On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:29:20 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:40*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:55*pm, wrote:



The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. And why
shouldn't I? I'm paying for it.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay for
mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and treatments.

of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just refuse
it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

And you continue to make **** up. What psychedelics do you take?

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Sep 15, 11:29*pm, wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:40*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:55*pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. *And why
shouldn't I? *I'm paying for it.

so you enjoy having average health care for inflated prices?

yep sounds republican.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and
treatments.

never heard of an HMO did you? they tell you what doctors you'll go
to, what treatment they'll pay for, etc.

you really HAVE swallowed the GOP kool aid, haven't you? you don't
have control over your health care at all. your boss does. your
insurance company does.

you don't.


of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just
refuse it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. *If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

and if your company decides you and 5000 other folks need to get
canned?

oh. you're SO valuable your company would NEVER do that....just like
they didnt at ATT, TI, HP, etc.

On Sep 16, 2:32*am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:29:20 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:40*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:55*pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. *And why
shouldn't I? *I'm paying for it.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay for
mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and treatments.

of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just refuse
it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. *If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

And you continue to make **** up. *What psychedelics do you take?

--


it's part of his health care program...you know...the one he thinks he
controls.

wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:14 pm, "Hawke" wrote:
CLINTON dropped the ball on this one.

snip

How come you don't address the fact that Clinton could
have gotten
OBL a
number of times but didn't? Was it above his pay grade?
(Good thing
OBL
didn't change his name to "Vince Foster")

Don't confuse Ms Carrol with the ugly truth.

Your "truth" is a lie told originally by NewsMax. Read the
9/11 Commission Report for the truth.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_...tatement_5.pdf
(bottom of page 3):

If you think that by informing our right wingers of the truth about
the subject it will have any effect on their beliefs you are out of
your mind. The point is those guys don't care about the truth so
informing them won't do any good. They believe what they want to
believe and even if you show them they are wrong they still won't
change their minds. That's just the way they are.

Hawke

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and I
get to pay for yours.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and
Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health
insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain's far-reaching proposals, but
they haven't gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has
mostly been about nonsense - lipstick, celebrities and "Drill, baby, drill!"

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health
benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

"It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the
employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to
have to pay taxes on that money," said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs
the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University's
Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent
joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site
of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/0...ice-the-price/

According to the study: "The McCain plan will force millions of Americans
into the weakest segment of the private insurance system - the nongroup
market - where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people
will lose access to benefits they have now."

The net effect of the plan, the study said, "almost certainly will be to
increase family costs for medical care."

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to
receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each
week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover
the taxes on the value of their benefits.




--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

John R. Carroll wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:14 pm, "Hawke"
wrote:
CLINTON dropped the ball on this one.

snip

How come you don't address the fact that Clinton
could
have gotten
OBL a
number of times but didn't? Was it above his pay
grade?
(Good thing
OBL
didn't change his name to "Vince Foster")

Don't confuse Ms Carrol with the ugly truth.

Your "truth" is a lie told originally by NewsMax. Read
the
9/11 Commission Report for the truth.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_...tatement_5.pdf
(bottom of page 3):

If you think that by informing our right wingers of the
truth about
the subject it will have any effect on their beliefs you
are out of
your mind. The point is those guys don't care about the
truth so
informing them won't do any good. They believe what they
want to
believe and even if you show them they are wrong they
still won't
change their minds. That's just the way they are.

Hawke

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay
for mine and
I get to pay for yours.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia,
Harvard, Purdue
and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have
employment-based health insurance would lose it under the
McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain's
far-reaching
proposals, but they haven't gotten much attention because
the chatter
in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense -
lipstick,
celebrities and "Drill, baby, drill!"

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat
employer-paid health
benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes
on.

"It means your employer is going to have to make an
estimate on how
much the employer is paying for health insurance on your
behalf, and
you are going to have to pay taxes on that money," said
Sherry Glied,
an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy
and
Management at Columbia University's Mailman School of
Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just
completed an
independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are
being
published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health
Affairs.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/0...ice-the-price/

According to the study: "The McCain plan will force
millions of
Americans into the weakest segment of the private
insurance system -
the nongroup market - where cost-sharing is high, covered
services
are limited and people will lose access to benefits they
have now."

The net effect of the plan, the study said, "almost
certainly will be
to increase family costs for medical care."

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan)
employees who
continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would
look at their
pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional
money had
been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their
benefits.

The amount that would be withheld could be as much as $300
to $400 a month.

This is, quite simply, a McCain-Palin regressive tax
increase.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:22:28 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:

wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:14 pm, "Hawke" wrote:
CLINTON dropped the ball on this one.

snip

How come you don't address the fact that Clinton could have gotten
OBL a
number of times but didn't? Was it above his pay grade? (Good thing
OBL
didn't change his name to "Vince Foster")

Don't confuse Ms Carrol with the ugly truth.

Your "truth" is a lie told originally by NewsMax. Read the 9/11
Commission Report for the truth.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_...tatement_5.pdf (bottom
of page 3):

If you think that by informing our right wingers of the truth about the
subject it will have any effect on their beliefs you are out of your
mind. The point is those guys don't care about the truth so informing
them won't do any good. They believe what they want to believe and even
if you show them they are wrong they still won't change their minds.
That's just the way they are.

Hawke

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and I
get to pay for yours.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and
Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based
health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain's far-reaching proposals, but
they haven't gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign
has mostly been about nonsense - lipstick, celebrities and "Drill, baby,
drill!"

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health
benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

"It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much
the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are
going to have to pay taxes on that money," said Sherry Glied, an economist
who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia
University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an
independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on
the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/0...ice-the-price/

According to the study: "The McCain plan will force millions of Americans
into the weakest segment of the private insurance system - the nongroup
market - where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and
people will lose access to benefits they have now."

The net effect of the plan, the study said, "almost certainly will be to
increase family costs for medical care."

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue
to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs
each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld
to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.

Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the
underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care
system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too
expensive.

Health care insurance is just another facade by those who have plundered
our economy. Have you tried to get a doctors appointment without
insurance?

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:39:04 -0700, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:29*pm, wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:40*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:55*pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and
I get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. *And why
shouldn't I? *I'm paying for it.

so you enjoy having average health care for inflated prices?

You hit the nail on the head, "insurance" isn't the problem.

yep sounds republican.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and
treatments.

Cite?

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:22:28 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:

wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:14 pm, "Hawke" wrote:
CLINTON dropped the ball on this one.

snip

How come you don't address the fact that Clinton could have
gotten OBL a
number of times but didn't? Was it above his pay grade? (Good
thing OBL
didn't change his name to "Vince Foster")

Don't confuse Ms Carrol with the ugly truth.

Your "truth" is a lie told originally by NewsMax. Read the 9/11
Commission Report for the truth.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_...tatement_5.pdf
(bottom of page 3):

If you think that by informing our right wingers of the truth
about the subject it will have any effect on their beliefs you are
out of your mind. The point is those guys don't care about the
truth so informing them won't do any good. They believe what they
want to believe and even if you show them they are wrong they
still won't change their minds. That's just the way they are.

Hawke

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine
and I get to pay for yours.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard,
Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have
employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain
plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain's far-reaching
proposals, but they haven't gotten much attention because the
chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense - lipstick,
celebrities and "Drill, baby, drill!"

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health
benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

"It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how
much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and
you are going to have to pay taxes on that money," said Sherry
Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and
Management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an
independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being
published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.


http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/0...ice-the-price/

According to the study: "The McCain plan will force millions of
Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system -
the nongroup market - where cost-sharing is high, covered services
are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now."

The net effect of the plan, the study said, "almost certainly will
be to increase family costs for medical care."

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who
continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at
their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional
money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their
benefits.

Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it
masks the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our
health care system has been hijacked by corporate powers making
healthcare too expensive.

Health care insurance is just another facade by those who have
plundered our economy. Have you tried to get a doctors appointment
without insurance?

Sure.
My doctors all love me.
I pay them with $100's up to $5K and beyond that write checks.
My prosthodontist lowered a quote from $25K all the way down to thirteen
thousand.
The entire treatment was done over an eighteen month period and I baid
inadvance and with cash.

I'll bet I could get a house call as a courtesy if I wanted.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..

snip


Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the
underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care
system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too
expensive.

Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical
technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to
apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff.

And it marches forward because people will pay for it, as an alternative to
living in misery or dying. There's always a ready market for new drugs and
new medical technology.


Health care insurance is just another facade by those who have plundered
our economy. Have you tried to get a doctors appointment without
insurance?

Ask Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:55:31 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..

snip


Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks
the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care
system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too
expensive.

Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical
technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff
to
apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff.

That is one factor but there are many others such as malpractice insurance
but the overriding component is that a corporate monopoly has seized
control of the industry at large.

Sure, Curley, malpractice insurance is a factor, and there are many other
factors. It's not a single thing that's done all of it. But if you spend
some time sorting out where the costs are you'll see that most of it boils
down to the fact that doctors can -- and do -- employ more expensive drugs,
procedures, and so on.

Technology has brought down the costs of some treatments but it's increased
the cost of many more, and added hundreds, or thousands, of completely new
ones. Couple that with the malpractice insurance mess, which leads to
excessive testing and so on, and all of the technology is simply employed
more. Just amortizing an MRI machine results in incredible costs for an MRI.
I think my last one was $880, and took maybe 30 minutes of machine time and
the time of two technicians. It's a multi-million-dollar machine and they
charge shop time on amortization, just like in a machine shop. g In the
old days, they'd just apply an educated guess to what's wrong in that joint
or brain.

Meantime, here's another one: I have a nice new insulin pump with feedback
sitting in a box next to me, to be stuck into/onto me tomorrow. It cost
$6,000. 35 years ago I had a 25-cent syringe and a $10/month bottle of
insulin, and that was it, pard'. Pumps didn't exist. Neither did home
blood-glucose monitoring. I just took a stab at it -- literally. g I got
lucky and survived it with my limbs, kidneys, and eyes. Good luck for me.


And it marches forward because people will pay for it, as an alternative
to living in misery or dying.

That substantiates my point. Let me give an example:

My daughter had her first yeast infection. A simple anti-fungal yeast
prescription was all that was required yet the doctor/hospital demanded a
pregnancy test (she was/is virgin), blood panels, hormone tests, etc.
running the price up to $4,600. Then they wanted to negotiate. Note that
not a single curative action was taken.

Right, but that's only marginally a "corporate powers" issue. That's mostly
a "we don't want to be sued" issue. Take it up with the tort reformers. We
can sure use some tort reform.

Now, if you want to know what I do when I suspect a doctor/hospital is just
running up my costs to keep the cash flowing to their own lab, I tell them
"please write a prescription for the test procedure, and I'll check around
to see where I want it done." Then I go look up the procedure and see if I
really want to have it done at all.

Most hospitals, particularly, are in desperate cash-flow situations now.
It's not greed that drives it. It's their survival.


In Argentina no prescription is required, just a visit to a local pharmacy
with a short discussion to an educated pharmacist and a $7 prescription
which I mailed to her. Cured the infection in 3 days.

So, did she have this infection in the US or in Argentina?


Health Care is essentially unavailable in the US without insurance. That
is hijacking health care holding Americans hostage.

Actually, that's not the case. Emergency rooms can't refuse you, and many
people use ERs as their primary-care physicians. Then the rest of us pay for
it.


There's always a ready market for new drugs and new medical technology.

True, and sometimes the costs are justified. But recognize that a full
60% of new drugs are governmentally subsidized through university research
then turned over to pharmaceuticals for manufacture and distribution with
but a bare tithe to the university while Abbott et. al. gains usuary
profits on our own tax dollar.

sigh I'm well aware of how that works. My last job in a medical
communication agency involved a drug on which Sanofi-Aventis had paid
something like $135 million in development costs, and $110 million in
pre-approval marketing costs (which was paying my salary). Then the FDA
decided not to approve the drug. So my company laid half of us off. d8-)

The basic research on that drug was not from a university, however. I know
that a lot of the basic research is done in universities. What you may not
know is that the testing that the pharma companies have to go through after
some basic-science lab makes a discovery often costs ten times more than the
basic research.


Generics, Canadian, and other sources are often 90% cheaper.

Of course. Generics just ride on the research, testing, post-marketing
studies and marketing that was done for the original drug. All they have to
recover is manufacturing costs and quality-control reporting. In Canada,
they have price controls and just refuse to allow the drug companies to
amortize research and development. The Canadians, and the French, and the
Brits, and everyone else knows that they can collect those costs in the US.

Don't like it? Talk to your congressman. The money has to come from
somewhere, or nobody will have any new drugs.


Health care insurance is just another facade by those who have
plundered our economy. Have you tried to get a doctors appointment
without insurance?

Ask Larry.

Non responsive.

Oh, Larry is quite responsive, and he has no insurance. He's the one to ask.

I've had insurance without a break for decades, excepting one gap of a few
months when my COBRA ran out and I was having trouble getting new insurance.
(My doctors knew it, and took me anyway.) So I don't know what it's like
now.

--
Ed Huntress