health care
in [Golf]
|
From: bknight on 1 Mar 2010 15:47 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >Why bother, if you have free housing, free food, free medical care, >free education...why knock yourself out with working? > >As far as being an urban deadbeat, I've been there FWIW. An excuse for >everything and the world owes you something...not that you have to >earn anything...you should get something just because of the fact the >great you (ie the urban deadbeat) exist. Other people should have to >go out and work and earn income to support the great an all knowing >you...the urban deadbeat! Wow Rob. That's a helluva confession. BK
From: John B. on 1 Mar 2010 16:06 On Mar 1, 1:39 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 27-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Insurance cos. based in states with weak insurance regs. can and do > > raise rates w/impunity. And nobody, repeat NOBODY, has proposed "govt. > > control of health care." > > you assume their are no external constraints on them other than government, > and you are, as usual, wrong. > > -- > bill-o OK, enlighten me.
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Mar 2010 19:09 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >> Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and needs >> to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't be allowed >> to turn them down because of the state of their health. > >No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear >consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay too >much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, they >want to pay less. Who pays for it now? (We do). -- "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: Jack Hollis on 1 Mar 2010 20:13 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:18:19 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >It's a knee jerk reaction to the "guaranteed issue" element of Senate and >House Bill. Insurance companies are not a charity. They have statutary >reserves to protect. I'm worried that Anthem's measure is a prelude of >what's coming. The companies know that guaranteed issue will mainly effect the individual market. The smart companies will get out of the market entirely.
From: Carbon on 1 Mar 2010 20:21
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:09:19 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >> >>> Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and needs >>> to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't be >>> allowed to turn them down because of the state of their health. >> >> No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear >> consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay too >> much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, they >> want to pay less. > > Who pays for it now? > > (We do). The ideologues seem to be ignoring this obvious fact with all their might. |