On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:14:10 -0400, Gene
wrote:

It would seem to, but those taxes were enacted when the NC General
Assembly was stuffed full of fundie Baptists who successfully imposed
socially engineered behaviors on those less "of the body."

Tha'ts an amusing statement.

What are laws but social engineering? Would you say the same, or use
the same language, for, say Democracts who push Cap and Trade, seat
belt laws, laws against DUI - any law you care to name?

"Successfully imposed socially engineered behaviors" - honest to pete,
sometimes for a really smart guy who has a great deal of intellectual
curiosity, you have a very narrow view point. I would expect a
statement like that from Harry, but certainly not you.

Captain Yogi of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:14:10 -0400, Gene
wrote:

It would seem to, but those taxes were enacted when the NC General
Assembly was stuffed full of fundie Baptists who successfully imposed
socially engineered behaviors on those less "of the body."

Tha'ts an amusing statement.

What are laws but social engineering? Would you say the same, or use
the same language, for, say Democracts who push Cap and Trade, seat
belt laws, laws against DUI - any law you care to name?

"Successfully imposed socially engineered behaviors" - honest to pete,
sometimes for a really smart guy who has a great deal of intellectual
curiosity, you have a very narrow view point. I would expect a
statement like that from Harry, but certainly not you.


Speaking of the narrow-minded, good morning, Tom-ster.

"H the K" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
It's elitist to "accept" the health care providers my doctor's office
provides to its patients. I'll have to tell my doctor that the next time
I see him...I'm sure he'll have a good laugh over it.

I don't select the staff there...the doctors who own the practice do.


When you were a kid did you also pedal your bicycle backwards?

Eisboch


Only when I shifted gears.

I'm sure my doc will get a kick out it when I tell him he has to hire less
qualified staff so the jackoffs on rec.boats will be happier with the way
he and his partners run their business.

He can hire whoever he wants and you can brag about who you go to all you
want. Point is, it doesn't require a college education to walk to the
waiting room carrying a clipboard, call out "Harry Krause", lead you to a
scale, weigh you, take you to an examination room, take and record your
blood pressure, then say, "the doctor will be with you shortly".

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
It's elitist to "accept" the health care providers my doctor's office
provides to its patients. I'll have to tell my doctor that the next time
I see him...I'm sure he'll have a good laugh over it.

I don't select the staff there...the doctors who own the practice do.

When you were a kid did you also pedal your bicycle backwards?

Eisboch

Only when I shifted gears.

I'm sure my doc will get a kick out it when I tell him he has to hire less
qualified staff so the jackoffs on rec.boats will be happier with the way
he and his partners run their business.

He can hire whoever he wants and you can brag about who you go to all you
want. Point is, it doesn't require a college education to walk to the
waiting room carrying a clipboard, call out "Harry Krause", lead you to a
scale, weigh you, take you to an examination room, take and record your
blood pressure, then say, "the doctor will be with you shortly".

Eisboch


I'm not bragging. It's just the way it is. I don't make the rules at my
doctor's office. I agree that it does not take a degree to greet
patients, weigh them, or take their temp or blood pressure. Even *I* can
do that. If you teamed up with Tom, you two could handle it, too.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:39:10 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


How can anyone believe a government medical agency will be cheaper than
someone with a profit motive to cut costs?

Huh? Because the motive it to increase profits, not cut costs. While
it's not a fair comparison, Medicare's administrative costs are @6%,
compared to the 20-25% of our current health care system. Perhaps, more
telling, administrative costs in a for-profit hospital are @ 34%, as
opposed to 24.5% at non-profits, but get this, the costs are 22.9% at
public hospitals, you know, government run hospitals.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/
forprofit_hospitals_cost_more_and_have_higher_admi nistration_expenses.php

wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:07:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:39:10 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


How can anyone believe a government medical agency will be cheaper than
someone with a profit motive to cut costs?
Huh? Because the motive it to increase profits, not cut costs. While
it's not a fair comparison, Medicare's administrative costs are @6%,
compared to the 20-25% of our current health care system. Perhaps, more
telling, administrative costs in a for-profit hospital are @ 34%, as
opposed to 24.5% at non-profits, but get this, the costs are 22.9% at
public hospitals, you know, government run hospitals.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/
forprofit_hospitals_cost_more_and_have_higher_admi nistration_expenses.php


Medicare is not going to be a good example for you to hang your hat
on. A lot of the administration is actually done by the health care
provider and SSA/IRS does the accounts receivables. It is hard to get
a fair number to compare.
You also have to understand that taking 3% of every wage dollar earned
in this country they are still going broke providing health care to
16% of the population.


A tremendous amount of "administration" is done by health care providers
who have to deal with the vagaries of private health insurance companies.

We probably would not have the horrific health insurance problems that
challenge us today if the insurers were properly regulated, as they are
under the Federal Employes Health Benefit Act. Hundreds of insurers
compete to get in and stay in this program, and offer top coverage, more
than competitive rates, and a plan for almost every pocketbook.
Typically, the plans are offered by employe organizations to any federal
employe. The organization retains an underwriter and processor to handle
the actual operation of the plan, and the plans are easy to compare as
to which organization is offering what. The plans are profitable, there
is a lot less waste than in the totally private sector, and there is a
lot of innovation.

There's nothing magical or even particularly efficient about the health
care industry today.


--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:29:51 -0400, wrote:



Medicare is not going to be a good example for you to hang your hat
on. A lot of the administration is actually done by the health care
provider and SSA/IRS does the accounts receivables. It is hard to get
a fair number to compare.
You also have to understand that taking 3% of every wage dollar earned
in this country they are still going broke providing health care to
16% of the population.

Right, and Aetna HMO takes 50% of my wife's wage dollar.
And we seldom use it. I call it Keep-Your-House insurance.

--Vic

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:10:59 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:38:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:21:55 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:37:40 -0700, jps wrote:

snipped for brevity

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

If the business is stressed by providing health care, why provide it?
There is no governmental mandate that you do so. The only mandate in
most states is for the provisioin of Workman's Comp.

It's standard in our industry where I'm a small player. Large
employers provide and I compete in the same market for expert
employess.

Are your
employees incapable of providing thier own? Is the compensation given
your employees inadequate for their needs? Do you pay full cost of
their insurance? It is a common practice for businesses to help
relieve the (voluntary) stress of coverage by putting part or all of
the cost of coverage on the employee, even if their coverage is a
group.

We cover employee only and deduct for spouse and dependents. There's
no way we could cover families.

Have you explored HSA's, HRA's, FSA's?

We have an FSA in place.

Are you aware that
insurance companies compete for you business?

Yes, painfully.

Are you aware that
HDHP's are desgined to keep premiums low?

Yes, we're considering a move to one.

If your insurance is a
group, is it a PPO?

Yes, Regence.

If you are genuinely concerned about covering
your employees, have you earnestly explored all insurance options?

Abso-****ing-lutely.

(I owned a manufacturing concern for more than a decade. It wouldn't
in your best interest to complain about any naivete on my part, in
asking these questions. (And I am also a licensed insurance agent.))

When I moved my company from CA to WA we enjoyed significantly lower
premiums. CA had already started the steep climb. After double digit
hikes in rates, it has become painful.

I identified the problem to a state representative 5 years ago at a
small dinner reception. And while it was a known problem, it wasn't
the state's only problem nor high on the priority list. I expect it's
higher now.

Do you think that health insurance reform legislation won't require
that employers pay for health insurance, in some measure, for all of
their employees?

So, I answered all your questions and narry a syllable retort. You
seem only to want to take pot shots.

My sincere hope is that the public option represents a competitive bid
against the scammers that currently make profit through health care.

I take it you're among the profiteers whose living comes from taxing
our access to proper health care?

Why should I waste energy and time on tired ad hominem? I've worked
my myself silly today (a Sunday, no less), and I haven't had time to
enjoy a persistent, johnny-on-the-spot debate to prove my polemical
prowess to you or anyone else. It's an unfortunate risk I take when
I engage these discussions. I've spent the day mowing a yard that has
been too long neglected. I helped my sister (who is blind by virtue
of diabetic retinopathy) apply her lettering of her windows to her law
office. I took my sister shopping, as she is handicapped. I tended
to my garden. I worked on following up on insurance inquiry leads.
And I've done some other various, sundry things that needed attention.
And do you care to know what my current commissions are? I suspect
the issue is pointless, as you are demonstrably dogmatic. My
commssions are nil. Are you empathetic (less condescending to those
that don't share your political persuasion)? Then you have no problem
expressing your empathy for those thousands and hundred of thousands
of people who are involved in providing a means to finance health care
who are facing the prospect of losing their respective livelihoods to
a failed idealogy, I take it? The actuaries, the secretaries, the
managers, the general agents, the marketing specialists, the risk
specialists, the accountants, the producers, the CE providers, et al,
should thank the heavens above that the government will be there to
help their transition to their new lives. And what is "proper health
care"? Who in this government-take-all world determines what proper
health care is? Get your damnable government out of my life. And take
your red-herring arguments with you.

I want my freedom back, the freedom the government was originally
structured to protect.

Congrats, you're little rant embodies two of your favorite forms of
communication, ad-hominem and palaver.

Well done.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:01:08 -0700, jps wrote:

snipped for brevity.

Congrats, you're little rant embodies two of your favorite forms of
communication, ad-hominem

Circumstantial or abusive?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:36:47 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:01:08 -0700, jps wrote:

snipped for brevity.

Congrats, you're little rant embodies two of your favorite forms of
communication, ad-hominem

Circumstantial or abusive?

Circumbusive.