| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
OT - when politics gets personal
I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very
serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate |
OT - when politics gets personal
"Larry L" wrote in message ... I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Why blame republicans? My wife had a preexisting condition, so I had to start a small company. You can get Group Insurance for a group of 2. Group insurance does not normally look at pre conditions. Did cost me $1200 a month. Is that not reasonable? |
OT - when politics gets personal
Bill McKee wrote:
"Larry L" wrote in message ... I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Why blame republicans? My wife had a preexisting condition, so I had to start a small company. You can get Group Insurance for a group of 2. Group insurance does not normally look at pre conditions. Did cost me $1200 a month. Is that not reasonable? Unless you live in Idaho Bill, you really don't know what kind of group insurance is available or what it costs. And that, of course, is part of the problem. As for whether your $14.4K/year insurance is reasonable we'd need to know deductibles and whether or not it includes yearly or lifetime limits on you or your wife's coverage. Single payer is the best system but it's not even being discussed in the US and for that you can certainly blame Republicans. -- Ken Fortenberry |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 2:34*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
*Did cost me $1200 a month. *Is that not reasonable? I doubt seriously they could afford that. As for blaming ... nothing, this last year could probably have changed my friends situation, not enough time .... but the ****ing Repugnants with their filibuster mania forced what really could have been well discussed, compromised, health care reform to fail ( admittedly, partly because a few imbecile Democrats had to be "accommodated") because not even a few reasonable Repugs were to be found in the hall ) ... shouting "no" is NOT leading, it's lying about being a leader |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote: I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R |
OT - when politics gets personal
wrote in message ... are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? not going to answer for Larry, but the sensible thing for all Americans, with any sense of a common social contract with one another, would be to answer 'yes'. Why? Because the bit about 'regardless of what that means...." is just a smokescreen. With single-payer national health insurance, the cost per person would plummet. It's a given. And, it ought to be a no-brainer, except for the fact that the one party which has shown no brains, and less compassion, seems determined to block it. And the other,seemingly, doesn't have the collective balls to make the case and pass it. Tom |
OT - when politics gets personal
Knowing full well that this is pointless, but in all seriousness
anyway, what in the world makes you or anyone else think coverage would cost any less then the aforementioned $1200/mo. under this "fixed" health plan? Nothing in the plan seems to actually address cost of coverage - it does seem to play musical chairs with who is going to actually pay for it. Since they tout the plan as a zero cost to the gvmt - that means that all costs included the additional cost of the gvmt agencies overseeing this thing are going to have to be covered by business (for their employees) or by the individual (suzy homemaker maybe has to pay her own way I suppose)- ultimately it is the private individual that gets the bill. It will, of course, have to be paid for - dr's, hospitals, chiropractors, lawyers, ins. co's, etc. all are going to get paid, or they aren't going to exist. In this case, the way the new deal reads, I think your friends would have a bigger problem than they have now - because as a business they would have had to provide coverage for themselves - or else the bill will just be added to their tax bill. If it is a crippling cost to the business- then go get a real job. As near as I can tell the latest plan is about a 1000 pages that says, "you will have health coverage- because it is the law." So either your employeer is going to have to adjust his cost of doing business to accomodate the 1200 ish dollars per family/couple/whatever the hell the family unit is. Or medicare or something suspiciously like medicare is going to cough up the care costs - and whack the taxpayer accordingly. Where is the money going to come from for city, county, state employees? oh, thats right- the same place the money comes from to cover the private business employees. Of course, no one will mind the added cost to all goods and serivces across the board to fund coverage for 100% of the population - even those unemployed or unemployable. What I find interesting is that as a small employeer of union ironworkers and carpenters, we are struggling to get work. Primarily the issue is labor cost. A huge portion of our labor cost is the cost of the union health and retirement funds. Nobody wants to pay the rates we have to charge to keep my employees covered. As an example, when was the last time you insisted that the builder who built your home, deck, patio, installed your new range, installed your new carpet, etc prove that he had health coverage for his employees? I'd guess you took the low bid and ran with it. I'm all for fixing health care - but lets fix costs. If the costs can be contained - people will get coverage. jh |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L wrote: I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Prepared to pay . . . . Who do you think pays for it now? Duh. Fact is we pay more than double for half the care. 2. Buy it before they had pre-existing conditions . . . Because they thought it would never happen to them, like most people do, and like most of the silly rightwinglings who mutter the cheap extended adolescent mantras of the personality disorder known as "conservatism." |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:15:11 -0800 (PST), DaveS wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L wrote: I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Prepared to pay . . . . Who do you think pays for it now? Duh. Fact is we pay more than double for half the care. Who is this "we" and "half the care" as compared to whom? 2. Buy it before they had pre-existing conditions . . . Because they thought it would never happen to them, like most people do, Do you know these folks, too? I mean, that's why I asked - for all I know, Larry's friend has had these pre-existing conditions since birth. OTOH, you may be correct, and certainly, you would be in describing a large portion of the US population who could have obtained health care "pre pre-existing condition(s)" and chose not to. Why should those in the latter category be, um, "bailed out" for their misstep any more than AIG, Goldman, etc.should be? and like most of the silly rightwinglings who mutter the cheap extended adolescent mantras of the personality disorder known as "conservatism." Well, so much for "all politics aside"... And there you have it, R |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote:
Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R I sent him some money an hour ago ... he has to come up with 16K++ ... in advance ... for the only treatment with any hope My guess is you've got boats worth more than 16K and assume they are your god given right ? I own more than 16K worth of fishing ****, I bet. This man will probably die for want of 16K I'm willing to have my taxes raised to provide basic care for my fellow citizens ( I'm not a tax hater. I know that I'll also have to pay my part of things I don't agree with ... tough, it goes with the citizenship) I believe in a social contract, and at least partly because I can imagine being on the need side of same, I don't bitch much about being on the pay side. Would I truly deprive my family to help yours, no. But truly deprived is NOT something the average tax hater even has a clue about ... not getting a 4th flat screen is not deprived .... nobody lobbying for insurance companies and drug companies and Wall St has a clue what deprived means .... but lots of Americans do. I do NOT advocate providing everything for everybody, just a reasonable minimum for everybody. I do NOT think anybody 'deserves' all the latest and greatest high tech care possible, if you want "everything" pay for the extra from your own pocket. Personally, I'd rather 'go" than have the government ( or my family) spend a million to keep me alive another week, in a stupor. I think any modern, rich, society ..... worthy of the name ...... should NOT have good people needlessly suffering because of bad people lobbying to protect record profits. I DO think there should be public hangings of Wall Street execs and lawyers ( just checking to see if you're really reading ;-) I have good insurance myself and don't think I, personally, would gain from reform I don't have a clue about the why in your last question ... these are poor people, hard working ( I think they split a 14 hour day, 7 days a week ) but still poor .... I've been poor and know that you don't always buy with the future firmly in mind, regardless of how sensible you are, .... if poor. Larry L ( who knows as much as he knows anything, that "there but for fortune, go you and I" and nearly gags when people totally fail to realize that their own good circumstances are largely, luck .... as I've said before, a lack of imagination seems tied to the 'conservative' mindset ) |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:58:25 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: wrote in message .. . are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? not going to answer for Larry, Whew, good...I was beginning to think everyone on ROFF but me knew this couple... but the sensible thing for all Americans, with any sense of a common social contract with one another, would be to answer 'yes'. Why? Yeah, that's what I'm asking - why? Because the bit about 'regardless of what that means...." is just a smokescreen. With single-payer national health insurance, the cost per person would plummet. What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer system. It's a given. Lemme guess - Louie's brother-in-law gave ya the what's what on it? Seriously, though, why is it a given? And, it ought to be a no-brainer, except for the fact that the one party which has shown no brains, and less compassion, seems determined to block it. And the other,seemingly, doesn't have the collective balls to make the case and pass it. Um, OK - refresh my memory - which party is which...? TC, R Tom |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 4:09*pm, jh wrote:
I'm all for fixing health care - but lets fix costs. *If the costs can be contained - people will get coverage. I think we'd agree on more than disagree. But, protecting "profits" in the health biz is at odds with protecting people in the country. Other countries have shown ( varying methods and success ) that "reasonable" profits AND reasonable costs are both possible. From my view, a major political problem here is that Republicans ( both sides but far more obvious over there on the right ) are owned by and work for drug companies, insurance companies, and Wall St {less clearly related}) My guess is that you vote R because you think they will "defend" your right to make as much money as you can and stash it away .... good old American Dream. ( not that I argue against it in most cases ) My question, do YOU think health care and iron work construction fall into the same category, i.e. free enterprise with only profit as a worthwhile goal? Do you even really believe that "profit" is the only important ( even the most important) product of your own biz? if so, sorry |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:29:20 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote: On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote: Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R I sent him some money an hour ago ... he has to come up with 16K++ ... in advance I gotta tell you straight out - on that alone, something sounds, with the little info thus far, well, fishy (OBROFF?). ... for the only treatment with any hope Uh-oh...I'm not sure, but I've got a bad feeling about this... My guess is you've got boats worth more than 16K and assume they are your god given right ? Well, yes, sorta - I don't know about "god-given" - but probably not because of the reason you might think. I think it is my right to own them because I earned the money to pay for them, to fuel and maintain and insure them, etc. And IAC, why would the monetary value of anything I own matter in this? I own more than 16K worth of fishing ****, I bet. Or that you own? This man will probably die for want of 16K I cannot comment on this exact situation because I don't know any of the details, but I do not believe that a hospital could legally allow a patient to die because of money, and from a purely business standpoint, I don't believe they would over 16K, simply because of the potential legal and "bad PR" costs associated with doing so, even if they would otherwise be inclined to do so (which I also don't believe they would be). I'm willing to have my taxes raised to provide basic care for my fellow citizens ( I'm not a tax hater. I know that I'll also have to pay my part of things I don't agree with ... tough, it goes with the citizenship) I believe in a social contract, and at least partly because I can imagine being on the need side of same, I don't bitch much about being on the pay side. Would I truly deprive my family to help yours, no. Well, then, that's pretty much that - IOW, you're willing to pay, but only the amount and under the terms YOU decide is the line between "depravation" and your social duty. If this guy is dying, but my making your family eat cat food for a couple of months or even years, it would save him, who suffers more? But truly deprived is NOT something the average tax hater even has a clue about ... not getting a 4th flat screen is not deprived .... nobody lobbying for insurance companies and drug companies and Wall St has a clue what deprived means .... Oh, no, let's not get on one of the good ol' ROFF "nobody" tracks...neither you or I know what _everybody_ lobbying, etc. knows or has experienced. but lots of Americans do. And so...what? I do NOT advocate providing everything for everybody, just a reasonable minimum for everybody. Tell you what - email Wayne Knight (unless he's lurking and pops up) and ask him how many dead bodies, of those who died because they didn't have 16K upfront, he must step over each day. I do NOT think anybody 'deserves' all the latest and greatest high tech care possible, if you want "everything" pay for the extra from your own pocket. Personally, I'd rather 'go" than have the government ( or my family) spend a million to keep me alive another week, in a stupor. I think any modern, rich, society ..... worthy of the name ...... should NOT have good people needlessly suffering because of bad people lobbying to protect record profits. I DO think there should be public hangings of Wall Street execs and lawyers ( just checking to see if you're really reading ;-) All of them or just the ones you want to see dangling? And if I didn't wish to at least try to read your entire response, I'd not reply to it. I have good insurance myself and don't think I, personally, would gain from reform I don't have a clue about the why in your last question ... these are poor people, hard working ( I think they split a 14 hour day, 7 days a week ) but still poor .... I've been poor and know that you don't always buy with the future firmly in mind, regardless of how sensible you are, .... if poor. Well, it's possible that this guy had these conditions since birth (or from a young(ish) age) and it's possible that they, like some but not all, simply didn't bother to plan and are now suffering from that failure. I didn't know, so I asked. I still don't know since you've not answered (if you know), and so, I cannot and will not comment on that aspect of the situation. Larry L ( who knows as much as he knows anything, that "there but for fortune, go you and I" and nearly gags when people totally fail to realize that their own good circumstances are largely, luck .... as I've said before, a lack of imagination seems tied to the 'conservative' mindset ) I totally disagree with your latter premise. What womb one gets shot out of might be "luck," but true success in life, at least how I define it, is most certainly not "luck." I suppose, like most things, YMMV. TC, R |
OT - when politics gets personal
My question, do YOU think health care and iron work construction fall into the same category, i.e. free enterprise with only profit as a worthwhile goal? *Do you even really believe that "profit" is the only important ( even the most important) product of your own biz? *if so, sorry no, of course profit is not the only important aspect of business. I think it is pretty rare that you find a co. whos mission statement consists of "profit" I also think that profit is not the evil it is made out to be. Profit allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI center, or ----. In our case, profit may allow for the addition of new forklifts, welders, safety gear, etc. strictly managing to pull in overhead w/o profit pretty much means status quo. keep what you have going, pay the rent, keep the lights turned on. I have no prob. with insurance co.s making a profit, nor the Dr. that yanks a messed up gall bladder. I do wish the ins. co's were more efficient with their (my) money. From what I've learned, they have a pretty substantial overhead cost - I think they need a bit more competition so they can run a little leaner. At the same time, I think they do their level best to get out of paying claims while getting slaughtered by legislation that sticks them with costs that were never intended to be covered. I seriously dislike ins. co's - but I would absolutely not want to do what they do. I think that coverage for all is a great idea- but the costs have to be addressed realistically. I have no idea how many unisured people there are in the US, but I am sure how ever many there are, they all have the same, statistically speaking, health costs I have. So if you dump them into the system - and they can't afford the costs of coverage - my costs go up. If my costs go up, my cost of doing business goes up, if my costs of business go up, either I gotta go find free money, or I have to increase my bill to john Q customer. actually a fairly simple concept. I still think the answer is along the lines of catastrophic coverage - say $10,000. under that is 100% on you, over that is 100% on insurance. Think of the amount of paper that gets eliminated (paper = money, it means secretaries, reviewers, auditors, etc etc etc), If everyone had, and paid, for that policy there would be huge funds available for those that needed catastrophic health care. Say one person in 20 needs that kind of coverage in a given year, the premiums would be drasticaly reduced - and you could afford a health savings account that could build up to 10k in a couple three years, so the 9000 gall bladder surgery is cash payable. My premium runs $500/mo for just me, cut it to 200 and let me stick 200-300 in an HSA, in 2 - 3 years assuming limited draws for little things, my one time 10 k deal is paid for. gotta work the numbers - but I think something like that would work. jh |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 5:06*pm, wrote:
I gotta tell you straight out - on that alone, something sounds, with the little info thus far, well, fishy (OBROFF?). * I don't know what OBROFF means but I did send them some money and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't recognize my name when they get it .... I found out about the situation online on another fishing board since other, closer, friends have organized a fund raising effort to help As for other stuff, and the big picture and politics. I've already made the 16K boat and god given right comment that I don't think was right on my part and one to another person I think was in poor taste too. I'm going to bow out of the thread, because I don't want to find myself making personal comments ala the norm here and doubt my self control at the moment. Take that anyway you like ... believing others, and in others, doesn't seem too common here |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 6:15*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L wrote: I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Prepared to pay . . . . Who do you think pays for it now? Duh. Fact is we pay more than double for half the care. 2. Buy it before they had pre-existing conditions . . . *Because they thought it would never happen to them, like most people do, and like most of the silly rightwinglings who mutter the cheap extended adolescent mantras of the personality disorder known as "conservatism." I never thought I would hit the other car, but I bought liability insurance. Never thought I would back into the tree, but I bought collision coverage. Should I have waited until after the fact and then demanded a policy that should pay, regardless or pre-existant sheet metal crunches? duh ! oz |
OT - when politics gets personal
....and, if 60 senators can't pass something, why do folks blame the
other 40...? cheers oz |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 5:48*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:15*pm, DaveS wrote: On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L wrote: I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions.. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Prepared to pay . . . . Who do you think pays for it now? Duh. Fact is we pay more than double for half the care. 2. Buy it before they had pre-existing conditions . . . *Because they thought it would never happen to them, like most people do, and like most of the silly rightwinglings who mutter the cheap extended adolescent mantras of the personality disorder known as "conservatism." I never thought I would hit the other car, but I bought liability insurance. Never thought I would back into the tree, but I bought collision coverage. Should I have waited until after the fact and then demanded a policy that should pay, regardless or pre-existant sheet metal crunches? duh ! oz- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You bought them because you had to buy them. But here is another news flash: I just got this from another NG. "The dangers of "death panels" were explained to Americans on Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Oh, sweet Lord, she must not sleep at night...her grandson could be the next victim of "socialized medicine". Recently released documents from the custody battle show clearly Tripp Palin Johnston has socialized health care through Indian Health Services and the Alaska Native Medical Center. Palin's family has federally funded health care afforded to them...but if you had it Barack Obama might kill you. Put this on the list of Palin's Greatest Hypocritical Hits...volume 97." Shannyn Moore Just a girl from Homer Posted: February 20, 2010 05:28 PM |
OT - when politics gets personal
jh wrote:
Profit allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI center, or ----. not always john...the hospital/med school here just built a huge cardiac center...in the hope for profit i'm sure, in the hope of keeping a particular world famous doc happy i know, and in the hope of doing some good for those who can afford or otherwise access the offered treatment. it's a loss-leader so far, from what i hear. it's grand architecture and offers hope. they charge a lot for their work...but i think the tax dollars really made it happen, and will probably support it for a long time. the cardiac surgeon is very pleased though...he's making a "profit". imo, health care ought to be a civil right in a civilized society...we have to get away from the idea that profit should drive or even be a part of a reasonable and available health care system. ...and, yeah, i know the slippery slope to socialism crap. but, wtf is a capitalist government for if not to assure and provide for the health and welfare of its citizens? jeff (somewhere over the rainbow) ps...john, any chance you'll get over to the madison in july? been way too long since we've chased the trout.) |
OT - when politics gets personal
Larry L wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:05 pm, wrote: Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R I sent him some money an hour ago ... he has to come up with 16K++ ... in advance ... for the only treatment with any hope My guess is you've got boats worth more than 16K and assume they are your god given right ? I own more than 16K worth of fishing ****, I bet. This man will probably die for want of 16K I'm willing to have my taxes raised to provide basic care for my fellow citizens ( I'm not a tax hater. I know that I'll also have to pay my part of things I don't agree with ... tough, it goes with the citizenship) I believe in a social contract, and at least partly because I can imagine being on the need side of same, I don't bitch much about being on the pay side. Would I truly deprive my family to help yours, no. But truly deprived is NOT something the average tax hater even has a clue about ... not getting a 4th flat screen is not deprived .... nobody lobbying for insurance companies and drug companies and Wall St has a clue what deprived means .... but lots of Americans do. I do NOT advocate providing everything for everybody, just a reasonable minimum for everybody. I do NOT think anybody 'deserves' all the latest and greatest high tech care possible, if you want "everything" pay for the extra from your own pocket. Personally, I'd rather 'go" than have the government ( or my family) spend a million to keep me alive another week, in a stupor. I think any modern, rich, society ..... worthy of the name ...... should NOT have good people needlessly suffering because of bad people lobbying to protect record profits. I DO think there should be public hangings of Wall Street execs and lawyers ( just checking to see if you're really reading ;-) uh...you mean "wall street lawyers", right? g I have good insurance myself and don't think I, personally, would gain from reform I don't have a clue about the why in your last question ... these are poor people, hard working ( I think they split a 14 hour day, 7 days a week ) but still poor .... I've been poor and know that you don't always buy with the future firmly in mind, regardless of how sensible you are, .... if poor. Larry L ( who knows as much as he knows anything, that "there but for fortune, go you and I" and nearly gags when people totally fail to realize that their own good circumstances are largely, luck .... as I've said before, a lack of imagination seems tied to the 'conservative' mindset ) thanks for saying it out loud. sadly, "we" has mutated into "us" and "them"... jeff |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:36:24 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote: On Feb 23, 5:06*pm, wrote: I gotta tell you straight out - on that alone, something sounds, with the little info thus far, well, fishy (OBROFF?). * I don't know what OBROFF means It's left over from the "old days" of USENET - basically, an "on-topic" comment in an "off-topic" post thread - "OBligatory ROFF" - "fishy." IAC, I wasn't calling you "fishy," only the alleged situation in which someone needed 16K _in advance_ for life-saving treatment. but I did send them some money and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't recognize my name when they get it .... I found out about the situation online on another fishing board since other, closer, friends have organized a fund raising effort to help As for other stuff, and the big picture and politics. I've already made the 16K boat and god given right comment that I don't think was right on my part and one to another person I think was in poor taste too. Well, I've got pretty thick hide - I'm not now nor was I then even mildly offended - I just didn't see what it had to do with this, so I asked. And FWIW, I'm not the sort to get too worked up over comments made around here of any level. I'm going to bow out of the thread, because I don't want to find myself making personal comments ala the norm here and doubt my self control at the moment. Take that anyway you like ... believing others, and in others, doesn't seem too common here I'll take it you wrote it - simple and direct. All I'd ask is that you return the favor, and not attempt to "read between the lines" to the point of twisting in your own mind what I write or ask. The questions I asked were so that I'd have more information, and information I thought relevant to the discussion - there was and is no "hidden agenda" - you posted something, it caught my eye, I responded. Pretty simple, really. TC, R |
OT - when politics gets personal
ps...john, any chance you'll get over to the madison in july? *been way too long since we've chased the trout.) unknown. As with many areas the economy in our little corner of the world has taken a big whack. The paper mill shut down which was one of the largest single private employers in the county, The outfall from that (support contractors, suppliers, trucking, etc) has not really been realized yet. The Plum Creek lumber mill in Bonner closed up last year, Macy's is closing up shop next month, one hospital went through a round of lay offs, the old Brady's Sportsmans Surplus closed its doors. Meanwhile the recovery $ here are being spent on such high minded projects as installing new windows in an old fish hatchery, re- shingling some old ranger cabins, and a few misc. road resurfacing projects. Private money funded projects are almost non-existent and the banks are locked up tighter than a drum. Talking to other contractors, bankers, etc., the consensus is that we will be flat for at least 2 more years. Consequently, contractors are bidding things at absurd rates and bidding over much larger geographical areas than they would normally. A couple weeks back we lost a state funded project to a Utah based contractor no one here has even heard of before. One friend of mine told me they have been seeing bid prices at about 1995 levels, but neither material nor labor costs are going down, so there will be a lot of failures and/or wild backcharges. Talking to the fly shop the other day, our snowpack in western mt is about 55% of normal. George said that the snow has been at what he considers drought levels for 8 of the last 11 years. OTOH I may have lots of spare time this summer. john |
OT - when politics gets personal
Um, OK - refresh my memory - which party is which...? TC, R ....and there's the rub! John |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:30:59 -0500, jeff wrote:
jh wrote: Profit allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI center, or ----. not always john...the hospital/med school here just built a huge cardiac center...in the hope for profit i'm sure, in the hope of keeping a particular world famous doc happy i know, and in the hope of doing some good for those who can afford or otherwise access the offered treatment. it's a loss-leader so far, from what i hear. it's grand architecture and offers hope. they charge a lot for their work...but i think the tax dollars really made it happen, and will probably support it for a long time. the cardiac surgeon is very pleased though...he's making a "profit". imo, health care ought to be a civil right in a civilized society... And maybe - now I know this sounds pretty far out there, but bear with me - equal access to the courts and reasonable representation once there ought to be a civil right. Therefore, I'd propose that no one with a bar card be allowed to charge more than the Federal minimum wage on any matter before any court until April 16th of the current year PROVIDED that they have demonstrated their legal qualifications by having prevailed for their client 60.1% of the time. And until that rate of success is reached, they are bound by that wage. At the end of the calendar year, the meter resets and any bar member not reaching 60.1% two years in a row shall be deemed to be unsuited to the practice of law and assigned to the gul...er, worker re-education...er, vocational reassignment cen...oh, **** it, the doggeddamned prison camp located in the cosmopolitan locale of Mosquito Haven, Florida until their "liquefied precipitation removal system installation technician" training can be completed. If they cannot successfully complete that, they should be turned over to Larry for, um, close-order knot familiarization...or is what we have here a failure to communicate...comrade...? we have to get away from the idea that profit should drive or even be a part of a reasonable and available health care system. ... And howsabout the legal system...? From what I hear tell, there's already rules and codes and **** covering THAT... and, yeah, i know the slippery slope to socialism crap. but, wtf is a capitalist government for if not to assure and provide for the health and welfare of its citizens? jeff (somewhere over the rainbow) Judy Garland waits for you...? TC, R |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 5:05*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L wrote: I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R You got a fire department anywhere near where you live? ****wit. g. |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 6:09*pm, jh wrote:
Knowing full well that this is pointless, but in all seriousness anyway, what in the world makes you or anyone else think coverage would cost any less then the aforementioned $1200/mo. under this "fixed" health plan? *Nothing in the plan seems to actually address cost of coverage - it does seem to play musical chairs with who is going to actually pay for it. Since they tout the plan as a zero cost to the gvmt - that means that all costs included the additional cost of the gvmt agencies overseeing this thing are going to have to be covered by business (for their employees) or by the individual (suzy homemaker maybe has to pay her own way I suppose)- ultimately it is the private individual that gets the bill. It will, of course, have to be paid for - dr's, hospitals, chiropractors, lawyers, ins. co's, etc. all are going to get paid, or they aren't going to exist. *In this case, the way the new deal reads, I think your friends would have a bigger problem than they have now - because as a business they would have had to provide coverage for themselves - or else the bill will just be added to their tax bill. If it is a crippling cost to the business- then go get a real job. As near as I can tell the latest plan is about a 1000 pages that says, "you will have health coverage- because it is the law." *So either your employeer is going to have to adjust his cost of doing business to accomodate the 1200 ish dollars per family/couple/whatever the hell the family unit is. *Or medicare or something suspiciously like medicare is going to cough up the care costs - and whack the taxpayer accordingly. Where is the money going to come from for city, county, state employees? *oh, thats right- the same place the money comes from to cover the private business employees. Of course, no one will mind the added cost to all goods and serivces across the board to fund coverage for 100% of the population - even those unemployed or unemployable. What I find interesting is that as a small employeer of union ironworkers and carpenters, we are struggling to get work. *Primarily the issue is labor cost. *A huge portion of our labor cost is the cost of the union health and retirement funds. *Nobody wants to pay the rates we have to charge to keep my employees covered. *As an example, when was the last time you insisted that the builder who built your home, deck, patio, installed your new range, installed your new carpet, etc prove that he had health coverage for his employees? *I'd guess you took the low bid and ran with it. I'm all for fixing health care - but lets fix costs. *If the costs can be contained - people will get coverage. jh Great arguments. Um.....they got a single payer police department anywhere near where you live? g. |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 7:32*pm, jh wrote:
no, of course profit is not the only important aspect of business. *I think it is pretty rare that you find a co. whos mission statement consists of "profit" Name one that doesn't. I also think that profit is not the evil it is made out to be. *Profit allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI center, or ----. No, that comes under the rubric of "costs." In our case, profit may allow for the addition of new forklifts, welders, safety gear, etc. *strictly managing to pull in overhead w/o profit pretty much means status quo. *keep what you have going, pay the rent, keep the lights turned on. No, those are all "costs." I have no prob. with insurance co.s making a profit, nor the Dr. that yanks a messed up gall bladder. Really? Well, surprise us! I do wish the ins. co's were more efficient with their (my) money. In fact, they are preternaturally efficient with it. The trouble is that you misunderstand their intent. From what I've learned, they have a pretty substantial overhead cost Perhaps you're not done learning. Unfortunately, you probably are. - I think they need a bit more competition so they can run a little leaner. Yeah, what we really need is another thirty thousand or so insurance companies......that'll certainly make things more efficient and cost effective. At the same time, I think they do their level best to get out of paying claims while getting slaughtered by legislation that sticks them with costs that were never intended to be covered. Well, you're certainly right about the first part of that.....and dead wrong about the latter parts. I seriously dislike ins. co's - I don't think I believe that. but I would absolutely not want to do what they do. Oh, I don't know.....rape can be fun. I think that coverage for all is a great idea- but the costs have to be addressed realistically. Ah! Realism! Yeah, everybody here has a real firm grasp on that. I have no idea how many unisured people there are in the US, but I am sure how ever many there are, they all have the same, statistically speaking, health costs I have. Rally? Why? So if you dump them into the system - and they can't afford the costs of coverage - my costs go up. *If my costs go up, my cost of doing business goes up, if my costs of business go up, either I gotta go find free money, or I have to increase my bill to john Q customer. So, exactly how much has your cost for police protection gone up in the last couple of decades as a result of equal coverage for those who cannot or will not pay their fair share? actually a fairly simple concept. Yeah, there's a lot of that simple concept stuff going around. I still think the answer is along the lines of catastrophic coverage - say $10,000. *under that is 100% on you, over that is 100% on insurance. Good enough answer, but it invites the question of just what it is an answer to. Think of the amount of paper that gets eliminated (paper = money, it means secretaries, reviewers, auditors, etc etc etc), *If everyone had, and paid, for that policy there would be huge funds available for those that needed catastrophic health care. *Say one person in 20 needs that kind of coverage in a given year, the premiums would be drasticaly reduced - and you could afford a health savings account that could build up to 10k in a couple three years, so the 9000 gall bladder surgery is cash payable. *My premium runs $500/mo for just me, cut it to 200 and let me stick 200-300 in an HSA, in 2 - 3 years assuming limited draws for little things, my one time 10 k deal is paid for. *gotta work the numbers - but I think something like that would work. Good idea. Work those numbers. Work them hard. Maybe it'll result in a substantial reduction in gibberish. g. |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:30:59 -0500, jeff wrote: jh wrote: Profit allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI center, or ----. not always john...the hospital/med school here just built a huge cardiac center...in the hope for profit i'm sure, in the hope of keeping a particular world famous doc happy i know, and in the hope of doing some good for those who can afford or otherwise access the offered treatment. *it's a loss-leader so far, from what i hear. it's grand architecture and offers hope. they charge a lot for their work...but i think the tax dollars really made it happen, and will probably support it for a long time. the cardiac surgeon is very pleased though...he's making a "profit". imo, health care ought to be a civil right in a civilized society... And maybe - now I know this sounds pretty far out there, but bear with me - equal access to the courts and reasonable representation once there ought to be a civil right. *Therefore, I'd propose that no one with a bar card be allowed to charge more than the Federal minimum wage on any matter before any court until April 16th of the current year PROVIDED that they have demonstrated their legal qualifications by having prevailed for their client 60.1% of the time. *And until that rate of success is reached, they are bound by that wage. *At the end of the calendar year, the meter resets and any bar member not reaching 60..1% two years in a row shall be deemed to be unsuited to the practice of law and assigned to the gul...er, worker re-education...er, vocational reassignment cen...oh, **** it, the doggeddamned prison camp located in the cosmopolitan locale of Mosquito Haven, Florida until their "liquefied precipitation removal system installation technician" training can be completed. *If they cannot successfully complete that, they should be turned over to Larry for, um, close-order knot familiarization...or is what we have here a failure to communicate...comrade...? we have to get away from the idea that profit should drive or even be a part of a reasonable and available health care system. ... And howsabout the legal system...? *From what I hear tell, there's already rules and codes and **** covering THAT... and, yeah, i know the slippery slope to socialism crap. but, wtf is a capitalist government for if not to assure and provide for the health and welfare of its citizens? jeff (somewhere over the rainbow) Judy Garland waits for you...? TC, R Moron. g. |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 7:48*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:15*pm, DaveS wrote: On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L wrote: I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very serious condition. He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions.. They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store, they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing around for political reasons. May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the millions with similar stories, **** Republicans in the US Senate Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?" TC, R- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 1. Prepared to pay . . . . Who do you think pays for it now? Duh. Fact is we pay more than double for half the care. 2. Buy it before they had pre-existing conditions . . . *Because they thought it would never happen to them, like most people do, and like most of the silly rightwinglings who mutter the cheap extended adolescent mantras of the personality disorder known as "conservatism." I never thought I would hit the other car, but I bought liability insurance. Never thought I would back into the tree, but I bought collision coverage. Should I have waited until after the fact and then demanded a policy that should pay, regardless or pre-existant sheet metal crunches? duh ! oz- Never thought your house would catch fire, but you bought a fire department. Never thought you would get mugged, but you bought a police department. Never thought you would get cholera, but you bought a water treatment facility. Never thought you would get dysentery, but you bought a waste water treatment plant. Never thought you would get invaded, but you bought an army.....and a navy.....and an air force.....and a marine corps.....and a coast guard. Never thought your neighbors would get unruly, but you bought a government. duh! Moron. g. |
OT - when politics gets personal
On 2010-02-23 17:54:19 -0500, Larry L said:
On Feb 23, 2:34*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: *Did cost me $1200 a month. *Is that not reasonable? I doubt seriously they could afford that. As for blaming ... nothing, this last year could probably have changed my friends situation, not enough time .... but the ****ing Repugnants with their filibuster mania forced what really could have been well discussed, compromised, health care reform to fail ( admittedly, partly because a few imbecile Democrats had to be "accommodated") because not even a few reasonable Repugs were to be found in the hall ) ... shouting "no" is NOT leading, it's lying about being a leader Larry, with all due respect, blaming it on the Republicans is not fair. The Democrats have major majorities in both Houses and occupy the WH. They could have passed *anything* that looked good. What they came up with was a pitiful mess that the majority of Americans do not want. They had to bribe pols to get the bills through, and even now, the Senate version will NOT pass in the house because of its contents. The Republicans did not pen these bills; Democrats did and both Pelosi and Reid know the bill is dead and going nowhere. As far as Republican actions on these bills...... I remember seeing Obama on the news meeting *exclusively* with the Dems of both Houses. The Republicans were not invited. Even if the Republicans voted 100% for the bills in the House and the Senate, it would take *years* to impliment. Your friend is not dying because of anything Congress or the Senate did or did not do. Perhaps he should have planned better, ensured that he and his would always be covered by some kind of insurance. I did, and I am called an imbecile, idiot, moron, uneducated, etc by the insane and nasty denizens in this rat hole. I don't mean to sound cruel, but there is no free lunch; if you don't watch out for yourself, no one else will. Plan, save, and do it yourself. Don't rely on the politicians, because they sure as hell don't love you and yours, or me and mine. Do you honestly think Nancy and Harry care about your friend? They don't. They are the ruling class; you, your friend, me - we aren't part of their world. If every pol voted what his/her constituents wanted, their would be no health care bill as it now exists, but there *could* have been a bill that everyone agreed upon if only the process was different. I have but a few years to live and I know I will not see universal health care in my life time. My children doubt they will see it, or even see Social Security because we are so very deep in debt. They know that DC doesn't care **** about them, Republicans or Democrats. I pray your friend has an easy time of it in the short time he has left. Dave |
OT - when politics gets personal
well, at least he is dependable
I'd suggest that maybe you stick to trying to determine the std dev of incompatable components and let it go at that. jh |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 10:35*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-02-23 17:54:19 -0500, Larry L said: On Feb 23, 2:34 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: Did cost me $1200 a month. Is that not reasonable? I doubt seriously they could afford that. As for blaming *... nothing, this last year could probably have changed my friends situation, not enough time *.... but the ****ing Repugnants with their filibuster mania forced what really could have been well discussed, compromised, health care reform to fail ( admittedly, partly because a few imbecile Democrats had to be "accommodated") *because not even a few reasonable Repugs were to be found in the hall ) *... shouting "no" is NOT leading, it's lying about being a leader Larry, with all due respect, blaming it on the Republicans is not fair. *The Democrats have major majorities in both Houses and occupy the WH. * They could have passed *anything* that looked good. *What they came up with was a pitiful mess that the majority of Americans do not want. * They had to bribe pols to get the bills through, and even now, the Senate version will NOT pass in the house because of its contents. *The Republicans did not pen these bills; Democrats did and both Pelosi and Reid know the bill is dead and going nowhere. *As far as Republican actions on these bills...... I remember seeing Obama on the news meeting *exclusively* with the Dems of both Houses. *The Republicans were not invited. Even if the Republicans voted 100% for the bills in the House and the Senate, it would take *years* to impliment. *Your friend is not dying because of anything Congress or the Senate did or did not do. *Perhaps he should have planned better, ensured that he and his would always be covered by some kind of insurance. *I did, and I am called an imbecile, idiot, moron, uneducated, etc by the insane and nasty denizens in this rat hole. *I don't mean to sound cruel, but there is no free lunch; if you don't watch out for yourself, no one else will. *Plan, save, and do it yourself. *Don't rely on the politicians, because they sure as hell don't love you and yours, or me and mine. *Do you honestly think Nancy and Harry care about your friend? *They don't. *They are the ruling class; you, your friend, me - we aren't part of their world. *If every pol voted what his/her constituents wanted, their would be no health care bill as it now exists, but there *could* have been a bill that everyone agreed upon if only the process was different. *I have but a few years to live and I know I will not see universal health care in my life time. *My children doubt they will see it, or even see Social Security because we are so very deep in debt. *They know that DC doesn't care **** about them, Republicans or Democrats. I pray your friend has an easy time of it in the short time he has left. Dave Idiot. Pig. g. |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 8:35*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-02-23 17:54:19 -0500, Larry L said: On Feb 23, 2:34 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: Did cost me $1200 a month. Is that not reasonable? I doubt seriously they could afford that. As for blaming *... nothing, this last year could probably have changed my friends situation, not enough time *.... but the ****ing Repugnants with their filibuster mania forced what really could have been well discussed, compromised, health care reform to fail ( admittedly, partly because a few imbecile Democrats had to be "accommodated") *because not even a few reasonable Repugs were to be found in the hall ) *... shouting "no" is NOT leading, it's lying about being a leader Larry, with all due respect, blaming it on the Republicans is not fair. *The Democrats have major majorities in both Houses and occupy the WH. * They could have passed *anything* that looked good. *What they came up with was a pitiful mess that the majority of Americans do not want. * They had to bribe pols to get the bills through, and even now, the Senate version will NOT pass in the house because of its contents. *The Republicans did not pen these bills; Democrats did and both Pelosi and Reid know the bill is dead and going nowhere. *As far as Republican actions on these bills...... I remember seeing Obama on the news meeting *exclusively* with the Dems of both Houses. *The Republicans were not invited. Even if the Republicans voted 100% for the bills in the House and the Senate, it would take *years* to impliment. *Your friend is not dying because of anything Congress or the Senate did or did not do. *Perhaps he should have planned better, ensured that he and his would always be covered by some kind of insurance. *I did, and I am called an imbecile, idiot, moron, uneducated, etc by the insane and nasty denizens in this rat hole. *I don't mean to sound cruel, but there is no free lunch; if you don't watch out for yourself, no one else will. *Plan, save, and do it yourself. *Don't rely on the politicians, because they sure as hell don't love you and yours, or me and mine. *Do you honestly think Nancy and Harry care about your friend? *They don't. *They are the ruling class; you, your friend, me - we aren't part of their world. *If every pol voted what his/her constituents wanted, their would be no health care bill as it now exists, but there *could* have been a bill that everyone agreed upon if only the process was different. *I have but a few years to live and I know I will not see universal health care in my life time. *My children doubt they will see it, or even see Social Security because we are so very deep in debt. *They know that DC doesn't care **** about them, Republicans or Democrats. I pray your friend has an easy time of it in the short time he has left. Dave- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dave that is really naive. You need to read more before you join the choirs. The "Obama" bill contains many of the provisions worked out in Mass by Republican Romney. And the "Obama" bill also includes several features from the old Senator Coburn Republican health-care reform legislation. Period. Why do you think so many liberal Dems feel Obama has compromised too much? People who follow this stuff in DC know that what is going on is part of a slash and burn strategy imposed by ultra conservatives of the National Committee of the Republican Party. The objective is to deny the Democrats credit for reforming health care. Its a risky strategy because the "Tea Party" movement is such an unpredictable factor and is resistant to the full court press for control of the Party radicals and right wing ideologues like Grover Norquist and Dick Armey. The "Teas" could turn on these 2nd wave "conservative" dinosaurs in a minute. And finally the GOP risks exposure as a "puppet for hire" by international capitalism, if the recession's effects persist too long, and they overplay their hand trying to brand Obama as some kind of Communist with all this outdated 1950s rhetoric. There has been all kinds of quiet bi-partisan work constructing the "Obama Bill" and that is well known in DC. But GOP party discipline and threats of retaliation by the notorious "Club for Growth" has pummeled even the Republican cooperators into silence. I keep believing that patriotism will trump party politics and some of the "silent Republican moderates" will break ranks with the dinosaurs and start earning their pay. Hard ball Politics, that's what is going on. And the American people are the worse for it. Dave |
OT - when politics gets personal
jh wrote:
ps...john, any chance you'll get over to the madison in july? been way too long since we've chased the trout.) unknown. As with many areas the economy in our little corner of the world has taken a big whack. The paper mill shut down which was one of the largest single private employers in the county, The outfall from that (support contractors, suppliers, trucking, etc) has not really been realized yet. The Plum Creek lumber mill in Bonner closed up last year, Macy's is closing up shop next month, one hospital went through a round of lay offs, the old Brady's Sportsmans Surplus closed its doors. Meanwhile the recovery $ here are being spent on such high minded projects as installing new windows in an old fish hatchery, re- shingling some old ranger cabins, and a few misc. road resurfacing projects. Private money funded projects are almost non-existent and the banks are locked up tighter than a drum. Talking to other contractors, bankers, etc., the consensus is that we will be flat for at least 2 more years. Consequently, contractors are bidding things at absurd rates and bidding over much larger geographical areas than they would normally. A couple weeks back we lost a state funded project to a Utah based contractor no one here has even heard of before. One friend of mine told me they have been seeing bid prices at about 1995 levels, but neither material nor labor costs are going down, so there will be a lot of failures and/or wild backcharges. Talking to the fly shop the other day, our snowpack in western mt is about 55% of normal. George said that the snow has been at what he considers drought levels for 8 of the last 11 years. OTOH I may have lots of spare time this summer. john ouch...hope it works out so you need a well-desrved vacation from too much work. if so, july 9-19. jeff |
OT - when politics gets personal
|
OT - when politics gets personal
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:55:06 -0500, jeff wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:30:59 -0500, jeff wrote: jh wrote: Profit allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI center, or ----. not always john...the hospital/med school here just built a huge cardiac center...in the hope for profit i'm sure, in the hope of keeping a particular world famous doc happy i know, and in the hope of doing some good for those who can afford or otherwise access the offered treatment. it's a loss-leader so far, from what i hear. it's grand architecture and offers hope. they charge a lot for their work...but i think the tax dollars really made it happen, and will probably support it for a long time. the cardiac surgeon is very pleased though...he's making a "profit". imo, health care ought to be a civil right in a civilized society... And maybe - now I know this sounds pretty far out there, but bear with me - equal access to the courts and reasonable representation once there ought to be a civil right. Therefore, I'd propose that no one with a bar card be allowed to charge more than the Federal minimum wage on any matter before any court until April 16th of the current year PROVIDED that they have demonstrated their legal qualifications by having prevailed for their client 60.1% of the time. And until that rate of success is reached, they are bound by that wage. At the end of the calendar year, the meter resets and any bar member not reaching 60.1% two years in a row shall be deemed to be unsuited to the practice of law and assigned to the gul...er, worker re-education...er, vocational reassignment cen...oh, **** it, the doggeddamned prison camp located in the cosmopolitan locale of Mosquito Haven, Florida until their "liquefied precipitation removal system installation technician" training can be completed. If they cannot successfully complete that, they should be turned over to Larry for, um, close-order knot familiarization...or is what we have here a failure to communicate...comrade...? we have to get away from the idea that profit should drive or even be a part of a reasonable and available health care system. ... And howsabout the legal system...? From what I hear tell, there's already rules and codes and **** covering THAT... and, yeah, i know the slippery slope to socialism crap. but, wtf is a capitalist government for if not to assure and provide for the health and welfare of its citizens? jeff (somewhere over the rainbow) Judy Garland waits for you...? TC, R you know, there is merit in some of what you say. however, it won't affect me much assuming overhead costs are a separate item Overhead costs...? Oh, wait...you won't have a heated and cooled office, a paralegal, secretary, etc. You'll be issued a box of #2s, a package of legal pads, a box of file folders and an orange crate that can serve as both a desk and a file cabinet. Oh, by-the-by, save the pad backs and pencil stubs - in the summer, you'll have a ready supply of fans and in winter, you'll have something to burn for heat...keep in mind, however, if you get uppity and burn the orang...er, ,multi-purpose office unit, legal, non-metallic, recycled, the total cost of replacement, including shipping, handling, delivery and set-up from the Cheney-Halliburton Office Supply Company WILL be deducted from your pay packet and you WILL lose 1 cat food ration stamp each week for 6 weeks...and before you go there - no, $134,324.17 for an orang...er, multi-purpose office unit, legal, non-metallic, recycled, isn't excessive....it was 12.3% less than the bid from Reid-Pelosi Furnishings... and not dependent on my fixed wages. ...tough to meet the proficiency requirement though. in my area of practice, there are no winners. Uh-oh, sorry - more changes...you'll not have a divorce practice anymore as there will be no more marriages, per se. "Marriage" has religious overtones, and as such, it will not be officially permitted or recognized (plus, that solves the whole "gay marriage" question). You'll be reassigned to traffic court...snow chain infraction division...but the good news is that you'll be allowed to draw straws for prosecution or defense... TC, R jeff |
OT - when politics gets personal
In article ,
jh writes: My question, do YOU think health care and iron work construction fall into the same category, i.e. free enterprise with only profit as a worthwhile goal? *Do you even really believe that "profit" is the only important ( even the most important) product of your own biz? *if so, sorry no, of course profit is not the only important aspect of business. I think it is pretty rare that you find a co. whos mission statement consists of "profit" I also think that profit is not the evil it is made out to be. Profit allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI center, or ----. And yet, I remember a time when virtually all hospitals were non-profit. In our case, profit may allow for the addition of new forklifts, welders, safety gear, etc. strictly managing to pull in overhead w/o profit pretty much means status quo. keep what you have going, pay the rent, keep the lights turned on. I have no prob. with insurance co.s making a profit, nor the Dr. that yanks a messed up gall bladder. I do wish the ins. co's were more efficient with their (my) money. From what I've learned, they have a pretty substantial overhead cost - I think they need a bit more competition so they can run a little leaner. At the same time, I One such overhead cost is, of course, the co.s' salaries. I think it was in 2005 or 2006 that one co made 1 out of every 6 dollars spent in the country on health care. think they do their level best to get out of paying claims while getting slaughtered by legislation that sticks them with costs that were never intended to be covered. I seriously dislike ins. co's - but I would absolutely not want to do what they do. I think that coverage for all is a great idea- but the costs have to be addressed realistically. I have no idea how many unisured people there are in the US, but I am sure how ever many there are, they all have the same, statistically speaking, health costs I have. So if you dump them into the system - and they can't afford the costs of coverage - my costs go up. If my costs go up, my cost of doing business goes up, if my costs of business go up, either I gotta go find free money, or I have to increase my bill to john Q customer. actually a fairly simple concept. We're talking 40-50 million. Many of these people can't afford insurance, but many others are healthy and don't see the point of having insurance. As these people are not paying into the system, the costs are somewhat driven by having a subscriber base with somewhat poorer health than the population in general. Having the requrirement that everyone pay into the system should reduce overall costs, as the costs are spread over a larger group. Before you argue that the healthy people don't really need insurance, they certainly will eventually need it. I still think the answer is along the lines of catastrophic coverage - say $10,000. under that is 100% on you, over that is 100% on insurance. Think of the amount of paper that gets eliminated (paper = money, it means secretaries, reviewers, auditors, etc etc etc), If everyone had, and paid, for that policy there would be huge funds available for those that needed catastrophic health care. Say one person in 20 needs that kind of coverage in a given year, the premiums would be drasticaly reduced - and you could afford a health savings account that could build up to 10k in a couple three years, so the 9000 gall bladder surgery is cash payable. My premium runs $500/mo for just me, cut it to 200 and let me stick 200-300 in an HSA, in 2 - 3 years assuming limited draws for little things, my one time 10 k deal is paid for. gotta work the numbers - but I think something like that would work. jh a) Many cannot afford $10,000 in health costs. b) Yes, the paperwork required is insane. I think a lot of that is to make it painful to use insurance. c) Health savings accounts are great as long as those companies don't go bankrupt (it has happened) and people actually has the resources and discipline to actually contribute to health savings accounts. __________________________________________________ ______________________ Craig A. Gullixson Technical Support Manager INTERNET: National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak PHONE: (575) 434-7065 Sunspot, NM 88349 USA FAX: (575) 434-7029 |
OT - when politics gets personal
a) Many cannot afford $10,000 in health costs. *b) *Yes, the paperwork
required is insane. *I think a lot of that is to make it painful to use insurance. *c) *Health savings accounts are great as long as those companies don't go bankrupt (it has happened) and people actually has the resources and discipline to actually contribute to health savings accounts. __________________________________________________ ______________________ Craig A. Gullixson Technical Support Manager * * * * * * * INTERNET: National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak * *PHONE: (575) 434-7065 Sunspot, NM 88349 USA * * * * * * * * * FAX: (575) 434-7029 no, they can't- so it becomes a sliding scale based on income/personal wealth? catastrophic for me is somewhat different than catastrophic for "nameyourfavoritefamousperson" or the homeless person down the street. The point is, I think if my premiums were reduced substantially from what they are, I could take the diff and stick it into some sort of HSA and I would be able to write that 10,000 check every 3-5 years. This presumes of course that I have the interest and/ or foresight to actually do this rather than buy a new flatscreen or the latest boron flyrod or ---- whatever. It still comes down to being responsible for your own actions. I also think that if your local insurance co. were not involved whatsoever in your day to day runs to the free clinic, the clinic would have more time to devote to the actual issue, rather than a "whose your insurance" interogation which should lead to lower costs and better service. everbody gets there own HSA and a debit card to match. The not-for-profit thing is something of a red herring also. I know of more than a few folks that make substantial incomes managing not- for-profit organizations. So while the corp or whatever entitiy is not-for-profit, those employed to manage or operate them can do quite well. john |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 24, 10:59*am, (Craig Gullixson) wrote:
And yet, I remember a time when virtually all hospitals were non-profit Non-profit is a tax status, not an operating model. While the intent is noble in that the business gaining a non-profit status is in theory not operated for a profit, the fact remains that a non-profit entity such as a hospital must operate in a model where revenues exceed expenses in order to maintain an appropriate level of capability, replace capital equipment as the needs and changes in diagnostic/therapeutic treatment dictate, and continue to pay a competitive raise to its employees. Non Profits raise capital through donations, grants, commercial lenders, and the bond market. They are subject to the same bond ratings as anyone else and in order to borrow funds to help fund strategic needs, the higher the bond rating, the lower the interests and other costs much the same way a person's credit rating determines their interest rates when obtaining a mortgage. Personally I don't know of many organizations, especially in today's eenvironment, that are truly "non-profit" and have access to capital funding. In exchange for the non-profit status the entity is not subject to various taxes, though it differs by state and is expected to provide a certain level of charity care and community benefit. Medicare used to reimburse hospitals on a cost basis for the Medicare patients that the hospital serviced. That is the cost of operations, not the charges. Cast based reimbursement is a 100% tax on profits so even the "for profit" hospitals did not technically make a profit on medicare. Even so, the costs in total was growing to the point that it was not sustainable because hospitals were not seen as a true business operation since the system gave them no incentive to be effecient. Beginning in the 80's they migrated to a payment formula that replaced the cost based methodology for most hospitals to a payment system that was based on a patient illness classification system. Essentially it is a per patient payment that is based on the diagnosis or treatment performed. The idea was to force hospitals to lessen costs and get efficient like any other business. If the hospital kept their average costs under the flat rate payment, the hospital made a profit. If the hospital could not get the cost down then they lost money. Even the feds realize that non-profit does not mean non-profit. FWIW, I spent over 25 years in the "for-profit" healthcare industry and have spent the last ssix years in a faith based "non-profit" organization. The differences are not as great as one might would like to believe. |
OT - when politics gets personal
On Feb 23, 11:19*pm, Giles wrote:
No, those are all "costs." They are not all "costs", while they may be a use of cash which some mistakenly consider "costs". Some of what he mentions are capital and operating investments, as well as inventory which will be used to support the business and maintain its capability. Capitals assets are expensed over some time period which is supposed to approximate their servicable life so their costs of use are some portion of the actual cost of the equipment whereas the inventory investments are typically expensed when the sale occurs. Wayne Accountants are us .. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter