Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: Bill Putney on 23 Mar 2010 17:46 Vic Smith wrote: > ...Unfortunately for me and my wife, we won't have a house anymore. > It's not a fancy or big house, but we like it. Do I detect a contradiction there? You presently don't have a house anymore, but you like it? Did you not meant to say what you said, or are you having trouble keeping the story straight that you're trying to tell? > So I prefer to add to the wealth of insurance companies and keep my > house. > It's all simple economics. > Determine who can confiscate your wealth, then pay the vigorish to > prevent it. What the heck is "the vigorish"? You used the term twice. Never heard of it. > ...It's morally repulsive for me see people go without health care... But you want to have mandated that your feelings get assuaged by the cost coming from my pocket? If it's you that the problem bothers, then you are free to pay what you can to alleviate the problem. I don't advocate mandating that you pay for things that I believe in beyond what the Constitution stipulates - that would be called theft. > Back in the HWBush admin a young diabetic deadbeat without insurance > was in the news. I think he was 18 years old and it was in Tennessee. > He'd stiffed the hospital more than once, and walked in once more, > going into diabetic shock. > The hospital gave him a shot of insulin, then the billing boss told a > couple of orderlies to take him to a nearby park, because he didn't > want to admit him and get stiffed again. > The orderlies propped him under a tree in the park. > It was a pretty leafy tree and a beautiful summer day. > Later that day passersby found him sitting there, dead. > That's when I decided I was willing to be taxed more to provide > health care for all... That was awful if true. The problem, again, is that your determination to alleviate the problem in the way you advocate violates many things. You are free to give whatever you wish to help fix the problem, but please don't take it from me - I just might have my own causes that I don't demand your property is confiscated for. Have you notified hospitals of your choosing that if they have people that need help but that aren't able to pay to put you on a list of people who are of like mind to chip in - voluntarily, and not that they go door to door to confiscate property from people? Have you thought about doing that? If not, why not? > ...They got theirs, and they don't want a penny of it going to anybody > else. Forcibly, no. That would be a violation of principles. > ...In any case, I've saved enough to continue paying my health insurance > vigorish, so I'll do fine. > What I like most about the health care bill just signed is removal of > caps, so a real health catastrophe can't bankrupt me. > I won't lose my house even though I have insurance. > A little peace of mind there. > And that my wife is no longer locked into her job to keep us insured, > though it's not clear to me yet how that will work out... Hah! That is a very astute observation on your part. People will not have incentive to work or do other things if it is guaranteed as a "right". > ...The mafia has moved off the streets and into the hospitals and health > care centers. Actually, the Chicago mob has relocated. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 23 Mar 2010 17:49 Bill Putney wrote: > Vic Smith wrote: > >> ...Unfortunately for me and my wife, we won't have a house anymore. >> It's not a fancy or big house, but we like it. > > Do I detect a contradiction there? You presently don't have a house > anymore, but you like it? Did you not meant to say what you said, or > are you having trouble keeping the story straight that you're trying to > tell? Oops - on that one point, I misread what you wrote. I thought you said "...we *d*on't have a house anymore." -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Steve Stone on 23 Mar 2010 17:55 From the horses mouth. Please tell me what is incorrect or left out here? ---- * This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone. * This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday. * This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need. * This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool. * In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years. * This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections: * This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer. * This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees. * Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies. * Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders. * Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges. Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses: * This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable. * This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same. * This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64. * This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.'
From: Mike Hunter on 23 Mar 2010 18:24 1. No, the law won't drive up the cost of health care. 2. Because people want a better life 3. Where do they live longer (life expetency)? England. WHere is there lower infant mortality? England. How about lower costs? England. 4. ETC. ;) "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:aNCdnfFkYMMUtTTWnZ2dnUVZ_u4AAAAA(a)giganews.com... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> That's true, but the current law opens the door to single payer, BO has >> said so many times, because the new law will drive up health cars cost >> over the years. > > No, the law won't drive up the cost of health care. > >> Do some research and you will discover that the number of doctors >> practicing countries with nation heath care, is continuing to decline and >> in England there is currently a seven to eight weeks wait just to see a >> Doctor unless your are bleeding, not breathing or have a broken bone, is >> that what you want in the US? > > Where do they live longer (life expetency)? England. WHere is there lower > infant mortality? England. How about lower costs? England. > >> Have you even wonder WHY so many of the Doctors in the US have a foreign >> accent? > > Because people want a better life. > >> Have you ever talked to a Doctor that once served in the Military? > > Many. > >> If you do asked them if THEY want to ever work again for a government run >> heath care system. > > Many like working there. My cousin stayed in for over 20 years practicing > in the military. > >> You obviously attend public schools in a major US city, based on the >> opinions you express in the NGs > > Please explain how you came to this conclusion, particularly which > statements. > > Jeff > >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:IeOdnYmIdbGVfjrWnZ2dnUVZ_roAAAAA(a)giganews.com... >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> When I had a heart problem 24 years ago I had heart bypass surgery the >>>> very next day. When one of my friends had and attack while hunting in >>>> Canada he was told he would be placed on a monitor and would be >>>> scheduled in five to seven weeks for surgery. He paid to be flown to >>>> the US and had bypass surgery the day he arrived. Which care would >>>> you prefer? >>> Irrelevant. THere is nothing in the bill about single-payer insurance. >>> >>> BTW, which country has the higher life expectancy? How about lower >>> infant mortality costs? And lower costs per person? Hint, it is the one >>> that doesn't have 50 states. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>>> news:BMWdnWP029th1zrWnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> SMS wrote: >>>>>> On 21/03/10 5:19 PM, dr_jeff wrote: >>>>>>> lil abner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <...> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> higher taxes..mandated force participation or fines and >>>>>>>> jail...16,500 >>>>>>>> more IRS Agents....Death Panels and mandatory end of life >>>>>>>> counciling >>>>>>>> every 5 years....cut Medicare coverage....make everyone pay an >>>>>>>> additional several thousand dollars a year....coverage for Illegal >>>>>>>> Aliens... >>>>>>> Death panels? When were this ever on the table? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This idea was made up by the Republicans. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't believe every you read. >>>>>> I don't think anyone was dumb enough to believe the Republican >>>>>> schtick about the "death panels," but you never know with all the >>>>>> people watching Faux news. >>>>> Actually, a lot of people were. They believe what they hear and read. >>>>> Even Mike Hunter fell for it. >>
From: Bill Putney on 23 Mar 2010 18:24
Steve Stone wrote: > From the horses mouth. > Please tell me what is incorrect or left out here?... Sounds absolutely *great*. Please check back with us in 5 to 10 years and let us know how utopiacare is working for you and the entire country. I especially love the part about that there's no discrimination based on income level. That was really funny. You apparently haven't heard how they plan to try to pay for this pie in the sky. Key word: "Try". -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |