Prev: please help me! i have a huge problem!
Next: ANGER management
From: Mike Hunter on 12 Jun 2010 19:09
The AP is reporting that BO(Z0) promise that "Nobody would lose the current
heath insurance, if you
like the coverage you have you can keep it," is turning out to be a myth.

The first part of the so called healthcare cost reduction law, that requires
insurance companies to cover all the children of employees, up until age 26
from the former 21, without regard to previous coverage or preexisting
conditions goes into effect on July 1st.

That will result in higher insurance premiums, for employers and co-pays for
thousands of employees, with company paid insurance plans. Under the law
current plans are "grandfathered," as long as premiums and co-pays are not
significant raised. The Insurance industry is saying the cost, under the
terms of the law, to cover additional hundred of thousands of children, will
fall into the "significant" category as described in the new laws
"regulations," as being written.

The way policy costs are paid, that means the cost and co-pays for workers
that do not have children we go up as well. Don't ya just love socialism,
where the government take care of everyone?


From: dr_jeff on 12 Jun 2010 20:45
Mike Hunter wrote:
> The AP is reporting that BO(Z0) promise that "Nobody would lose the current
> heath insurance, if you
> like the coverage you have you can keep it," is turning out to be a myth.
>
> The first part of the so called healthcare cost reduction law, that requires
> insurance companies to cover all the children of employees, up until age 26
> from the former 21, without regard to previous coverage or preexisting
> conditions goes into effect on July 1st.
>
> That will result in higher insurance premiums, for employers and co-pays for
> thousands of employees, with company paid insurance plans. Under the law
> current plans are "grandfathered," as long as premiums and co-pays are not
> significant raised. The Insurance industry is saying the cost, under the
> terms of the law, to cover additional hundred of thousands of children, will
> fall into the "significant" category as described in the new laws
> "regulations," as being written.
>
> The way policy costs are paid, that means the cost and co-pays for workers
> that do not have children we go up as well. Don't ya just love socialism,
> where the government take care of everyone?

Actually, it is called democracy. It was a democratically elected
COngress that passed the law and a democratically elected President who
signed it.

Besides, it was capitalists who encouraged paid health insurance as a
way to attack workers during WWII.

Jeff
From: Mike Hunter on 12 Jun 2010 21:08
I see you did not chose to reply to the jist of the post that BO(ZO's)
promise of "Nobody would lose the current heath insurance, if you like the
coverage you have you can keep it," is turning out to be a myth.

What in our Republic allows the government to require one to BUY anything?
What is ironic is the fact BO(ZO) complained that it was the evil insurance
companies that were at the root of our so called healthcare "crises." So
the Dims forced a law through Congress, against the will of the majority of
people that will require those, that were getting free healthcare under the
Hill-Burton Act, to BUY the governments HIGHER cost healthcare from the same
Evil insurance companies, even if they do not want or believe they need
health insurance. ;)


"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
news:PJWdna5TEt-Bt4nRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> The AP is reporting that BO(Z0) promise that "Nobody would lose the
>> current heath insurance, if you
>> like the coverage you have you can keep it," is turning out to be a myth.
>>
>> The first part of the so called healthcare cost reduction law, that
>> requires insurance companies to cover all the children of employees, up
>> until age 26 from the former 21, without regard to previous coverage or
>> preexisting conditions goes into effect on July 1st.
>>
>> That will result in higher insurance premiums, for employers and co-pays
>> for thousands of employees, with company paid insurance plans. Under
>> the law current plans are "grandfathered," as long as premiums and
>> co-pays are not significant raised. The Insurance industry is saying
>> the cost, under the terms of the law, to cover additional hundred of
>> thousands of children, will fall into the "significant" category as
>> described in the new laws "regulations," as being written.
>>
>> The way policy costs are paid, that means the cost and co-pays for
>> workers that do not have children we go up as well. Don't ya just love
>> socialism, where the government take care of everyone?
>
> Actually, it is called democracy. It was a democratically elected COngress
> that passed the law and a democratically elected President who signed it.
>
> Besides, it was capitalists who encouraged paid health insurance as a way
> to attack workers during WWII.
>
> Jeff


From: FatterDumber& Happier Moe on 13 Jun 2010 06:40
Mike Hunter wrote:
> I see you did not chose to reply to the jist of the post that BO(ZO's)
> promise of "Nobody would lose the current heath insurance, if you like the
> coverage you have you can keep it," is turning out to be a myth.
>
> What in our Republic allows the government to require one to BUY anything?
> What is ironic is the fact BO(ZO) complained that it was the evil insurance
> companies that were at the root of our so called healthcare "crises." So
> the Dims forced a law through Congress, against the will of the majority of
> people that will require those, that were getting free healthcare under the
> Hill-Burton Act, to BUY the governments HIGHER cost healthcare from the same
> Evil insurance companies, even if they do not want or believe they need
> health insurance. ;)
>
>
> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
> news:PJWdna5TEt-Bt4nRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> The AP is reporting that BO(Z0) promise that "Nobody would lose the
>>> current heath insurance, if you
>>> like the coverage you have you can keep it," is turning out to be a myth.
>>>
>>> The first part of the so called healthcare cost reduction law, that
>>> requires insurance companies to cover all the children of employees, up
>>> until age 26 from the former 21, without regard to previous coverage or
>>> preexisting conditions goes into effect on July 1st.
>>>
>>> That will result in higher insurance premiums, for employers and co-pays
>>> for thousands of employees, with company paid insurance plans. Under
>>> the law current plans are "grandfathered," as long as premiums and
>>> co-pays are not significant raised. The Insurance industry is saying
>>> the cost, under the terms of the law, to cover additional hundred of
>>> thousands of children, will fall into the "significant" category as
>>> described in the new laws "regulations," as being written.
>>>
>>> The way policy costs are paid, that means the cost and co-pays for
>>> workers that do not have children we go up as well. Don't ya just love
>>> socialism, where the government take care of everyone?
>> Actually, it is called democracy. It was a democratically elected COngress
>> that passed the law and a democratically elected President who signed it.
>>
>> Besides, it was capitalists who encouraged paid health insurance as a way
>> to attack workers during WWII.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>

Water seeks it's own level and so does money (which is a measure of
resources). It will be a long process but eventually we will come to
realize it doesn't make a sense to spend the lifetime output of 10
workers to keep a person breathing that can't and won't ever be able to
be productive. Nature has a way of culling out the unfit and we can
defy nature for a while but eventually the natural order of things will
always prevail. We should be placing the emphasis on quality of life
not quantity.
From: FatterDumber& Happier Moe on 14 Jun 2010 05:01
Conscience wrote:
> On 2010-06-13 03:40:07 -0700, FatterDumber& Happier Moe
> <"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> said:
>
>> Nature has a way of culling out the unfit and we can defy nature for a
>> while but eventually the natural order of things will always prevail.
>
> Other aspects of life beyond health care would be far different as well.
>
> Do you think our "cultural perfection" would be overrun with rappers and
> actors if these individuals had to rely on themselves to put food on the
> table? Would our welfare roles be as bloated and borders be as porous
> if the "natural order" was unfettered?
>
> Control over that order has made possible the spineless whiners we hear,
> read, or read of every day. Right here we have a microcosm of those who
> would be among the first to fall. Soft, pasty, pseudo-cerebrals who'd
> never survive in the world of a mere 150 years ago. Our nation is rife
> with them, and the Democratic party counts on their continuance.
>

When times are good the sick, lame and lazy are affordable expenses.
When times get hard they will eventually go the way of any species that
that can't support itself.
Will stem cell research and gene manipulation alter the course of
nature? Will we grow new spinal cords and fix those leukemia kids
permanently and maybe a few motivation genes inserted in the welfare
class? Just think of the possibilities, genetically altered couch
potatoes turned into super hamburger flippers and PhD candidates.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: please help me! i have a huge problem!
Next: ANGER management