Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
Now let the fun and games begin. Lew |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have coverage either through your employer or you can afford it. On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000. |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On 6/29/2012 5:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have coverage either through your employer or you can afford it. On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000. And those that can't afford that and or the illegals will still pay nothing resulting in our government going farther into dept. All that at a cost to buy votes form the growing population of the ignorant. |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
And those that can't afford that and or the illegals will still pay
nothing resulting in our government going farther into dept. *All that at a cost to buy votes form the growing population of the ignorant.- - The fed govt will pick up the tab for the first 5 yrs, then the burden of cost will be placed on the states, which most are already budget crunching. Managing the system will become a nightmare, I predict, and no one knows what the insurance companies have in store to add to the confusion (and mismanagement?). Sonny |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message news On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have coverage either through your employer or you can afford it. On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000. Tax the poor. That's a new tactic. |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On 6/28/2012 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. It's entirely plausible that Roberts may have done more future damage to the liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may have well been Marbury'ed ... -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
Swingman wrote:
On 6/28/2012 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. It's entirely plausible that Roberts may have done more future damage to the liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may have well been Marbury'ed ... Yep. One commentator opined that the other justices are playing checkers while Roberts is playing chess. There are several cases scheduled for next term where his rationale in the ACA case will come back to bite the liberals. Chief among these cases are those having to do with voting rights and civil rights. The bottom line on the ACA case, according to Roberts, is that a LEGISLATIVE solution is the proper path. That looses a massive political effort for the fall. Hold my beer and watch this! |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. -- G.W. Ross Freeman's Law: Nothing is so simple it cannot be misunderstood. |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross"
wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will be paying for those who do. -- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will be paying for those who do. I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the "charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course). At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured). There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while, and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance, period. Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will be paying for those who do. I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the "charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course). At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured). There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while, and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance, period. Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out. While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. If the plan for government review of the medical procedures a person gets, were in effect today when my wife retina torn loss, she would be blind today, as the surgery had to be done within hours not the months it would take the bureaucrats to decide if she should be treated. Check the time frames to get care under the European Socialist systems. You will be shocked. As your European friends on Facebook. However do you really think a bill that duplicates the FDA, adds taxes on medical devices, and taxes to those who are least able to pay them, is the solution to this dilemma. With government limits on medical care, do you think any one would have developed the spin off from The Star War program into the laser surgery techniques we use today. The government regulation has burden the medical industry with a system that takes 10 to 20 years for the FDA to review and approve a new drug. Do you think having two government agencies doing the same review is going to make drugs safer or get new drugs to the doctors faster. |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:00:25 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. I do realize this is a waste of bandwidth, but here's one comparison: "Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations are complex. The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries.[33] A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health care. The OECD also collects comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles." Another study a few years back by the World Health Organization, ranked the US first in amount paid for health care, but 37th in quality. Right behind Costa Rica and ahead of Slovenia. Could you please reference reputable sources that support your claim of "the best and most responsive in the world"? -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
Keith Nuttle wrote in
: On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, Han wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in : On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will be paying for those who do. I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the "charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course). At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured). There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while, and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance, period. Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out. While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. If the plan for government review of the medical procedures a person gets, were in effect today when my wife retina torn loss, she would be blind today, as the surgery had to be done within hours not the months it would take the bureaucrats to decide if she should be treated. Check the time frames to get care under the European Socialist systems. You will be shocked. As your European friends on Facebook. As a born Dutchman, firstly I have nothing against Social Democrats (most often called socialists over there). I have something against communists, since they are dictatorial, whichtrue socialists aren't. Secondly, the Dutch healthcare system is a single payer type national healthcare system, although there are many companies offering insurance policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthc...e_Netherlands). I broke a leg in an amusement/zoo type park (Dolfinarium) in Harderwijk, a very small city, formerly more a fishing village on the inland sea arm the Zuiderzee. It is also where Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and the system of nomenclature for animals and plants, developed his system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaeus. But it had a first-class hospital and trauma surgeon on staff. I broke the leg at 10:30 AM, it took a while for an ambulance to get me to the hospital. I was seen in the ER almost immediately and the trauma surgeon was called in. By 2:30 PM I was back in a hospital bed after surgery to put a couple of plates on the 2 broken bones near the ankle, and a dozen or so screws. I spent 3 nights in the hospital. The total costs for ambulance, surgery hospital stay and doctors was around $9000. The bill for the ambulance was a 1-liner. The bill for the rest was 2 lines. Because I didn't have Dutch (or EU) insurance they asked me to pay the bill, and get the money back from my insurance company (they knew the difficulties dealing with US insurance). It all worked out for me in the end, with not much more than my deductible to be paid by me (they screwed me on the exchange rates). Here in the US, the orthopedist I used for follow-up was amazed at the way the Dutch surgeon had inserted one of the plates by not cutting the leg and placing the plate, but by inserting it under the skin and sliding it in place. Note that I have now full use of the leg, and (so far) no sign of the possible arthritic complications which I was told can happen. So in my personal experience, the Dutch system was very efficient, highly professional and "modern", and probably quite cheap. However do you really think a bill that duplicates the FDA, adds taxes on medical devices, and taxes to those who are least able to pay them, is the solution to this dilemma. There are things the FDA isn't very good at, and I don't know exactly how it could be better. There is a trade-off between safety, approving new treatments and doing careful followup. The tax on medical devices is 2.3%, I believe, well within the yearly cost increases for healthcare related items. Those least able to pay don't pay at all now, for various reasons. Having them pay something is a conservative's dream. With government limits on medical care, do you think any one would have developed the spin off from The Star War program into the laser surgery techniques we use today. Huh?? Limits on medical care?? What limits? The discussion of what care a person should get, is and should be between the patient and the doctor. The doctor shouldn't have to worry about misplaced malpractice suits, or about getting paid for his services, and the patient should be assured to get the most appropriate medical care. Now, the insurance company might suggest hydrochlorothiazide for high blood pressure (a diuretic costing a few dollars per month) over the latest new blood pressure pill that has all kinds of side effects and costs $60 plus per month. Plus I think (and have said so elsewhere several times), people should ahead of time make their wishes for end of life care known (living will, advanced directives, whatever). That should be in discussions with their loved ones, and in written down, notarized and deposited with their physician formats. And those are difficult questions, that can cause heartache for years afterwards. The government regulation has burden the medical industry with a system that takes 10 to 20 years for the FDA to review and approve a new drug. Do you think having two government agencies doing the same review is going to make drugs safer or get new drugs to the doctors faster. I was involved in this area as a researcher, doing preliminary research. I have knowledge of the problems, the bureaucracy and indirectly of the falsifications during the processes. My considered opinion is that the FDA should strive to bring new (really new, not me-too or slight modifications of old drugs) medications and devices to the market place. But there also should be a more formalized and stricter system of follow- up. The Vioxx/Celebrex type anti-COX2 antiinflammatories are an example how a celebrated new class of (expensive) drugs has had minimal effects on treatment (a gross generalization) and some troublesome and still not quite understood side effects. The statins have effects that cannot really be explained by cholesterol-lowering (originally the way they were designed and thought to act), they appear to have side effects for some that are bad, but overall they are (I think) good. I'll have to look up what this new law might do to a corollary of the FDA, because I hadn't really heard about that aspect other than that the FDA is a heap of trouble. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On 6/29/2012 1:41 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will be paying for those who do. I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. What you're really saying is that you think the benefits outweigh the detriments. If you want a thing and can afford it, you've probably already got it and don't need to be compelled. If you don't want a thing, why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your expense? And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to force a third party to get it for you at their expense? It makes no difference how laudable the thing is, making it compulsory takes away your freedom. So what you're really saying is that you believe denying me and others our freedom is a good thing. |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
If you don't want a thing, why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your expense? Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc? And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to force a third party to get it for you at their expense? They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the difference? -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
In article ,
G. Ross wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care and insurance industries. -- Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein) Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On 6/29/2012 2:51 PM, Larry W wrote:
In article , G. Ross wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care and insurance industries. What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
Just Wondering wrote:
What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control. Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a small part of it all. -- -Mike- |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control. Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a small part of it all. Agreed. You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
On 6/29/2012 6:30 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:51 PM, Larry W wrote: In article , G. Ross wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing. Now let the fun and games begin. Lew What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face. It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care and insurance industries. What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control. Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of their total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance. That is just in on the manufacturing side. I have no experience with the providers, but know they are also hit hard with government regulations. Next let explorer the cost of law suits. The first thing some will do is total the payouts in the current year and say that these cost are insignificant. When considering these cost you have to consider the preventive cost, adult resistant lids, label that say a fire is hot and will burn you, and other nonsense. There are many expenses that a company makes to avoid law suits. |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: Amazing
Keith Nuttle wrote in
: snip What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control. Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of their total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance. The compliance regulations and the time it took to comply with the nonsense (changing every 3 months) is what drove me to retirement. No miore faldera for me! (much snipped) -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WOW THIS GUY IS AMAZING | Home Ownership | |||
Amazing !!! | Woodworking | |||
Amazing !!! | UK diy | |||
Amazing !!! | Home Repair | |||
this is Amazing!! | Home Ownership |