health care
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 13 Feb 2010 09:58 In article <4b76b366$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:58:03 -0800, dene wrote: > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4b75e854$0$21064$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > >> 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. > > > > Yeah....liberals are great at spending other people's money. > > I guess you missed the 2/3 less expensive part. Does that make you a fiscally conservative liberal.
From: Carbon on 13 Feb 2010 11:09 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:58:03 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b76b366$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:58:03 -0800, dene wrote: >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:4b75e854$0$21064$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Yeah....liberals are great at spending other people's money. >> >> I guess you missed the 2/3 less expensive part. > > Does that make you a fiscally conservative liberal. Yes.
From: Carbon on 13 Feb 2010 11:13 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:32:01 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b75e854$0$21064$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:27:03 -0500, BAR wrote: >> >>> 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. > > You are confusing Health Care with Health Insurance. This is common > for people of your ilk, the take care of me type. You are again failing to realize that both health care and health insurance are components of big healthcare. This is commong for people of your ilk, the ideologue sucker type.
From: BAR on 13 Feb 2010 12:10 In article <4b76cfc3$0$4867$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:32:01 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b75e854$0$21064$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:27:03 -0500, BAR wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > > > > You are confusing Health Care with Health Insurance. This is common > > for people of your ilk, the take care of me type. > > You are again failing to realize that both health care and health > insurance are components of big healthcare. This is commong for people > of your ilk, the ideologue sucker type. I do not accept your premise that health care and health insurance need to be addressed in the same breath.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 13 Feb 2010 12:16
On Feb 13, 7:45 am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4b75e854$0$21064$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:27:03 -0500, BAR wrote: > >> In article <oy0dn.144819$kQ5.41...(a)newsfe08.iad>, dontwr...(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. > > I always find the tort reform argument interesting -- while I do not claim > to know everything about the issue --- I serve on a hospital board of > trustees --- and this I do know --- that our malpractice insurance at the > hospital & our employed physicians amounts to peanuts. > > Then I keep hearing about Texas ---- > > ===== > > Tort Reform" in Texas has not produced the claimed results. > > This is from December 17, 2009, less than two months ago. This is from > Public Citizen, a "national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization > founded in 1971 to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive > branch and the courts." > > The title of the article is: > > Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed, New Report Shows > Costs Have Outpaced National Average, Uninsured Rate Remains Worst in > Country and Doctor Shortage in Rural Areas Has Grown More Acute > > WASHINGTON, D.C. - Medical malpractice liability caps instituted in Texas in > 2003 have failed to improve the state's health care system, a Public Citizen > report released today reveals. > > These findings are crucial because the Texas experiment has been held up as > a model by proponents of proposals now pending in Congress to limit patients' > rights. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the data show that the health > care system in Texas has grown worse since 2003 by nearly every measure. For > example: > > . The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the > highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured; > . The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled; > . The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare > reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and > . Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient > Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average. > > The marked increase in diagnostic testing has occurred as medical > malpractice payments in Texas have fallen 67 percent. "The combination of > soaring testing costs and dwindling liability expenditures is devastating to > the defensive medicine theory," Arkush said. That theory claims that the > fear of lawsuits has driven the increase in expenditures on tests. > > http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3018 Caps on settlements are not reform in any sense. In fact, they are exactly the wrong thing to do as they punish people with legitimate claims. The only legitimate reform is that which eliminates frivolous lawsuits. It's simple, just make a law such tat if a suit is deemed frivolous, the complainant pays all costs and lawyers cannot recover any fees or costs of any sort from anyone. |