cb52ae96(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... As I said, and you seem to have missed, I thought the original health care bill with the public option represented a good solution. It would have forced some competition into the health insurance industry, where at present there is none, because the industry is expempt from anti- trust laws. Repealing the exemption, as Obama has proposed, would be a very positive step. But, like everything else, it will probably pass the House then get filibustered to death in the Senate, where the Republicans' pockets are bulging with insurance industry money. ------------------------------------------------------- So in your mind, there is no competition among health insurance companies? All are linked together in a massive conspiracy to soak the policyholders with double digit rate increases, deny claims, and deceive regulators. No....there isn't an honest one company among them, one who would seek to expand business by offering benefits at a price that lower than the others. Instead, they sit in the boardrooms, soaking up their double digit profit margins, and paying off the politicians. Is this the scenario the public option would have corrected? -Greg
From: dene on 24 Feb 2010 11:47 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b833e5b$0$5102$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:12:49 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > Other than things like out and about rhyming with boot, Canada is very > very similar to the US in diet, in culture, standard of living, etc. Yet > Canadians have an average life expectancy several years greater than > Americans. What could possibly account for this startling difference? We have more smelly people. -Greg
From: John B. on 24 Feb 2010 12:04 On Feb 24, 11:45 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:66a382e7-477b-4f03-8100-bc74cb52ae96(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > As I said, and you seem to have missed, I thought the original health > care bill with the public option represented a good solution. It would > have forced some competition into the health insurance industry, where > at present there is none, because the industry is expempt from anti- > trust laws. Repealing the exemption, as Obama has proposed, would be a > very positive step. But, like everything else, it will probably pass > the House then get filibustered to death in the Senate, where the > Republicans' pockets are bulging with insurance industry money. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > So in your mind, there is no competition among health insurance companies? > All are linked together in a massive conspiracy to soak the policyholders > with double digit rate increases, deny claims, and deceive regulators. > No....there isn't an honest one company among them, one who would seek to > expand business by offering benefits at a price that lower than the others. > Instead, they sit in the boardrooms, soaking up their double digit profit > margins, and paying off the politicians. > > Is this the scenario the public option would have corrected? > > -Greg Nice picture you've painted here, but it doesn't reflect my views. There is very little competition in the health insurance industry. If there were, they would have billion-dollar ad campaigns like the car insurers do. They wouldn't be able to impose usurious premium increases while raking in huge profits, as many of them are doing now. A public option and a recission of insurance companies's anti-trust exemption would do a lot to prevent this sort of thing.
From: Carbon on 24 Feb 2010 19:02
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:33:03 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 23-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:04:24 +0000, assimilate wrote: >>> On 22-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The objection centers around loss of freedom. There is no way a >>>>> govt delivered system can provide the options a private system >>>>> can. >>>> >>>> So why do people keep bring up cost, if that isn't the objection? >>> >>> It is a red herring obviously. >> >> Oh, of course. How can efficiency possibly matter? > > It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? |