health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Kommienezuspadt on 12 Feb 2010 17:39 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-C0DF10.14555412022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <MPG.25df791d83f3cd29989ba7(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > >> In article <4b75abf9$0$18837$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com>, >> NoSpam(a)NoWay.com says... >> > Gee -- "Wellpoint blames" ----- so -- you buy their statements at full >> > face >> > value --- I get it -- dene & BAR sitting in a tree... >> > >> > but -- tell me one thing I posted that was wrong. >> > >> >> "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." >> >> I didn't say anything you posted was wrong. I faulted you for not >> posting more information, information that did not support your >> argument. >> >> How many drinks have you had this afternoon? > > Not enough to confuse you with someone intelligent. BAR keeps trying to prove there is no reason to respect anything about him. So far -- he's hitting on all cylinders.
From: Kommienezuspadt on 12 Feb 2010 17:42 "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.25df6d1f17639e76989ba3(a)news.giganews.com... > Like I said show me the SEC filings of the Health Insurance companies > are reaching 15 to 20 percent profits. > > Was the guy just there giving testimony or was he a sworn witness before > the committee. There is a big difference. If he wasn't sworn in before > giving testimony then whatever he said has the weight of air and is not > under penalty of perjury. > > In article <ZGgdn.19629$4p5.12232(a)newsfe22.iad>, dontwrite(a)gmail.com > says... >> >> The whistleblower who testified before >> congress said so. That hasn't been disputed. >> So if you see the stats in undeniable form >> what difference would it make ... oh yeah >> You'd invest. Says it all. >> >> "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.25df5dbd711bf092989ba2(a)news.giganews.com... >> > In article <ilgdn.19620$4p5.1063(a)newsfe22.iad>, dontwrite(a)gmail.com >> > says... >> >> >> >> "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message >> >> news:MPG.25df131f2ce10960989b97(a)news.giganews.com... >> >> > In article <oy0dn.144819$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-\ >> > >> > Show me the SEC filings of the Health Insurance companies that are >> > making 15 to 20 percent profits. I would like to invest in those >> > companies. > > I'd like to see where the claim was made that they are making 15 - 20% profits -- I believe it said they were making that much from the general public but less on federal money --- now I'm not defending the statement - just pointing out that you are arguing against a strawman your made up. This tactic is so tired -- but it fits you --
From: Carbon on 12 Feb 2010 18:46 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:27:03 -0500, BAR wrote: > 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. Great! I'd like healthcare that covers me for every possible illness with no upfront co-pays at less than 2/3 of what I'm paying now, with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and where the insurance company can never drop coverage. In return I will agree to Tort reform, such that I will never expect an honest mistake to be equivalent to winning the lottery.
From: assimilate on 12 Feb 2010 22:33 On 12-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >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. Exactly Howard: get the patient as the customer and use insurance like it was......well, insurance, and costs begin to come down. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 12 Feb 2010 22:35
On 12-Feb-2010, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > ... snip > > Dr. Brazee, you are correct. And President Obama is > pretending that this isn't happening. Makes choosing > between Rebubs and Dems like choosing between > Exxon and Union Carbide. Names different. Motives > the same. Yes this is the problem of large govt. Both parties vie over who controls doling out the pie to their interests, rather than what is good for everyone. -- bill-o |