Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: William Clark on 28 Dec 2009 00:18 In article <Nd2dnYTv6vFHQKrWnZ2dnUVZ_uFi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article > <wclark2-CF8C5A.17112927122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Faulty logic on your above statement. > > > > > > Insurance companies do not provide health care, > > > the money comes from taxes. > > > > Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax > > money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system > > that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of > > phase with the tax system. > > If you look at it the proper way, they do mess with tax money since > the employer contribution is tax deductible. FWIW, it the single biggest > tax deduction. Not to the individual, because it is not income based. Even more reason why our taxes should not be handed to insurance companies to make money from, especially when they will cut high risk taxpayers out of insurance. > > > > > > > > > If they keep _too_ _much_ money for themselves, > > > a competitive insurance company will run them > > > out of business. > > > > No it won't, because it is run on a state by state basis. In most states > > there are only a very few insurers, so there is not genuine competition > > in the marketplace. They have this sewn up like a cartel. > > That is largely because every state is different and you have to be > licensed to operate in that state. Only a couple companies can afford to > mess with the overhead of having to deal with 50 different states, with > 50 different policy requirements, etc. So the insurance companies divvy up the states between them so that only a couple operate in each one. That way they can all gouge the public. If we made health insurance federally regulated, instead of state regulated, the consumer could then truly shop for the best deal nationwide. That would acre the companies to death.
From: William Clark on 28 Dec 2009 00:20 In article <0OCdnXomw8sMQqrWnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article > <wclark2-B42D46.17143227122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > This one actually tends to make my case. It doesn't address the social > > > issues I was asking about, but does bring some others. > > > > The social issues are a red herring. if they are not, then we have an > > even more fundamental question of why the richest and most powerful > > nation on earth takes cares of its citizens so badly, and no just in > > terms of health care. > > Maybe, maybe not. I would like to know for sure. I am not fantasizing > that controlling for the social issues will move us to first or second > in any category. But it would give us a clearer picture of where we > REALLY sit. > For instance, there are several studies suggesting that a hefty > percentage of the reduction in murder rates is related to the health > services (specifically trauma centers) turning murders into attempted > murders. > http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych242/Articles/Murder&MedicineJHSMAY2 > 002.pdf I fail to see how this is of any relevance to this discussion, other than to show that high quality health care prevents deaths from attempted murder, and so prolongs life expectancy. Ergo, our health care is not as good as it should be. Nor as efficient.
From: Mark Conrad on 28 Dec 2009 05:26 In article <hh9dgl$t4m$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > So how about all us moderates try to drown out both extremes > with a little civilized discussion? Very good advice, I agree. Mark-
From: Mark Conrad on 28 Dec 2009 05:26 In article <C75D8B76.4EDCB%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > My God, Mark. Any public activity that the State gets involved with seems to > generate an irrational fear in you that that it might push us into the > Marxist Abyss that leads inexorably to our morphing into the Communist > States of America. Yep. > Do you have so little regard for our Capitalist Democracy > -- so little belief in it as a way of life -- that you fear it's _that_ > fragile? Yep. > Tell me something else, Mark -- you never really commented on it when I > mentioned it before -- why is that public safety (police, fire), and > even > public health (sanitation, food-and-drug safety), are activities that > our > state and federal governments can legitimately be involved with, without > running the risk of plummeting our society into that Marxist Abyss, but > health care is not? That's easy, greed. All the public services you mentioned are not large revenue generators, in contrast to health care, where there is much wrangling over who will get which piece of the trillion dollar pie. Politicians or: doctors/drug-companies/labs/insurance/etc. ....or are you naive enough to believe that the politicians would not try to steal money from health care for their own pet projects? These same politicians are the ones who have already stolen so much money from S/S that our youngsters doubt they will ever receive any benefits when _they_ retire. There is another concern, power. The power crazed libs want to control every aspect of our lives. Money = Power Short dictionary definition of socialism, a concept that appeals to power-crazed liberals, liberals who have no faith whatever in the integrity of the individual, who believe people should be herded and regulated and controlled like cattle, with the politicians doing the herding controlling, of course. Partial definition, complete definition in my earlier post, all this from the free dictionary in the Mac OS. socialism (noun) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. > > Okay, I will agree that the right-wingnuts (of which I am one) > > sometimes go too far, but they are orders of magnitude better at > > medical decisions than rabid left wing socialist politicians with > > What is the special expertise in medical decision making that they > bring to > bear, and where can the rest of us sorry, ill-informed morons acquire > it? So many ways they are better, but I will just mention one. If you look closely at the reports on the web leaking out as to what is in the ObamaCare power grab, they are offering financial incentives to individual doctors to encourage the doctors to abandon their practice, and instead join huge medical organizations like Kaiser-Permante where thousands of doctors can be more readily herded by the power-crazed libs. So on the one hand they are penalizing the heck out of private-practice doctors with new regulations like cutting off 5% of their medicare income if they exceed the "mediocre care" guidelines, while at the same time dangling a financial carrot under their nose to get them to capitulate and join the rest of the doctors being herded into large Kaiser-Permante type corrals. > What do the Muslims have to do with > freakin' US healthcare policy? What? - You really do not see the connection between the power-crazed libs and the power-crazed Muslims? I forgot again, what is Obama's muslim name? Muslims are so friggin controlling that they don't allow their women to go to the local market unless accompanied by a male family member. Women have to wear the head-to-toe clothing with only their eyes peeking out. You think the Muslims allow private-practice doctors? That would not be consistant with their all-controlling stand on other matters. So the libs headlong plunge into heavily socialized medicine does not bother you as the opening shot to force us totally (temporarily) free people to get our private doctors socialized, then a wee bit later to put the bit in everyone else's mouth? Possible even adopt the Muslim religion, after all, if Obama & company can mandate medical care, they can sure as heck mandate religion. Remember, your socialist nanny knows best, don't you dare question him. Oh, and don't let it bother you that you will no longer have the option of sueing the medical establishment for malpractice, because your nanny will not permit this under ObamaCare. > May I ask: Do you even _know_ any Muslims? Nope, and I do not know any other murderers either. Or did you even read my post here that referred to the website where the widely acclaimed Muslim religious leader said that all good Muslims should kill us non-Muslim infidels, in order to make certain that they (the Muslims) assure their place in heaven. We have some future under ObamaCare, don't we. :( > > If they keep _too_ _much_ money for themselves, > > a competitive insurance company will run them > > out of business. > > > > > They grub for money any way they can. They collect payments for years > until the client tries to collect a benefit and try to find some excuse > to weasel out of paying. Only the richer clients have the resources to > fight denial of benefits. There is no competition to protect clients > from the weasels; only the fittest survive. Capitalism at work. I assume we are talking about "supplemental" insurance, i.e. for what medicare does _not_ cover. Never once has my insurance company even tried to deny my benefits, and I have dipped into supplemental quite heavily. > And when did they all band together to... You lost me, when did _who_ "all band together"? > "constantly run down our brand of capitalist > democracy?" So you deny that Obama runs down the USA in his speeches to foreign audiences, claiming the USA is at fault for all manner of world problems? <rambling right-wing/left-wing finger-pointing snipped>
From: Mark Conrad on 28 Dec 2009 05:26
In article <wclark2-CF8C5A.17112927122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > In article > > <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > The lunacy in the current US system is the notion > > > that health care should be provided by private > > > insurance companies (whose business is based on > > > eliminating high risk clients), and linked to > > > employment. There is simply no logic > > > in that any more. > > > > Faulty logic on your above statement. > > > > Insurance companies do not provide health care, > > the money comes from taxes. > > Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax > money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system > that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of > phase with the tax system. ??? - Not MY insurance company, they take their fee directly from my monthly payment. (AARP supplemental) Obviously faulty logic from you. So far, they have paid me much more in medical benefits than I spend on their premium payments. I have been thinking of donating some money to them so they will not go broke. |