From: Carbon on
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:36:47 -0800, dene wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505(a)>> wrote in message
> news:2a75a43d-ed86-4ff6-bb4a-
> eb741ca85688(a)
>> On Mar 2, 12:09 pm, "dene" <d...(a)>> wrote:
>>> "John B." <johnb...(a)>> wrote in message
>>>> There are also plenty of people out there who CAN'T afford health
>>>> insurance. But according to you and Bert, et al, they're all the
>>>> victims of their own "bad choices," right?
>>> Cite where I said that, John. I specifically defined those who are
>>> stealing. In your mind, is there any distinctions between a slacker,
>>> an illegal, and the unemployed or are all the ininsured "victims"?
>> Of course there's a difference. But I don't know what the ratio is of
>> "slackers" to people who genuinely can't afford health insurance and
>> neither do you. There are those in your camp who claim there is NO
>> ONE who can't afford health insurance. I wonder what world they live
>> in.
> I'm glad you are acknowledging there are slackers out there.
> Now....just what do you propose should be done with them to include
> them among the insured pool?

Of course there are slackers. But there are also millions of families
suffering because of the current system. Some just can't afford
insurance. Some lose their jobs and can't afford Cobra. Some face
skyrocketing premiums if they develop potentially expensive illnesses,
and some are simply dropped altogether. It goes on and on. People want
change, and I hope they get it. This is a travesty.
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <jv0po5tpu9o8csea3brsi83lug8gumasiu(a)>,
> bknight(a) says...
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:47:03 -0500, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
>>>In article <lgqoo5plbuimmmsfl95n852l6kfcg2vik7(a)>,
>>>bknight(a) says...
>>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>> Your analogy was idiotic. Period.
> People receiving free health care are stealing from others.

You're insane.
From: Jack Hollis on
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:13:52 -0800 (PST), "John B."
<johnb505(a)> wrote:

>On Mar 1, 8:32=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:32:47 -0800 (PST), "John B."
>> <johnb...(a)> wrote:
>> >> Which company wants to be the last health care insurance company in
>> >> California? If you are the last one you will effectively be nationaliz=
>> >> and you will be required to provide insurance for 12% of the US
>> >> population at whatever rates the government decides and also to provid=
>> >> 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. =A0New York State has dozens of health insurance
>> providers.
>I said "most" markets. Read this from the AMA:

You misread the article. It never says that there are only one or two
providers in a state, but rather that in some markets a few providers
dominate the market.

In reality, this is much more of a problem for physicians than for the
public. Interesting that the AMA fails to mention this in the

If a certain insurance company has a third of the people signed up,
it's difficult for physicians not to join that network. This gives
the insurance company a lot of power when it comes to how much they
reimburse the doctors.
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:42:13 -0800, John B. wrote:

> In the UK, you may wait for months for elective surgery. If you need
> urgent care, you get it right away.

Same with Canada.
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:17:16 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:09 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
>> <frostback2...(a)> 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).
> True...but it is pretty clear we don't want to pay any more.

The bureaucracy to weed out the unentitled cost more than simply giving
health insurance to everybody. Ironic, huh?