Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: Howard Brazee on 28 Dec 2009 07:51 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:26:36 -0800, Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: >Sometimes there is a clear cut reason to support one >political candidate over another, based on their >past performance. Or more often, to vote against one candidate. But voting for change is not enough to get change. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: William Clark on 28 Dec 2009 08:13 In article <z-ednf3APvQ_PaXWnZ2dnUVZ_sZi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article > > > > > > > > > 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. > Of course it is. It is part of your salary, just deducted from it > and then the deduction given to your employer. Right, like the cost of my football tickets. Based on price for service, not on my income. > > > > > > 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. > > Yeah right. Of course the costs associated with trying to operate in > all 50 states, especially since many actually require the company to be > domiciled there (thus giving you BC/BS of Indiana, BC/BS of Arizona, > etc.) The companies did not seem to be arguing against Fed regulation, > they would probably love it taking out all of the different > requirements. Why not? One BC/BS for the entire US - why would they oppose that? Unless, of course, they don't like the idea of having to compete with all the other insurance companies on a national level. Their CEO might have to take a cut in her $24M salary.
From: William Clark on 28 Dec 2009 08:14 In article <281220090226506529%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > 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. Well, if you were working for a living, then you would be paying a monthly premium, like everyone else who is covered, out of your wages/salary. I am sure they will welcome your donation.
From: Kurt Ullman on 28 Dec 2009 08:27 In article <wclark2-AF5E08.08131428122009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > Why not? One BC/BS for the entire US - why would they oppose that? > Unless, of course, they don't like the idea of having to compete with > all the other insurance companies on a national level. Their CEO might > have to take a cut in her $24M salary. Salary is only around $1 million. That is because under (Clinton-era) tax law, that is the most that can be deducted. This same law, passed in a bipartisan manner BTW, decided to put no such restrictions on stock options and other "performance based measures". The CongressCritters said this was to align the goals of the exeuctive with the goals of the shareholders. Of course what (inevitably) happened is that they were getting so little in salary to actually run the company and so much to run the books, that they inevitable happened. Probably exacerbated by otherwise normal people convincing themselves that most of their actions were in the interest of the shareholders, since Congress said so. I shudder at the outcomes of the new round of Congressional action where they say they want to align the goals of the executive with the goals of the shareholders. I also find it interesting that, as can be seen by the howling about the salary czar, that this is now an entitlement program. -- To find that place where the rats don't race and the phones don't ring at all. If once, you've slept on an island. Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
From: Su-Z-Q on 28 Dec 2009 08:43
In article <0001HW.C7590826002CF88FB01029BF(a)News.Individual.NET>, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > I do find it unfortunate that the "appropriate" sizes of servings have > increased dramatically during my lifetime. An example is that of Coca-Cola > which has changed from a 6 oz. size to a 12 oz. size and is now moving in the > direction of something in the range of 16 oz. And if you go to such as > McDonald's the emphasis is on size. But, as so many want to say, "It's not my > fault!" Yeah, I don't know many people who require a burger larger than 1/4 pound, but you can go up to 1/2 pound at FFJ's (fast food joints), and then pile on extra calories with cheese, sauce, bacon....like you needed any more calories with a 1/2-lb burger! Pull-eeaze! And to ease their thirst with the 1-2 lb cardiac killers, people are swigging those 1-quart jars of Coke and then wondering why they are fat. -- Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable. Mark Twain |