From: dr_jeff on
Mike Hunter wrote:
> It was always funny to hear our lefty kooks friends in the NG, blame
> President Bush when the price of gas went up, yet never give him credit when
> the pride went down.
> Today we have BO, the Dims as well as all of the lefty kooks demonizing the
> insurance companies for the cost of healthcare, when it is MEDICARE that
> sets the reimbursement rates for ALL of the hospitals and doctors.
> The fact is, IT IS the insurance companies that providing BETTER coverage
> for the American people, than Medicare or Medicaid, at lower cost and they
> are do so for LESS money. LOL

How do you figure? There are millions and millions without coverage or
proper health care, many people who supposedly have coverage go bankrupt
because of medical bills when they get a major illness or have a serious
accident, and insurance companies have huge overhead. Further, insurance
companies too often are more interested in denying claims than providing

If insurance companies are so great, how company small companies are so
worried about health care costs? And, big companies are not much happier
about heatlh-care costs, either.

Finally, the health-care costs for people is way too high. There is too
much technology used, too many expensive drugs, too many people using
the emergency department as a primary care provider, too may people
without proper health care, and too much money spent overall.

The high cost of health care is a major reason why wages have not risen
much during Bush's administration in real terms despite increases in
worker productivity.


> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.
>> Where are all the K00KS saying, "It's Obama making his oil buddies rich"?
>> Oh. It's still Bush's fault, forgot that.
From: dr_jeff on
Mike Hunter wrote:
> The worlds economy DEPENDS of oil to survive, Joe$#itForBrains.

Name-calling. Not even the kids on my soccer team used to do that. And
they were in 1st and 2nd grade.

To let a major commodity that is of critical importance to be traded by
speculators without any understand of how many are trading, how much is
being traded and no clear idea of how that is really affecting the price
of oil is just plain stupid. We don't have any handle on the basic
facts. That's the problem.

<rest of Mike's anti Obama rant deleted>

> "Joe$#itForBrains" <newstrash(a)> wrote in message

Nice how you change the record. Very nice personal attack. This makes
one think that you are not able to process the facts and let your
emotions take over what little brain power you have left when you are
sober. I am glad to see that you are, however, not drinking today.


> news:kexEm.64148$Ku5.59551(a)newsfe04.iad...
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.
>>> Where are all the K00KS saying, "It's Obama making his oil buddies rich"?
>>> Oh. It's still Bush's fault, forgot that.
>> Is it time to explain needless speculation to you AGAIN, and then laugh as
>> you try to discount its effect on the oil market?
From: Mike Hunter on
What makes you think healthcare costs are driven up by the insurance
companies? Medicare sets the reimbursement rates for the hospitals and
doctors, not the insurance companies. I get more benefits from my insurance
company than are available to me on Medicare, lower annual out of pocket
expenses, plus dental coverage, eyewear, wellness like the gym I go too and
my premium is $8 a month starting in 2010 because of planed federal cuts in
Medicare, for the past five years it has been ZERO.

Insurance companies can pay rates lower than those set by Medicare. I was
in a hospital Wilmington last month with baronial pneumonia, the Medicare
reimbursement rate for the room was $3,600 for four days. My insurance
company settled it for $1,780.

I told my doctor next time come see me at the Hyatt Regency, we both will be
better off

"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn(a)> wrote in message
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:45:00 -0400, dr_jeff <utz(a)> wrote:
>>If insurance companies are so great, how company small companies are so
>>worried about health care costs? And, big companies are not much happier
>>about heatlh-care costs, either.
> Huh?????
> --
> Scott in Florida

From: Mike Hunter on
What part of "Search the Commerce Department website," do you not
I had no problem finding the stuff you told me to search on the Wikipedia
site, when you suggest that site.

The difference is you wanted me to use my time, to repeat the deep search of
the Commerce Department site, that was necessary to find the information
that I quoted, for YOU because you did not believe what I quoted. If one
knows how to search that site one can find almost anything one wants about
any industry or product made in the US, even some that one might think would
be trade secrets

No, it doesn't work that way. I'm not willing to do that search again and
told you to do your own homework. If you believe what I quoted is not
correct, you say you I prefer to believe what I read. If that is so then go
find your source that shows where my source was wrong and you are unable do
that, or you are not willing do that.

As to the information I quote from the publication to which I subscribe,
that are not cheap by the way, what good would it do to tell you where to
look when you are not a subscriber? Most are trade magazine or
subscriptions web site, like Metal Working, High Steel, American Fleets,
Automotive News, NADA Automotive Reports, J.D. Powers, Engineering magazines

The subscription price alone for the J. D. Powers "Quantified Industrial
Reports" is several hundred dollars annually, for each industry. For
example one can find the actual problems reported for each brand and model
of every new vehicle in the list of the Average Problems per vehicle. For
instance you can see WHAT was the actual "Transmission problem" reported.
You can see if it merely a bad sensor on brand "X" or a failed gear set on
brand "Y" or an adjustment on bran "Z," that was repaired under warranty.

"dr_jeff" <utz(a)> wrote in message
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> You certainly have called me names that is why I started to call you
>> dummy. After all it is YOUR inability to find the sources, to which I
>> have often directed you that I have no problem finding, that is YOUR
>> problem not mine dr_jeff LOL
> No, it doesn't work that way. If you wish to support your argument, you
> cite your sources. Saying, "Search the Commerce Department website"
> doesn't count. Likewise, you said, that if we had the publications you
> get, we know you're correct. We asked what those publications are, you
> didn't answer.
> Sorry, you're incorrect if you think what you're doing is citing sources.
> Jeff