wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:19:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it
in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.

They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.

Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.


Then pay your money and stop complaining about how much it costs.


I'm not complaining at all. Please show me where I did. I'm concerned about
my fellow human beings. Some people are, some people are not.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Gnome-del-prune" "No- wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:19:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of
it in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.
They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.
Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.


Then pay your money and stop complaining about how much it costs.

She should take her boots off at least once a week to inspect for
potential problems.


You should remove them from your mouth occasionally.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can not
sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot more than
17%.

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

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

"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?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just
like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year
more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and
you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can not
sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot more
than 17%.

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for the
person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates would
drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic "facts"
that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

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

"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?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say, buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 4/12/10 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

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?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say, buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.



You patience in dealing with these right-wing assholes far exceeds mine.
:)

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/12/10 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

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?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125
a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a
$200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the
savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year
in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.



You patience in dealing with these right-wing assholes far exceeds mine.
:)

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym


Women are generally superior to me except in two ways... upper-body strength
and bug killing techniques.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 4/12/10 4:57 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 4/12/10 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

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?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125
a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a
$200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the
savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year
in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.



You patience in dealing with these right-wing assholes far exceeds mine.
:)

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym


Women are generally superior to me except in two ways... upper-body strength
and bug killing techniques.



Well, I'm glad we're not totally obsolete.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

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

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

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can not
sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot more
than 17%.

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.