{BS} Numbers don't add up
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Mar 2010 20:37 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:55:47 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:ho0o37$ksq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > >> Don't blame me if it doesn't make sense. Nothing Obama and Pelosi have >> done so far has. >> >> >> > > Neither does vehemently defending a concept when you don't understand what > it means because you did zero research. What did I say in the last post, Nimrod? Try to keep up, please.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Mar 2010 20:38 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:12:38 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:ho0osq$o1s$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:51:14 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:hnvuvn$695$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> >>>> "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> What's the cost of NOT having health care? You have the information. >>> You're a smart guy, according to you. >> >> Nothing. > > > Y'all come on back when you're prepared to be serious. We have been through this before. The cost of health care in Mass is nothing.
From: larry moe 'n curly on 20 Mar 2010 05:53 Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:47:44 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: > > The numbers came out yesterday. > > The bill will provide healthcare to 30M Americans. It will cost ~$1T > > One trillion to cover 30 million? > What's not being represented by the report from the budget office? Why > not just put the 30M on Medicare? > > > That's what I favored, and it would not only be cheaper but probably cut > > down on the insurance bureacracy that doctors have to deal with. But the > > insurance industry and the far right wing opposed the "public option" as > > being socialism (socialism!!!!), so we're stuck with this watered-down, > > higher cost plan for now. Still, it's going to be an improvement over the > > current system, and it will not only provide coverage for the uninsured > > but also improve cost controls, meaning every patient should benefit. > > Who said 'the reight sing' opposed it? Con men, middle-aged woman-hating virgins, and somebody who came real close to getting a psycho discharge from the US Navy are on your side. Good company. > IT WAS NEVER OFFERED! I would be all in favor of making Medicare available > for people stuck in the gap. Not a problem! Why shake up the entire > country for 30M people? That's not even 10% > > No, if Nobraina and Princess Pelosi would suggest that, perhaps there > could be an agreement. > > They don't want that. They want the whole ball of wax. They want YOU to > get health coverage. If you can't afford it, there will be a 'connector' > option, just like in Mass, where it's on a sliding scale. If you get it > from work...er, scratch that. Why would an employer offer healthcare if he > doesn't have to? Notice it will not apply to union members for 10 years. > What happens after 10 years? > > For those of you 'deemed' to be able to afoord healthcare with no > 'connector' or employer option? Grab your ankles now,. YOU get schtupped > about a day after the bill gets passed. You seem really immature when you argue that way. > > I wish the Obama plan included a provision to reduce the silly arbitrary > > rules that private insurers impose on doctors, making them spend 1-2 hours > > a day on the phone and employ an extra person to sort things out, probably > > wasting $50,000-$100,000 per office. > > Where'd that come from? Either a person does the paperwork for the > insurance cos, or the doctor does it, cutting into the time he has > available for patients. It's not the paperwork but the huge amount of it and the different sets of rules each insurer imposes. It's not unusual for a doctor to have to sort through dozens or even 100 different types of coverage that are different only because statisticians and accountants make them different -- for no good medical or economic reasons. That's why the average American doctor's office employs one extra non-medical person, compared to the average Canadian doctor's office. > > What's really funny here is that you seem to think the Government getting > their fingers into it is going to make that BETTER! BWAHAHAHAHA!!! > > They're going to have to hire yet ANOTHER person to deal with the > beauracracy, and I'd bet lawyers and/or accountant fees will increase as > well. > > The government does so many things so much better than someone doing it > for profit. Military, ambulance service, fire fighting, policing, and health insurance. I've already mentioned the cost efficiencies of Maricopa Medical Center over the private hospitals around here. > > "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" > > > Hitler killed over 10 million civilians because he hated them, not > > because he wanted to implement universal health coverage. Stop > > trivializing. > > Who's trivializing? You are. > They're basing this on the Mass plan, in part. You ain't seen nothin' yet! It doesn't matter. Romney's plan has far, far fewer death camps than Hitler's did. > Utopian ideals are so good to dream about, until the government gets > involved in them. Some tea baggers are utopians, too, only they're followers of that hateful, pill popper cult leader, Ayn Rand. > I hope eddy and lmc have to provide their own coverage so they can see > how wonderful it really is. > > > I have an HSA. This is a wonderful tax loophole that never should have > > been allowed because it's highly impractical and unhelpful for lower > > income people. > > Well, prepare to kiss it goodbye. Like I said, if you can afford "regular" > health care... Apparently even you knew you that you didn't have a good response to that. As I said, I have an HSA, which means I can afford health care -- approximately one semi-hugely expensive condition, even if I lacked coverage.
From: in2dadark on 20 Mar 2010 12:05 On Mar 19, 9:42 am, Hachiroku <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > The numbers came out yesterday. > > The bill will provide healthcare to 30M Americans. > It will cost ~$1T > > One trillion to cover 30 million? > What's not being represented by the report from the budget office? > Why not just put the 30M on Medicare? > "Because they don't meet the guidlines!" > Um, so? Change the guidelines to cover them, instead of putting a > deathgrip on the whole country. > > This is the biggest bunch of liars I have ever seen in my whole life. > They want more than just coverage for 30M. > > They want the power to rule. > > And, using Mass as a model, a lot of people will get coverage who > otherwise don't get it from employers or can't afford it. The state > subsideses it. > > Everyone else who doesn't meet the 'guidelines'? > > Bend over and grab your ankles. No subsidy for you. You pay pretty much > what you would have paid anyway. But, you HAVE to pay it, or face > penalties on your tax returns. > > "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" > > I hope eddy and lmc have to provide their own coverage so they can see > how wonderful it really is. WSJ reported today that companies such as Catipillar will take a huge hit to their prescription drug plan for retiries over this. Many other large corps are in the same boat. I agree with the expanding medicare part. As I've said here before, just lower the age for medicare to 55 or 60 and you'll solve a whole LOT of our healthcare woes. Put a vice grip on the medicare and medicaid (paying health care for dead people) fraud to fund it . Basically a 2 line bill. But Piglosi and obarry are dead inside, so it matters not that they take us down in flames with them.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 20 Mar 2010 12:06
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:53:28 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: > > > Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:47:44 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: >> >> The numbers came out yesterday. >> >> The bill will provide healthcare to 30M Americans. It will cost ~$1T >> >> One trillion to cover 30 million? >> What's not being represented by the report from the budget office? Why >> not just put the 30M on Medicare? >> >> > That's what I favored, and it would not only be cheaper but probably >> > cut down on the insurance bureacracy that doctors have to deal with. >> > But the insurance industry and the far right wing opposed the "public >> > option" as being socialism (socialism!!!!), so we're stuck with this >> > watered-down, higher cost plan for now. Still, it's going to be an >> > improvement over the current system, and it will not only provide >> > coverage for the uninsured but also improve cost controls, meaning >> > every patient should benefit. >> >> Who said 'the reight sing' opposed it? > > Con men, middle-aged woman-hating virgins, and somebody who came real > close to getting a psycho discharge from the US Navy are on your side. > Good company. > >> IT WAS NEVER OFFERED! I would be all in favor of making Medicare >> available for people stuck in the gap. Not a problem! Why shake up the >> entire country for 30M people? That's not even 10% >> >> No, if Nobraina and Princess Pelosi would suggest that, perhaps there >> could be an agreement. >> >> They don't want that. They want the whole ball of wax. They want YOU to >> get health coverage. If you can't afford it, there will be a 'connector' >> option, just like in Mass, where it's on a sliding scale. If you get it >> from work...er, scratch that. Why would an employer offer healthcare if >> he doesn't have to? Notice it will not apply to union members for 10 >> years. What happens after 10 years? >> >> For those of you 'deemed' to be able to afoord healthcare with no >> 'connector' or employer option? Grab your ankles now,. YOU get schtupped >> about a day after the bill gets passed. > > You seem really immature when you argue that way. > >> > I wish the Obama plan included a provision to reduce the silly >> > arbitrary rules that private insurers impose on doctors, making them >> > spend 1-2 hours a day on the phone and employ an extra person to sort >> > things out, probably wasting $50,000-$100,000 per office. >> >> Where'd that come from? Either a person does the paperwork for the >> insurance cos, or the doctor does it, cutting into the time he has >> available for patients. > > It's not the paperwork but the huge amount of it and the different sets of > rules each insurer imposes. It's not unusual for a doctor to have to sort > through dozens or even 100 different types of coverage that are different > only because statisticians and accountants make them different -- for no > good medical or economic reasons. That's why the average American > doctor's office employs one extra non-medical person, compared to the > average Canadian doctor's office. > > >> What's really funny here is that you seem to think the Government >> getting their fingers into it is going to make that BETTER! >> BWAHAHAHAHA!!! >> >> They're going to have to hire yet ANOTHER person to deal with the >> beauracracy, and I'd bet lawyers and/or accountant fees will increase as >> well. >> >> The government does so many things so much better than someone doing it >> for profit. > > Military, ambulance service, fire fighting, policing, and health > insurance. I've already mentioned the cost efficiencies of Maricopa > Medical Center over the private hospitals around here. > > >> "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" >> >> > Hitler killed over 10 million civilians because he hated them, not >> > because he wanted to implement universal health coverage. Stop >> > trivializing. >> >> Who's trivializing? > > You are. > >> They're basing this on the Mass plan, in part. You ain't seen nothin' >> yet! > > It doesn't matter. Romney's plan has far, far fewer death camps than > Hitler's did. > >> Utopian ideals are so good to dream about, until the government gets >> involved in them. > > Some tea baggers are utopians, too, only they're followers of that > hateful, pill popper cult leader, Ayn Rand. > >> I hope eddy and lmc have to provide their own coverage so they can see >> how wonderful it really is. >> >> > I have an HSA. This is a wonderful tax loophole that never should >> > have been allowed because it's highly impractical and unhelpful for >> > lower income people. >> >> Well, prepare to kiss it goodbye. Like I said, if you can afford >> "regular" health care... > > Apparently even you knew you that you didn't have a good response to > that. As I said, I have an HSA, which means I can afford health care -- > approximately one semi-hugely expensive condition, even if I lacked > coverage. Wow. You seem firmly entrenched in the idea government will better manage healthcare than anyone else. That's unfortunate. The government screws up everything they touch. You can tell me how well the military, etc is run but they all hemmorrage money. They could all be run more efficiently. The same will be said about healthcare. It's going to be a money drain with these people running it. The best thing for the government to do is to set it up so there are guidelines (REASONABLE guidelines) that insurance companies have to follow. You can't squeeze them too hard or they'll go belly up and then no on has coverage. You can't let them run as open-loop as they are now or we get the mess we have currently. There is a solution. Unfortunately, we don't know what it is. It seems to be some closely guarded secret, since even Nancy Pelosi can't wait to find out what's in it (if that is not an alarm bell for you, then it's an indication that voters need to be required to pass some kind of a test before casting a vote...) And, no, I am not sure what an HSA is. I have a BDC in a CMT and a SSRI guarding my HLA from WMD. Maybe is you tell me what it is it would make more sense. I have a feeling it's an 'account' where you set money aside for an emergency situation. Maybe you'll be able to keep that after the Obots get their bill passed. I bet they'll just take it away from you and tell you not to worry. I know you don't like the term "Socialism" when it comes to the health care bill, but what would you call it? Socialized Medicine? Like Scott Brown said on the Today show after his election; Merideth Viera said "mass has a health care plan, why don't you want that for all states?" "Any state can set up any plan they want..." |