ktos wrote in
:

" wrote in news:hs-
:

clipped

BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.



Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if there
was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and
ambulance chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion
and back injuries are mostly the result of overweight and
out-of-condition folks who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The
waste in fighting to get a condition considered "work related" is
horrendous. The crooks are sucking money right out of your pocket in
monies that could be paid to good, honest people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even
paid taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi.
away...saved 100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy; it
is crooked, lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the maximum
benefit for themselves, who want "someone else" to pay for it, and
who consider themselves "conservative".


The ones who complain are the ones who are getting their health
insurance subsidized by their employer.

It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

I have to pay the full price
for mine. Add dental ins. on top of that.

Plus I'm forced to pay for pregnancy benefits I don't need. I'm sure
a lot of other people have to pay in full as I do.

I'd like to see these coddled people pay income tax on the free
portion the employer pays for. They'd sure change their bitchin'
really fast.

Government has never run anything efficiently.
And Obama has never run any business.
All he's been is a place-holder,voted "present" most of the time,and gypped
the State of Illinois and the US people by taking salary while NOT doing
his job.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
ktos wrote in
:

All the bitchers are ****ed because we have a black prez.
Take off your hoods and be sensible. Drop out of the KKK.

Obama himself is a racist;
note his statement about his grandmother;"typical white person".
then there's the more recent knee-jerk support of the Cambridge black
racist over the Cambridge police officer.


I think we are all racist. It's called ethnocentrism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

I did have a problem with Obama taking the Professor's side w/o knowing the
facts. But it's not like he obsessed with it. He's a very intelligent man
and realized the perception of the issue quickly. I bet he'd like to do that
particular press conference over.

Most black people, with good reason, have a mistrust of whites. I know I
would.

ktos wrote:
" wrote in news:hs-
:

clipped
BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.


Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if there
was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and ambulance
chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion and back
injuries are mostly the result of overweight and out-of-condition folks
who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The waste in fighting to get a
condition considered "work related" is horrendous. The crooks are
sucking money right out of your pocket in monies that could be paid to
good, honest people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even paid
taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi. away...saved
100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy; it is crooked,
lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the maximum benefit for
themselves, who want "someone else" to pay for it, and who consider
themselves "conservative".


The ones who complain are the ones who are getting their health insurance
subsidized by their employer. I have to pay the full price for mine. Add
dental ins. on top of that.

Or not. I pay the full cost of my health insurance and dental out of
pocket. I don't want Obamacare. I don't want big government.


Plus I'm forced to pay for pregnancy benefits I don't need. I'm sure a lot
of other people have to pay in full as I do.

I'd like to see these coddled people pay income tax on the free portion the
employer pays for. They'd sure change their bitchin' really fast.


Actually I know quite a number of people who pay for their own health
insurance and just like me they don't want Obamacare.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
ktos wrote in
:

" wrote in news:hs-
:

clipped

BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.



Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if there
was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and
ambulance chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion
and back injuries are mostly the result of overweight and
out-of-condition folks who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The
waste in fighting to get a condition considered "work related" is
horrendous. The crooks are sucking money right out of your pocket in
monies that could be paid to good, honest people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even
paid taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi.
away...saved 100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy; it
is crooked, lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the maximum
benefit for themselves, who want "someone else" to pay for it, and
who consider themselves "conservative".


The ones who complain are the ones who are getting their health
insurance subsidized by their employer.

It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

I have to pay the full price
for mine. Add dental ins. on top of that.

Plus I'm forced to pay for pregnancy benefits I don't need. I'm sure
a lot of other people have to pay in full as I do.

I'd like to see these coddled people pay income tax on the free
portion the employer pays for. They'd sure change their bitchin'
really fast.

Government has never run anything efficiently.
And Obama has never run any business.
All he's been is a place-holder,voted "present" most of the time,and
gypped
the State of Illinois and the US people by taking salary while NOT doing
his job.


I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health insurance
companies.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (kind of speaks for itself)

When Switzerland reached 6% uninsured they instituted healthcare reform. The
US has 17%. That's just too many people w/o coverage no matter how you look
at it.

It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem. It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to health
insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start IMHO.

Jim Yanik wrote:
ktos wrote in
:

All the bitchers are ****ed because we have a black prez.
Take off your hoods and be sensible. Drop out of the KKK.

Obama himself is a racist;
note his statement about his grandmother;"typical white person".

He was being more honest than racist - he referred to her crossing the
street to avoid a black person, which would be typical of elderly white
women, especially in large cities. Read about violence in Chicago
lately? Those aren't white neighborhoods they report horrendous murder
rates for.

then there's the more recent knee-jerk support of the Cambridge black
racist over the Cambridge police officer.

Stupid reaction....not racist. Just one rich Harvard grad sticking up
for another rich Harvard prof. In early reporting, CNN referred to
Gates as "Chip", a buddy and frequent guest commentator on CNN. Says
more about the state of "journalism", if it still exists, than about
anyone's racial bias.

"Master Betty" wrote:

I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem. It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to health
insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start IMHO.

You probably need to get familiar with the pending bills. None of them do that.
-- Doug

Jim Yanik wrote:

The whole death panel thing and it's variants is pure scare tactics.

No,it's a possible consequence of Obama's "change".

Please cite the bill(s) and relevant sections.
Thanks,
Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

The whole death panel thing and it's variants is pure scare tactics.
No,it's a possible consequence of Obama's "change".

Please cite the bill(s) and relevant sections.
Thanks,
Doug

Obie's death for old republicans bill.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

But it isn't to society's benefit to have the company's pay for it.
99% of the HC problems stem from that. Which, of course, the government
wants to make worse.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Master Betty wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
ktos wrote in
:

" wrote in news:hs-
:

clipped

BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.



Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if there
was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and
ambulance chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion
and back injuries are mostly the result of overweight and
out-of-condition folks who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The
waste in fighting to get a condition considered "work related" is
horrendous. The crooks are sucking money right out of your pocket in
monies that could be paid to good, honest people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even
paid taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi.
away...saved 100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy; it
is crooked, lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the maximum
benefit for themselves, who want "someone else" to pay for it, and
who consider themselves "conservative".


The ones who complain are the ones who are getting their health
insurance subsidized by their employer.

It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

I have to pay the full price
for mine. Add dental ins. on top of that.

Plus I'm forced to pay for pregnancy benefits I don't need. I'm sure
a lot of other people have to pay in full as I do.

I'd like to see these coddled people pay income tax on the free
portion the employer pays for. They'd sure change their bitchin'
really fast.

Government has never run anything efficiently.
And Obama has never run any business.
All he's been is a place-holder,voted "present" most of the time,and
gypped
the State of Illinois and the US people by taking salary while NOT doing
his job.


I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health
insurance
companies.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (kind of speaks for
itself)

When Switzerland reached 6% uninsured they instituted healthcare reform.
The
US has 17%. That's just too many people w/o coverage no matter how you look
at it.

It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem. It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to health
insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start IMHO.


If government would stop meddling with the free market, the problem
would solve itself. Right now, the taxes could be lifted off medical
care and pharmaceuticals and prices would drop overnight. Allow people
to shop across state line for their medical insurance for the coverage
they want not what some legislator has decided everyone must have like
mental health coverage. Hell, all I want is my insurance to cover me
if a crazy person attacks me. I don't plan on becoming schizophrenic
any time soon. I don't plan on getting pregnant either so why should
I be forced to pay for that sort of coverage? Government fiddling and
mandates have screwed up medical care in the U.S. If citizens think
health care is too expensive, stop serving on juries that award some
moron 10 million for a hangnail. Everyone blames it on greedy lawyers
but it's the juries who are rendering the jackpot verdicts. Perhaps
Obamacare is a back door for giving doctors and hospitals immunity
from lawsuits, if the government winds up owning the hospitals and
being the doctor's employer nobody will be very successful with any
kind of lawsuit. OH MY GOD, I just realized, if the government takes
over health care, we'll be menaced by Affirmative Action doctors.
Woe is we.

TDD

Master Betty wrote:
I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health
insurance companies.

Not so. Both the UK and Canada have (small) private health care. Even if
your assertion was accurate, so what? And 60% of "private" insurance in the
U.S. IS non-profit (think Blue Cross).


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (kind of speaks for
itself)




When Switzerland reached 6% uninsured they instituted healthcare
reform. The US has 17%. That's just too many people w/o coverage no
matter how you look at it.

No it's not. Lack of health insurance is not the same as lack of health
care.

The administration quotes ~45 million uninsured. The next day they say that
15 million illegal aliens will NOT be covered by the "public" plan. Now
we're down to 30 million. Of these, about 15 million are between the ages of
18 and 27 who choose to not spend their beginning wages for health
insurance. Of the remainder, about 2.5 million are incarcerated, 4 million
are between jobs where they will be covered, a significant number are
eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP which they'll automatically get as soon as
they apply, and lesser groups.

After all the arithmetic is done, there are exactly EIGHT people in the
entire United States that need health insurance and can't get it! For these
eight, the administration would **** up the system that serves 265 million
quite well.


It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem.

What do you think needs fixing?

It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to
health insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start
IMHO.

I strongly agree with that last. Lets nibble at the margins (tort reform,
portability, nationwide availability, etc.), before we throw out the baby,
the bath water, AND granny.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
Master Betty wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
ktos wrote in
:

" wrote in news:hs-
:

clipped

BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.



Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if there
was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and
ambulance chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion
and back injuries are mostly the result of overweight and
out-of-condition folks who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The
waste in fighting to get a condition considered "work related" is
horrendous. The crooks are sucking money right out of your pocket in
monies that could be paid to good, honest people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even
paid taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi.
away...saved 100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy; it
is crooked, lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the maximum
benefit for themselves, who want "someone else" to pay for it, and
who consider themselves "conservative".


The ones who complain are the ones who are getting their health
insurance subsidized by their employer.

It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

I have to pay the full price
for mine. Add dental ins. on top of that.

Plus I'm forced to pay for pregnancy benefits I don't need. I'm sure
a lot of other people have to pay in full as I do.

I'd like to see these coddled people pay income tax on the free
portion the employer pays for. They'd sure change their bitchin'
really fast.

Government has never run anything efficiently.
And Obama has never run any business.
All he's been is a place-holder,voted "present" most of the time,and
gypped
the State of Illinois and the US people by taking salary while NOT doing
his job.


I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health
insurance
companies.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (kind of speaks for
itself)

When Switzerland reached 6% uninsured they instituted healthcare reform.
The
US has 17%. That's just too many people w/o coverage no matter how you
look
at it.

It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem. It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to health
insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start IMHO.


If government would stop meddling with the free market, the problem
would solve itself.

Snip

I doubt that. Our healthcare insurance CEOs are the highest paid in the
world. What's going to stop that?

The simple fact is, other counties (with far better healthcare than ours)
decided healthcare insurance should not be a "for-profit" business. I know I
won't be upset if some CEO has to settle for a 6 figure income as opposed to
a 7 or 8.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Master Betty wrote:
I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health
insurance companies.

Not so. Both the UK and Canada have (small) private health care. Even if
your assertion was accurate, so what? And 60% of "private" insurance in
the U.S. IS non-profit (think Blue Cross).


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (kind of speaks for
itself)




When Switzerland reached 6% uninsured they instituted healthcare
reform. The US has 17%. That's just too many people w/o coverage no
matter how you look at it.

No it's not. Lack of health insurance is not the same as lack of health
care.

The administration quotes ~45 million uninsured. The next day they say
that 15 million illegal aliens will NOT be covered by the "public" plan.
Now we're down to 30 million. Of these, about 15 million are between the
ages of 18 and 27 who choose to not spend their beginning wages for health
insurance. Of the remainder, about 2.5 million are incarcerated, 4 million
are between jobs where they will be covered, a significant number are
eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP which they'll automatically get as soon as
they apply, and lesser groups.

After all the arithmetic is done, there are exactly EIGHT people in the
entire United States that need health insurance and can't get it! For
these eight, the administration would **** up the system that serves 265
million quite well.


It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem.

What do you think needs fixing?


The millions of uninsured and our declining standard of care compared to the
rest of the world. Do some research on the life expectancy of Americans as
opposed to other industrialized countries. We are losing the race in hc and
it's a damn shame our congress can't stand up to the insurance, drug
companies and lawyers.

Not sure where you got your figures but I'm not going to get into that
numbers debate. I think the US standing in the world with regards to quality
of hc is enough of a wake up call.

It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to
health insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start
IMHO.

I strongly agree with that last. Lets nibble at the margins (tort reform,
portability, nationwide availability, etc.), before we throw out the baby,
the bath water, AND granny.


The granny debate is an issue I refuse to debate. It's just ridicules.
Healthcare IS already rationed. Always will be. Nobody has talked about
euthanasia except the wackos.

Master Betty wrote:

What do you think needs fixing?


The millions of uninsured and our declining standard of care compared
to the rest of the world. Do some research on the life expectancy of
Americans as opposed to other industrialized countries. We are losing
the race in hc and it's a damn shame our congress can't stand up to
the insurance, drug companies and lawyers.

Our standard of care far exceeds that in any other part of the world. There
are about 200 MRI machines in all of Canada. We've got that many in my town!

Life expectancy is not a precise metric for health care. Deaths are caused
by many things, including:

* Auto collisions
* Gang warfare
* Terrorism
* War
* Justifiable homicide (self defense) & suicides
* Industrial accidents
* Executions of criminals
* Infant deaths which in other countries are called "stillborn"

When someone plows into a bridge abutment at 100 mph, he's dead long before
the health care delivery system gets a chance to become involved. This can't
happen in, for example, Cuba because a) They don't have any cars that can GO
100 mph and b) Their bridges are made of wood (or straw).



Not sure where you got your figures but I'm not going to get into that
numbers debate. I think the US standing in the world with regards to
quality of hc is enough of a wake up call.

Huh? Consider five year survival rates after diagnosis of:
Breast Cancer
US - 84% (leads industrialized world)
Canada - 82.5%
Australia - 81%
UK - 70%
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7278

Overall cancer in men:
US - 66%
All Europe - 47%

Overall cancer in women:
US - 63%
All Europe - 56%
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...ism-and-cancer

Similar results obtain for cardiovascular disease, renal and liver failure,
and many other major maladies. The United States ranks at the very top, by
any criteria, in the treatment of most chronic diseases and very near the
top on the rest.

In 2006 - the last year for which numbers are available - the CDC reports
that the total number of deaths from cancer DROPPED by 6% and deaths from
heart disease dropped by 8%! This is the first time in recorded history
where the absolute number of deaths actually dropped for these diseases.


The granny debate is an issue I refuse to debate. It's just ridicules.
Healthcare IS already rationed. Always will be. Nobody has talked
about euthanasia except the wackos.

It's not euthanasia to deny care or offer only pallative care. It's called
"cost containment."

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Master Betty wrote:

What do you think needs fixing?


The millions of uninsured and our declining standard of care compared
to the rest of the world. Do some research on the life expectancy of
Americans as opposed to other industrialized countries. We are losing
the race in hc and it's a damn shame our congress can't stand up to
the insurance, drug companies and lawyers.

Our standard of care far exceeds that in any other part of the world.
There are about 200 MRI machines in all of Canada. We've got that many in
my town!

Life expectancy is not a precise metric for health care. Deaths are caused
by many things, including:

* Auto collisions
* Gang warfare
* Terrorism
* War
* Justifiable homicide (self defense) & suicides
* Industrial accidents
* Executions of criminals
* Infant deaths which in other countries are called "stillborn"

When someone plows into a bridge abutment at 100 mph, he's dead long
before the health care delivery system gets a chance to become involved.
This can't happen in, for example, Cuba because a) They don't have any
cars that can GO 100 mph and b) Their bridges are made of wood (or straw).



Great stuff....

Who knows? Maybe too late.....grand ma maybe a good source of grd cat food.

:-)

Some of us are upset because the government has made a hard
left turn towards socialism. It's the liberals who have been
using racism as a false insturment to accuse conservatives.
Which is typical liberal. When in doubt, hurl accusations.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"ktos" wrote in message
...
All the bitchers are ****ed because we have a black prez.
Take off your hoods and be sensible. Drop out of the KKK.

By some twisted definition or other, it's not possible for a
negro or a liberal or a woman to be racist. At least, that's
what the liberals want you to think.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

Obama himself is a racist;
note his statement about his grandmother;"typical white
person".
then there's the more recent knee-jerk support of the
Cambridge black
racist over the Cambridge police officer.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

How Freudian. You liberals tend to suffer from Pension Envy.
Next thing, you'll want to marry your mother. Conservatives
see success and want to imitate it. Liberals see success and
want the government to punish it.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Master Betty" wrote in message
...

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message
...

If government would stop meddling with the free market,
the problem
would solve itself.

Snip

I doubt that. Our healthcare insurance CEOs are the highest
paid in the
world. What's going to stop that?

The simple fact is, other counties (with far better
healthcare than ours)
decided healthcare insurance should not be a "for-profit"
business. I know I
won't be upset if some CEO has to settle for a 6 figure
income as opposed to
a 7 or 8.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:h70fmn
:

By some twisted definition or other, it's not possible for a
negro or a liberal or a woman to be racist. At least, that's
what the liberals want you to think.


What planet are you from?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Master Betty wrote:
I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health
insurance companies.

Not so. Both the UK and Canada have (small) private health care. Even if
your assertion was accurate, so what? And 60% of "private" insurance in the
U.S. IS non-profit (think Blue Cross).
Many of the Blues have been switched to for-profit. All 14 of
Wellpoint's Blues are for-profit, for instance.




--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

In article ,
"Master Betty" wrote:

The granny debate is an issue I refuse to debate. It's just ridicules.
Healthcare IS already rationed. Always will be. Nobody has talked about
euthanasia except the wackos.

I'd have to agree. That is one of the main things econ systems of all
stripes do... ration outputs and inputs.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

The whole death panel thing and it's variants is pure scare tactics.

No,it's a possible consequence of Obama's "change".

Please cite the bill(s) and relevant sections.
Thanks,
Doug


http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnH...al_lies_about_
obamacare

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Master Betty" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
ktos wrote in
:

" wrote in news:hs-
:

clipped

BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.



Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if
there was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related"
accidents and illnesses same as all others. Even without the
crooks and ambulance chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of
repetitive motion and back injuries are mostly the result of
overweight and out-of-condition folks who lawyer up to get tax-free
benefits. The waste in fighting to get a condition considered
"work related" is horrendous. The crooks are sucking money right
out of your pocket in monies that could be paid to good, honest
people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even
paid taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi.
away...saved 100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy;
it is crooked, lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the maximum
benefit for themselves, who want "someone else" to pay for it, and
who consider themselves "conservative".


The ones who complain are the ones who are getting their health
insurance subsidized by their employer.

It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

I have to pay the full price
for mine. Add dental ins. on top of that.

Plus I'm forced to pay for pregnancy benefits I don't need. I'm
sure a lot of other people have to pay in full as I do.

I'd like to see these coddled people pay income tax on the free
portion the employer pays for. They'd sure change their bitchin'
really fast.

Government has never run anything efficiently.
And Obama has never run any business.
All he's been is a place-holder,voted "present" most of the time,and
gypped
the State of Illinois and the US people by taking salary while NOT
doing his job.


I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health
insurance companies.

ah,another communist,who thinks people should not earn "profits".

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (kind of speaks for
itself)

When Switzerland reached 6% uninsured they instituted healthcare
reform. The US has 17%. That's just too many people w/o coverage no
matter how you look at it.

so MOVE to Switzerland,if you like they way THEY do it.

It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem. It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to
health insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start
IMHO.





http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnH...al_lies_about_
obamacare

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

"Master Betty" wrote:

I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem. It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to
health insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start
IMHO.

You probably need to get familiar with the pending bills. None of
them do that. -- Doug


http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnH...al_lies_about_
obamacare

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

But it isn't to society's benefit to have the company's pay for it.

the company is not in business for "society",it's in business for itself.
but companies are profitable while paying for their employee's healthcare.

It's also considered part of the employee's compensation for work
performed.


99% of the HC problems stem from that.

No,mostly from gov't regulation.
Stifles competition and adds overhead in compliance.


Which, of course, the government
wants to make worse.


agreed.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Master Betty" wrote in
:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
Master Betty wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
ktos wrote in
:

" wrote in news:hs-
:

clipped

BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of
the healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do
it. It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.



Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if
there was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related"
accidents and illnesses same as all others. Even without the
crooks and ambulance chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of
repetitive motion and back injuries are mostly the result of
overweight and out-of-condition folks who lawyer up to get
tax-free benefits. The waste in fighting to get a condition
considered "work related" is horrendous. The crooks are sucking
money right out of your pocket in monies that could be paid to
good, honest people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even
paid taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi.
away...saved 100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy;
it is crooked, lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the
maximum benefit for themselves, who want "someone else" to pay
for it, and who consider themselves "conservative".


The ones who complain are the ones who are getting their health
insurance subsidized by their employer.

It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

I have to pay the full price
for mine. Add dental ins. on top of that.

Plus I'm forced to pay for pregnancy benefits I don't need. I'm
sure a lot of other people have to pay in full as I do.

I'd like to see these coddled people pay income tax on the free
portion the employer pays for. They'd sure change their bitchin'
really fast.

Government has never run anything efficiently.
And Obama has never run any business.
All he's been is a place-holder,voted "present" most of the
time,and gypped
the State of Illinois and the US people by taking salary while NOT
doing his job.


I don't know the particular of the bill(s) in congress now but:

The US is the only industrialized country with "for profit" health
insurance
companies.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (kind of speaks for
itself)

When Switzerland reached 6% uninsured they instituted healthcare
reform. The
US has 17%. That's just too many people w/o coverage no matter how
you look
at it.

It's time to stop with the bickering and fix the problem. It doesn't
necessarily need to be a "public" option. Fundamental changes to
health insurance, Rx pricing, and tort reform would be a good start
IMHO.


If government would stop meddling with the free market, the problem
would solve itself.

Snip

I doubt that. Our healthcare insurance CEOs are the highest paid in
the world. What's going to stop that?

their Board of Directors and investors.
It's NOT government's job to regulate private companies exec
salaries/compensation.


The simple fact is, other counties (with far better healthcare than
ours) decided healthcare insurance should not be a "for-profit"
business.

SO MOVE THERE.

I know I won't be upset if some CEO has to settle for a 6
figure income as opposed to a 7 or 8.



Who CARES if you're upset or not?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
"Master Betty" wrote:

The granny debate is an issue I refuse to debate. It's just ridicules.
Healthcare IS already rationed. Always will be. Nobody has talked about
euthanasia except the wackos.

I'd have to agree. That is one of the main things econ systems of all
stripes do... ration outputs and inputs.

Yeah,and ADDING **30 million more people** covered and not adding more
healthcare people will result in MORE and stricter rationing.
It has everywhere else.


And Government is proven to be exceedingly POOR at running such things;

USPS,AMTRAK,Senate/House lunchrooms,Medicare and Medicaid.

Examine the Oregon Healthcare system;that's a good indicator of how things
would be under gov't operation.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

But it isn't to society's benefit to have the company's pay for it.

the company is not in business for "society",it's in business for itself.
but companies are profitable while paying for their employee's healthcare.
Gee, you 'd better tell that to GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. They
missed that. Only Ford managed to dump off the healthcare to the UAW in
time.

It's also considered part of the employee's compensation for work
performed.

So what? Pay me directly and let me buy my own.

99% of the HC problems stem from that.

No,mostly from gov't regulation.
Stifles competition and adds overhead in compliance.

Mostly the fact that I only pay about 20% of my healthcare
expenses out of my own pocket. And that includes the o-o-p part of the
premium. Something that heavily subsidized, you get all sorts of pervese
incentives to overspend going on. The current plans only exacerbate that
concern.



--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Some of us are upset because the government has made a hard
left turn towards socialism. It's the liberals who have been
using racism as a false insturment to accuse conservatives.
Which is typical liberal. When in doubt, hurl accusations.

Yep. Someday, some are going to conclude that if they are going to be
accused of something, they might as well be the something.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
How Freudian. You liberals tend to suffer from Pension Envy.
Next thing, you'll want to marry your mother. Conservatives
see success and want to imitate it. Liberals see success and
want the government to punish it.



Worth it?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


It's to the employer's benefit to have healthy employees.

But it isn't to society's benefit to have the company's pay for
it.

the company is not in business for "society",it's in business for
itself. but companies are profitable while paying for their
employee's healthcare.
Gee, you 'd better tell that to GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. They
missed that. Only Ford managed to dump off the healthcare to the UAW
in time.

Many companies -are- profitable while paying part or all of their employees
healthcare.

But the "Big Three" have been MISMANAGED.Unions are complicit in that.


It's also considered part of the employee's compensation for work
performed.

So what? Pay me directly and let me buy my own.

the original argument was that companies could get better deals thru group
discounts.However,that may not hold true anymore.

99% of the HC problems stem from that.

No,mostly from gov't regulation.
Stifles competition and adds overhead in compliance.

Mostly the fact that I only pay about 20% of my healthcare
expenses out of my own pocket. And that includes the o-o-p part of the
premium. Something that heavily subsidized, you get all sorts of
pervese incentives to overspend going on. The current plans only
exacerbate that concern.


No,because excessive gov't regulation STILL increases your costs even if
you're paying for them yourself.

employers are NOT "subsidizing" healthcare.
It's part of the employee's compensation,that they EARNED.
It's no freebie.

And WRT the "Big Three",their union employees apparently have NOT earned
their excessive benefits.They were not productive enough to pay for
them,and that's reflected in the companies unprofitability.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


Gee, you 'd better tell that to GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. They
missed that. Only Ford managed to dump off the healthcare to the UAW
in time.

Many companies -are- profitable while paying part or all of their employees
healthcare.

Many are but most likely would be more so if they could get rid of
the HC. Or how many small businesses might grow, except for the HC mess.
Make it defined payment instead of defined benefit like with pensions.
You get X amount of money and you buy insurance with it.


But the "Big Three" have been MISMANAGED.Unions are complicit in that.
But a big part of what they mismanaged was the HC side. I have
always thought it was sorta hypocritical for the unions to suggest the
management was at fault, especially when a part of their mismanagement
was how badly they managed the unions.



It's also considered part of the employee's compensation for work
performed.

So what? Pay me directly and let me buy my own.

the original argument was that companies could get better deals thru group
discounts.However,that may not hold true anymore.
Hasn't for quite awhile, and I am not sure it ever really did. For
awhile it was less expensive for the big boys to increase HC benefits
(especially the non-existant co-pays and low premiums. Another reason I
thought the Big Three were a little hypocritical when their earlier
decisions came back to bite them on the nether regions.


employers are NOT "subsidizing" healthcare.
It's part of the employee's compensation,that they EARNED.
It's no freebie.
Of course they are. Someone else pays 80% of something that you use,
then it is subidised. Or at least paid for by someone else, my
definition of subsidy.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

I'm never sure, but we certainly don't have intelligent
life, here.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
in news:h70fmn
:

By some twisted definition or other, it's not possible for
a
negro or a liberal or a woman to be racist. At least,
that's
what the liberals want you to think.


What planet are you from?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Not to me. Just cause someone accuses me of being a racist.
Doesn't make me want to become racist.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Some of us are upset because the government has made a
hard
left turn towards socialism. It's the liberals who have
been
using racism as a false insturment to accuse
conservatives.
Which is typical liberal. When in doubt, hurl accusations.

Yep. Someday, some are going to conclude that if they are
going to be
accused of something, they might as well be the something.

Master Betty wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
How Freudian. You liberals tend to suffer from Pension Envy.
Next thing, you'll want to marry your mother. Conservatives
see success and want to imitate it. Liberals see success and
want the government to punish it.



Worth it?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Sigh!

Progessives (i.e., Paul Krugman) like to front this report from the World
Health Organization. The methodology used to create the report is so flawed,
however, that the report has been debunked countless times. These
criticisms, from health organizations such as the American Public Health
Association, have been so severe, that even WHO gave up on creating this
report in 2000.

The WHO report relies on DALE [Disability-Adjusted Life Expectancy] and this
skews into the sunset all manner of statistics. For example, consider South
Africa which has the finest health system on the continent and was the site
of the world's first heart transplant! The WHO study ranks South Africa
175th out of 191 countries!

How did South Africa get such a low ranking in the WHO study?

AIDS.

And the prevelance of AIDS and its effect on mortality has almost NOTHING to
do with the health care delivery system or its cost - or at least it didn't
in the decade leading up to 2000.

No, the WHO study is a decade out of date and, even when it was current, was
bunk.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Master Betty wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
How Freudian. You liberals tend to suffer from Pension Envy.
Next thing, you'll want to marry your mother. Conservatives
see success and want to imitate it. Liberals see success and
want the government to punish it.



Worth it?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Sigh!

Progessives (i.e., Paul Krugman) like to front this report from the World
Health Organization. The methodology used to create the report is so
flawed, however, that the report has been debunked countless times. These
criticisms, from health organizations such as the American Public Health
Association, have been so severe, that even WHO gave up on creating this
report in 2000.

The WHO report relies on DALE [Disability-Adjusted Life Expectancy] and
this skews into the sunset all manner of statistics. For example, consider
South Africa which has the finest health system on the continent and was
the site of the world's first heart transplant! The WHO study ranks South
Africa 175th out of 191 countries!

How did South Africa get such a low ranking in the WHO study?

AIDS.

And the prevelance of AIDS and its effect on mortality has almost NOTHING
to do with the health care delivery system or its cost - or at least it
didn't in the decade leading up to 2000.

No, the WHO study is a decade out of date and, even when it was current,
was bunk.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009...econdrate.html

.....there is some truth to what you are saying...No study is going to be
perfect but to totally dismiss it is also a mistake.

A decade really isn't that long considering nothing in our country has
changed much other than Rx coverage for seniors.

Forgive me if I still find it relevant even though some guy on the internet
named "Heybub" says it's poo poo. :-)

You know, you guys seem to be missing the big picture.

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a one
payer system.

I'm not going to try to convince you because I doubt you have the knowledge
I have from working in the beast for over a decade.

HC in the US involves so much bureaucracy. I've spent hours in Social
Security hearings with ALJs Doctors and Therapist. The time those hearings
take could be eliminated right there. You may get the opportunity to get a
Medicare claim denied and you'll see what I mean.

The 2 payer system creates another massive layer of paper work most people
are not really aware of. A HUGE portion of your hc dollar goes to needless
paperwork and feeding a world of paper pushers you are not probably totally
aware of.

If we did go to a "national" hc system this ALL could be done with a push of
the button by THE DOCTOR. No billing office!

I've debated this before and found most ng bloggers lack much of an
understanding about the process. Sorry, but to me, you guys are like fish in
a barrel. Face it........there is a lot we need to learn.

In article ,
"Master Betty" wrote:



Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a one
payer system.

I'm not going to try to convince you because I doubt you have the knowledge
I have from working in the beast for over a decade.
Try me then. I have been working in the belly of the beast and/or
writing about it, for over 25 years. Much of it in County General
Hospitals. Did I mention I have a Masters in Health Administration? I
don't see the advantages in single payor. Enlighten me.


HC in the US involves so much bureaucracy. I've spent hours in Social
Security hearings with ALJs Doctors and Therapist. The time those hearings
take could be eliminated right there. You may get the opportunity to get a
Medicare claim denied and you'll see what I mean.
Ahh. Should I mention that your first bitch about bureaucracy that
could be streamlined involves a GOVERNMENT run program?



The 2 payer system creates another massive layer of paper work most people
are not really aware of. A HUGE portion of your hc dollar goes to needless
paperwork and feeding a world of paper pushers you are not probably totally
aware of.
But so does the government systems. Many docs I am familiar with
think the MCare Mcaid bureaucracy makes the private insurers look
positively benign. They take even more time than the privates to pay and
it ALWAYS less than what the evil insurance pay for the same procedure.
And you have a couple layers with the Fed system, too. One is the group
that hires the second group (the second group are the fiscal
intermediaries that do the actual heavy lifting of processes claims,
etc).

If we did go to a "national" hc system this ALL could be done with a push of
the button by THE DOCTOR. No billing office!
Good luck with that. You can't do anything remotely like that with
the current MCare systems. Why should single payor all of a sudden allow
us to reach billing Nirvana?


I've debated this before and found most ng bloggers lack much of an
understanding about the process. Sorry, but to me, you guys are like fish in
a barrel. Face it........there is a lot we need to learn.
BAck at ya.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:32:38 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a one
payer system.

"This is a must see for everyone. Daniel Hannan makes a stunning
speech ridiculing Nationalised Health Care AKA Obamacare."

http://www.theospark.net/2009/08/spe...speaks-at.html

3 part video

You may have a masters but you are totally missing the point. Like I said:
I'm not trying to convince anyone here...that just usually doesn't
happen....

If you can't see the possible benefits of going to a one payer
system......well.....what have you done for 25 years?

Personally, for over ten years I worked in a billing office billing
Medicare, Medicaid, private, and private insurance.

I was part of a huge Medicare/Medicaid certified nursing home (SNF) but we
also billed:

Doctor visits, Tx, Radiology and Lab. Part A and Part B. The 2 payer system
needs to trashed! We had pharmacy but I only billed part A for Drugs.

I quit working there just about the time the new Rx legislation went trough.
I admit I'd like to been part of that system change but I was pretty worn
out by that time with all the changes SNFs went through. I was part of more
system changes than I care to remember.

I'm not arguing with you .....you need to get some grunt experience first.
:-)

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:32:38 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a one
payer system.

"This is a must see for everyone. Daniel Hannan makes a stunning
speech ridiculing Nationalised Health Care AKA Obamacare."

http://www.theospark.net/2009/08/spe...speaks-at.html

3 part video


Neat but what does it have to do with the 2 payer system? The title says
"Nationalized" HC.