On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:26 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:01:40 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:02:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Suppose the government told you that you _must_ buy a Unisaw whether you
want one or not and whether you can afford one or not. Would you say
that that was acceptable? If not then why is them telling you that you
_must_ buy insurance acceptable?

To bolster your argument you're comparing a table saw to country wide
health insurance?

That's not even remotely on the level of an apples and oranges
comparison. It's just a fall flat, 6 1/2 IQ demonstration of shooting
your foot off with a bazooka.

No, Uppy. He made a valid point.

Why are you in this debate, anyway? You don't even live here!
What do you expect to win?

I have no idea why he's taking the stand he's taking, but what happens
south of the 49th is of great concern to us north of same.

We're watching your economy into slow death spiral, with Obamacare only
the latest and probably not the last rocket to fire.

And our economy is so tied to yours that, frankly, I'm bloody nervous.

_You're_ nervous? You're the one backing the Obamaflush of our
economy! I don't get it. We see our futures in the swirlies and it's
not fun to look at that kind of possibility, especially when it's
initiated by our own leader. shudder

If this healthcare plan goes through as it appears, it'll be like
getting gutshot by that bazooka you mentioned. Half the country will
be working for the gov't and the other half will be whipped, chained,
and working to pay for the overloaded mess. At least until it falls
dead from the weight and strain.

"Bloody nervous" doesn't begin to cover it.

Oh, my sister (Naturopath) and niece are both in the healthcare field
and neither has insurance now. But they're still Obama fans. Go
figure. I need to find out how they feel about his fancy, new
"accomplishment".

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:24:24 -0700, the infamous Doug Winterburn
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, the infamous Jack Stein
scrawled the following:

J. Clarke wrote:

Whether it works well is irrelevant. Whether one benefits is
irrelevant. The issue is the power of the government to compel someone
to purchase a commercial product. If they can order you to purchase
insurance, what prevents them from ordering you to purchase a Unisaw?
Good point. Expanding on that, what they want is "single payer" or
socialized, government controlled and owned medical system. This never
works, and is anti-American to the extreme. The US government is not to
be in the business of business. The socialist democrats have usurped GM
and Chrysler, about taken over the banking industry, education, public
transit, gambling, sports stadiums, in my state liquor stores and who
know what else.

Now they want the big enchilada, health care. People generally lose
more and more as big brother clenches his powerful, tyrannical jaws
around freedom.

Those who seek to control us are gaining ever more control. It goes
beyond politics, too. Reps put in the Patriot Acts. Dems grabbed GM,
mortgages, and some banks. Now Dems are after more of the treasury and
a life-or-death rebalancing. Scary times.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

The plan for the health insurance companies seems to be to regulate them
until they're insolvent, then take them over because they're "too big to
fail" and now we have the government health insurance option - and the
only option. Should only take 3-5 years under the new law.

Or sooner. The smart ones will sell out or just close their doors,
moving on to the next lucrative field. Legal transcription, maybe?

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:26:33 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Isn't it amazing that the only examples opponents come up with are
England and Canada? Yes, England's plan is screwed up. But I've spent a
lot of time talking to Canadians about their plan and all of them, while
admitting it could stand improvement, are on the whole quite pleased with
it.

Our plan is on the brink of collapse. If we had been as affected by the
recent recession as the rest of the world was, we'd be f*cked. Health
care takes up almost 50% of the provincial budget here in Saskatchewan.

There is NO room left.

Take out a tree or two. There's plenty of room up there.


50%. Think about that.

That's good. It means that your administrative overhead is small(er).
Look at D.C. and the crap they plan for this healthcare debacle!

http://fwd4.me/J4T says Canadian healthcare cost 9/8% of GDP in '05.
Why is Saskatchewan so heavy on the medical? Lower incomes? Fewer
people? What?

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:05:08 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In Canada, waits far exceeding 24 hours are the norm. Twenty-four WEEKS is
more common.

Then you've been very lucky or not had do deal with a serious but
"non-urgent" procedure.

Possibly not, but a claim of twenty-four weeks as a common occurrence
is a completely misleading statement. Surely it happens on occasion,
but it's not the commonplace situation that Heybub claims.

And as well, the availability of public funds to pay for such
procedures is a consideration, but that's a necessary limitation in
such a system.

If you're middle class in the US needing a hip replacement costing in
the range of $30,000 - $40,000, have no insurance and don't have the
funds on hand, what do you do? As I understand it, you'll never get
treatment at all unless you become indigent. If that's wrong, then
please correct my belief. At least in Canada, you'd get the needed
surgery eventually, difficult as the wait might be.


Since youo're not indigent, you work out a payment plan with the doctors
and hospital.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Mar 25, 2:25*pm, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:04:44 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
So how do you propose to fix what they've done? *First you have to get the
current bunch out of office.

ALL of them. ALL Incumbents regardless of party. The problem is not so much
Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican as it is 535 people who think
they are Entitled to hold office and in their arrogance believe they know
what is good for everyone else.

Hear, hear! *One term and you're GONE!

Gone because Obama delivered on a campaign promise?

Yeah, can you believe that? One promise kept out of how many from how
many pols in how many years? It's history, I tell ya.


Same people will probably put him back for another 4 years.

I'd be willing to bet that they won't. If nothing else, his
healthcare debacle will take care of that. He lied to the people and
used the word "free" in concert with "healthcare" far too many times
for that. Even if he's _not_ impeached first, he certainly won't get
reelected. The list of flubs is already long.

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:13:05 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:

chaniarts wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
On 3/25/2010 1:13 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote
I understand that you can pay the IRS a fine instead of buying
insurance. The bill requires additional IRS operations to check
if all is covered and that all people are controlled on a monthly
basis. Look on the bright side: The bonus is the it doubles as a
simulus bill too, more IRS agent jobs are created.

In Massachusetts you have to pay a fine. Insurance for a young
healthy single person that would rather go without is about $5000 a
year and the fine is something like a few hundred bucks. Tough
choice.

i think the fine will start at 1% gross income or $95, whichever is
larger. it escalates to 4%/$500 in 2014.

The law is online, read it before you express opinions. It starts at
$95 in 2014, increases to 350 in 2015, and 750 in 2016. Those
amounts are per person with a cap of 3 times that amount for any
given taxpayer. Thus if you and your wife file a joint return and
have a kid it can be $2250. After that there is a cost of living
adjustment in subsequent years. There's nothing about 1 percent of
gross income. There is an exemption if one's "required contribution" is
more than 8
percent of "household income" with the "required contribution" being
the premium on the cheapest "bronze plan".

well, blame it on my local newspaper, which i had assumed had read it.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...-benefits.html

snip

actually, what i was remembering was this article from yesterday's paper

http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...Taxes0324.html

Here are some of the key provisions of the bill as they affect individuals,
outlined by tax researcher CCH.

Provision: No-coverage penatly.
The basics: People who don't obtain health insurance and aren't exempt could
face a penalty starting in 2014 of at least $95 that would rise sharply
later. Exempt individuals will include those with too little income to file
a tax return.
Tax details: This penalty will be a flat tax or a percentage of income,
whichever is more. In 2014, it will be $95 or 1 percent of income, rising to
$695 or 2.5 percent of income by 2016. Those under 18 and college students
will pay half.

So if you're poor, you'll be allowed _not_ to have insurance (aka:
healthcare), eh?!?

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:02:53 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

of his posts for over 3 years indicates that you may be overinvested
in this thing. Chill, mon.
Plonk him and forget him.

You're right of course. I can't find any fault with your evaluation.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:05:08 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In Canada, waits far exceeding 24 hours are the norm. Twenty-four WEEKS is
more common.

Then you've been very lucky or not had do deal with a serious but
"non-urgent" procedure.

Possibly not, but a claim of twenty-four weeks as a common occurrence
is a completely misleading statement. Surely it happens on occasion,
but it's not the commonplace situation that Heybub claims.

And as well, the availability of public funds to pay for such
procedures is a consideration, but that's a necessary limitation in
such a system.

If you're middle class in the US needing a hip replacement costing in
the range of $30,000 - $40,000, have no insurance and don't have the
funds on hand, what do you do? As I understand it, you'll never get
treatment at all unless you become indigent. If that's wrong, then
please correct my belief. At least in Canada, you'd get the needed
surgery eventually, difficult as the wait might be.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:26:33 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Isn't it amazing that the only examples opponents come up with are
England and Canada? Yes, England's plan is screwed up. But I've spent
a
lot of time talking to Canadians about their plan and all of them, while
admitting it could stand improvement, are on the whole quite pleased
with
it.

Our plan is on the brink of collapse. If we had been as affected by the
recent recession as the rest of the world was, we'd be f*cked. Health
care takes up almost 50% of the provincial budget here in Saskatchewan.

There is NO room left.

Take out a tree or two. There's plenty of room up there.


50%. Think about that.

That's good. It means that your administrative overhead is small(er).
Look at D.C. and the crap they plan for this healthcare debacle!

http://fwd4.me/J4T says Canadian healthcare cost 9/8% of GDP in '05.
Why is Saskatchewan so heavy on the medical? Lower incomes? Fewer
people? What?

Truth?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

Good point. Expanding on that, what they want is "single payer" or
socialized, government controlled and owned medical system. This
never works, and is anti-American to the extreme.

Universal health care can be implemented in several ways, single
payer is not the only way. Perhaps you could say "this never works"
to all of the countries that have UHC? They'd laugh and declare you
nuts. But I guess everyone's out of step but you.

In many cases "it works" because the people don't know or expect any
better. For example, in the UK they don't expect anesthetics for tooth
extractions.


I call BULL**** on that assertion. And I've got relatives all over the UK
who Hate the system.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:24:24 -0700, the infamous Doug Winterburn
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, the infamous Jack Stein
scrawled the following:

J. Clarke wrote:

Whether it works well is irrelevant. Whether one benefits is
irrelevant. The issue is the power of the government to compel
someone
to purchase a commercial product. If they can order you to purchase
insurance, what prevents them from ordering you to purchase a Unisaw?
Good point. Expanding on that, what they want is "single payer" or
socialized, government controlled and owned medical system. This never
works, and is anti-American to the extreme. The US government is not
to
be in the business of business. The socialist democrats have usurped
GM
and Chrysler, about taken over the banking industry, education, public
transit, gambling, sports stadiums, in my state liquor stores and who
know what else.

Now they want the big enchilada, health care. People generally lose
more and more as big brother clenches his powerful, tyrannical jaws
around freedom.

Those who seek to control us are gaining ever more control. It goes
beyond politics, too. Reps put in the Patriot Acts. Dems grabbed GM,
mortgages, and some banks. Now Dems are after more of the treasury and
a life-or-death rebalancing. Scary times.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot
do.
-- Samuel Butler

The plan for the health insurance companies seems to be to regulate them
until they're insolvent, then take them over because they're "too big to
fail" and now we have the government health insurance option - and the
only option. Should only take 3-5 years under the new law.

Or sooner. The smart ones will sell out or just close their doors,
moving on to the next lucrative field. Legal transcription, maybe?

All we are saying,
Is just read the Bill ...

Most of the payout does not start until 2014. In the meantime the insurance
companies will be doubling and re-doubling their fees. When 2014 kicks in
they will party like it's 1910! Be the biggest return on investment they've
ever seen from the best President and Congress they could buy.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:26 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:01:40 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:02:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Suppose the government told you that you _must_ buy a Unisaw whether
you
want one or not and whether you can afford one or not. Would you say
that that was acceptable? If not then why is them telling you that
you
_must_ buy insurance acceptable?

To bolster your argument you're comparing a table saw to country wide
health insurance?

That's not even remotely on the level of an apples and oranges
comparison. It's just a fall flat, 6 1/2 IQ demonstration of shooting
your foot off with a bazooka.

No, Uppy. He made a valid point.

Why are you in this debate, anyway? You don't even live here!
What do you expect to win?

I have no idea why he's taking the stand he's taking, but what happens
south of the 49th is of great concern to us north of same.

We're watching your economy into slow death spiral, with Obamacare only
the latest and probably not the last rocket to fire.

And our economy is so tied to yours that, frankly, I'm bloody nervous.

_You're_ nervous? You're the one backing the Obamaflush of our
economy! I don't get it. We see our futures in the swirlies and it's
not fun to look at that kind of possibility, especially when it's
initiated by our own leader. shudder

If this healthcare plan goes through as it appears, it'll be like
getting gutshot by that bazooka you mentioned. Half the country will
be working for the gov't and the other half will be whipped, chained,
and working to pay for the overloaded mess. At least until it falls
dead from the weight and strain.

Maybe you will. I'd rather be shooting.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:01:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
So if you're poor, you'll be allowed _not_ to have insurance (aka:
healthcare), eh?!?

Statements like that bother me. Big joke eh? Nobody likes being poor.
No one is going to become poor just to get "free" health insurance. It
wouldn't make sense.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal or whatever you want, but at least
make a feeble attempt to appear empathetic.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

On 3/25/2010 7:23 AM, Han wrote:
All this is very simple. By law until now, a hospital (I think doctors
too, but IANAL) has to give you care, whether you can pay for it or not.
This change in law ensures that somehow the hospital gets paid back.

Your solution would be that the hospital could refuse to give you care
until you provide proof of financial responsibility. Happy bleeding!

The law in most localities requires that hospital emergency rooms
provide services to all comers.

And the hospital does get paid back--the take it out of the pockets of
insurance companies and people who pay out of pocket but aren't too poor
to afford the bill.

And because I am a member of a big group, my rates are low, while some
poor
slob with a small company has to pay far higher rates. This is fair? Or
should everyone get insurance at basically the same rates?

And the solution to that was dead simple: Regulate the Insurance Industry
just like a Public Utility. All the rest of the crap in the bill is there to
gain Control over the population and as a first step in further Control.
Hell, Dingell (IIRC) even said so.

"Steve" wrote in message
g.com...
On 2010-03-23 16:48:02 -0400, Jack Stein said:

Jack
Somewhere In Kenya, a Village is Missing it's IDIOT!

Hey, Jack -- just what is your ethnicity? I want to be certain my
forthcoming smear of you is accurate.



How many race cards are in this deck?!

"Steve" wrote in message
g.com...
On 2010-03-22 23:28:29 -0400, Robatoy said:

By golly, me thinks you are correct, sir. We've been Godwinned.

That happened at the first advocation of Gestapo and razor wire... amazing
that anyone would espouse practices of a despised former enemy.


Amazing? The practices WORKED.

Driven a VW or a Beemer lately?

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Mar 25, 2:25 pm, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:04:44 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
So how do you propose to fix what they've done? First you have to get
the
current bunch out of office.

ALL of them. ALL Incumbents regardless of party. The problem is not so
much
Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican as it is 535 people who
think
they are Entitled to hold office and in their arrogance believe they
know
what is good for everyone else.

Hear, hear! One term and you're GONE!

Gone because Obama delivered on a campaign promise?

Yeah, can you believe that? One promise kept out of how many from how
many pols in how many years? It's history, I tell ya.


Same people will probably put him back for another 4 years.

I'd be willing to bet that they won't. If nothing else, his
healthcare debacle will take care of that. He lied to the people and
used the word "free" in concert with "healthcare" far too many times
for that. Even if he's _not_ impeached first, he certainly won't get
reelected. The list of flubs is already long.


And growing. Along with his nose.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:22:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:10:43 -0400, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

On 3/25/2010 12:02 AM, LDosser wrote:
Fix what they've done. Fast!

Treat the insurance companies like utilities. What they have done
instead is give the insurance companies the greatest windfall in
history.

So how do you propose to fix what they've done? First you have to get
the current bunch out of office.

That has already started, and will be in full effect come November, I
assure you. Those assholes are being voted out of office quickly.

Others warn of an impending cull of libtards. Who knows what will
happen? I just pray that nobody takes out The O.

If they do, The USA will officially join the "third world"

We'll do that about 2016.

"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Phisherman" wrote
I understand that you can pay the IRS a fine instead of buying
insurance. The bill requires additional IRS operations to check if
all is covered and that all people are controlled on a monthly basis.
Look on the bright side: The bonus is the it doubles as a simulus
bill too, more IRS agent jobs are created.

In Massachusetts you have to pay a fine. Insurance for a young
healthy single person that would rather go without is about $5000 a
year and the fine is something like a few hundred bucks. Tough
choice.

i think the fine will start at 1% gross income or $95, whichever is
larger. it escalates to 4%/$500 in 2014.



All we are saying,
Is just read the Bill ...

Fines don't START until 2014 and escalate through 2016.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:01:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
So if you're poor, you'll be allowed _not_ to have insurance (aka:
healthcare), eh?!?

Statements like that bother me. Big joke eh? Nobody likes being poor.
No one is going to become poor just to get "free" health insurance. It
wouldn't make sense.

Ah, to be so naive again ...

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:53 -0700, "LDosser"
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
world live long enough to face the consequences of the ideas they
support.

Waiting for what?

As Timbit stated "facing the consequences of the ideas I support".


Huh. Missed that. Pretty much covers everybody.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 9:55 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message

Those legislators who have decided to govern against the will of
the people (anywhere from 60 to 80% opposition depending upon the
poll) have sown the wind. They can expect to reap the whirlwind
come November.

Depends on how many fake voter registrations ACORN can get going so
the votes don't exceed the number of registered voters., and if the
socialist *******s can get the illegal alien vote legalized... well,
it's over.

ACORN is Folding.

I heard today Obama has reopened the taxpayers money drain into ACORNS
pockets. There is no way the socialist democratic party will let
ACORN die since ACORN is 100% socialist democrat supporter, and best
of all gets taxpayer money to fund its dirty work. Even if the name
changes, it is still ACORN, with it's several hundred corrupt fronts.
--
Jack
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
http://jbstein.com


It really is FOLDING.

But the same people will show up in other venues, peddling their
political
malignancies, and sponging off the working folk to pay for it. The name
and structure of the organization is immaterial ...


Smaller bugs are easier to crush.

But harder to find.

They will be Local.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:20:26 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:01:40 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:02:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Suppose the government told you that you _must_ buy a Unisaw whether
you
want one or not and whether you can afford one or not. Would you say
that that was acceptable? If not then why is them telling you that
you _must_ buy insurance acceptable?

To bolster your argument you're comparing a table saw to country wide
health insurance?

That's not even remotely on the level of an apples and oranges
comparison. It's just a fall flat, 6 1/2 IQ demonstration of shooting
your foot off with a bazooka.

No, Uppy. He made a valid point.

Why are you in this debate, anyway? You don't even live here!
What do you expect to win?

I have no idea why he's taking the stand he's taking, but what happens
south of the 49th is of great concern to us north of same.

We're watching your economy into slow death spiral, with Obamacare only
the latest and probably not the last rocket to fire.

And our economy is so tied to yours that, frankly, I'm bloody nervous.

_You're_ nervous? You're the one backing the Obamaflush of our
economy! I don't get it. We see our futures in the swirlies and it's
not fun to look at that kind of possibility, especially when it's
initiated by our own leader. shudder


Actually Larry, I don't think the majority of Canadians (with two
exceptions in this newsgroup) are backing our hellscare bill and are
probably watching it with some dismay. This is going to put a serious crimp
on the pressure relief valve for their own system. A good number of
Canadians come to the US for treatment when they are either denied care or
the wait time is too long to endure the pain. With this plan, that relief
valve is disappearing.



If this healthcare plan goes through as it appears, it'll be like
getting gutshot by that bazooka you mentioned. Half the country will
be working for the gov't and the other half will be whipped, chained,
and working to pay for the overloaded mess. At least until it falls
dead from the weight and strain.

"Bloody nervous" doesn't begin to cover it.

Oh, my sister (Naturopath) and niece are both in the healthcare field
and neither has insurance now. But they're still Obama fans. Go
figure. I need to find out how they feel about his fancy, new
"accomplishment".

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:40:41 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Since youo're not indigent, you work out a payment plan with the doctors
and hospital.

Yeah right! At what rate ~ $10 per week?

I set up a $10 per month plan for one of my aunts in Michigan. Sat there
across the table from the apoplectic bean counters, one of them sputtering
that it would take 573 years for her to pay the bill at that rate. I told
them that, if she lived that long they'd get all of it. Had her $10 check on
the desk and asked them whether they wanted that, or nothing. They opted for
the payment plan and she paid for the rest of her life.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:53:26 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

on the pressure relief valve for their own system. A good number of
Canadians come to the US for treatment when they are either denied care or
the wait time is too long to endure the pain. With this plan, that relief
valve is disappearing.

Not as large a number as you'd like to believe. And you know what is
being forecast? The US will be coming to Canada's drug companies for
its medicines because we're not as hell bent on gouging a profit out
of our people and the system. I hope we soak you for everything you've
got. That seems to be the only type of commerce you respect.

If your country circles the drain as your continual sky is falling
rhetoric expounds, your citizens will be coming up here for medical
care, at least they will be trying to. How ironic would it be if your
failing health care system managed to turn ours into a comparable
gouging, money grabbing mob. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:40:41 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Since youo're not indigent, you work out a payment plan with the doctors
and hospital.

Yeah right! At what rate ~ $10 per week? Mortgage payments or rent,
food, current car payments, supporting the in law in nursing care, one
of the family breadwinners off work for at least a month assuming
problem free healing. And, you'd have everybody believe that the basic
middle class family is solvent enough to take on a $40,000 debt
without extreme difficulty.

You're naive a best, woefully ignorant at worst. Which is it?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:53:26 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

on the pressure relief valve for their own system. A good number of
Canadians come to the US for treatment when they are either denied care or
the wait time is too long to endure the pain. With this plan, that relief
valve is disappearing.

Not as large a number as you'd like to believe. And you know what is
being forecast? The US will be coming to Canada's drug companies for
its medicines because we're not as hell bent on gouging a profit out
of our people and the system.

And the internationally known Canadian Pharmaceutical companies are?

Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:01:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
So if you're poor, you'll be allowed _not_ to have insurance (aka:
healthcare), eh?!?

Statements like that bother me. Big joke eh? Nobody likes being poor.
No one is going to become poor just to get "free" health insurance. It
wouldn't make sense.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal or whatever you want, but at least
make a feeble attempt to appear empathetic.

You're wrong on this one Dave. At least down here, there is an entire class
of people who electively remain "poor", in order to enjoy a lifestyle
supported by government programs. Sort of the unintended consequences of
government programs. Regardless, it does exist, and it will continue to
exist.

--

-Mike-

Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-25 15:40:03 -0400, "Phil Anderson"
said:
How is that your business?

Strictly speaking, it's not. I am, however, curious as to the reasons
for objection to mandatory insurance. And sorry, I do not believe
these great altruists really give a good god damn about freedom and
liberty -- truth be told, they're ****ed about another tax, not that
they object to or cannot afford insurance.

The objection? Here's one: It's mandatory and the money used to buy it could
be put to other, more provident, purposes.

One family reportedly saved $7,500 per year by choosing a (very) high
deductable insurance plan. That $7,500 over ten to fifteen years could put
their kids through college.

Jack Stein wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-23 13:18:50 -0400, Jack Stein said:

death of robust US medical research and development

One hell of a lot more is spent on marketing and intellectual
property protection than R&D. And don't even get me started on
ag-chem and GM. Monsanto, for one, is truly evil.

And socialists from the world over slither into the US with pockets
full of money for the great marketing and copyright laws of the
capitalist pigs, right?

Yes. Our Constitution specifically encourages monopolies and intellectual
property exclusivity.

On Mar 26, 1:53*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:


* Actually Larry, I don't think the majority of Canadians (with two
exceptions in this newsgroup) are backing our hellscare bill and are
probably watching it with some dismay. *

Cite or STFU.

Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:40:41 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Since youo're not indigent, you work out a payment plan with the doctors
and hospital.

Yeah right! At what rate ~ $10 per week? Mortgage payments or rent,
food, current car payments, supporting the in law in nursing care, one
of the family breadwinners off work for at least a month assuming
problem free healing. And, you'd have everybody believe that the basic
middle class family is solvent enough to take on a $40,000 debt
without extreme difficulty.

You're naive a best, woefully ignorant at worst. Which is it?

Neither, I've had to negotiate with doctors and dentists because I
couldn't pay the lump sum. In one case, it took 3 years to pay off the
total. And if it had been $10/month that was my limit, I would be
considered indigent and been on one of the multitude of support programs.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:06:26 -0700, "LDosser"
wrote:

them that, if she lived that long they'd get all of it. Had her $10 check on
the desk and asked them whether they wanted that, or nothing. They opted for
the payment plan and she paid for the rest of her life.

That immediately makes me think of your housing boom that went bust.
People taking on debt that they can't ever realistically pay off, yet
the bean counters authorized the transaction anyway. Of course, that
debt wasn't for paltry small sums such as your aunt took on, but it's
a debt that should never have been authorized anyway.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:46:51 -0700, "LDosser"
wrote:

And the internationally known Canadian Pharmaceutical companies are?

Of course they are, but still measurably cheaper than the gouging that
happens every day by US drug companies.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:19:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
You're wrong on this one Dave. At least down here, there is an entire class
of people who electively remain "poor", in order to enjoy a lifestyle
supported by government programs. Sort of the unintended consequences of
government programs. Regardless, it does exist, and it will continue to
exist.

We have our "street people" who do essentially the same thing despite
programs and processes in place that offer to help them leave their
cycle of poverty.

I was commenting from the point of view of people becoming
intentionally poor just to get free health insurance. People having
been prosperous or at the very least self supporting, do not all of a
sudden give it all up just to get something free. Not in my experience
anyway.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:45:50 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

I'll see your Canada and raise you Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ystem_in_Japan

Let me know what you think after (if?) you read it.

Let me know what you think when the elderly retirees outnumber the
workers. Japan's in trouble and they know it.


That scenario applies to a lot more than health care. And to a lot more
countries than Japan. What happens to all those seniors who are unable
to work and are not independently wealthy when a government stops paying
Social Security or it's equivalent?

IOW, the "graying population" is indeed a problem, but is independent of,
and more serious than, any health care program.

So once again I ask, what's your opinion of Japan's health care plan?

If Japan's doesn't appeal to you, try Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...h_care#Germany

I did note the following from that article:

"Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose
to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations,
but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP)."

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 3/26/2010 12:59 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:45:50 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

I'll see your Canada and raise you Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ystem_in_Japan

Let me know what you think after (if?) you read it.

Let me know what you think when the elderly retirees outnumber the
workers. Japan's in trouble and they know it.


That scenario applies to a lot more than health care. And to a lot more
countries than Japan. What happens to all those seniors who are unable
to work and are not independently wealthy when a government stops paying
Social Security or it's equivalent?

Uh if you investigate you will find that Japan's population is now in
decline and has been for some time. I do not believe that any other
industrialized nation has reached that point.

IOW, the "graying population" is indeed a problem, but is independent of,
and more serious than, any health care program.

Not so. That graying population has the most need for medical
treatment, and the least means to pay for it.

So once again I ask, what's your opinion of Japan's health care plan?

That it's going to go bankrupt.

If Japan's doesn't appeal to you, try Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...h_care#Germany

That Germany is doing something is in and of itself a reason to be
suspicious of it. Germany, in case you haven't noticed, is not exactly
squeaky-clean on the matter of civil rights.

I did note the following from that article:

"Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose
to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations,
but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP)."

Your point being?

Steve wrote:

Jack
Somewhere In Kenya, a Village is Missing it's IDIOT!

Hey, Jack -- just what is your ethnicity? I want to be certain my
forthcoming smear of you is accurate.

No ethnicity was mentioned in this quote, but I can see where a bigoted
racist ******* might read that into it.

Myself, I was born in America, so I guess I'm an American. You want to
blurt out an ethnic smear, who am I to stop you, go for it.

If you want me to explain the meaning of the quote, I'd be glad to do so.

--
Jack
Obama Ca Efficiency of the DMV, compassion of the IRS!
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote:

Myself, I was born in America, so I guess I'm an American.

Jack Stein AKA: Floyd R Turbot, American.

Lew

Upscale wrote:

Six months eh? You're full of absolute bull****. I've had extensive
experience in the Canadian health care system over the last thirty
years, I've NEVER had to wait more than 30 days for ANYTHING medically
related.

I went in the emergency room once, and was seen by the doctor in about
20 minutes. He had the nurse draw some blood for a test, and said he'd
be back. I waited 3 hours, sick as a dog and decided **** it, I'm
leaving. I about crawled out of there and an emergency room nurse came
running saying you can't leave, the doctor has to see you yet. I said
I've been waiting 3 hours, I'm gone...

When I got home, the phone was ringing, it was the doctor, who
apologized and gave me the diagnosis and he phoned in a prescription for
me....

30 days indeed....

--
Jack
Conservatives believe every day is the Fourth of July, Liberals believe
every day is April 15.
http://jbstein.com