Re: The cost of war

[Mark Hickey]

"Pete" > wrote:

>Did the administration strongarm the DoD (Army Corps of Engineers) into
>giving it to them?

Nope. They're under a microscope. If you knew anything about
government contracts, you'd know that if it WASN'T a no-bid contract,
they'd still be trying to determine the winner.

>Were there any kickbacks from that $2.2B?

Nope, but I'm sure you hope suggesting it makes it so.

>Who got them?

If you have proof of anything, bring it out.

>Specifically, did any of that money find its way into the Bush oil coffers?

Duh... how would he hide it if it DID "find its way into his oil
coffers"? Every cent the man makes and spends is public knowledge.

>Are there any connections between the Halliburton boardroom and the Oval
>Office?
>
>It would seem so.

Guess you missed the part where Cheney donated all his stock options
to charity, huh?

Mark Hickey

[B2431]

>From: Vingo Optomalicious
>Date: 9/22/2004 2:09 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "Dude" > wrote:
>
>> Wow, I feel sorry for you, and I think you are an angry man. For whatever
>> reason you HATE the right.
>
>Yes, I do.
>
>> Perhaps you should examine why. Try to see the
>> world from their viewpoint and understand them. Then maybe you can have
>> less pain inside.
>
>They are all insane. There's nothing to understand beyond their greed,
>avarice, lust for the death of others and self-aggrandizement.
>
>They are insane.

And you are just as blind and closed minded as you accuse them of being.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[RobertR237]

>
>> Wow, I feel sorry for you, and I think you are an angry man. For whatever
>> reason you HATE the right.
>
>Yes, I do.
>
>> Perhaps you should examine why. Try to see the
>> world from their viewpoint and understand them. Then maybe you can have
>> less pain inside.
>
>They are all insane. There's nothing to understand beyond their greed,
>avarice, lust for the death of others and self-aggrandizement.
>
>They are insane.
>

You are right, there is nothing you could understand with a totally closed
mind. I find myself feeling very sorry for you even though you obviously hate
me.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Blueskies]

The civilized world is paying the price of poverty. When you are hungry you will do just about anything...


"RobertR237" > wrote in message ...
> >
>>> Wow, I feel sorry for you, and I think you are an angry man. For whatever
>>> reason you HATE the right.
>>
>>Yes, I do.
>>
>>> Perhaps you should examine why. Try to see the
>>> world from their viewpoint and understand them. Then maybe you can have
>>> less pain inside.
>>
>>They are all insane. There's nothing to understand beyond their greed,
>>avarice, lust for the death of others and self-aggrandizement.
>>
>>They are insane.
>>
>
> You are right, there is nothing you could understand with a totally closed
> mind. I find myself feeling very sorry for you even though you obviously hate
> me.
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[OSKI 3]

Have you ever had one of those moments where you feel like telling the
wingnuts on the right, "I hope Bush gets reSelected so this country gets
what it deserves"?

Sounds to me like your crying in your beer!
How much time did you serve in the Military? Cause you sound like an expert.
If you did, how can you call Kerry anything
but an opportunist? You must think that
Sadam was a prince and all the killing of his
own people was perfectly ok. Where in the
constitution does it say we should have our
health care paid by the Govenment. Medicare is a good start, but if you spend
your entire life working and not saving or planning for you OWN health care,
maybe you should get a better job or stop buying all those SUV's and vacation
villas. I personally don't want to be on the DOLE, because I am a grownup and
should take responsibilily for MYSELF. If you feel you
are being put upon by whoever is in office
voting is the way to go. But YOU live in
a democracy and the Majority rules. Good
luck if you choose someone with a vassilating track record versus a guy who
can take names and kick ass. I wonder
why we have not suffered another attack
in this country. Maybe this guy is doing
at least ONE thing right. Don't get me
wrong, I spent 21 years in the Military
fighting for you to have YOUR right to
say what you want to, but don't get up on
a soapbox and tell me something YOU
have not totally checked out to be true.

Bill OParowski
USMC, USAF, Data General, Apollo Computer, Hewlett Packard, A/C Delivery
Services.

[G EddieA95]

>The civilized world is paying the price of poverty. When you are hungry you
>will do just about anything...

Two problems with that:

1) The September-11 terrorists were not poor, and all but one came from a
nonpoor country.

2) Iraq is a nonpoor country. That its mineral wealth went to building a
tyrant's luxury palaces and not to the people, was not the fault of the
"civilized world."

The War of 2001 is not about poverty, it is about a fanatical belief system.
In some places, that system *uses* poverty as a recruiting aid, but it would
exist even if none of them were poor.

[Sandy]

"OSKI 3" > wrote in message
...

Where in the
> constitution does it say we should have our
> health care paid by the Govenment. Medicare is a good start, but if you
spend
> your entire life working and not saving or planning for you OWN health
care,
> maybe you should get a better job or stop buying all those SUV's and
vacation
> villas.

Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire and
don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your nest egg
that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell your
house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just when
you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the draw, you
get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least you
have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.

[RobertR237]

>
>> and self-aggrandizement.
>
>That's true of any political machine - and certainly just as true of the
>Democrats as it is of the Republicans.
>
>> They are insane.
>
>Ah. It's all clear now.
>
>To summarize, it appears it's not that the Democrats are actually *better*,
>it's just that you *really* don't want Bush in power.
>
>--
>John T
>

That last statement seems to be the rule of thumb right now, most people seem
to be casting a vote AGAINST Bush, not voting FOR Kerry.
Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Richard Lamb]

RobertR237 wrote:
>
> >
> >> and self-aggrandizement.
> >
> >That's true of any political machine - and certainly just as true of the
> >Democrats as it is of the Republicans.
> >
> >> They are insane.
> >
> >Ah. It's all clear now.
> >
> >To summarize, it appears it's not that the Democrats are actually *better*,
> >it's just that you *really* don't want Bush in power.
> >
> >--
> >John T
> >
>
> That last statement seems to be the rule of thumb right now, most people seem
> to be casting a vote AGAINST Bush, not voting FOR Kerry.
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)


That's the way the American political system works, Bob.

Richard

[Dude]

Ya, and when it works that way it stinks. Reagan is the last guy I remember
voting FOR rather than against his opponent.


"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> RobertR237 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> and self-aggrandizement.
> > >
> > >That's true of any political machine - and certainly just as true of
the
> > >Democrats as it is of the Republicans.
> > >
> > >> They are insane.
> > >
> > >Ah. It's all clear now.
> > >
> > >To summarize, it appears it's not that the Democrats are actually
*better*,
> > >it's just that you *really* don't want Bush in power.
> > >
> > >--
> > >John T
> > >
> >
> > That last statement seems to be the rule of thumb right now, most people
seem
> > to be casting a vote AGAINST Bush, not voting FOR Kerry.
> > Bob Reed
> > www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> > KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
> >
> > "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> > pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> > (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>
>
> That's the way the American political system works, Bob.
>
> Richard

[Dude]

..
>
> Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire and
> don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
> insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your nest
egg
> that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
your
> house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just when
> you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the draw,
you
> get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least you
> have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
>
>

One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent policy
is largely due to government interference in insurance.

[Sandy]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> .
> >
> > Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire
and
> > don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
> > insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your nest
> egg
> > that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
> your
> > house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just when
> > you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the draw,
> you
> > get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least
you
> > have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
> >
> >
>
> One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent
policy
> is largely due to government interference in insurance.
>
Dude, you're a little out in right field on this one. What do you think
insurance is going to cost you after you have retired and had a bout with
cancer? Either way it's going to cost you your house and everything you
have worked for all your life. This is where countries with socialized
medicine have it over the US. People live longer and pay less for medical
care than in the US. Have a read.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Health/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=5535dfdd962443b6b540 8385f11556ec&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&abc=ab

[W P Dixon]

When I was in Italy in the 80's I asked a fellow how healthcare was paid for
there....he didn't say much about it but he pointed at the price of
gasoline..which was over 4.50 a gallon. I took it that a gas tax paid for
Italy's medical program. I don't think Americans would go for that at all.
To be honest I do not know what is scarier, the government in charge of
our healthcare or selling my home later in life to pay for good health care.
Maybe they could start where the problems start..stop our overpayment of
insurance. That includes ALL insurance, health home auto...seems the
insurance industry has the biggest scam on our citizens than about anything.
"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > .
> > >
> > > Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire
> and
> > > don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
> > > insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your
nest
> > egg
> > > that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
> > your
> > > house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just
when
> > > you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the
draw,
> > you
> > > get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least
> you
> > > have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent
> policy
> > is largely due to government interference in insurance.
> >
> Dude, you're a little out in right field on this one. What do you think
> insurance is going to cost you after you have retired and had a bout with
> cancer? Either way it's going to cost you your house and everything you
> have worked for all your life. This is where countries with socialized
> medicine have it over the US. People live longer and pay less for medical
> care than in the US. Have a read.
>
>
http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Health/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=5535dfdd962443b6b540 8385f11556ec&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&abc=ab
>
>

[RobertR237]

>
>>
>> Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire and
>> don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
>> insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your nest
>egg
>> that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
>your
>> house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just when
>> you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the draw,
>you
>> get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least you
>> have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
>>
>>
>
>One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent policy
>is largely due to government interference in insurance.
>

You are at least partly right. The bigger issue though is government
interference in the entire healthcare industry.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>When I was in Italy in the 80's I asked a fellow how healthcare was paid for
>there....he didn't say much about it but he pointed at the price of
>gasoline..which was over 4.50 a gallon. I took it that a gas tax paid for
>Italy's medical program. I don't think Americans would go for that at all.

You are right, everybody wants good healthcare but few are really willing to
pay for it.

> To be honest I do not know what is scarier, the government in charge of
>our healthcare or selling my home later in life to pay for good health care.
>Maybe they could start where the problems start..stop our overpayment of
>insurance. That includes ALL insurance, health home auto...seems the
>insurance industry has the biggest scam on our citizens than about anything.

The government already is in charge of our healthcare. The costs of government
regulations and paperwork alone is out of sight.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>RobertR237 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> and self-aggrandizement.
>> >
>> >That's true of any political machine - and certainly just as true of the
>> >Democrats as it is of the Republicans.
>> >
>> >> They are insane.
>> >
>> >Ah. It's all clear now.
>> >
>> >To summarize, it appears it's not that the Democrats are actually
>*better*,
>> >it's just that you *really* don't want Bush in power.
>> >
>> >--
>> >John T
>> >
>>
>> That last statement seems to be the rule of thumb right now, most people
>seem
>> to be casting a vote AGAINST Bush, not voting FOR Kerry.
>> Bob Reed
>> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
>> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>>
>> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
>> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
>> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>
>
>That's the way the American political system works, Bob.
>
>Richard

Maybe, but not for me.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Ernest Christley]

Sandy wrote:
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>.
>>
>>>Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire
>
> and
>
>>>don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
>>>insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your nest
>>
>>egg
>>
>>>that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
>>
>>your
>>
>>>house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just when
>>>you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the draw,
>>
>>you
>>
>>>get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least
>
> you
>
>>>have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent
>
> policy
>
>>is largely due to government interference in insurance.
>>
>
> Dude, you're a little out in right field on this one. What do you think
> insurance is going to cost you after you have retired and had a bout with
> cancer? Either way it's going to cost you your house and everything you
> have worked for all your life. This is where countries with socialized
> medicine have it over the US. People live longer and pay less for medical
> care than in the US. Have a read.
>
> http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Health/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=5535dfdd962443b6b540 8385f11556ec&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&abc=ab
>
>

And your way to the left.

Why is it anyone's responsibility to protect you from bad luck? Why do
you have a right to be protected from what you consider catastrophe
(living in a trailer park)? Should I also round up a group of citizens
and force them you buy you a new car in the event you wreck yours?

If you can't afford or don't want to pay for the health insurance, then
do like everyone has done since Adam and Eve got driven from the
Garden...lay down and die. It is going to happen eventually, no matter
how you try to stop it (My Dad always told me that no one has gotten out
of this life alive yet.)

You do not want insurance. You want socialized medicine. In the game
of insurance, you pay someone to accept your liability. Using the Law
of Large numbers, the insurer makes a profit by charging enough to lots
of clients to cover what he'll lose.

We know that everyone will get old, then feeble and eventually die. We
can only take this for granted, only because that has been the course in
every completed life up to this point. In order to cover everyone with
'insurance', the insurer would have to charge enough to cover everyone's
healtcare...at which point, it would be cheaper just to pay yourself and
the insurer has become redundant, a useless drain on the system.

The problem we have is that people want insurance to cover maintenance
healthcare. You don't know what the doc is getting paid, so you never
bother to call 'bull****' at their bills, and the system continues in a
downward spiral.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson to learn about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make mistakes.
We want to help them, which means control them and their decisions,
but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Dude]

Sandy,

The following externalities prevent our insurance system from working in the
case of healthcare:

1. Forced coverage - you cannot buy insurance to cover what you want.
Regulations force coverage and non coverage based on state politics

2. Medicare is hard to compete with. Competing with the government is just
silly, and most businesses don't want to try it.

3. Subsidy of employer based coverage through the tax code. This is the
big one, and most important one here. You cannot get health insurance
because you cannot buy a cradle to grave policy. Your employment situation
forces you into groups based on job stays and inevitably forces changes in
policy throughout your life. Instead, you go from dependent of your
parents employment group or groups, to possibly a student group, to then a
number of employment groups, and then are put in the medicare group. At
each change serious government involvement and inefficiency prevent your
making any choices of importance, taking the market out of the situation,
and driving up costs in ridiculous ways.

So, you could, if you had paid into a policy for your entire life, have
built up enough reserve for at least one stint of heroic medicine to extend
your life. This could easily be done for the amount that most workers pay
into the system now. Also, if you paid more directly, and were more
financially involved in price quality decisions for your care your health
cost would be much reduced. Instead, you likely have ZERO involvement even
though you are the best person to police it on the scene.

4. State licensing. The licensing system is overly burdensome, driving up
costs

5. Tort. Defensive medicine is used because you cannot be allowed as a
patient to make decisions based on reasonable outcome expectancies. Also,
because you have no financial involvement, you just get ALL the tests.
Failure to give a test should not be automatic negligence if its not called
for the presented systems, unfortunately, juries expect doctors to be
perfect.

6. Reverse price competition. Instead of competing on price and value, the
present system is a strange maze of over and under payment negotiated
without any of the real customers being involved in the negotiation at all.

7. Inability to refuse care. Emergency rooms cannot turn you away for any
reason at all. While inability to pay is likely a good restriction, how
about we tell you that you are not eligible due to lack of need - GOODBYE.
Or, when you pester the ER all the time, and never pay, we send you away for
consistent REFUSAL to pay.

8. Cost shifting of socialist systems from countries with government
healthcare to the US. These systems will begin to fail the day the US
forces the pharmaceutical companies into the same situation they force our
doctors into. Namely, you must charge the US government covered patients
the lowest price you charge anyone, or we throw you in jail. Now, progress
in healthcare will virtually cease.

Sorry Sandy, I am not out in any field on this. I am just unwilling to look
at the present system and accept it. It sucks. Really, the system we have
is outside the stadium and it started with job based health insurance.
Socialist healthcare will not improve the system in the US for anyone except
the working poor and stupid. 80% of us will suffer.

Your question assumes that someone would have no insurance until after they
found they had cancer. Of course, no one will sell it to you then. That
would be stupid, and wouldn't work. But wait, that's what we have now.
Once you spend ALL your money, then you get Uncle Sugar to pay. Thus
rewarding lack of financial responsibility.

Lastly, your link does not support your statement, and is hardly conclusive
at all. No findings were made on quality of care. Also, healthcare is
definitely NOT the largest contributor life expectancy. Sanitation, life
style, diet, and climate would all beat out health care. Your doctor can
add a year or two on average. Better living and genes can add decades.




"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > .
> > >
> > > Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire
> and
> > > don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
> > > insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your
nest
> > egg
> > > that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
> > your
> > > house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just
when
> > > you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the
draw,
> > you
> > > get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least
> you
> > > have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent
> policy
> > is largely due to government interference in insurance.
> >
> Dude, you're a little out in right field on this one. What do you think
> insurance is going to cost you after you have retired and had a bout with
> cancer? Either way it's going to cost you your house and everything you
> have worked for all your life. This is where countries with socialized
> medicine have it over the US. People live longer and pay less for medical
> care than in the US. Have a read.
>
>
http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Health/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=5535dfdd962443b6b540 8385f11556ec&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&abc=ab
>
>

[Dude]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>
> >> Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire
and
> >> don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
> >> insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your
nest
> >egg
> >> that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
> >your
> >> house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just
when
> >> you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the
draw,
> >you
> >> get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least
you
> >> have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent
policy
> >is largely due to government interference in insurance.
> >
>
> You are at least partly right. The bigger issue though is government
> interference in the entire healthcare industry.
>

Yep. Perhaps laissez faire is not the end all solution due to the percieved
cost of death, but lack of any market force is killing the whole thing.



>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[Del Rawlins]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 05:18:07 -0700, "Sandy" > wrote:

>Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire and
>don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
>insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your nest egg
>that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell your
>house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just when
>you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the draw, you
>get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least you
>have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.

**** happens. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that if you are
still alive to bitch about it on the internet, that the evil US health
industy earned every penny of your life savings.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[RobertR237]

>
>Sandy,
>
>The following externalities prevent our insurance system from working in the
>case of healthcare:
>
>1. Forced coverage - you cannot buy insurance to cover what you want.
>Regulations force coverage and non coverage based on state politics
>

And, the insurance companies in the regulated areas are virtually guarnateed a
profit at or above a certain percentage. The insurance companies have little
incentive to be efficient or take actions to ensure that fraud is not wide
spread.

>2. Medicare is hard to compete with. Competing with the government is just
>silly, and most businesses don't want to try it.
>

You don't compete with Medicare but you need to also understand that Medicare
is a cash cow for many companies who are given huge and lucrative contracts to
manage the medicare program in each state and a butt screw for the healthcare
industry who must operate under government imposed price controls, paperwork
burdens that none of us would accept, and is lucky to collect 50% of what they
bill.

>3. Subsidy of employer based coverage through the tax code. This is the
>big one, and most important one here. You cannot get health insurance
>because you cannot buy a cradle to grave policy. Your employment situation
>forces you into groups based on job stays and inevitably forces changes in
>policy throughout your life. Instead, you go from dependent of your
>parents employment group or groups, to possibly a student group, to then a
>number of employment groups, and then are put in the medicare group. At
>each change serious government involvement and inefficiency prevent your
>making any choices of importance, taking the market out of the situation,
>and driving up costs in ridiculous ways.
>

As far as the insurance companies are concerned, don't blame it all on the
government. The insurance companies have a very vested interest in making damn
sure that you don't have a cradle to grave policy. You can also blame the
insurance companies for making it more difficult for older workers to find
jobs. They have some not so subtle ways of discouraging small companies from
hiring older, supposedly higher risk employees.

>So, you could, if you had paid into a policy for your entire life, have
>built up enough reserve for at least one stint of heroic medicine to extend
>your life. This could easily be done for the amount that most workers pay
>into the system now. Also, if you paid more directly, and were more
>financially involved in price quality decisions for your care your health
>cost would be much reduced. Instead, you likely have ZERO involvement even
>though you are the best person to police it on the scene.
>

True to a limited degree but not entirely.

>4. State licensing. The licensing system is overly burdensome, driving up
>costs
>

You got that one right!

>5. Tort. Defensive medicine is used because you cannot be allowed as a
>patient to make decisions based on reasonable outcome expectancies. Also,
>because you have no financial involvement, you just get ALL the tests.
>Failure to give a test should not be automatic negligence if its not called
>for the presented systems, unfortunately, juries expect doctors to be
>perfect.
>

Now there is a catch-22 of our current system that has the healthcare industry
by the preverbial balls. No, you don't just get ALL the tests, in fact if
tests are run that are NOT indicated by the diagnosis, you are not going to get
paid for them and may find yourself going to jail. On the opposite side, if
you don't perform the tests that might have caught a treatable condition, you
will find yourself facing a malpractice lawsuit.

Doctors are people, their staff consists of people, and people sometimes make
mistakes. Nobody, that I know of, is perfect and beyond mistakes. Add to our
imperfections, the inability to disassemble the human machine and spec the
parts to a blueprint, and you are guaranteed that not all diagnosis will be
accurate. The medical industry is working hard to try and overcome these
limitations but it is expensive and will be a long time reaching the goals.

>6. Reverse price competition. Instead of competing on price and value, the
>present system is a strange maze of over and under payment negotiated
>without any of the real customers being involved in the negotiation at all.
>

I agree, except on the negotiation part. Too often there is NO negotiation,
just imposed rules that often can't be understood even by those who write them.
I would challenge you to intrepret the rules for CPT coding and billing.

>7. Inability to refuse care. Emergency rooms cannot turn you away for any
>reason at all. While inability to pay is likely a good restriction, how
>about we tell you that you are not eligible due to lack of need - GOODBYE.

That can't be determined without spending time, money, and physician resources
to determine the "need". Catch-22!

>Or, when you pester the ER all the time, and never pay, we send you away for
>consistent REFUSAL to pay.
>

It does not fit to our liberal mentality.

>8. Cost shifting of socialist systems from countries with government
>healthcare to the US. These systems will begin to fail the day the US
>forces the pharmaceutical companies into the same situation they force our
>doctors into. Namely, you must charge the US government covered patients
>the lowest price you charge anyone, or we throw you in jail. Now, progress
>in healthcare will virtually cease.
>

Ah, you do show some knowledge of this point. Good.

>Sorry Sandy, I am not out in any field on this. I am just unwilling to look
>at the present system and accept it. It sucks. Really, the system we have
>is outside the stadium and it started with job based health insurance.

I would argue that one with you, I feel it started with the Mediare program and
state Medicaid has inflicted additional injury to the system. The advent of
the HMO's was the final nail in the coffen.

>Socialist healthcare will not improve the system in the US for anyone except
>the working poor and stupid. 80% of us will suffer.
>

It won't improve the system for anyone. PERIOD! The working poor and stupid
already have better access to healthcare than many of the working middleclass.

>Your question assumes that someone would have no insurance until after they
>found they had cancer. Of course, no one will sell it to you then. That
>would be stupid, and wouldn't work. But wait, that's what we have now.
>Once you spend ALL your money, then you get Uncle Sugar to pay. Thus
>rewarding lack of financial responsibility.
>

On this we both agree and disagree. I have been self-employed for over 25
years. I bought a good health insurance policy but over that period of time,
the costs and coverages of that policy changed. The coverage had to be
constantly dropped with a higher and higher deductable untili it became just
major medical only. The costs thought, even with dropping coverage rose to
over $1500 per month. Alternatives were not existant, nobody would consider
coverage for less. I finally had to drop out when they wanted to increase
premiums to $1800 per month. That was five years ago and I have no idea what
they would want to charge today.

>Lastly, your link does not support your statement, and is hardly conclusive
>at all. No findings were made on quality of care. Also, healthcare is
>definitely NOT the largest contributor life expectancy. Sanitation, life
>style, diet, and climate would all beat out health care. Your doctor can
>add a year or two on average. Better living and genes can add decades.
>

As far as the quality of the healthcare system in the US, it stands second to
none. That can easily be seen if you visit any of the major medical centers in
the US and check out the patient population for the number of foreign patients
who come here for treatment. If our life expectancy is lower, it can be
directly attributed to diet and life style.

>
>
>"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Dude" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > .
>> > >
>> > > Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire
>> and
>> > > don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
>> > > insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your
>nest
>> > egg
>> > > that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell
>> > your
>> > > house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just
>when
>> > > you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the
>draw,
>> > you
>> > > get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least
>> you
>> > > have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent
>> policy
>> > is largely due to government interference in insurance.
>> >
>> Dude, you're a little out in right field on this one. What do you think
>> insurance is going to cost you after you have retired and had a bout with
>> cancer? Either way it's going to cost you your house and everything you
>> have worked for all your life. This is where countries with socialized
>> medicine have it over the US. People live longer and pay less for medical
>> care than in the US. Have a read.
>>
>>
>
>http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Health/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=5535dfd
d962443b6b5408385f11556ec&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&abc=ab
>>
>>
>
>


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>>Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you retire and
>>don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going to
>>insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your nest egg
>>that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to sell your
>>house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just when
>>you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the draw, you
>>get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at least you
>>have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer park.
>
>**** happens. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that if you are
>still alive to bitch about it on the internet, that the evil US health
>industy earned every penny of your life savings.
>
>================================================== ==
>Del Rawlins--
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply
>

One thing that most people don't consider regarding the cost of healthcare is
that very little of the money we spend on healthcare acutally goes into the
process of healthcare. When we make those monthly payments on our health
insurance, much of that money is acutally spent on the administrative cost of
the insurance system, not on healthcare. A percentage goes to the agent who
wrote the policy, a percentage goes to pay for those lavish Insurance Company
offices and all the personnel who fill them, a percentage goes to the profits
of the insurance company, an percentage goes to the outragious salaries of the
executives of the insurance companies, and finally, if anything is left, a
percentage goes to the healthcare industry.

Then the percentages for distribution are further diluted by government
regulations that overburden the healthcare industry. More codes to makeup for
the non-collectables that range for the insurance companies refusal to pay to
indigents who must be treated for free. The list goe on and on.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Sandy]

Thr these.
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html




"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Sandy,
>
> The following externalities prevent our insurance system from working in
the
> case of healthcare:
>
> 1. Forced coverage - you cannot buy insurance to cover what you want.
> Regulations force coverage and non coverage based on state politics
>
> 2. Medicare is hard to compete with. Competing with the government is
just
> silly, and most businesses don't want to try it.
>
> 3. Subsidy of employer based coverage through the tax code. This is the
> big one, and most important one here. You cannot get health insurance
> because you cannot buy a cradle to grave policy. Your employment
situation
> forces you into groups based on job stays and inevitably forces changes in
> policy throughout your life. Instead, you go from dependent of your
> parents employment group or groups, to possibly a student group, to then a
> number of employment groups, and then are put in the medicare group. At
> each change serious government involvement and inefficiency prevent your
> making any choices of importance, taking the market out of the situation,
> and driving up costs in ridiculous ways.
>
> So, you could, if you had paid into a policy for your entire life, have
> built up enough reserve for at least one stint of heroic medicine to
extend
> your life. This could easily be done for the amount that most workers pay
> into the system now. Also, if you paid more directly, and were more
> financially involved in price quality decisions for your care your health
> cost would be much reduced. Instead, you likely have ZERO involvement
even
> though you are the best person to police it on the scene.
>
> 4. State licensing. The licensing system is overly burdensome, driving up
> costs
>
> 5. Tort. Defensive medicine is used because you cannot be allowed as a
> patient to make decisions based on reasonable outcome expectancies. Also,
> because you have no financial involvement, you just get ALL the tests.
> Failure to give a test should not be automatic negligence if its not
called
> for the presented systems, unfortunately, juries expect doctors to be
> perfect.
>
> 6. Reverse price competition. Instead of competing on price and value,
the
> present system is a strange maze of over and under payment negotiated
> without any of the real customers being involved in the negotiation at
all.
>
> 7. Inability to refuse care. Emergency rooms cannot turn you away for
any
> reason at all. While inability to pay is likely a good restriction, how
> about we tell you that you are not eligible due to lack of need - GOODBYE.
> Or, when you pester the ER all the time, and never pay, we send you away
for
> consistent REFUSAL to pay.
>
> 8. Cost shifting of socialist systems from countries with government
> healthcare to the US. These systems will begin to fail the day the US
> forces the pharmaceutical companies into the same situation they force our
> doctors into. Namely, you must charge the US government covered patients
> the lowest price you charge anyone, or we throw you in jail. Now,
progress
> in healthcare will virtually cease.
>
> Sorry Sandy, I am not out in any field on this. I am just unwilling to
look
> at the present system and accept it. It sucks. Really, the system we
have
> is outside the stadium and it started with job based health insurance.
> Socialist healthcare will not improve the system in the US for anyone
except
> the working poor and stupid. 80% of us will suffer.
>
> Your question assumes that someone would have no insurance until after
they
> found they had cancer. Of course, no one will sell it to you then. That
> would be stupid, and wouldn't work. But wait, that's what we have now.
> Once you spend ALL your money, then you get Uncle Sugar to pay. Thus
> rewarding lack of financial responsibility.
>
> Lastly, your link does not support your statement, and is hardly
conclusive
> at all. No findings were made on quality of care. Also, healthcare is
> definitely NOT the largest contributor life expectancy. Sanitation, life
> style, diet, and climate would all beat out health care. Your doctor can
> add a year or two on average. Better living and genes can add decades.
>
>
>
>
> "Sandy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > Just how does one save up for radical cancer therapy after you
retire
> > and
> > > > don't have company health insurance. No insurance company is going
to
> > > > insure you and if you do find insurance you can say goodbye to your
> nest
> > > egg
> > > > that you have been saving for all your life. Oh yeah, you get to
sell
> > > your
> > > > house and give it to a doctor. What a great way to grow old. Just
> when
> > > > you've finished working all your life, and through the luck of the
> draw,
> > > you
> > > > get to lose everything you own to the health industry. But, at
least
> > you
> > > > have your life, such that it is, living in a rental at a trailer
park.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > One can buy his own insurance. The fact that you cannot get a decent
> > policy
> > > is largely due to government interference in insurance.
> > >
> > Dude, you're a little out in right field on this one. What do you think
> > insurance is going to cost you after you have retired and had a bout
with
> > cancer? Either way it's going to cost you your house and everything you
> > have worked for all your life. This is where countries with socialized
> > medicine have it over the US. People live longer and pay less for
medical
> > care than in the US. Have a read.
> >
> >
>
http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Health/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=5535dfdd962443b6b540 8385f11556ec&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&abc=ab
> >
> >
>
>

[Dude]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Sandy,
> >
> >The following externalities prevent our insurance system from working in
the
> >case of healthcare:
> >
> >1. Forced coverage - you cannot buy insurance to cover what you want.
> >Regulations force coverage and non coverage based on state politics
> >
>
> And, the insurance companies in the regulated areas are virtually
guarnateed a
> profit at or above a certain percentage. The insurance companies have
little
> incentive to be efficient or take actions to ensure that fraud is not wide
> spread.

agreed

>
> >2. Medicare is hard to compete with. Competing with the government is
just
> >silly, and most businesses don't want to try it.
> >
>
> You don't compete with Medicare but you need to also understand that
Medicare
> is a cash cow for many companies who are given huge and lucrative
contracts to
> manage the medicare program in each state and a butt screw for the
healthcare
> industry who must operate under government imposed price controls,
paperwork
> burdens that none of us would accept, and is lucky to collect 50% of what
they
> bill.


sounds okay

>
> >3. Subsidy of employer based coverage through the tax code. This is the
> >big one, and most important one here. You cannot get health insurance
> >because you cannot buy a cradle to grave policy. Your employment
situation
> >forces you into groups based on job stays and inevitably forces changes
in
> >policy throughout your life. Instead, you go from dependent of your
> >parents employment group or groups, to possibly a student group, to then
a
> >number of employment groups, and then are put in the medicare group. At
> >each change serious government involvement and inefficiency prevent your
> >making any choices of importance, taking the market out of the situation,
> >and driving up costs in ridiculous ways.
> >
>
> As far as the insurance companies are concerned, don't blame it all on the
> government. The insurance companies have a very vested interest in making
damn
> sure that you don't have a cradle to grave policy. You can also blame the
> insurance companies for making it more difficult for older workers to find
> jobs. They have some not so subtle ways of discouraging small companies
from
> hiring older, supposedly higher risk employees.
>

Um, not so fast. You are being very cras here. The insurance companies are
doing what makes sense given the system, and I do not see them as evil.
Your jobs example is playing my song though, we need to seperate healthcare
and jobs.


> >So, you could, if you had paid into a policy for your entire life, have
> >built up enough reserve for at least one stint of heroic medicine to
extend
> >your life. This could easily be done for the amount that most workers
pay
> >into the system now. Also, if you paid more directly, and were more
> >financially involved in price quality decisions for your care your health
> >cost would be much reduced. Instead, you likely have ZERO involvement
even
> >though you are the best person to police it on the scene.
> >
>
> True to a limited degree but not entirely.
>

Not entirely, but if you are pooled with others, it will work just fine.

> >4. State licensing. The licensing system is overly burdensome, driving
up
> >costs
> >
>
> You got that one right!
>
> >5. Tort. Defensive medicine is used because you cannot be allowed as a
> >patient to make decisions based on reasonable outcome expectancies.
Also,
> >because you have no financial involvement, you just get ALL the tests.
> >Failure to give a test should not be automatic negligence if its not
called
> >for the presented systems, unfortunately, juries expect doctors to be
> >perfect.
> >
>
> Now there is a catch-22 of our current system that has the healthcare
industry
> by the preverbial balls. No, you don't just get ALL the tests, in fact if
> tests are run that are NOT indicated by the diagnosis, you are not going
to get
> paid for them and may find yourself going to jail. On the opposite side,
if
> you don't perform the tests that might have caught a treatable condition,
you
> will find yourself facing a malpractice lawsuit.
>
> Doctors are people, their staff consists of people, and people sometimes
make
> mistakes. Nobody, that I know of, is perfect and beyond mistakes. Add to
our
> imperfections, the inability to disassemble the human machine and spec the
> parts to a blueprint, and you are guaranteed that not all diagnosis will
be
> accurate. The medical industry is working hard to try and overcome these
> limitations but it is expensive and will be a long time reaching the
goals.
>

yep

> >6. Reverse price competition. Instead of competing on price and value,
the
> >present system is a strange maze of over and under payment negotiated
> >without any of the real customers being involved in the negotiation at
all.
> >
>
> I agree, except on the negotiation part. Too often there is NO
negotiation,
> just imposed rules that often can't be understood even by those who write
them.
> I would challenge you to intrepret the rules for CPT coding and billing.
>

Only the gov can impose rules. Local providers here started a new tactic -
throw out the cheapest payor. The patients got letters saying no more using
this hospital, they called thier company, the company called the payor, and
the payor blinked and raised its payouts.

> >7. Inability to refuse care. Emergency rooms cannot turn you away for
any
> >reason at all. While inability to pay is likely a good restriction, how
> >about we tell you that you are not eligible due to lack of need -
GOODBYE.
>
> That can't be determined without spending time, money, and physician
resources
> to determine the "need". Catch-22!
>

Not always, and less is still better. There are the patients that use the
system too much. They want service, not just a check out. So, check them
out, and then tell them they are not an emergency and need to see their
doctor. DO NOT TELL THEM WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM!

Think about it.

> >Or, when you pester the ER all the time, and never pay, we send you away
for
> >consistent REFUSAL to pay.
> >
>
> It does not fit to our liberal mentality.
>

It will when grandpa is waiting for rationed healthcare.

> >8. Cost shifting of socialist systems from countries with government
> >healthcare to the US. These systems will begin to fail the day the US
> >forces the pharmaceutical companies into the same situation they force
our
> >doctors into. Namely, you must charge the US government covered patients
> >the lowest price you charge anyone, or we throw you in jail. Now,
progress
> >in healthcare will virtually cease.
> >
>
> Ah, you do show some knowledge of this point. Good.
>
> >Sorry Sandy, I am not out in any field on this. I am just unwilling to
look
> >at the present system and accept it. It sucks. Really, the system we
have
> >is outside the stadium and it started with job based health insurance.
>
> I would argue that one with you, I feel it started with the Mediare
program and
> state Medicaid has inflicted additional injury to the system. The advent
of
> the HMO's was the final nail in the coffen.
>
> >Socialist healthcare will not improve the system in the US for anyone
except
> >the working poor and stupid. 80% of us will suffer.
> >
>
> It won't improve the system for anyone. PERIOD! The working poor and
stupid
> already have better access to healthcare than many of the working
middleclass.
>

We likely mean the same working people, those who make just enough not to
get aid, but not enough to buy the overpriced non-employer group coverage.


> >Your question assumes that someone would have no insurance until after
they
> >found they had cancer. Of course, no one will sell it to you then. That
> >would be stupid, and wouldn't work. But wait, that's what we have now.
> >Once you spend ALL your money, then you get Uncle Sugar to pay. Thus
> >rewarding lack of financial responsibility.
> >
>
> On this we both agree and disagree. I have been self-employed for over 25
> years. I bought a good health insurance policy but over that period of
time,
> the costs and coverages of that policy changed. The coverage had to be
> constantly dropped with a higher and higher deductable untili it became
just
> major medical only. The costs thought, even with dropping coverage rose
to
> over $1500 per month. Alternatives were not existant, nobody would
consider
> coverage for less. I finally had to drop out when they wanted to increase
> premiums to $1800 per month. That was five years ago and I have no idea
what
> they would want to charge today.
>
And they can do this because you are not a group. Their are groups of self
employed banding together now, but if you are already undesirable risk it
will be hadr to get in one.


> >Lastly, your link does not support your statement, and is hardly
conclusive
> >at all. No findings were made on quality of care. Also, healthcare is
> >definitely NOT the largest contributor life expectancy. Sanitation, life
> >style, diet, and climate would all beat out health care. Your doctor can
> >add a year or two on average. Better living and genes can add decades.
> >
>
> As far as the quality of the healthcare system in the US, it stands second
to
> none. That can easily be seen if you visit any of the major medical
centers in
> the US and check out the patient population for the number of foreign
patients
> who come here for treatment. If our life expectancy is lower, it can be
> directly attributed to diet and life style.
>
> >
> >

agreed

[Dude]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> Thr these.
> http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html
>
>
>

Don't need to, rading your links I see that one is from the people's
republic of boulder while "third world traveler" has agenda just dripping
off of it.

Lets agree to disagree.

[Mark Hickey]

AES/newspost > wrote:

>In terms of "clearly staking out the sides" however, let me just ask if
>you'd care to identify the following quote:
>
> "Show him NO pity . . . no, you must STONE HIM TO DEATH . . .
> since he has tried to divert you from your god"
> [only "tried" -- not "forced" or "compelled"]
>
>So, where does this come from?

The old testament.

>[Hint: John Ashcroft believes the above to be the literal and
>incontrovertible truth. So does a large portion of Bush's base.
>
>Are you really comfortable having these people in charge of
> _your_ civil liberties? Or deciding for you how separation
>of church and state is to be interpreted in the US?
>
>Are these people -- who are not just here in the US, but
>are currently dominating the Republican Party -- themselves
>6th Century, or 21st Century???]

Since you obviously don't know about the religion of the President, I
guess you'll have to be schooled here. Y'see, to Christians, the New
Testament replaced the Mosaic law you're quoting from above, so no,
the President and John Ashcroft would have no reason to follow the
directive you quote unless they were finatically old-school Jews (I'm
not aware of any sect who'd fit that description, but I suppose it's
possible). I'd go into the details but it would sound preachy and
this is an aviation newsgroup.

Mark Hickey

[Sandy]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thr these.
> > http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html
> > http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> Don't need to, rading your links I see that one is from the people's
> republic of boulder while "third world traveler" has agenda just dripping
> off of it.
>
> Lets agree to disagree.
>
Talk about judging the book by it's cover. Afraid that you might find out
that the medical and insurance industries have you NOT getting your hard
earned money's worth? After all, isn't the whole point of this conversation
to explore ways that other countries spend less and get more for their taxes
and insurance premiums?

[RobertR237]

>
>"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >Sandy,
>> >
>> >The following externalities prevent our insurance system from working in
>the
>> >case of healthcare:
>> >
>> >1. Forced coverage - you cannot buy insurance to cover what you want.
>> >Regulations force coverage and non coverage based on state politics
>> >
>>
>> And, the insurance companies in the regulated areas are virtually
>guarnateed a
>> profit at or above a certain percentage. The insurance companies have
>little
>> incentive to be efficient or take actions to ensure that fraud is not wide
>> spread.
>
>agreed
>
>>
>> >2. Medicare is hard to compete with. Competing with the government is
>just
>> >silly, and most businesses don't want to try it.
>> >
>>
>> You don't compete with Medicare but you need to also understand that
>Medicare
>> is a cash cow for many companies who are given huge and lucrative
>contracts to
>> manage the medicare program in each state and a butt screw for the
>healthcare
>> industry who must operate under government imposed price controls,
>paperwork
>> burdens that none of us would accept, and is lucky to collect 50% of what
>they
>> bill.
>
>
>sounds okay

Whats okay about it? What other business would let their customers dictate
their prices and then accept only half of the agreed to prices as payment. Now
even the insurance companies are holding the medical profession to the same
rules imposed by medicare.

>
>>
>> >3. Subsidy of employer based coverage through the tax code. This is the
>> >big one, and most important one here. You cannot get health insurance
>> >because you cannot buy a cradle to grave policy. Your employment
>situation
>> >forces you into groups based on job stays and inevitably forces changes
>in
>> >policy throughout your life. Instead, you go from dependent of your
>> >parents employment group or groups, to possibly a student group, to then
>a
>> >number of employment groups, and then are put in the medicare group. At
>> >each change serious government involvement and inefficiency prevent your
>> >making any choices of importance, taking the market out of the situation,
>> >and driving up costs in ridiculous ways.
>> >
>>
>> As far as the insurance companies are concerned, don't blame it all on the
>> government. The insurance companies have a very vested interest in making
>damn
>> sure that you don't have a cradle to grave policy. You can also blame the
>> insurance companies for making it more difficult for older workers to find
>> jobs. They have some not so subtle ways of discouraging small companies
>from
>> hiring older, supposedly higher risk employees.
>>
>
>Um, not so fast. You are being very cras here. The insurance companies are
>doing what makes sense given the system, and I do not see them as evil.
>Your jobs example is playing my song though, we need to seperate healthcare
>and jobs.
>

Evil? No, I wouldn't necessarly impose that description on all of the
Insurance companies but there are many which totally deserve the label. They
are the tail wagging the dog.

>
>> >So, you could, if you had paid into a policy for your entire life, have
>> >built up enough reserve for at least one stint of heroic medicine to
>extend
>> >your life. This could easily be done for the amount that most workers
>pay
>> >into the system now. Also, if you paid more directly, and were more
>> >financially involved in price quality decisions for your care your health
>> >cost would be much reduced. Instead, you likely have ZERO involvement
>even
>> >though you are the best person to police it on the scene.
>> >
>>
>> True to a limited degree but not entirely.
>>
>
>Not entirely, but if you are pooled with others, it will work just fine.
>
>> >4. State licensing. The licensing system is overly burdensome, driving
>up
>> >costs
>> >
>>
>> You got that one right!
>>
>> >5. Tort. Defensive medicine is used because you cannot be allowed as a
>> >patient to make decisions based on reasonable outcome expectancies.
>Also,
>> >because you have no financial involvement, you just get ALL the tests.
>> >Failure to give a test should not be automatic negligence if its not
>called
>> >for the presented systems, unfortunately, juries expect doctors to be
>> >perfect.
>> >
>>
>> Now there is a catch-22 of our current system that has the healthcare
>industry
>> by the preverbial balls. No, you don't just get ALL the tests, in fact if
>> tests are run that are NOT indicated by the diagnosis, you are not going
>to get
>> paid for them and may find yourself going to jail. On the opposite side,
>if
>> you don't perform the tests that might have caught a treatable condition,
>you
>> will find yourself facing a malpractice lawsuit.
>>
>> Doctors are people, their staff consists of people, and people sometimes
>make
>> mistakes. Nobody, that I know of, is perfect and beyond mistakes. Add to
>our
>> imperfections, the inability to disassemble the human machine and spec the
>> parts to a blueprint, and you are guaranteed that not all diagnosis will
>be
>> accurate. The medical industry is working hard to try and overcome these
>> limitations but it is expensive and will be a long time reaching the
>goals.
>>
>
>yep
>
> > >6. Reverse price competition. Instead of competing on price and value,
>the
>> >present system is a strange maze of over and under payment negotiated
>> >without any of the real customers being involved in the negotiation at
>all.
>> >
>>
>> I agree, except on the negotiation part. Too often there is NO
>negotiation,
>> just imposed rules that often can't be understood even by those who write
>them.
>> I would challenge you to intrepret the rules for CPT coding and billing.
>>
>
>Only the gov can impose rules. Local providers here started a new tactic -
>throw out the cheapest payor. The patients got letters saying no more using
>this hospital, they called thier company, the company called the payor, and
>the payor blinked and raised its payouts.
>

Well, yes and no. The bigger insurance companies are taking on many of the
same rules as the medicare and swing almost as much weight.

>> >7. Inability to refuse care. Emergency rooms cannot turn you away for
>any
>> >reason at all. While inability to pay is likely a good restriction, how
>> >about we tell you that you are not eligible due to lack of need -
>GOODBYE.
>>
>> That can't be determined without spending time, money, and physician
>resources
>> to determine the "need". Catch-22!
>>
>
>Not always, and less is still better. There are the patients that use the
>system too much. They want service, not just a check out. So, check them
>out, and then tell them they are not an emergency and need to see their
>doctor. DO NOT TELL THEM WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM!
>
>Think about it.
>

I agree with you but it won't work that way. Some have tried.

>> >Or, when you pester the ER all the time, and never pay, we send you away
>for
>> >consistent REFUSAL to pay.
>> >
>>
>> It does not fit to our liberal mentality.
>>
>
>It will when grandpa is waiting for rationed healthcare.
>
>> >8. Cost shifting of socialist systems from countries with government
>> >healthcare to the US. These systems will begin to fail the day the US
>> >forces the pharmaceutical companies into the same situation they force
>our
>> >doctors into. Namely, you must charge the US government covered patients
>> >the lowest price you charge anyone, or we throw you in jail. Now,
>progress
>> >in healthcare will virtually cease.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, you do show some knowledge of this point. Good.
>>
>> >Sorry Sandy, I am not out in any field on this. I am just unwilling to
>look
>> >at the present system and accept it. It sucks. Really, the system we
>have
>> >is outside the stadium and it started with job based health insurance.
>>
>> I would argue that one with you, I feel it started with the Mediare
>program and
>> state Medicaid has inflicted additional injury to the system. The advent
>of
>> the HMO's was the final nail in the coffen.
>>
>> >Socialist healthcare will not improve the system in the US for anyone
>except
>> >the working poor and stupid. 80% of us will suffer.
>> >
>>
>> It won't improve the system for anyone. PERIOD! The working poor and
>stupid
>> already have better access to healthcare than many of the working
>middleclass.
>>
>
>We likely mean the same working people, those who make just enough not to
>get aid, but not enough to buy the overpriced non-employer group coverage.
>

YEP!

>
>> >Your question assumes that someone would have no insurance until after
>they
>> >found they had cancer. Of course, no one will sell it to you then. That
>> >would be stupid, and wouldn't work. But wait, that's what we have now.
>> >Once you spend ALL your money, then you get Uncle Sugar to pay. Thus
>> >rewarding lack of financial responsibility.
>> >
>>
>> On this we both agree and disagree. I have been self-employed for over 25
>> years. I bought a good health insurance policy but over that period of
>time,
>> the costs and coverages of that policy changed. The coverage had to be
>> constantly dropped with a higher and higher deductable untili it became
>just
>> major medical only. The costs thought, even with dropping coverage rose
>to
>> over $1500 per month. Alternatives were not existant, nobody would
>consider
>> coverage for less. I finally had to drop out when they wanted to increase
>> premiums to $1800 per month. That was five years ago and I have no idea
>what
>> they would want to charge today.
>>
>And they can do this because you are not a group. Their are groups of self
>employed banding together now, but if you are already undesirable risk it
>will be hadr to get in one.
>

I was in a group when this occured. NASE - National Association for
Self-Employed. It was worthless. I joined another group and after about
eighteen months of paying in, we had a couple of Dr. visits and found out the
coverage was worthless and the company was under investigation and went belly
up.

>
>> >Lastly, your link does not support your statement, and is hardly
>conclusive
>> >at all. No findings were made on quality of care. Also, healthcare is
>> >definitely NOT the largest contributor life expectancy. Sanitation, life
>> >style, diet, and climate would all beat out health care. Your doctor can
>> >add a year or two on average. Better living and genes can add decades.
>> >
>>
>> As far as the quality of the healthcare system in the US, it stands second
>to
>> none. That can easily be seen if you visit any of the major medical
>centers in
>> the US and check out the patient population for the number of foreign
>patients
>> who come here for treatment. If our life expectancy is lower, it can be
>> directly attributed to diet and life style.
>>
>> >
>> >
>
>agreed
>

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Mark Hickey]

AES/newspost > wrote:

>What you call the "far wacko right fringe" others see as "Bush's base."

Those are the folks who think Dan Rather is hopelessly conservative.

>And I can't pull out any statistics offhand about the fraction of the
>people in the U.S. who will assert without qualification that they
>believe the Bible is the literal word of God -- but it's in no way a
>"tiny, tiny minority".

If you want to take exception to the US Christians (be they left,
right or center), you need to find something Jesus said that you
disagree with... as I said in my earlier post, the Christian religion
is based upon Jesus' fulfillment of the old testament law, rendering
it obsolete.

>We'll see what happens . . .

Hard to imagine a situation where that doesn't apply...

Mark Hickey

[Dude]

No, the point would be to get the best system, but we will not agree on the
best system because I, and many other Americans, would rather die than live
under the yoke you would place around our necks. And, you can bet we vote.

[Dude]

> Whats okay about it? What other business would let their customers
dictate
> their prices and then accept only half of the agreed to prices as payment.
Now
> even the insurance companies are holding the medical profession to the
same
> rules imposed by medicare.
>
> >

I meant okay, as in we agree.


> >
> >Um, not so fast. You are being very cras here. The insurance companies
are
> >doing what makes sense given the system, and I do not see them as evil.
> >Your jobs example is playing my song though, we need to seperate
healthcare
> >and jobs.
> >
>
> Evil? No, I wouldn't necessarly impose that description on all of the
> Insurance companies but there are many which totally deserve the label.
They
> are the tail wagging the dog.
>

I know that the most frustrating thing is watching the insurance companies
who could be leading the changes just perpetuate the system, but the people
that insurance companies all hire are predisposed to protect the status quo.
Its not evil, its tragic.

> >
> >> >So, you could, if you had paid into a policy for your entire life,
have
> >> >built up enough reserve for at least one stint of heroic medicine to
> >extend
> >> >your life. This could easily be done for the amount that most workers
> >pay
> >> >into the system now. Also, if you paid more directly, and were more
> >> >financially involved in price quality decisions for your care your
health
> >> >cost would be much reduced. Instead, you likely have ZERO involvement
> >even
> >> >though you are the best person to police it on the scene.
> >> >
> >>
> >> True to a limited degree but not entirely.
> >>
> >
> >Not entirely, but if you are pooled with others, it will work just fine.
> >
> >> >4. State licensing. The licensing system is overly burdensome,
driving
> >up
> >> >costs
> >> >
> >>
> >> You got that one right!
> >>
> >> >5. Tort. Defensive medicine is used because you cannot be allowed as
a
> >> >patient to make decisions based on reasonable outcome expectancies.
> >Also,
> >> >because you have no financial involvement, you just get ALL the tests.
> >> >Failure to give a test should not be automatic negligence if its not
> >called
> >> >for the presented systems, unfortunately, juries expect doctors to be
> >> >perfect.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Now there is a catch-22 of our current system that has the healthcare
> >industry
> >> by the preverbial balls. No, you don't just get ALL the tests, in fact
if
> >> tests are run that are NOT indicated by the diagnosis, you are not
going
> >to get
> >> paid for them and may find yourself going to jail. On the opposite
side,
> >if
> >> you don't perform the tests that might have caught a treatable
condition,
> >you
> >> will find yourself facing a malpractice lawsuit.
> >>
> >> Doctors are people, their staff consists of people, and people
sometimes
> >make
> >> mistakes. Nobody, that I know of, is perfect and beyond mistakes. Add
to
> >our
> >> imperfections, the inability to disassemble the human machine and spec
the
> >> parts to a blueprint, and you are guaranteed that not all diagnosis
will
> >be
> >> accurate. The medical industry is working hard to try and overcome
these
> >> limitations but it is expensive and will be a long time reaching the
> >goals.
> >>
> >
> >yep
> >
> > > >6. Reverse price competition. Instead of competing on price and
value,
> >the
> >> >present system is a strange maze of over and under payment negotiated
> >> >without any of the real customers being involved in the negotiation at
> >all.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I agree, except on the negotiation part. Too often there is NO
> >negotiation,
> >> just imposed rules that often can't be understood even by those who
write
> >them.
> >> I would challenge you to intrepret the rules for CPT coding and
billing.
> >>
> >
> >Only the gov can impose rules. Local providers here started a new
tactic -
> >throw out the cheapest payor. The patients got letters saying no more
using
> >this hospital, they called thier company, the company called the payor,
and
> >the payor blinked and raised its payouts.
> >
>
> Well, yes and no. The bigger insurance companies are taking on many of
the
> same rules as the medicare and swing almost as much weight.
>
> >> >7. Inability to refuse care. Emergency rooms cannot turn you away
for
> >any
> >> >reason at all. While inability to pay is likely a good restriction,
how
> >> >about we tell you that you are not eligible due to lack of need -
> >GOODBYE.
> >>
> >> That can't be determined without spending time, money, and physician
> >resources
> >> to determine the "need". Catch-22!
> >>
> >
> >Not always, and less is still better. There are the patients that use
the
> >system too much. They want service, not just a check out. So, check
them
> >out, and then tell them they are not an emergency and need to see their
> >doctor. DO NOT TELL THEM WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM!
> >
> >Think about it.
> >
>
> I agree with you but it won't work that way. Some have tried.
>
> >> >Or, when you pester the ER all the time, and never pay, we send you
away
> >for
> >> >consistent REFUSAL to pay.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It does not fit to our liberal mentality.
> >>
> >
> >It will when grandpa is waiting for rationed healthcare.
> >
> >> >8. Cost shifting of socialist systems from countries with government
> >> >healthcare to the US. These systems will begin to fail the day the US
> >> >forces the pharmaceutical companies into the same situation they force
> >our
> >> >doctors into. Namely, you must charge the US government covered
patients
> >> >the lowest price you charge anyone, or we throw you in jail. Now,
> >progress
> >> >in healthcare will virtually cease.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ah, you do show some knowledge of this point. Good.
> >>
> >> >Sorry Sandy, I am not out in any field on this. I am just unwilling
to
> >look
> >> >at the present system and accept it. It sucks. Really, the system we
> >have
> >> >is outside the stadium and it started with job based health insurance.
> >>
> >> I would argue that one with you, I feel it started with the Mediare
> >program and
> >> state Medicaid has inflicted additional injury to the system. The
advent
> >of
> >> the HMO's was the final nail in the coffen.
> >>
> >> >Socialist healthcare will not improve the system in the US for anyone
> >except
> >> >the working poor and stupid. 80% of us will suffer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It won't improve the system for anyone. PERIOD! The working poor and
> >stupid
> >> already have better access to healthcare than many of the working
> >middleclass.
> >>
> >
> >We likely mean the same working people, those who make just enough not to
> >get aid, but not enough to buy the overpriced non-employer group
coverage.
> >
>
> YEP!
>
> >
> >> >Your question assumes that someone would have no insurance until after
> >they
> >> >found they had cancer. Of course, no one will sell it to you then.
That
> >> >would be stupid, and wouldn't work. But wait, that's what we have
now.
> >> >Once you spend ALL your money, then you get Uncle Sugar to pay. Thus
> >> >rewarding lack of financial responsibility.
> >> >
> >>
> >> On this we both agree and disagree. I have been self-employed for over
25
> >> years. I bought a good health insurance policy but over that period of
> >time,
> >> the costs and coverages of that policy changed. The coverage had to be
> >> constantly dropped with a higher and higher deductable untili it became
> >just
> >> major medical only. The costs thought, even with dropping coverage
rose
> >to
> >> over $1500 per month. Alternatives were not existant, nobody would
> >consider
> >> coverage for less. I finally had to drop out when they wanted to
increase
> >> premiums to $1800 per month. That was five years ago and I have no
idea
> >what
> >> they would want to charge today.
> >>
> >And they can do this because you are not a group. Their are groups of
self
> >employed banding together now, but if you are already undesirable risk it
> >will be hadr to get in one.
> >
>
> I was in a group when this occured. NASE - National Association for
> Self-Employed. It was worthless. I joined another group and after about
> eighteen months of paying in, we had a couple of Dr. visits and found out
the
> coverage was worthless and the company was under investigation and went
belly
> up.
>
> >

Damn, I was hoping these companies migh work out.


> >> >Lastly, your link does not support your statement, and is hardly
> >conclusive
> >> >at all. No findings were made on quality of care. Also, healthcare
is
> >> >definitely NOT the largest contributor life expectancy. Sanitation,
life
> >> >style, diet, and climate would all beat out health care. Your doctor
can
> >> >add a year or two on average. Better living and genes can add
decades.
> >> >
> >>
> >> As far as the quality of the healthcare system in the US, it stands
second
> >to
> >> none. That can easily be seen if you visit any of the major medical
> >centers in
> >> the US and check out the patient population for the number of foreign
> >patients
> >> who come here for treatment. If our life expectancy is lower, it can
be
> >> directly attributed to diet and life style.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >agreed
> >
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[Sandy]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> No, the point would be to get the best system, but we will not agree on
the
> best system because I, and many other Americans, would rather die than
live
> under the yoke you would place around our necks. And, you can bet we vote.
>
The "yoke" would be what?
Getting better care for less money?
Making sure that you and your doctor manage your medical care rather than
some clerk without a medical degree pushing paper around an insurance
office?
The piece of mind that what ever befalls you, your family will not have to
give up their shelter, opportunities for education and their financial
stability?
There is, I suppose, a reason that the rich in Canada go to the US for
treatment but the middle class in America flock to Canada to borrow medical
cards to get treatment they can't afford in the States and every weekend bus
trips are organized for seniors to run across the border to get their
perscriptions filled. I live in a fairly remote town of 7,000 only
accessable by ferry about 35 miles up the coast from Vancouver BC. In the
time since 9/11 we have seen a marked influx of American middle aged people
moving here. One guy I met after a brief misunderstanding as to where he
could park his 182 ( not my hanger) told me his story as to how he ended up
here. Turns out he was employed in an oil company and worked mostly
offshore all his life. When it became time to retire he found that his
health insurance, because his wife had had bout with shingles, would cost
him $2500 a month. That pretty well ate up half his investment income and
he decided to hire a retirement consultant to explore other opportunities.
She somehow came up with our little community. We became friends and often
our conversations drifted to how much the two medical systems differed. He
was amazed that his wife's treatment was far better than what she had
received at home and there was zero paperwork. And the cost for the both of
them? $ 96.00 a month. That $2400 he saves goes into our community and he
decides who gets it rather than disappearing into some multi-national black
hole. He flies his airplane a lot more now too. Too bad we missed taxing
him during his prime working years but you win some you lose some.

[Morgans]

"Dude" > wrote

> I meant okay, as in we agree.

You must have a broadband connection, Dude. Ya' know how I can tell? An
eleven meg post, untrimmed, for the above "me too" comment.

Some would call that rude, or lazy, or another few choice words, especially
if they are on dial-up.

Please take the time?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.768 / Virus Database: 515 - Release Date: 9/22/2004

[Barnyard BOb -]

>Boy. Damn! If I felt like that, I'd just climb in a hot bath and open my
>veins, 'cuz Kerry doesn't have a prayer.
>
>Rich
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

According to NON_CBS pollsters....
Nearly half the country won't have voted for the November winner.
That's a continuing ****load of unhappy campers, no matter who wins.
The festering divisions between Americans appear to be growing.
If history is any guide, there is no shortage of parallels concerning
the feelings of us home folks, what happened long ago and the
political snafus of Vietnam.

Myself, I don't wish the Bush - Iraq quagmire on anyone.
BUT, if anyone deserves ownership of this mess, it's GWB
and his gang that can't shoot straight, not the guys/gals in
uniform that continue suffering the bullet end of his Iraq folly.

Obviously...
YMMV.

Barnyard BOb -- Anybody seen Robert McNamara?

[Dude]

> The "yoke" would be what?

Government control over life saving services that I would no longer have
access too without government approval.

Removal of profit driven research (the most likely kind to get results).


> Getting better care for less money?

Only in the short term, long term it would be less for more - Like all other
governmnent systems. (social security, welfare, unemployment, pensions,
etc.)

> Making sure that you and your doctor manage your medical care rather than
> some clerk without a medical degree pushing paper around an insurance
> office?

You will replace a clerk without force of law with one that has that power

> The piece of mind that what ever befalls you, your family will not have to
> give up their shelter, opportunities for education and their financial
> stability?

Because they will not have that choice to save me due to rationing? They
don't have that choice now because it is often forced. Which I also abhore.

> There is, I suppose, a reason that the rich in Canada go to the US for
> treatment but the middle class in America flock to Canada to borrow
medical
> cards to get treatment they can't afford in the States and every weekend
bus
> trips are organized for seniors to run across the border to get their
> perscriptions filled.

I would love to hear about the card thing, but the prescription costs are a
ruse. If we go social medicine, either we will continue to subsidize them,
or their prices will rise. Either way, medical R&D will likely plummet.

I live in a fairly remote town of 7,000 only
> accessable by ferry about 35 miles up the coast from Vancouver BC. In the
> time since 9/11 we have seen a marked influx of American middle aged
people
> moving here.

Its beautiful there, I am not surprised.

One guy I met after a brief misunderstanding as to where he
> could park his 182 ( not my hanger) told me his story as to how he ended
up
> here. Turns out he was employed in an oil company and worked mostly
> offshore all his life. When it became time to retire he found that his
> health insurance, because his wife had had bout with shingles, would cost
> him $2500 a month. That pretty well ate up half his investment income and
> he decided to hire a retirement consultant to explore other opportunities.
> She somehow came up with our little community. We became friends and
often
> our conversations drifted to how much the two medical systems differed.
He
> was amazed that his wife's treatment was far better than what she had
> received at home and there was zero paperwork. And the cost for the both
of
> them? $ 96.00 a month. That $2400 he saves goes into our community and
he
> decides who gets it rather than disappearing into some multi-national
black
> hole. He flies his airplane a lot more now too. Too bad we missed taxing
> him during his prime working years but you win some you lose some.
>

Nice anecdote, Beer and Donuts are a popular breakfast in our medical
center, both by doctors and patients, eh?

[Dude]

Methinks you missed something, and besides its Kb, not Mb.

Even at netzero speeds thats no big deal.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote
>
> > I meant okay, as in we agree.
>
> You must have a broadband connection, Dude. Ya' know how I can tell? An
> eleven meg post, untrimmed, for the above "me too" comment.
>
> Some would call that rude, or lazy, or another few choice words,
especially
> if they are on dial-up.
>
> Please take the time?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.768 / Virus Database: 515 - Release Date: 9/22/2004
>
>

[RobertR237]

>
>
>> The "yoke" would be what?
>
>Government control over life saving services that I would no longer have
>access too without government approval.
>

Yep, when elective procedures are no longer elective and necessary procedures
require long waiting periods.

>Removal of profit driven research (the most likely kind to get results).
>

I must argue the point that profit driven research is the most likely kine to
get results. Yes, profit driven research does achieve results, the research
going on at our many university hospitals is probably achieving greater results
than the profit driven organizations.

The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare industry,
they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many of our
brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical field if
they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps decide
they should earn?

>
>> Getting better care for less money?
>
>Only in the short term, long term it would be less for more - Like all other
>governmnent systems. (social security, welfare, unemployment, pensions,
>etc.)
>

How ANYONE can concieve that it will be BETTER care is beyond me. Just how
many of them would want to spend an additional 4-10 years in school,
internship, and tens of thousands of dollars to be force to work for the
government at government dictated wages. You have got to look beyond the hype
at what the long term consequences would be.

>> Making sure that you and your doctor manage your medical care rather than
>> some clerk without a medical degree pushing paper around an insurance
>> office?
>
>You will replace a clerk without force of law with one that has that power
>
>> The piece of mind that what ever befalls you, your family will not have to
>> give up their shelter, opportunities for education and their financial
>> stability?
>
>Because they will not have that choice to save me due to rationing? They
>don't have that choice now because it is often forced. Which I also abhore.
>
>> There is, I suppose, a reason that the rich in Canada go to the US for
>> treatment but the middle class in America flock to Canada to borrow
>medical
>> cards to get treatment they can't afford in the States and every weekend
>bus
>> trips are organized for seniors to run across the border to get their
>> perscriptions filled.
>
>I would love to hear about the card thing, but the prescription costs are a
>ruse. If we go social medicine, either we will continue to subsidize them,
>or their prices will rise. Either way, medical R&D will likely plummet.
>
> I live in a fairly remote town of 7,000 only
>> accessable by ferry about 35 miles up the coast from Vancouver BC. In the
>> time since 9/11 we have seen a marked influx of American middle aged
>people
>> moving here.
>
>Its beautiful there, I am not surprised.
>

Yes, and they better look out now, after four hurricanes in Florida this year,
many more may be moving up there.

> One guy I met after a brief misunderstanding as to where he
>> could park his 182 ( not my hanger) told me his story as to how he ended
>up
>> here. Turns out he was employed in an oil company and worked mostly
>> offshore all his life. When it became time to retire he found that his
>> health insurance, because his wife had had bout with shingles, would cost
>> him $2500 a month. That pretty well ate up half his investment income and
>> he decided to hire a retirement consultant to explore other opportunities.
>> She somehow came up with our little community. We became friends and
>often
>> our conversations drifted to how much the two medical systems differed.
>He
>> was amazed that his wife's treatment was far better than what she had
>> received at home and there was zero paperwork. And the cost for the both
>of
>> them? $ 96.00 a month. That $2400 he saves goes into our community and
>he
>> decides who gets it rather than disappearing into some multi-national
>black
>> hole. He flies his airplane a lot more now too. Too bad we missed taxing
>> him during his prime working years but you win some you lose some.
>>
>
>Nice anecdote, Beer and Donuts are a popular breakfast in our medical
>center, both by doctors and patients, eh?

Everybody has a story and all of them would support some view or the other.
The grass always appears greener on the other side but such is not always the
case.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Barnyard BOb -]

On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
wrote:

>The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare industry,
>they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many of our
>brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical field if
>they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps decide
>they should earn?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whatz gnu?
The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
and the effects are observable as we speak.

If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
would rise while quality of care heads south.

Where do I get such an opinion?
If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
would still be losing money. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Rich S.]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
> Where do I get such an opinion?
> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
> would still be losing money. <g>

Mebbe we should privatize national defense? Call 1-800-Rent-An-Army !!!

Rich "Be the best you can be - Wackenhut" S.

[Sandy]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
> wrote:
>
> >The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare
industry,
> >they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many
of our
> >brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical
field if
> >they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps
decide
> >they should earn?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Whatz gnu?
> The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
> and the effects are observable as we speak.
>
> If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
> would rise while quality of care heads south.
>
> Where do I get such an opinion?
> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
> would still be losing money. <g>

You guys wouldn't trust the government with your health care but you'd trust
them with prosecuting and running a war that's killing your children?

[W P Dixon]

OH GEESH!
I don't see a connection on healthcare and a war "that is killing my
children". I sure would like to see something done about healthcare, how to
fix it is a task and a half to say the least. Mostly because some blame the
gov., others blame the doctors and some like myself blame the insurance
companies. Maybe the answer is to have the gov provide a cheap insurance for
people that can not get insurance from employers? Of course I think a
reasonable premium should be charged in the hopes to offset costs, but like
the man said the gov could lose money selling beer! HAHA I got a laugh out
of that.
As for the war, would you rather a rag head kill your children here? For
years they have gotten bolder and bolder with their attacks. I remember when
I was a Marine and my brothers were killed in the attack in Beruit...seems
the senators could not get their heads out their butts then about the UN.
And sure couldn't about us defending ourselves. And of course they all
thought it would never happen in the US. Well it did! I know there are those
who feel the Iraq thing is just totally wrong. But the fact is, it will not
stop unless we go into all of those "snakey" places and as Barney Fife would
say " Nip it in the Bud". People do not like to admit it but this is a jihad
against a crusade. Be all lovey dovey and nice to everyone if you want but
if you want this nation to have that attitude towards these people ( if you
wish to call them that..I prefer DOGS!") then your children will be blown up
in their schools right here in this country just like a bunch of Russian
children were the other week. You may not agree with me, and I respect that
...but I have been there and I have seen it first hand. My children are safer
because the killing is going on over there and yours are too. In another
year when my boy is a Marine then he will help protect your children too.
It's out of control Islamic idiots that will harm your children and yourself
, not the government.
As far as trusting the government, well i don't think the founding
fathers ever meant for any of us to "trust" them. Keep them in check! I beg
everyone to do that, but be open minded enough and non- partisan enough to
see truths instead of political spin from either side. it's all the partisan
spin that has to be waded through to get to the truth and when everyone is
"spinning" that's when they can't be trusted. Right now it's coming from one
side just as bad as the other. To bad both parties are worried about
partisan propaganda more than protecting this nation.
I hope you will say a prayer for those Marines and other service men and
women throughout the world whose job it is to make sure your children are
safe, and to make sure you have the right to speak out against anything you
wish . It's sad , and it breaks my heart, but miliary people die to protect
our rights and country. I fear this will all get worse before it gets
better. Iraq has been easy compared what it yet to come...rest assured it is
coming. Iran , Syria and North Korea...oh my!

Semper Fi !
W.P. Dixon


"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare
> industry,
> > >they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how
many
> of our
> > >brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical
> field if
> > >they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps
> decide
> > >they should earn?
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Whatz gnu?
> > The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
> > and the effects are observable as we speak.
> >
> > If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
> > would rise while quality of care heads south.
> >
> > Where do I get such an opinion?
> > If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
> > a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
> > would still be losing money. <g>
>
> You guys wouldn't trust the government with your health care but you'd
trust
> them with prosecuting and running a war that's killing your children?
>
>

[bryan chaisone]

"Rich S." > wrote in message

> Mebbe we should privatize national defense? Call 1-800-Rent-An-Army !!!
>
> Rich "Be the best you can be - Wackenhut" S.

I think that is already happening.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[G EddieA95]

>Be all lovey dovey and nice to everyone if you want but
>if you want this nation to have that attitude towards these people ( if you
>wish to call them that..I prefer DOGS!")

That's an insult to dogs!

[RobertR237]

>
>>The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare industry,
>>they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many of
>our
>>brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical field
>if
>>they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps
>decide
>>they should earn?
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Whatz gnu?
>The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>and the effects are observable as we speak.
>

They have been for the last 20 years but it is getting worse. Most doctors are
forced to either join an HMO or a managed care program which will set their
compensation rates. Their choice is to join or be placed outside the system
and have their patients forced to either change doctors or pay substantial
sums.

>If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>would rise while quality of care heads south.
>
>Where do I get such an opinion?

I would say that you get such an opinion from far too many years of seeing just
that occur, over and over again.

>If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>would still be losing money. <g>
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

Yep, and we would have the hangover without having had the fun.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Barnyard BOb -]

Sandy gurgled:

>> Whatz gnu?
>> The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>> and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>
>> If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>> would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>
>> Where do I get such an opinion?
>> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>> would still be losing money. <g>
>
>You guys wouldn't trust the government with your health care but you'd trust
>them with prosecuting and running a war that's killing your children?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Huh?
Dunno what yer smokin', Sandy, but....
don't drive, fly or operate machinery for the next 8 hours.

I was commenting on HEALTHCARE salaries/issues.
Just HEALTHCARE.

Further....
You know nothing about my position on war and trust,
so please do not assume where I stand or that you can
speak for me in any capacity.


Barnyard BOb --

[RobertR237]

>
>>> Whatz gnu?
>>> The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>>> and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>>
>>> If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>>> would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>>
>>> Where do I get such an opinion?
>>> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>>> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>>> would still be losing money. <g>
>>
>>You guys wouldn't trust the government with your health care but you'd trust
>>them with prosecuting and running a war that's killing your children?
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Huh?
>Dunno what yer smokin', Sandy, but....
>don't drive, fly or operate machinery for the next 8 hours.
>
>I was commenting on HEALTHCARE salaries/issues.
>Just HEALTHCARE.
>
>Further....
>You know nothing about my position on war and trust,
>so please do not assume where I stand or that you can
>speak for me in any capacity.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>

Don't you just love how people will draw an assumed conclusion from a totally
unrelated set of statements.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Barnyard BOb -]

>>>You guys wouldn't trust the government with your health care but you'd trust
>>>them with prosecuting and running a war that's killing your children?
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>Huh?
>>Dunno what yer smokin', Sandy, but....
>>don't drive, fly or operate machinery for the next 8 hours.
>>
>>I was commenting on HEALTHCARE salaries/issues.
>>Just HEALTHCARE.
>>
>>Further....
>>You know nothing about my position on war and trust,
>>so please do not assume where I stand or that you can
>>speak for me in any capacity.
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb --
>>
>
>Don't you just love how people will draw an assumed conclusion from a totally
>unrelated set of statements.
>
>
>Bob Reed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I wouldn't say I love it, Bob.....
but, after years on this group I've
learned to expect the unexpected.

[Never mind that I would never admit to being
more than a bit strange on occasion myself.] <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Dick Steel]

Barnyard BOb - wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
> wrote:
>
>
>>The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare industry,
>>they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many of our
>>brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical field if
>>they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps decide
>>they should earn?
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Whatz gnu?
> The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
> and the effects are observable as we speak.
>
> If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
> would rise while quality of care heads south.
>
> Where do I get such an opinion?
> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
> would still be losing money. <g>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Once a rabble rousing mal-content, always a rabble rousing mal-content
huh Bob?

Dick Steel

[RobertR237]

>Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare industry,
>>>they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many of
>our
>>>brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical field
>if
>>>they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps
>decide
>>>they should earn?
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Whatz gnu?
>> The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>> and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>
>> If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>> would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>
>> Where do I get such an opinion?
>> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>> would still be losing money. <g>
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>Once a rabble rousing mal-content, always a rabble rousing mal-content
>huh Bob?
>
>Dick Steel
>

No Dick, he just has a brain that is working quite well. Name one, just one
thing that the government controls that is not totally ****ed up and cost 10
times what it should. Anyone who thinks that the government could run the
healthcare industry better or cheaper than the current private system doesn't
have a clue. Most of our current run-up in healthcare costs can be directly
traced to and attributed to the government and the stupidity of the medicare
system.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Dick Steel]

RobertR237 wrote:
>>Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>
>>>On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare industry,
>>>>they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many of
>>
>>our
>>
>>>>brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical field
>>
>>if
>>
>>>>they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps
>>
>>decide
>>
>>>>they should earn?
>>>
>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>Whatz gnu?
>>>The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>>>and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>>
>>>If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>>>would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>>
>>>Where do I get such an opinion?
>>>If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>>>a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>>>would still be losing money. <g>
>>>
>>>
>>>Barnyard BOb --
>>
>>Once a rabble rousing mal-content, always a rabble rousing mal-content
>>huh Bob?
>>
>>Dick Steel
>>
>
>
> No Dick, he just has a brain that is working quite well. Name one, just one
> thing that the government controls that is not totally ****ed up and cost 10
> times what it should. Anyone who thinks that the government could run the
> healthcare industry better or cheaper than the current private system doesn't
> have a clue. Most of our current run-up in healthcare costs can be directly
> traced to and attributed to the government and the stupidity of the medicare
> system.
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>
Yeah,some things never change.Same old KIS Cruiser in progress I see.

Dick

[Barnyard BOb -]

>> Whatz gnu?
>> The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>> and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>
>> If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>> would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>
>> Where do I get such an opinion?
>> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>> would still be losing money. <g>
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>Once a rabble rousing mal-content, always a rabble rousing mal-content
>huh Bob?
>
>Dick Steel
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi 'Big Dick'.

Howz it hangin', buddy?

You ain't gonna' believe it, but I wuz waxing
melancholy about you just the other day.

The left coast bike world of Hardly-Go-Davidsons
must be treating you AOK from the tone of your crap.

Glad to see you can still stir a bit of stink, too.


Barnyard BOb - a mere shadow of my former self

[Dick Steel]

Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>>Whatz gnu?
>>>The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>>>and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>>
>>>If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>>>would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>>
>>>Where do I get such an opinion?
>>>If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>>>a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>>>would still be losing money. <g>
>>>
>>>
>>>Barnyard BOb --
>>
>>Once a rabble rousing mal-content, always a rabble rousing mal-content
>>huh Bob?
>>
>>Dick Steel
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Hi 'Big Dick'.
>
> Howz it hangin', buddy?
>
> You ain't gonna' believe it, but I wuz waxing
> melancholy about you just the other day.
>
> The left coast bike world of Hardly-Go-Davidsons
> must be treating you AOK from the tone of your crap.
>
> Glad to see you can still stir a bit of stink, too.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - a mere shadow of my former self


Yeah
Since I been wrenchin' on scooters I can actually afford the inflated
price of avgas once in awhile.

Dick

[Dick Steel]

RobertR237 wrote:
>>Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>
>>>On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare industry,
>>>>they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how many of
>>
>>our
>>
>>>>brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the medical field
>>
>>if
>>
>>>>they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the burro-craps
>>
>>decide
>>
>>>>they should earn?
>>>
>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>Whatz gnu?
>>>The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>>>and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>>
>>>If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>>>would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>>
>>>Where do I get such an opinion?
>>>If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>>>a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam
>>>would still be losing money. <g>
>>>
>>>
>>>Barnyard BOb --
>>
>>Once a rabble rousing mal-content, always a rabble rousing mal-content
>>huh Bob?
>>
>>Dick Steel
>>
>
>
> No Dick, he just has a brain that is working quite well. Name one, just one
> thing that the government controls that is not totally ****ed up and cost 10
> times what it should. Anyone who thinks that the government could run the
> healthcare industry better or cheaper than the current private system doesn't
> have a clue. Most of our current run-up in healthcare costs can be directly
> traced to and attributed to the government and the stupidity of the medicare
> system.
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>


Well Mr. reed I'm afraid I have to agree wqith you. If they can't keep
track of 8 million pounds of explosives that are stored in sealed
bunkers or find a seven foot tall raghead in the desert I'm pretty sure
they would screw up just about anything they touch.

Dick

[Mark Hickey]

Dick Steel > wrote:

>Well Mr. reed I'm afraid I have to agree wqith you. If they can't keep
>track of 8 million pounds of explosives that are stored in sealed
>bunkers or find a seven foot tall raghead in the desert I'm pretty sure
>they would screw up just about anything they touch.

While if YOU were President, you'd have 100,000 troops wandering
around in the wilderness in Pakistan/Afghanistan looking for one guy
who may or may not be there - and you'd personally supervise the
guarding of every single bunker in Iraq, right?

Mark "probably why no one on this ng is President" Hickey

[G EddieA95]

>guarding of every single bunker in Iraq, right?
>
>Mark "probably why no one on this ng is President" Hickey
>

Actually, the POTUS is not here because he has MUCH more serious demands upon
him than wasting time bouncing electrons off a lot of yahoos' minds or excuses
therefor :)

[Charlie England]

Dick Steel wrote:
> RobertR237 wrote:
>
>>> Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27 Sep 2004 14:10:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The bigger issue might be when the government runs the healthcare
>>>>> industry,
>>>>> they must also set the salaries of those in the industry. Just how
>>>>> many of
>>>
>>>
>>> our
>>>
>>>>> brightest and most capable future physicians would opt to the
>>>>> medical field
>>>
>>>
>>> if
>>>
>>>>> they know that they will be forced to work for whatever the
>>>>> burro-craps
>>>
>>>
>>> decide
>>>
>>>>> they should earn?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>> Whatz gnu?
>>>> The HMO's are in effect setting salaries now...
>>>> and the effects are observable as we speak.
>>>>
>>>> If govt takes over, I'd guess salaries and costs
>>>> would rise while quality of care heads south.
>>>>
>>>> Where do I get such an opinion?
>>>> If the govt were in the beer brewing business...
>>>> a six pack would cost $25 and Uncle Sam would still be losing
>>>> money. <g>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Barnyard BOb --
>>>
>>>
>>> Once a rabble rousing mal-content, always a rabble rousing
>>> mal-content huh Bob?
>>>
>>> Dick Steel
>>>
>>
>>
>> No Dick, he just has a brain that is working quite well. Name one,
>> just one
>> thing that the government controls that is not totally ****ed up and
>> cost 10
>> times what it should. Anyone who thinks that the government could run
>> the
>> healthcare industry better or cheaper than the current private system
>> doesn't
>> have a clue. Most of our current run-up in healthcare costs can be
>> directly
>> traced to and attributed to the government and the stupidity of the
>> medicare
>> system.
>>
>>
>> Bob Reed
>> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
>> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>>
>> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
>> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
>> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>
>
>
> Well Mr. reed I'm afraid I have to agree wqith you. If they can't keep
> track of 8 million pounds of explosives that are stored in sealed
> bunkers or find a seven foot tall raghead in the desert I'm pretty sure
> they would screw up just about anything they touch.
>
> Dick
Yee Haa!

Ya know Bob, in most cases I'd agree with you, but you asked for one
example of government control bettering the free market; here's one:

Google 'Montana Power' or ask anyone who buys power in Montana what they
think.

Here's some food for thought: if it isn't a free market, there isn't a
free market.

Charlie

[Dick Steel]

G EddieA95 wrote:
>>guarding of every single bunker in Iraq, right?
>>
>>Mark "probably why no one on this ng is President" Hickey
>>
>
>
> Actually, the POTUS is not here because he has MUCH more serious demands upon
> him than wasting time bouncing electrons off a lot of yahoos' minds or excuses
> therefor :)



Uh Huh like conspiring with his brother to rig the Florida election.

Dick