wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:15:15 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Why not require insurance? Seriously?

Every state does
http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/v...utominimum.htm

Most do not really have enough to deal with what the lawyers would
like but you have to have something.
BTW they have allowed lawyers to recover more from an insurance
company than the policy covers.

And so you fine the uninsured. They have no money to pay the fine.

In Md and in Florida they will take the tags when your insurance
company reports you for canceling your insurance. There is a fine
attached too. It is all on the computer now, you can't lie when you
renew.

Personally I think the insurance companies should be the ones issuing
the tags in the first place and do away with the DMV completely. The
cops would just be accessing a single national insurance company
database instead of 51 state (and DC) databases that don't really talk
that well together.

Here they just remove the tag from a car and stick it on theirs. I was
getting a new license plate for the trailer a couple years ago. Was cheaper
to get a new plate and tags then just the tags. Guy next to me was getting
replacement tags as his were swiped.

"hk" wrote in message
...
On 4/11/10 2:40 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe
they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the
groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the
local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine
shop, the
local mechanic.

spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was
just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners.

the middle class is expendable.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

there are no unions in the US.

the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them,
preferring to be protected by wall street.



The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a
long rep as a union buster.




So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their
healthcare
insurance.



Hmm... let's see. The right wing claims unions are all-powerful and now
you're claiming they're powerless. At least you're consistently
inconsistent.



Hey...BiliousBill figured out all on his own that unions don't have much
power to make non-unionized workplaces safer... Unionized mines, by the
way, have better safety records than non-unionized mines.

Bill's last employment was running a home fixit business with undocumented
work crews he selected at shape-ups.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Wrong again fat one.

"hk" wrote in message
...
On 4/11/10 2:45 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400,
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no
assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks
of
your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5
minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you
carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require
the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and
suffereing,
no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease
dramatically.



Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%.



I wonder if bilious bill had workers' comp insurance coverage for the
undocumented workers he "hired" to handle the work in his home fixit
business.

What do you think?


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Did not hire workers. When I owned a business with employees, had
insurance, etc. Paid the sales taxes, etc. Unlike you, who have never run
a business.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, hk
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no
assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of
your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5
minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you
carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require
the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing,
no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease
dramatically.



Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost would
pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for
insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?

On 11/04/2010 2:27 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400,
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no
assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of
your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5
minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you
carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require
the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing,
no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease
dramatically.



Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?


plumetoid == BS

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:00:24 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:29:40 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?

Exactly my point. It would actually save most people a lot of money and
they would be a lot more conscious about what they paid. People would
argue about ridiculous bills. We had an article here about hospital
bills (Lee Memorial Hospital) and it turns out they bill about 4 times
what they actually will take if you negotiate.

Hospital bills have to be taken with a large dose of salt. I suspect
they are padded quite heavily to aid in insurance company negotiations.
While Joe Blow might be able to negotiate the bill, the insurance company
often tells the hospital what it is willing to pay, or has pre-
negotiated. The end result, those without insurance often pay the
highest cost.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:12:42 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:




So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare
insurance.

american unions are powerless. as the free market publication 'the
economist' pointed out several weeks ago in its article on 'american
exceptionalism', america has the most anti-union environment of any
country in the industrialized west

which is why the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 year.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:10:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:05:09 -0400, wrote:


you really DO believe the right wing fairy tales, don't you?



I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall
cost.

i heard gerald ford's insurance commissioner a few years ago on NPR.
he stated insurance companies invest in the market just like the rest
of us. when they take a hit, they run to congress and ask for tort
reform to cover their losses.

more socialism for the rich

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:40:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:18:47 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,

actually no. the number of successful malpractice lawsuits is very
low.

Cite that.

http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/Na...tice-Facts.cfm

There is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims.
According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the
number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about four
percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995;
84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and
86,480 in 2000.
While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the
amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52
percent over that time.
Insurance companies are raising rates because of poor returns on their
investments, not because of increased litigation or jury awards,
according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer
Federation of America. Recent premiums were artificially low.

It really doesn't matter anyway. The defendant still gets stuck with a
huge legal bill that shows up in his bills to everyone else.
If they want to fix torts, make them "loser pays" so the plaintiff has
some skin in the game.

that should be the law here as it is in the UK.



and as to no insurance, what 3rd world country do you live in where
doctors earn minimum wage?

I am old enough to remember when we didn't have medical insurance and
I didn't remember people dying in the street.

and medical science has advanced since 1875.