health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 1 Mar 2010 20:48 On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> 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 > > Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay > you should go to jail for stealing. > > If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you > call the police? Would you just let them steal from you? Obviously everybody should pay their way. I have never once suggested otherwise. And once again, you're once again ignoring the fact that you're already paying for the uninsurance with of ridiculously expensive health insurance. The simple fact is that the uninsured already get healthcare. In Emergency wards, where it costs the earth. And you and I are paying for them. Maybe you don't care, but I personally would like the financial hit to be as small as possible. Since the bureaucracy to weed them out costs more than just giving them health insurance in the first place, my vote is to just give them insurance and be done with it. That way, they'd be able to go to normal doctors, they'd be able to get treatment before serious (expensive) diseases develop, etc. My healthcare costs would go down. And so would yours. But I guess for you true believers clinging to some ideology is more important than being pragmatic and saving money.
From: John B. on 1 Mar 2010 21:08 On Mar 1, 8:47 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <lgqoo5plbuimmmsfl95n852l6kfcg2v...(a)4ax.com>, > bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > >In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > >nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:09:19 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > > >> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > >> > <frostback2...(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 > > > >Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay you > > >should go to jail for stealing. > > > >If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > >your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you call > > >the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > > Bert, you really need to do some studying on analogies. This one was > > so far off it isn't even funny.....even for you. > > Stealing is stealing. When you got to a place of business and you have > have no intention of paying for the services you receive you are > stealing. There's a difference between intent and ability. You refuse to accept that anyone might be unable to pay for medical care.
From: Alan Baker on 1 Mar 2010 21:10 In article <MPG.25f6381e38917097989c7b(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <lgqoo5plbuimmmsfl95n852l6kfcg2vik7(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > >In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > >nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> > > >> 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 > > > > > >Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay you > > >should go to jail for stealing. > > > > > >If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > >your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you call > > >the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > > > > Bert, you really need to do some studying on analogies. This one was > > so far off it isn't even funny.....even for you. > > Stealing is stealing. When you got to a place of business and you have > have no intention of paying for the services you receive you are > stealing. So, you are therefore logically opposed to any other system other than one in which all citizens must pay for all services they receive from government or perforce, do without, are you? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: John B. on 1 Mar 2010 21:13 On Mar 1, 8:32 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:32:47 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Which company wants to be the last health care insurance company in > >> California? If you are the last one you will effectively be nationalized > >> and you will be required to provide insurance for 12% of the US > >> population at whatever rates the government decides and also to provide > >> insurance for free to however many illegal aliens are in California at > >> the time. > > >How many are there now? Two? In most insurance markets, there are only > >one or two carriers. > > Totally inacurate. New York State has dozens of health insurance > providers. I said "most" markets. Read this from the AMA: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/health-insurance-competition.shtml
From: BAR on 1 Mar 2010 21:14
In article <4b8c6e70$0$21448$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> 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 > > > > Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay > > you should go to jail for stealing. > > > > If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you > > call the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > Obviously everybody should pay their way. I have never once suggested > otherwise. And once again, you're once again ignoring the fact that > you're already paying for the uninsurance with of ridiculously expensive > health insurance. Get people to pay when services are rendered and health insurance becomes a non-issue. > The simple fact is that the uninsured already get healthcare. In > Emergency wards, where it costs the earth. And you and I are paying for > them. Maybe you don't care, but I personally would like the financial > hit to be as small as possible. Since the bureaucracy to weed them out > costs more than just giving them health insurance in the first place, my > vote is to just give them insurance and be done with it. That way, > they'd be able to go to normal doctors, they'd be able to get treatment > before serious (expensive) diseases develop, etc. My healthcare costs > would go down. And so would yours. Attack the major components of costs. Health insurance companies are running an average 3% profit. What is the largest cost component of delivery of health care? Health insurance is not a component of health care delivery. > But I guess for you true believers clinging to some ideology is more > important than being pragmatic and saving money. You are too funny. Are you embracing the Tea-Partiers now just like Nancy Pelosi? |