OT - when politics gets personal

On Feb 23, 8:06*pm, wrote:

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 think I'm going to be sorry I lurked and popped up.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go repossess some pacemakers and
offer complementary shovels so those who won't pay me 16K upfront for
their potentially life saving treatment can start to help their family
save on their burial costs. The IRS allows me to include on my annual
990 filling as a community benefit further justifying my 501c3 status.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
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

There was very little in the "health care plan" to control costs. They
should have had insurance before the pre existing conditions. I think
insurance companies should have to accept pre existion conditions at no
extra charge if the person already was covered by insurance. Let the 2
insurance companies work out the extra costs. But if someone does not have
insurance and then gets sick and wants insurance, he should pay more. Maybe
a lot more. Covering all pre-existion conditions is sort of like being able
to have no fire insurance on your house, and it burns down. You think that
pre-existing condition should be covered by the new insurance company?
Insurance is spreading the risk over a large group. Sort of like gambling.
You gamble a small amount each month that you will not have to pay a huge
medical bill.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
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

The only couple ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors. Number 2 is get rid of a lot of the HMO mentality of a $10 copay
and everything is covered. Under that scenario, there is an immense
increase in hospital and doctor visits. Gets the sniffles. Old days, he
stayed home, got some rest, and maybe chicken soup, and was well in 3 days.
Now mom takes kid to hospital, they run a huge amount of costly tests to
cover their liability, and tell mom to take the kid home, give him some
Tylenol, maybe some chicken soup, and he will be ok in 3 days. Added couple
thousand to the health care costs. Europe has "Free" healthcare. But it is
not free, is is paid for with $3 a gallon gas tax, etc. They also do some
things correctly. Besides an emergency room, they have a doctors office
attached to the hospital with a nurse, aid, clerk and doctor. Takes care of
things like the kids cold without all the ER stuff. There is a lineup to
get attention, but wait is not too long. I had to avail myself of it in
Sorrento, Italy. Free for everybody, but if I had to go to the hospital
part, I would have had to pay. We could cut costs, but will the people
stand for the cut in services? Canada had a year or 3 wait for a knee
replacement. In the 1980's British Columbia had one MRI machine. There
were 7 in the San Francisco Bay area. 6-9 months wait for an MRI. You want
that rationing and cost reduction?

On Feb 23, 5:28*pm, Larry L wrote:

He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health
care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions.

Sorry to hear about your friend Larry. As a democrat and social
liberal I understand your frustation with the Republican side of the
isle and their inflexible and childish governing style. Unfortunately
the Democrats in Congress are not being entirely truthful as some of
the back alley deals have to indicate. Furthermore this thing is not
so much a healthcare reform bill as some would have you believe though
it would, or more appropriately state "should" offer immediate
financial assistance to your friend's plight, but it does very little
to correct the real or precieved issues in our healthcare processes.

If you want to email me, I might be able to help your friends get
access to some assistance depending where in Idaho they reside and the
actual health issue.

But rather than responding to each specific posts that I think needs a
reponse, other than the three I've already responded to, I'm going to
try to lump a few comments to various posts in here. I apologize in
advance for the length.

For the conservative sounding types, let me point out that you already
subsidize the poor, under insured, and those on Medicare, Medicaid,
VA, and Tricare (Champus). You subsidize them through the costs you
pay now for private insurance or other healthcare services you
purchase out of pocket since the government programs have not
increased their payments in line with the costs of doing business. In
fact that we already have a universal health access program. It's
called the hospital emergency room and by law we have to treat and
stablize any patient regardless of their financial situation. The
issue that needs to be discussed is not what is going to come out of
our pockets in terms of taxes but how does the financial transfers to
the government actually lessen the burden carried by private industry
and individuals? We have already established a de facto right to
healthcare via the emergency process listed above, what we have not
established is who has to pay for it. Like it or not, it is the
privately insured and more specifically the employers who provide the
insurance that are paying subsidizing it. That means we are all paying
for it though various methods, either directly in higher premiums or
in higher prices for the goods and services we purchase.

For Oz and others, it is good that you were able to obtain private
coverage. I am working with a recently widowed friend of the family
here in Indiana who is what most people would consider middle class
but in that no-man's land between the end of her Cobra coverage and
the start of Medicare. We can get her insured, but at $6000 more per
year then her total income. Each state and situation is different and
not everyone can afford it, you were luckier than most. Even within
the same state there are actually two different classes of commercial
health insurance with differing rules. The state regulated plans and
the employer supplied, often self funded plans which are governed
under the Federal statues via the ERISA retirement act.

At the same time, Larry, there is a law which provides a mechanism for
someone who has lost their insurance or had Cobra run out to obtain
other insurance inspite of pre-existing conditions but there is no
provision to govern how much that coverage costs. Hence the issue with
the family friend here. Oz is right in that regard, most anyone can
obtain insurance. What he neglects and other point out is that often
that cost is significant and it forces people to choose between
housing, food, or insurance. And unfortunately are right too when they
bring up the choices people make via livestyle like cell phones, cable
TV, eating out etc instead of buying insurance but that IMO, is a big
social economic issue unrelated to the issue at hand.

For those who mentioned gold standard health care, you need to define
that and really think about what it is you're talking about. A
PetScanner used to detect minute cancers has a seven figure price tag
while the instruments used to provide radiation therapy costs a
multiple of that in many cases. But more specifically, the treatment
of heart attacks has been altered by very expenisive metal rods called
stents. Now many patients can go through a stenting procedure and get
immediate relief and return to a "normal productive" lifestyle in days
instead of months associate with the post op recovery open heart
surgery requires. Those stents are not cheap. Is that a gold standard?
Pin point radiation delivery without damaging as much surrounding
tissue, is that the gold standard? New expensive drugs which reduce or
eliminate certain viruses or tumors? It goes on and before someone
comes back and says they don't want extreme end of life measures, how
can you assume you won't feel that way should it happen to you
tomorrow instead of when you're "old and feeble"?

I could go on and on, there is significant mis information and
misconceptions on both sides out there. Bottom line is the USA has one
of the most expensive health and a significant portion of our
population does not have either ready access to care, the ability to
pay for that care, or both. Costs are high because too many people
can't or won't pay for their services now and that cost gets tacked on
to the already high costs of care for the technology. The present
reform bill does nothing serious to actually reform a payment system
that is weighted heavily towards doing a procedure vis a vis actually
treating the whole patient from a wellness standpoint nor does it do a
thing to address the myriad individual rules and regulations we have
to satisfy to get patients treated and claims adjudicated. I'm all for
reform even if it ends up being a single payor system and ends my
career, but this thing that is out there right now concerns me about
the potential for some very severe unintended consequences.

Enough ramblings, If people sincerly want to discuss this mess further
we can go to email.

wrote:
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...



i'm on board when the doctors agree to similar terms. i'll relent on
their diagnostic equipment needs though. just back from dr. visit...i
love my guy...in ayden, nc. he has put me on a low carb diet because
cholesteral is, well, extremely unhealthy apparently. i won't take Rx
for it...but when i told him i wasn't going to quit drinking beer and
other spiritous beverages while on fishing trips, he said: "hell jeff,
i'm not here to ruin your life." i liked that. i also like that he has
a king mackeral citation on the wall of his examining room...



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...

hey...i actually like this one. i love traffic court!! do a bit of it
just to remind myself of a normal world. marriage and divorce...silly
stuff. but improper equipment, crossing yellow lines, speeding 100 in
55, no operator's license, and...uh... shudderrrr ...driving while
impaired with snow chains? oh jeezus, sign me up...but sounds eerily
similar to divorce stuff.

jeff

wrote in message
...
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs built
in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into various
insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price structures. And,
given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as a
societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a for-profit
business.

Tom

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:13:15 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs built
in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into various
insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price structures. And,
given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as a
societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a for-profit
business.

Ya know, I keep hearing about these friggin' "rights" and "societal benefit" and
what folks ought to get and all, but what about some of the responsibilities
that come with them...? As it currently stands, should what appears to be the
latest cluster**** of a scheme actually come to pass, those folks who will
benefit most from "universal" health care are the very ones who would contribute
literally _nothing_ to the cost of it all. And no, I don't mean the truly
destitute, as I doubt they'll see much, if any, change in their "real-world"
health care no matter which of the current set of usual suspects "reforms" it. I
refer to those with jobs, but not enough income, after all the exemptions,
credits, etc., to owe _any_ income tax. And before anyone says anything, the
wonderful, as I understand it, the perfect European and UK systems' _effective_
income tax bands start at _much_ lower incomes than the US and there are various
other taxes, such as VAT, etc., that US liberals scream to all holy hell about
being regressive, unkind and just downright mean.

And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it, how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new drugs
developed, etc.?

TC,
R

Tom

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:51:19 -0800 (PST), Wayne Knight
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:06*pm, wrote:

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 think I'm going to be sorry I lurked and popped up.

HOLY ****!! It's Beetlejuice the Accountant! Say "health care ripoff" three
times and WOOOSH!, you appear!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go repossess some pacemakers and
offer complementary shovels so those who won't pay me 16K upfront for
their potentially life saving treatment can start to help their family
save on their burial costs. The IRS allows me to include on my annual
990 filling as a community benefit further justifying my 501c3 status.

Burial costs...? I thought y'all just bulldozed 'em into pits or something...
HEY! I have an idea to save on fuel costs...it seems in about 2 years, we're
gonna be up to our short-hairs in shovel-ready ex-lawyers...we can just divert
some from the liquid precipitation removal system installation department and
send them over to your way...why, shoot, in no time at all, every exec at the
hospital ought to be able to buy that 5th Ferrari...yeah, yeah, yeah, I know,
who really NEEDS a 5th Ferrari? What can I tell you, give it to one of your
maids or something...maybe your gardener's assistant can use it to store
compost...

HTH,
R

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs
built in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into
various insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price
structures. And, given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit
taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as
a societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a
for-profit business.

Tom

I think our state and federal governments should sell the nation’s highways,
roads, and streets to for-profit organizations. That way we all pay to
travel to and from work, the grocery store, day care, your favorite bar, the
dentist, anywhere and anytime you or I might drive. Just think of the profit
potential. I mean, why should we pay highway usage or fuel taxes for our
government to maintain our roadways, when private organizations could
obviously provide better maintenance, construction, and means of usage. I
mean it is not as if use of the nation’s roadways is a constitutionally
protected right, right? Kelo vs. New London (I believe this is the case
name) determined that the public transfer of one private entities property
to another private entity for the purpose of economic development trumps the
rights of the individual. Hell, I say the government should exercise its
right of eminent domain over all U.S. citizens and transfer all private
property from private individuals to other private individual, who can
*claim* that they will put the property to better economic purposes, which
thereby serves the public interest better. What makes travel to anywhere,
anymore important than one's health.

Hell, once we transer the nation's roadways to the for-profit companies and
make travel on the nation's roadways so expensive that we cannot affort to
drive to and from work, get our groceries, pick up little Cindy Lou Hoo
from daycare, travel to your doctor's office, or the hospital to have
another child delivered, healthcare reform will appear insignificant in
comparison.

Op

On Feb 24, 6:02*pm, wrote:


Ya know, I keep hearing about these friggin' "rights" and "societal benefit" and
what folks ought to get and all,

Do you?

well

gosh

but what about some of the responsibilities
that come with them...?

And what responsibilities would those be?

As it currently stands, should what appears to be the
latest cluster**** of a scheme actually come to pass, those folks who will
benefit most from "universal" health care are the very ones who would contribute
literally _nothing_ to the cost of it all.

Just like fire and police protection, huh? The rich pay for
everything and the poor get all the benefits. Precisely why they
stay poor for generation after generation.....why get rich with all
the burdens this entails when a life of poverty keeps you on easy
street.

And no, I don't mean the truly
destitute,

Oh, you mean the not so truly destitute. The.....um.....uh......

as I doubt they'll see much, if any, change in their "real-world"
health care no matter which of the current set of usual suspects "reforms" it.

Well, you know how much weight your doubts and suspicions and guesses
and hints and suggestions and allusions and abstractions and
circumlocutions and perambulations and disseminations and distractions
and prevarications and ruminations and buffoonery carry around here.

I refer to those with jobs, but not enough income, after all the exemptions,
credits, etc., to owe _any_ income tax.

And you personally know......um.....exactly how many such people?

And before anyone says anything, the
wonderful, as I understand it, the perfect European and UK systems' _effective_
income tax bands start at _much_ lower incomes than the US and there are various
other taxes, such as VAT, etc., that US liberals scream to all holy hell about
being regressive, unkind and just downright mean.

All of which, assuming there's a shred of demonstrable truth to it
means.....what?

And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it, how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new drugs
developed, etc.?

How do the folks who develop, manufacture and distribute bullet proof
vests, badges, guns, ammunition, automobiles, fire trucks, ladders,
handcuffs, tazers, uniforms, hoses, nightsticks, shiny sunglasses,
hats, jail cells, pumps, defibrulators, gurneys, sphygmomanometers,
flashlights, notepads, radar, sirens, leather belts and doughnuts get
paid?

Moron.

g.