Re: Re:Rationing

[Guest guest]

At my age I've gotten over a lot of things. I still say you were lucky, I didn't

say impervious to everything.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>>>

>>> and whx portions do you object to?

>>

>> I already gave you the specific paragraphs. If those sections setting up

>> a committee to ration care in the face of shortages are so benign, why

>> did congress need to make expensive back room deals, the Cornhusker

>> Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, to get Democrats to vote for it?

>>

>> There are several causes for the current high costs of health insurance.

>> One is covering the cost of frivolous law suits. Yet, there is no

>> mention of tort reform in the bill. Nor did I see any provision for

>> improving the competency of medical providers, which seems to be the

>> most common complaint with the current system voiced on this list.

>>

>> Another major cost factor is that state governments have negotiated

>> large price breaks for state employees in exchange for effective

>> insurance monopolies. The result is that the favored few insurance

>> companies in those states can raise rates with impunity to make everyone

>> else subsidize the savings to the state. Some states are much worse than

>> others, so the cost of care varies wildly from state to state.

>>

>> My son's family is one of the many who have been priced out of health

>> insurance, because he lives in one state but is employed in California.

>> My son and his company cannot afford the out of state rates, but they

>> are not allowed to buy from a much more competitive company from my

>> son's home state, at about half the price. We could cover a near

>> majority of the estimated uninsured by simply prohibiting state

>> governments from interfering with free trade and competition.

>>

>> Chuck

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 1/12/2010 10:17 AM, Roni Molin wrote:

> Steve, I'm glad your planning has worked out for you. I'm glad you haven't be

sideswiped by illness, injury or financial bad fortune.

Actually I have encountered serious health problems and dramatic

financial losses. I've found myself with enough money for one week and

that was it since the company I was working for went bankrupt and let

employees go without any back pay or any funds at all. This past year

someone whom I lent a lot of money too was granted chapter 7, all gone.

> I'm glad you have lots of money. All that being said, if you live in a society

and enjoy the fruits of that society, then it would seem to me that you would

feel an obligation to give back some to the society, instead of just taking from

it.

That's bs. I enjoy the fruits of my labor. Society doesn't give me

anything. Society produces NO FRUITS. Only people produce fruits

working for their own self interests. No one is going to work each day

and sending me their daily wages. It's just not happening. I don't

need to send anyone else my daily wages either. No one is entitled.

I don't buy the irrationality that people are slaves to something and

have some kind of obligation to that someone since they are OWNED.

Nope, not true. Only people count, not " society " or any groups one may

name. People negotiate with each other to provide goods and services in

return for goods and services. Some people proved the labor of their

minds and bodies for wages, like construction workers or hookers.

Others work for themselves and exchange the outputs they choose to

create for the output of others. An efficient person can specialize in

something and make 100s of those somethings in the time it takes someone

else to make only one. That is the foundation of exchange. The only

fruits ever produced are either by people or literally by their property

(trees, etc.).

In other words, I have no DEBTS to any society and have received nothing

from them, never negotiated a contract to exchange goods and services

with them, and have only delt with people my whole life.

As to people having a right to something from me, that is true only

where we have negociated a contract to exchanged goods and services.

Otherwise, I have no obbligation to anyone. However, as to the " poor "

whom you see as having a right to reach into someones pocket by define a

" living wage " or a " health care right " , they would be far far far better

off in a free market without government intervention. Government

control and regulation drives prices of dramatically. Nurses could

proved basic medical care for say $10/visit but the law forbids it.

These same nurse could send patients onto more education professionals

if their problems were not simple. That would save a lot of money.

There are many many many other business models which would exist to

drive prices dramatically lower if the government would get heck out of

the way. Russia was a socialist system and people lived poorly and

worked in very very very inefficient state industries.

North Korea is a socialist state and when the government allowed small

garden plots to sell their goods to others, the food produced by small

garden plots far exceed the entire output of the socialist state. Some

of these small farmers started to get rich, something socialists curse,

so what did North Korea just do in the past months, it replaced their

natural currency AND only allowed $40 to be converted to the new

currency effective destroying the entire wealth of the small business

persons. Now, everyone is the " same " again and every gets and equal

share of almost nothing. The poor in the US are far better off than

average citizens in many nations AND they would be far better off if the

US government would eliminate 90,000 of their 100,000 laws, if not all

of them.

You may thing that people that want a true free market and want the

government to not be allowed to intervene in the economy like they

cannot control what church you go to, but I say religion is much better

off without the government and the economy would be far better off too,

and so would the poor. My plan is much better for the poor than any

North Korean socialism or any portion thereof you want to implement in

the USA.

People who make money and " keep " money can do it two ways, they can

provide a good product for a price others are willing to pay and do so

better than their competitors OR they can use government to get them a

false advantage so that prices can be kept high and their profits are

not the result of honest competition. Your plan makes the immoral rich

richer. My plan allows the moral rich to do what they do best, increase

the economical per capita wealth of all Americans and would bankrupt the

immoral rich. You enrich the immoral rich while bankrupting the moral rich.

You are a slave and you don't even know it.

Steve

> There are people who have jobs that are essential for your lifestyle that pay

them small wages with no benefits, from whom you are able to live and plan and

do your thing. Not every one is on top, there have to be people working at all

levels. I don't see that you acknowledge their input into your comfortable life,

nor care whether they can at least live at their own level. You don't want them

to have a decent minimum wage, or health care.

>

> I hope you are just speaking rhetorically when you talk about the socialists,

democrats, republicans that you discuss. The reason everything goes up is

because the ones that have it are busy keeping it and engaged in getting more,

and refuse to give up a little for the others. You have not clue what slavery

is, and yet you feel justified in bristling about it.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>>> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the

>>> people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone

>>> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans

>>> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution.

>>> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare!

>>> CW

>>>

>>> -- Re: Re:Rationing

>>>

>>> Nancie,

>>>

>>> You wrote about the AMA position:

>>>>

>>>> here is their opinion and support stance:

>>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml

>>>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml>

>>>

>>> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion

>>> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement,

>>> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of

>>> exactly those parts to which I objected.

>>>

>>> Chuck

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Guest guest]

That's not the same thing. If you had a house, in whatever condition the

insurance company should have to sell you insurance for the value of your house

whether that was a million dollars or one. However, no house, no insurance. As

far as health care and preexisting conditions, there is still a living body that

needs insurance. However if the person was dead, then the insurance company

should not have to sell the survivors health insurance for their deceased

relative.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>>

>> According to you, they have no right to health care.

>

> No, they would have health care if California did not give a monopoly to

> a handful of insurance companies in exchange for favors. Power corrupts.

>

> Chuck

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I agree with you with one exception. My problem with the system is that

insurance companies can negotiate a doctor's fee of $150 down to say $47

and that's what the insurance company pays. When I didn't have

insurance, I usually got the full $150 bill. Some doctors will

negotiate. Dentists however will not, at least from my sample of a

dozen dentists. As to hospital bills, they usually charge the uninsured

about 3-5 time health insurance rate. My heart attack and stent

procedure was billed to me at $90,000! That doesn't included the

doctors, ambulance, etc. A full heart bypass insurance paid about

$25,000 at the time. I was told they would bill me about $250,000 for a

full bypass and I elected to try stents, many stents. As it was, I was

able to negotiate the bill down to $30,000 but I was still being taken

to the cleaners.

What I would like to see is the ability to buy " negotiated rates " from

medical providers. This might cost say $5/month but would be well worth

it after only one doctor visit. One can never get a doctor to provide

info on his fees up front.

Steve

On 1/12/2010 12:46 PM, bfsmo wrote:

> I am the family that chose not to buy insurance in order to buy groceries.

> We paid our bill. We did not live off the system. We did not have food

> stamps or any government aid. We received medical care without insurance

> and we paid our bill. If everyone who received medical care would pay their

> bill we wouldn't have the health insurance mess we have now. If we went to

> the doctor we wanted and paid him we would not have all the middle men.

> Prices would come down. Insurance is not a right or the answer.

>

>

>

> beebe

>

>

>

> From: hypothyroidism [mailto:hypothyroidism ]

> On Behalf Of Roni Molin

> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:24 PM

> hypothyroidism

> Subject: Re: Re:Rationing

>

>

>

>

>

> We don't know whether he pays taxes or not. That is your assumption.

> Assuming he does not buy insurance for himself, I am against that, as well

> as against the couple with the 4 children who chose not to buy insurance for

> their family. I think everyone should purchase insurance, just like everyone

> who drives a car is supposed to buy insurance. It's part of living in

> society.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>>> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller

> the

>>> people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would

> anyone

>>> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans

>>> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution

>

>>> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare!

>>> CW

>>>

>>> -- Re: Re:Rationing

>>>

>>> Nancie,

>>>

>>> You wrote about the AMA position:

>>>>

>>>> here is their opinion and support stance:

>>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml

>>>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml>

>>>

>>> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion

>>> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement,

>>> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of

>>> exactly those parts to which I objected.

>>>

>>> Chuck

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Guest guest]

That's because the law requires business to provide service regardless

of ability to pay. That's why they charge the uninsured 3-5 times the

going rate to make up for the people who cannot pay. It's the uninsured

who end up paying for this law.

Steve

On 1/12/2010 1:12 PM, Roni Molin wrote:

> Since that is the system we have now, it's the only way most people can afford

to have healthcare. You stated that it took you quite some time to pay for a

single operation. If

> the illness was ongoing and costs thousands and thousands of dollars for a

long time,

> it's doubtful that you would be able to pay for the healthcare that would be

needed. You and your family are gambling with everyone else's money.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>>> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller

> the

>>> people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would

> anyone

>>> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans

>>> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution

>

>>> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare!

>>> CW

>>>

>>> -- Re: Re:Rationing

>>>

>>> Nancie,

>>>

>>> You wrote about the AMA position:

>>>>

>>>> here is their opinion and support stance:

>>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml

>>>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml>

>>>

>>> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion

>>> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement,

>>> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of

>>> exactly those parts to which I objected.

>>>

>>> Chuck

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Guest guest]

The only reason that North Korea can do what it is doing is not because it is

socialist, but because it is a dictatorship in whatever disguise they choose to

present to the world. Of course it's not better.

 

If your valhalla of no government laws were in effect there would be chaos. It's

called anarchy and has been proven over and over to destroy everything. In your

perfect world where you take nothing from society, do you own a car, do you buy

food, do you drive on roads, do you buy clothing, do you buy shoes? Of course I

don't know where you live in Utah, and it's entirely possible that you live in

one of those self contained compounds. However even in those there are cars and

trucks and guns and shoes and other things that are purchased from the outside

world, so even that would not be a total island.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>>> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the

>>> people. "   We have govt run healthcare and its a  HOT mess.  Why would anyone

>>> want the govt making those systems bigger?  The progressives (republicans

>>> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution.

>>> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare!

>>> CW

>>>

>>> -- Re: Re:Rationing

>>>

>>> Nancie,

>>>

>>> You wrote about the AMA position:

>>>>

>>>> here is their opinion and support stance:

>>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml

>>>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml>

>>>

>>> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion

>>> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement,

>>> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of

>>> exactly those parts to which I objected.

>>>

>>> Chuck

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Val is quoting the AMA. If that's not one sided, then nothing is.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re:Rationing

hypothyroidism

Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 10:03 PM

Val, there is one side of this discussion that just aren't interested if

facts and figures; they have their opinions and that's all that's needed.

Regards,

..

..

>

>       Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

>       <mailto:val@...?Subject=%20Re%3ARationing> val1198

>       <val1198>

>

>

>         Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:41 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> I've been watching your discourse with great interest.

>

> There are two facts that should decrease the level of disagreement:

>

> 1. Medicare has the highest rate of denial - nearly 7%. Aetna is slightly

> less. And the rest are in the 4% area. It doesn't matter what individual

> experience is; those are the facts.

>

> " According to the American Medical Association'

> s National

> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your

> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your>

> -practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insur

> er-report-card/2008-nhirc.shtml> Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the

> government's health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double

> the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The

> highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue

> Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private

> insurers of 3.88%. " http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459

> <http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459>

>

> 2. No one has to go without healthcare. There are free and reduced-cost

> clinics all over the U.S. In or near my zip code, there are 54

> http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

> <http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/> The Senate bill seeks to create

> another

> 10,000 of them. That is the slippery slope toward socialized medicine.

>

> Some of you argue for government medicine by mentioning such items as

> pre-existing conditions. If that is a problem, why not just fix that? Why

> over 2,000 pages of new programs and over 100 new bureaucracies? Why the

> death panel?

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.ht

> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.ht>

> ml

>

> This is not about health care; it is about government control. If this was

> about health care, it could be written in just a few pages; maybe 20 or 30

> for a politician.

>

> Val

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I agree with that. I got thrown into over $15000 of debt for dental work because

I didn't have insurance. As a senior on a fixed income it has put me in the

category of not having any discretionary income at all. Several health issues

have not allowed me to work, so I haven't been able to get any extra income. You

were right the dentists would not negotiate and charged ridiculous prices for

what they did. That was three years ago, and the change in credit card rates has

me standing in one place on this debt now. I'll probably be paying this till the

day I die.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>>> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller

> the

>>> people. "   We have govt run healthcare and its a  HOT mess.  Why would

> anyone

>>> want the govt making those systems bigger?  The progressives (republicans

>>> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution

>

>>> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare!

>>> CW

>>>

>>> -- Re: Re:Rationing

>>>

>>> Nancie,

>>>

>>> You wrote about the AMA position:

>>>>

>>>> here is their opinion and support stance:

>>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml

>>>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml>

>>>

>>> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion

>>> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement,

>>> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of

>>> exactly those parts to which I objected.

>>>

>>> Chuck

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

A dictatorship is the ultimate socialist state.

On 1/12/2010 11:15 PM, Roni Molin wrote:

> The only reason that North Korea can do what it is doing is not because it is

socialist, but because it is a dictatorship in whatever disguise they choose to

present to the world. Of course it's not better.

>

> If your valhalla of no government laws were in effect there would be chaos.

It's called anarchy and has been proven over and over to destroy everything. In

your perfect world where you take nothing from society, do you own a car, do you

buy food, do you drive on roads, do you buy clothing, do you buy shoes? Of

course I don't know where you live in Utah, and it's entirely possible that you

live in one of those self contained compounds. However even in those there are

cars and trucks and guns and shoes and other things that are purchased from the

outside world, so even that would not be a total island.

I'm not getting something for nothing. The exchange is consensual. I

buy what I want and I pay for it. It comes from people, not society.

Government can exits without regulating religion, without regulating the

economy, or without regulating if I can have sex on Sundays and which

ways are allowed. IF governments were not regulating say cars, I would

get my information from private sources, like consumer reports. Wait,

that's were I get some of my information in spite of government

regulation. If governments didn't regulate cars, then I would still get

my information from the same places and still select cars based on

quality, safety, and economy and would get a better car at a cheaper price.

If you think the diversity of a jungle with it's 1000s of species

anarchy, then so be it. The alternative in your socialist utopia is

miles and miles of corn fields.

Steve

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>>>> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller

" the

>>>> people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would

anyone

>>>> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans

>>>> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution.

>>>> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare!

>>>> CW

>>>>

>>>> -- Re: Re:Rationing

>>>>

>>>> Nancie,

>>>>

>>>> You wrote about the AMA position:

>>>>>

>>>>> here is their opinion and support stance:

>>>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>>> shtml

>>>>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>>> shtml>

>>>>

>>>> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion

>>>> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement,

>>>> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of

>>>> exactly those parts to which I objected.

>>>>

>>>> Chuck

>>>

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Guest guest]

quoted you some good facts on the how many of those " uninsured "

make $50,000/year or more and how many make $75,000/year or more. I

don't have to know everyone to know the general facts in the case. The

research has already been done and you choose to ignore the facts and go

with myths.

Steve

On 1/12/2010 1:04 PM, Roni Molin wrote:

> I don't think you are remotely acquainted with the majority of the people that

you speak

> about, so therefore your conclusions are not based on fact, but on

supposition.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>>>

>>>

>>> From: Crystal<sweetnwright@...>

>>> Subject: Re: Re:Rationing

>>> hypothyroidism

>>> Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 7:51 AM

>>>

>>>

>>> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the

>>> people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone

>>> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans

>>> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution.

>>> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare!

>>> CW

>>>

>>> -- Re: Re:Rationing

>>>

>>> Nancie,

>>>

>>> You wrote about the AMA position:

>>>>

>>>> here is their opinion and support stance:

>>>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml

>>>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009

>>> shtml>

>>>

>>> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion

>>> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement,

>>> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of

>>> exactly those parts to which I objected.

>>>

>>> Chuck

>>

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Guest guest]

The dodgy infections you speak of are here in these hospitals too. Just very

recently they discovered that the sanitary protocols that the doctors, nurses

and other staff are supposed to use in the hospitals are being done very

sloppily, if at all. They have to crack down on that and get the hospitals back

to clean again.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

no their not. You are LYING

From: Crystal

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:30 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: Re:Rationing

That is exactly what happens in the UK.. Their hospitals are overflowing!

CW   

>

> I agree with that. just remember that not to cut out Complex carbs out your

diet. low {simple} carb, high complex carb diets are healthy

>

>

> From: Trish

> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:23 AM

> hypothyroidism

> Subject: Re:Rationing

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Follow the logic. My $200,000 house has $125,000 of fire damage; I want

to now buy insurance to cover the damage. Or, my house was robbed and

$20,000 in electronics and vandalism damage has occurred and I want to

now buy home owners insurance to pay for the costs. O, and even if I

don't pay, I can show up a the home owner's insurance ER and demand

payment to cover the problem and the home owner's insurance ER must pay

for my damages by law and I can just decided never the repay the costs.

That's a pre-existing condition AND the right to ER services all

wrapped into one that anyone can understand.

Steve

On 1/12/2010 11:00 PM, Roni Molin wrote:

> That's not the same thing. If you had a house, in whatever condition the

insurance company should have to sell you insurance for the value of your house

whether that was a million dollars or one. However, no house, no insurance. As

far as health care and preexisting conditions, there is still a living body that

needs insurance. However if the person was dead, then the insurance company

should not have to sell the survivors health insurance for their deceased

relative.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>>>

>>> According to you, they have no right to health care.

>>

>> No, they would have health care if California did not give a monopoly to

>> a handful of insurance companies in exchange for favors. Power corrupts.

>>

>> Chuck

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html