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

"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?

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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 )