OT: Why I'm Depressed

How many are **Health** insurance?

ooops... Now we have to define "health" and "national debt" and "standard of
living".


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Pain & Suffering
Lost wages
Inability to operate complicated machinery (i.e., a spoon)
Loss of Consortium
Punative damages
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
Exposure to shame and ridicule by the general public
Psychologically induced phobias (i.e., fear of tricycles, the color orange,
parsnips, or bald women)


Mike Marlow wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>>
>> In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd and
>> a high-dollar item. That forces them:
>>
>> A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
>> B. Actually go to trial, or
>> C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the
>> remainder (that way he can look good to his boss).
>
> And how do you propose to "pad" a health insurance claim with a
> "bogus" claim?

On Sep 28, 4:29=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > >> One of the difficulties in "thinking" one might be experiencing good
> > >> care is the possibility of lowered expectations.
>
> > >> For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine during a
> > >> tooth extraction because, well, it's not just part of the usual
> > >> level of treatment.
>
> > > What is your source for that information?
>
> > Glen Beck.
>
> Who's Glen Beck?

He's got you there, Bub... Glenn has TWO nn's it is GleNN...... wow,
that's so awesome!!!

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:37:20 -0500, Dave In Texas wrote:

> "basilisk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Also don't forget that smoking probably wasn't as dangerous
>> until after the US dropped several hundred Abombs in the
>> southwest and dripped plutonium over the entire nation's
>> cropland, one atom of which is supposed to be able to cause
>> lung cancer.
>
> Now there's a conspiracy theory I'd never heard before! HA! HA! HA! HA!
> HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
> HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
> HA!
>
> Dave in Houston

Glad you are having fun with it, I'm also glad I'm further from the source
than you are.

basilisk

Josepi wrote:
> Some will play the "religion" card. Mennonite doe not subcribe and
> pay for their own.
>
> Wanna' talk about smokers big bills bringing your coverage down to
> nothing?
>

No - let's talk about more realistic things... like obesity and other heart
problem provoking issues that really cost you and I more than the load from
smokers. And then there's all the pregnancy related stuff for the
"underpriviledged", and while we're at it, let's talk about things like
breast cancer since you want to single out groups. More money goes into
those areas of care than the care of smokers.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Can you post in a larger font? I have to get up and walk across the room to
read the text, sometimes!



"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Getting old is inevitable. Getting lazy - hell, that ain't so bad...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/27/2010 11:31 AM, Upscale wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Swingman"<[email protected]>
>> FACT: My daughter's dog has a MUCH better medical insurance plan ... more
>> responsive, reasonable cost, better coverage ... than she does.
>
>
> Much better? Really? Think about that. You really can't compare the two.
>
> There's a huge amount of diseases and injuries that a human might use health
> insurance for. I'd estimate that pet problems are less than 10% of the
> amount of problems that humans experience.

Only because the "reporting" of health issues is not the same ...

Think about it.

> An average monthly insurance policy for my cat (Canadian funds) would
> approximate $30-$40 monthly depending on the insurance company in question.
> There's often a deductable unless you use the $50+ monthly policy and that's
> without pre-existing conditions in the cat. If the cat matched a human in
> size and weight,

> I could probably think of a dozen additional reasons why pet insurance can't
> really be compared to human insurance, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Just start by proving how the "size and weight" of the recipient
correlates in the mechanisms of the administration of health care with
regard to _insurance_.

:)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:16:22 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>More than five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel,
>"Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to
>the Promised Land."
>
>Seventy five years ago Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your
>asses and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
>
>Today, Obama has stolen our shovels, taxed our asses, raised the price of
>Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land.
>
>I was so discouraged last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the
>economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, etc. that I called a
>Suicide Hotline.
>
>I had to press one for English and got connected to a call center in
>Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal.
>
>They got very excited and asked me if I could drive a truck!

(Immediately snipped and sent to my joke listees. Priceless!)

--
Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
Others have no imagination whatsoever.

Josepi wrote:

> Can you post in a larger font? I have to get up and walk across the
> room to read the text, sometimes!
>

First I've ever heard that request in almost 30 years on the net. Are you
sure it isn't your reader settings?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

The trick is to make it easy for themto just pay-out and walk away. You will
sign papers with no further interest though.


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd and a
high-dollar item. That forces them:

A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
B. Actually go to trial, or
C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the remainder (that
way he can look good to his boss).


Josepi wrote:
> Wife worked in the insurance business for years and the trick is:
>
> Never stop pestering. The minute you had a legal letter of notice
> sent to them they set aside the cash to cover it. Just before it hits
> court they just pay it out. It's cheaper than court for small items
> like that. The courts will kick the insurance companies asses for
> everything and anything for the little guy, usually. Most judges have
> a soft heart and know the rumours.
>

On Sep 27, 9:42=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>
> Shit, we don't need a governmental clusterfuck over the existing
> broken medical/dental clusterfuck, we need to fix the underlying
> problems with the legal and medical infrastructures. They're both
> seriously damaged and getting worse daily.

Free enterprise should be allowed to flourish in those markets where
the consumers have choice. Bigger faster better cars are optional.
Health-care is not. Just as we allow our government to lay pipes to
haul our shit away, build roads so we can visit Aunt Bee, so is our
national health a part of our infra-stucture. Sick people, sick
economy.
Allowing lobbyists to buy legislators to further their agendas of
screwing the working stiffs is what is immoral and totally wrong and
corrupt.
Corporate donations to campaigns is wrong. People in government making
military decisions who themselves never strapped a boot on is wrong.
The power of the financial institutions influencing all aspects of a
regular guy's daily life is wrong. Nobody is free from those vultures
and to cut off your noses to spite your faces for the sake of a mock
freedom is wrong.
Shoot all the lawyers, politicians and all those motherfuckers who
insist a human being has to be either right or left in order for them
to be allowed to exist.
They keep us divided so that once a year they can harvest a big chunk
of what we toiled to earn and what they didn't get at tax time, their
buddies in the unsurance [sic] and medical/dental business will get
the rest.
And no matter how you dress it up, we are all getting fucked.... and
we seem to like it. And as long as we can keep blaming 'the other
side' we continue getting fucked.
Early on I thought the Tea Party may have been on to something, but
noooooo, they have to bring in religious zealots and anti-masterbatory
kooks and hefty slogans like "You betcha!"
Early on I thought Obama may have been onto
something...bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzer just another politician. No more no
less. A real disappointment.

Unfortunately, The Great North American Implosion is also going to
affect us Canuckistanis hence my appearance today on the soap box.
I keep peeking over the St Clair River into Detroit, that once
magnificent city, and watching it crumble at a rate that nobody could
have ever imagined.
>
> My last crown cost a grand, with root canal, a decade ago. Now the
> idiots want $2,243 for one fucking tooth. =A0Tell me that's not broken!
>

My youngest daughter's orthodontist was outraged at the last yacht
club meeting that his docking fees were going to go up $ 600.00 next
year. Everybody with boats over 40 feet long has to now pay more.
Those bigger boats sleep more people, more sewage treatment, more
electricity.....I mean, shit, C-Less... you just have no idea the
financial pressure these tooth-smiths are under.
(BTW, that is the same daughter who got a concussion playing rugby in
Ohio, bills for which are still showing up even after the insurance
people have paid them, just an example of office automation designed
to fuck people.)

Yup, stop suing for every mental cut and scrape and the insurance costs and
futhermore the medical costs go down.


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Well, malpractice insurance is a LOT cheaper in Texas - and other states
that have reformed their tort system - than it used to be. For six years in
a row, the insurance carriers have reduced their malpractice insurance rates
(13% the first year) and less than a third of what it is in some states.
We've had a doubling of the number of doctors moving into our state, and,
for the first time in living memory, almost everybody in the state is within
driving range of an obstetrician.

Soon, if this keeps up, Canadians will be coming WAY south for medical care.



Josepi wrote:
> Again you seem to hung up on exact terminolgy that usually doesn't
> matter.
>
> If you have proof that "liabilty medical insurance" is cheap provide
> it.
>

On 9/27/2010 8:42 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

> My last crown cost a grand, with root canal, a decade ago. Now the
> idiots want $2,243 for one fucking tooth. Tell me that's not broken!

WTF, Larry?? Somebody has to pay for the swimming pool chemicals for the
malpractice lawyers.

FACT: My daughter's dog has a MUCH better medical insurance plan ...
more responsive, reasonable cost, better coverage ... than she does.

And yes, I have the documentary evidence to prove the above beyond a
shadow of a doubt.

Just a few of the reasons ... most owners pay for vet care out of
pocket, therefore the cost remains reasonable relative to human
healthcare; the dog can't vote and thus has no politician's involved in
the process; vets have shallower pockets and therefore barely worth the
lawyers trouble; and the pet health insurance industry has yet to
entrench itself into local and federal politician's pockets.

.... yet

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but she is
> stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from another
> provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.
>
> Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this for some
> time to come.

Last year Assurant informed me they were moving me into their new policy
product AND upping my premium by several hundred dollars/month AND doing it
THREE months before my normal anniversary date thereby benefitting from said
increase by an extra three months.
Ah, yes, the free-market American business model.

Dave in Houston

On 9/27/2010 1:10 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "Swingman"<[email protected]> wrote in message

>> FACT: My daughter's dog has a MUCH better medical insurance plan ... more
>> responsive, reasonable cost, better coverage ... than she does.
>
> After you've proved that FACT: as you've so boldly stated it, I'll make a
> stab at proving it wrong.

Take this to heart, _you_ can't "prove it wrong" ... and you have
nothing to gain by doing so.

"More responsive" is without doubt ... see a previous post.

"Reasonable cost" is without doubt ... see subsequent post for why that is.

"Better coverage" is without doubt ... no "pre-existing conditions"
clause for starters, which has been a source of unimaginable grief to my
family.

Once again, you can't "prove it wrong", and you have NOTHING to gain by
attempting to do so.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Lobby Dosser" wrote:

> More than five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of
> Israel,
> "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead
> you to
> the Promised Land."
>
> Seventy five years ago Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit
> on your
> asses and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
>
> Today, Obama has stolen our shovels, taxed our asses, raised the
> price of
> Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land.
----------------------------------------
Ye gad is this one is old and moldy.

First time I heard it, kicked the slats out of the cradle.

Lew

"Lobby Dosser" wrote:

> Did it have Pakistan and the last line?
------------------------------------------
Like every story, ya gotta add something.

Lew

"Swingman" wrote:

> Beware of _any_ statistics slinger with an agenda ...
--------------
Or as my father often said to me, "Son, just remember, figures don't
lie, but liars can figure".

Lew

"Swingman" wrote:

> Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but
> she is stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from
> another provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.
>
> Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this
> for some time to come.
-----------------------------------
Thought the health care law changes that went into effect this week
eliminated the exclusion because of pre-existing conditions loop hole
the insurance companies have been hiding behind.

Of course finding another carrier that will even offer a policy is now
another matter.

Public option anyone?

Lew

"Dave In Texas" wrote:

> My annual INCREASE NOTICE arrived in yesterday's mail from
> Assurant Health (subsidiary of John Alden Life). This year's
> increase? How about 27-fucking-percent. $361/mo. on top of
> $1336/mo. which was approximately a $300/mo increase a year ago.
> $20,000/year.
--------------------------------
Same order of magnitude increases have taken place here in California.

Public option anyone?

Lew

"Larry Jaques" wrote:

> My teeth are disintegrating, Lew. I want you to pay for new dentures
> for me, uppers and lowers. You, Obama, and the public option sure
> are
> swell. Thanks. Oh, and I need it TOMORROW, please.
----------------------------------------
Piss poor planning on your part does not mean an emergency for the
rest of us.

You have obviously known you had dental problems for some time.

Dental insurance not available in your area?

Assume that if you ignored your problem it would go away?

BTW, the current health care package does NOT include dental coverage.

If you would like dental to be included, you need to talk to your
congressional representatives and let them know.

Lew

"Swingman" wrote:

> Bzzzzztt ... only for children under 19.
---------------------------------
Thought 26 was the magic number unless they have left home for other
than school.

Lew

"Swingman" wrote:

>> Which begs another question ... why the hell are grown-ups in this
>> country still considered "children"?
-------------------------------------
You already know the answer.
--------------------------
> Hey, Lew ... I see you didn't bother to read O'Bama's legislation
> either!!
----------------------------------
No need.

As my former office land lord once said about Reagan's tax reform back
in the '80s:

"Wait till they get done changing things, then we'll figure out how to
fuck them."

Works for me.

Lew


Lew

"Larry Jaques" wrote:

> Yabbut, I always forgot to go buy it in between problems.
--------------------
More piss poor planning.

> Absolutely not. I've never been more than about 2 years between
> dentist visits; usually annual.
------------------------------
More piss poor planning, especially when 6 months between dental
visits is considered the norm.

At my age, dentist suggests 4 month intervals between cleanings to
minimize plaque build-up.
---------------------------------

> My last crown cost a grand, with root canal, a decade ago. Now the
> idiots want $2,243 for one fucking tooth. Tell me that's not
> broken!
-------------------------------------
More piss poor planning.

If you would have invested in some preventative dental care, including
some deep scaling as required, how much of the above misery could have
been avoided?

Lew

J. Clarke wrote:

>
> This notion that "good healthcare is expensive" is bullshit. If
> you're healthy you need no "care". What's expensive is good
> treatment for difficult illnesses and goldplated treatment for common
> injuries.

I beg to differ. When was the last time you got a quote from a doctor or
dentist for a rather routine procedure?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sep 28, 12:35=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:36:45 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine during a
> >> tooth extraction because, well, it's not just part of the usual level
> >> of treatment.
>
> > What is your source for that information?
>
> Glenn Beck?
>
> (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
Christine O'Donnell maybe?

With 'gifts' like Palin, Beck, O'Donnell etc., does the RNC really
want to win any seats? Maybe, deep down, the Republicans want to let
The Great Implosion take place on the Dem's watch? Then ride into DC
as the Party That Saves The Nation? With Beck at the front of the
parade?

My friends, (American & Canadian) ask me why I pay so much attention
to US politics. Well, there is no other great comedy available on TV.
Now there' are presidential hopefuls who can't appear on networks
other than Fox due to contracts with Fox...how hilarious is that? On
the other channels, Rachel Maddow is trying to mobilize RugMunchers
for Democracy. DOES it get funnier than that?
There's always somebody getting caught with their hand in the cookie
jar or down the pants of some staffer.

The book of Proverbs makes it clear:

A proud look
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plots
Feet that are swift to run into mischief
A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
Him that soweth discord among brethren

...seems like a prerequisite for political life....

HeyBub wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd
>>> and a high-dollar item. That forces them:
>>>
>>> A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
>>> B. Actually go to trial, or
>>> C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the
>>> remainder (that way he can look good to his boss).
>>
>> And how do you propose to "pad" a health insurance claim with a
>> "bogus" claim?
>
> Pain & Suffering
> Lost wages
> Inability to operate complicated machinery (i.e., a spoon)
> Loss of Consortium
> Punative damages
> Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
> Exposure to shame and ridicule by the general public
> Psychologically induced phobias (i.e., fear of tricycles, the color
> orange, parsnips, or bald women)

Don't you think that if this stuff worked in the real world, that the
ambulance chasers wouldn't be all over it? There's a reason you don't see
these things being prosecuted every day.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Again. One of the biggest costs of medical stuff is medical insurance. Think
what a surgeon pays in premiums to take patient and open them up after half
killing them with drugs so they feel no pain.


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for an
appendectomy? What's the actual cost of an appendectomy?

What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for a heart
transplant? What's the actual cost of a heart transplant?


In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:19:54 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
> > I don't see an agenda in that statement. Old people need and receive
> > more health care. That's a fact. If it costs the same to
> > administratively service a 70 year old as it does to service a 30 year
> > old, the administrative costs percentage will look smaller.
> > Hypothetically: a 70 year old uses $10k a year in health care while the
> > 30 year old uses $2k, but the administrative costs are the same. $300
> > is 3% to the elderly, but 15% to the younger.
>
> You have a point, but it's a long way from 2% to 30% :-).
>
> And insurance companies have overhead costs for healthy people too. Of
> course they make a lot of profit off of those.

Swingman wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 5:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>>> Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but
>>> she is stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from
>>> another provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.
>>>
>>> Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this
>>> for some time to come.
>> -----------------------------------
>> Thought the health care law changes that went into effect this week
>> eliminated the exclusion because of pre-existing conditions loop hole
>> the insurance companies have been hiding behind.
>
> Bzzzzztt ... only for children under 19.

And very many carriers have stopped writing "children-only"* policies.

From last Tuesday:
"Major health insurance companies in California and other states have
decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new
federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with
preexisting medical conditions."
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921

--------------
* "Children only" policies are used when an employer offers "employee only"
or "employee and spouse only" policies.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:03:08 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:58:57 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> My teeth are disintegrating, Lew. I want you to pay for new dentures for
>> me, uppers and lowers. You, Obama, and the public option sure are
>> swell. Thanks. Oh, and I need it TOMORROW, please.
>
>Larry, if we had national health insurance like all the other
>industrialized nations (and some unindustrialized ones as well) all that
>would be covered. And some insurance company couldn't deny the claim,
>void your policy, or raise your rates because you filed a claim.

I think the average gov't taxation in those countries is 50%. That
would cover healthcare nicely, wouldn't it? I'm not ready for that.
Are you?


>But that would conflict with your philosophy. You'd rather be screwed by
>an insurance company than agree to government involvement. So I guess
>your bad teeth are your problem :-).

My average medical bill for the past 3+ decades has been $200 per
annum, including a couple massages (but not dental care.) I pay less
in the long run without insurance, and the gov't involvement ensures
that the new mandatory insurance will be double the price for likely
half the coverage, and I still won't get dental coverage.


>BTW, just in case you really do have bad teeth, take heart. I've had
>dentures since I was 40 and they've been great.

Thanks for the sentiment. I think I'm having a health crisis. Last
year, one tooth died. In the past 3 months, one tooth died and two
teeth with crowns have broken off at the gumline. Something hinky this
way comes.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

In Canada we expect Novacaine either as it became obsolete back in the
1960s.

I always get teeth done without freezing. Extractions and drilling don't
bother me at all and a little pain is no reason for drugs to be used...

when I send my wife to the Dentist!

I get what I need.


LOL



"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
One of the difficulties in "thinking" one might be experiencing good care is
the possibility of lowered expectations.

For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine during a tooth
extraction because, well, it's not just part of the usual level of
treatment.


Upscale wrote:
>
> And I have to reciprocate the same sentiment. We Canadians
> essentially, take our national health care for granted. The crisis
> that you're going through in the US is something that is foreign to
> most Canadians. Not to say that our system is any better than what
> you're trying to set up, just that we've had our system going for
> awhile and *think* it's working as it should only because problems
> with it don't always filter down to the patient level.

On 9/27/2010 11:09 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:42 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>>
>> Shit, we don't need a governmental clusterfuck over the existing
>> broken medical/dental clusterfuck, we need to fix the underlying
>> problems with the legal and medical infrastructures. They're both
>> seriously damaged and getting worse daily.
>
> Free enterprise should be allowed to flourish in those markets where
> the consumers have choice. Bigger faster better cars are optional.
> Health-care is not. Just as we allow our government to lay pipes to
> haul our shit away, build roads so we can visit Aunt Bee, so is our
> national health a part of our infra-stucture. Sick people, sick
> economy.
> Allowing lobbyists to buy legislators to further their agendas of
> screwing the working stiffs is what is immoral and totally wrong and
> corrupt.
> Corporate donations to campaigns is wrong. People in government making
> military decisions who themselves never strapped a boot on is wrong.
> The power of the financial institutions influencing all aspects of a
> regular guy's daily life is wrong. Nobody is free from those vultures
> and to cut off your noses to spite your faces for the sake of a mock
> freedom is wrong.
> Shoot all the lawyers, politicians and all those motherfuckers who
> insist a human being has to be either right or left in order for them
> to be allowed to exist.
> They keep us divided so that once a year they can harvest a big chunk
> of what we toiled to earn and what they didn't get at tax time, their
> buddies in the unsurance [sic] and medical/dental business will get
> the rest.
> And no matter how you dress it up, we are all getting fucked.... and
> we seem to like it. And as long as we can keep blaming 'the other
> side' we continue getting fucked.
> Early on I thought the Tea Party may have been on to something, but
> noooooo, they have to bring in religious zealots and anti-masterbatory
> kooks and hefty slogans like "You betcha!"
> Early on I thought Obama may have been onto
> something...bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzer just another politician. No more no
> less. A real disappointment.
>
> Unfortunately, The Great North American Implosion is also going to
> affect us Canuckistanis hence my appearance today on the soap box.
> I keep peeking over the St Clair River into Detroit, that once
> magnificent city, and watching it crumble at a rate that nobody could
> have ever imagined.

> My youngest daughter's orthodontist was outraged at the last yacht
> club meeting that his docking fees were going to go up $ 600.00 next
> year. Everybody with boats over 40 feet long has to now pay more.
> Those bigger boats sleep more people, more sewage treatment, more
> electricity.....I mean, shit, C-Less... you just have no idea the
> financial pressure these tooth-smiths are under.
> (BTW, that is the same daughter who got a concussion playing rugby in
> Ohio, bills for which are still showing up even after the insurance
> people have paid them, just an example of office automation designed
> to fuck people.)

What he said ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Upscale wrote:

>
> You're right of course. I do have nothing to gain by doing so.
> Lately, I've mostly given up the arguing process. I'm sure that
> accounts muchly for my recent absences from the rec. Guess I'm
> getting old and lazy.

Getting old is inevitable. Getting lazy - hell, that ain't so bad...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

HeyBub wrote:

>
> In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd and
> a high-dollar item. That forces them:
>
> A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
> B. Actually go to trial, or
> C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the
> remainder (that way he can look good to his boss).

And how do you propose to "pad" a health insurance claim with a "bogus"
claim?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:20:09 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> My teeth are disintegrating, Lew. I want you to pay for new dentures
>> for me, uppers and lowers. You, Obama, and the public option sure
>> are
>> swell. Thanks. Oh, and I need it TOMORROW, please.
>----------------------------------------
>Piss poor planning on your part does not mean an emergency for the
>rest of us.

WHAT? That's not what your prezident and the rest of the leftists
say.


>You have obviously known you had dental problems for some time.

Yes, all my life. Some of my 45 year old fillings are going bad, too.


>Dental insurance not available in your area?

Yabbut, I always forgot to go buy it in between problems.


>Assume that if you ignored your problem it would go away?

Absolutely not. I've never been more than about 2 years between
dentist visits; usually annual.


>BTW, the current health care package does NOT include dental coverage.
>
>If you would like dental to be included, you need to talk to your
>congressional representatives and let them know.

Yeah, right.

Shit, we don't need a governmental clusterfuck over the existing
broken medical/dental clusterfuck, we need to fix the underlying
problems with the legal and medical infrastructures. They're both
seriously damaged and getting worse daily.

My last crown cost a grand, with root canal, a decade ago. Now the
idiots want $2,243 for one fucking tooth. Tell me that's not broken!

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

On Sep 30, 11:21=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:02:10 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> > The way the health care law is written, a child doesn't have to have
> > insurance and can buy it only if he needs it. So when your kid breaks
> > his arm playing junior-league football, you can buy this
> > must-be-available insurance on the way to the hospital and cancel the
> > policy after the arm heals.
>
> > But that's okay - it's for the children.
>
> If that's a correct interpretation of the law, I agree with you that it's
> wrong and needs to be changed.

It is.

> But knowing the glacial speed with which an insurance company can move,
> the kids arm could well be healed before the policy is issued. =A0Surely
> the law doesn't require a company to pay for something that happened
> before a policy was in effect.

I've never known an insurance company to be slow to take a check. In
this case, though, they will just get out of the business.

Some will play the "religion" card. Mennonite doe not subcribe and pay for
their own.

Wanna' talk about smokers big bills bringing your coverage down to nothing?


"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I have only a little objection against people not wanting to participate
in health insurance. If they don't want to pay insurance then they
really should pay the costs, and not (claim to) be too poor so society
needs to pay. Don't know how to enforce that. Actually I think health
insurance is akin to national defense and everyone should pay for it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Josepi wrote:
>> Good thing you have health care then. I doubt they can do much about
>> your other problem though..."tired"
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no
>> joke. Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is
>> attempting. But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost
>> becomes a tax. Fine with me.
>
> The problem is that it establishes a precedent that solely as a
> condition of being allowed to exist within the United States, with no
> fiction of being a condition on the exercise of a restricted

> privilege, one is required to purchase a good or service. If they can
> make you buy insurance, then they can make you buy a car or a house or
> anything else. So when the car lobby or the can opener lobby
> convinces the Congress that it's good for the country for everyone to
> buy a car or a can opener then legislation will be enacted that fines
> everyone who doens't buy a car or a can opener.
>
> As for car insurance being mandatory, it is not unless you own and
> drive a car and is a condition on exercising the privilege of driving.
>
> Congress KNOWS that they can't sell taxpayer supported medical
> treatment in the US, so they tried to do an end run with legislation
> that requires everyone to have it. What they really did was codify
> the status quo--the way the law is written if you can't afford it then
> you aren't required to have it, and just about everybody who _can_
> afford it already has it, so nothing changes except that costs go up
> as the insurance companies jump through all the new hoops that have
> been set for them, and there's a big court battle in which it is
> decided whether the Congress does in fact have the authority to tell
> the American public that for no reason other than that they exist in
> the United States, they _must_ buy this good or service or be fined.
> I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to hand them their ass.
> Roosevelt could have gotten it by them, but Obama is no Roosevelt.

On 9/27/2010 4:08 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "Swingman"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Once again, you can't "prove it wrong", and you have NOTHING to gain by
>> attempting to do so.
>
> You're right of course. I do have nothing to gain by doing so. Lately, I've
> mostly given up the arguing process. I'm sure that accounts muchly for my
> recent absences from the rec. Guess I'm getting old and lazy.

Thank you! I've too great a respect for you for it to get acrimonious
over such BS.

I stated an opinion when I should have kept my mouth shut. Not your
fault and I apologize for doing so.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Pre-existing conditions" sounds good but may shorten the lifespan of your
healthcare. Some slob that has sent nothing on his falling apart body will
suddenly want perfect health. Too much wil increase the insurance company's
historical data costing and the price goes up. Somebody's got to pay and the
ones that have looked after themselves get to resent it when they get
shortchanged.

US is getting into this stuff and the Canucks are slowly backing out. The
companies paying the extended health care are all backing out due to high
costs.

Dual level health care is not allowed but slowly developing in Canucksville.


"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Thought the health care law changes that went into effect this week
eliminated the exclusion because of pre-existing conditions loop hole
the insurance companies have been hiding behind.

Of course finding another carrier that will even offer a policy is now
another matter.

Public option anyone?

Lew


"Swingman" wrote:

> Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but
> she is stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from
> another provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.
>
> Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this
> for some time to come.
-----------------------------------

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Once again, you can't "prove it wrong", and you have NOTHING to gain by
> attempting to do so.

You're right of course. I do have nothing to gain by doing so. Lately, I've
mostly given up the arguing process. I'm sure that accounts muchly for my
recent absences from the rec. Guess I'm getting old and lazy.

J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> That's why we need "special interests," so they can act as a buffer
>> to the unwashed masses.
>>
>> Take the latest health care law for example. Who could be against
>> "pre-existing conditions"? Three large health insurers in
>> California, that's who. Wellpoint, Cigna, and CoventryOne announced
>> last week that they would no longer write "children only*" health
>> insurance policies.
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092006665.html
>>
>> So, if your child has, say, asthma, you can't get insurance to cover
>> him for a non-related sports injury, bee-bites, cancer, or anything
>> else.
>>
>> -------
>> * "Children only" policies affect about 8% of insured children in
>> California and are used when an employer insures only the employee
>> or employee and spouse. The administration says that these types of
>> policies affect only a "small number" of children, somewhere between
>> 100,000 and 700,000.
>
> So after a while there will be legislation that requires them to write
> children-only policies if they want to do business in the state of
> California.

Good point. One of the current constitutional objections to Obama care is
that it mandates a citizen BUY something. What you're suggesting is only one
step farther along : California mandating somebody SELL something.

The way the health care law is written, a child doesn't have to have
insurance and can buy it only if he needs it. So when your kid breaks his
arm playing junior-league football, you can buy this must-be-available
insurance on the way to the hospital and cancel the policy after the arm
heals.

But that's okay - it's for the children.

On 9/25/2010 12:15 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 9/25/10 11:48 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:49:22 +0000, Han wrote:
>>
>>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no joke.
>>> Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is attempting.
>>> But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost becomes a tax.
>>> Fine with me.
>>
>> I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health care
>> dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies. By
>> contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.
>>
>
> Most of the real numbers I've seen for *net* profit (which is what
> profit really is after all) are actually down between 3-4 percent.
>
> But yes, they have a very large overhead. They do employ millions and
> millions of people, however.
>
> As to Medicare's seemingly low overhead, there are several economists
> who've taken that claim down a few notches. This page nut-shells it
> pretty well...
> http://www.qando.net/?p=3362

Hmmm ... he's rails about an "apples and oranges" comparison, then makes
one himself to prove _his_ point:

"But here’s the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a
population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of
medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than
private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a
percentage of total costs."

Beware of _any_ statistics slinger with an agenda ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>>> One of the difficulties in "thinking" one might be experiencing
>>>>> good care is the possibility of lowered expectations.
>>
>>>>> For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine
>>>>> during a tooth extraction because, well, it's not just part of
>>>>> the usual level of treatment.
>>
>>>> What is your source for that information?
>>
>>> Glen Beck.
>>
>> Who's Glen Beck?
>
> He's got you there, Bub... Glenn has TWO nn's it is GleNN...... wow,
> that's so awesome!!!

I'm on Lincoln's side with that particular affectation. When told of Mary
Todd, he said "She must be important. One 'D' was enough for God."

I have heard talk in Canada to refuse health care coverage to those that
voluntarilly smoke cigarettes. With decades of health care coverage
experience in Canada there may be something behind it.

In a communistic / socialistic health care system the healthy have to pay
for the lesser intelligence of the "fag sucker" that could never separate
propaganda advertising from reality. I was a victim of this massive
promotional garbage for smoking for about 13 years but realized early it
wasn't the ball and chain I wanted to carry.

Before people get silly the notion that the tobacco taxes pay for the the
extra health care, a $10 per cigarette pack cost does not begin to cover the
extra health costs, from the experience of Canada's health care system.



"Dave In Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Now there's a conspiracy theory I'd never heard before! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA!

Dave in Houston



"basilisk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Also don't forget that smoking probably wasn't as dangerous
> until after the US dropped several hundred Abombs in the
> southwest and dripped plutonium over the entire nation's
> cropland, one atom of which is supposed to be able to cause
> lung cancer.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:19:54 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
> > I don't see an agenda in that statement. Old people need and receive
> > more health care. That's a fact. If it costs the same to
> > administratively service a 70 year old as it does to service a 30 year
> > old, the administrative costs percentage will look smaller.
> > Hypothetically: a 70 year old uses $10k a year in health care while the
> > 30 year old uses $2k, but the administrative costs are the same. $300
> > is 3% to the elderly, but 15% to the younger.
>
> You have a point, but it's a long way from 2% to 30% :-).
>
> And insurance companies have overhead costs for healthy people too. Of
> course they make a lot of profit off of those.

What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for an
appendectomy? What's the actual cost of an appendectomy?

What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for a heart
transplant? What's the actual cost of a heart transplant?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > HeyBub wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd and
> >> a high-dollar item. That forces them:
> >>
> >> A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
> >> B. Actually go to trial, or
> >> C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the
> >> remainder (that way he can look good to his boss).
> >
> > And how do you propose to "pad" a health insurance claim with a
> > "bogus" claim?
>
> Pain & Suffering

Medical insurance doesn't pay for "pain and suffering", except to cause
it at the hands of surgeons. It may pay for psychiatric treatment of
it.

> Lost wages

Medical insurance does not pay for lost wages. One can buy insurance
specifically to provide for lost wages while ill but it is not medical
insurance.

> Inability to operate complicated machinery (i.e., a spoon)

Medical insurance would pay for physical therapy or if one is
sufficiently disabled to need an attendant in order to survive might go
for the attendant, but it provides no direct compensation for "inability
to operate complicated machinery".

> Loss of Consortium

Medical insurance might pay for Viagra or for a penile implant or some
other corrective action, and might pay for psychiatric treatment, but it
does not pay directly for "loss of consortium".

> Punative damages

The medical insurance companies pay punitive damages only if the
insurance company was found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.

> Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

Which might or might not be covered depending on the terms of the
policy--if it covers psychiatric treatment then it would be covered, if
it does not then it would not.

> Exposure to shame and ridicule by the general public

Again, the only way insurance would be involved would be if the policy
covered psychiatric treatment.

> Psychologically induced phobias (i.e., fear of tricycles, the color orange,
> parsnips, or bald women)

Again covered only if the policy covers psychiatric treatment.

You seem to be conflating liability insurance with medical insurance.
They are not the same.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> Again. One of the biggest costs of medical stuff is medical insurance. Think
> what a surgeon pays in premiums to take patient and open them up after half
> killing them with drugs so they feel no pain.

You seem to be another one who doesn't understand the difference between
"medical insurance" and "liability insurance".

Liability insurance is a significant cost, but if you have reason to
believe that it is the _major_ cost please provide a source.

> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for an
> appendectomy? What's the actual cost of an appendectomy?
>
> What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for a heart
> transplant? What's the actual cost of a heart transplant?
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:19:54 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see an agenda in that statement. Old people need and receive
> > > more health care. That's a fact. If it costs the same to
> > > administratively service a 70 year old as it does to service a 30 year
> > > old, the administrative costs percentage will look smaller.
> > > Hypothetically: a 70 year old uses $10k a year in health care while the
> > > 30 year old uses $2k, but the administrative costs are the same. $300
> > > is 3% to the elderly, but 15% to the younger.
> >
> > You have a point, but it's a long way from 2% to 30% :-).
> >
> > And insurance companies have overhead costs for healthy people too. Of
> > course they make a lot of profit off of those.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:04:19 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> >>BTW, just in case you really do have bad teeth, take heart. I've had
> >>dentures since I was 40 and they've been great.
> >
> > Thanks for the sentiment. I think I'm having a health crisis. Last
> > year, one tooth died. In the past 3 months, one tooth died and two teeth
> > with crowns have broken off at the gumline. Something hinky this way
> > comes.
>
> My wife's teeth aren't overly bad, but she has to have them cleaned twice
> a year as plaque builds up rapidly and she usually has one or two
> cavities a year. And yes, she's religious about cleaning them. But
> after I'd had dentures for about 5 years, she started looking for a
> dentist who would pull her teeth and put in dentures :-). So far no luck.

Does she use "Act" fluoride treatment or one of its competitors? If not
she might want to give it a try. I used to have a cavity or three every
time. Now I go years between fillings.
>
> I know that some people don't have that good a luck with dentures, but
> I've got a couple of friends with them and their experience is the same
> as mine. One who is now 80 has had them for 60 years - his teeth got
> destroyed in an accident in a machine shop. I suspect attitude has a lot
> to do with it.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >>> HeyBub wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd
> >>>> and a high-dollar item. That forces them:
> >>>>
> >>>> A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
> >>>> B. Actually go to trial, or
> >>>> C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the
> >>>> remainder (that way he can look good to his boss).
> >>>
> >>> And how do you propose to "pad" a health insurance claim with a
> >>> "bogus" claim?
> >>
> >> Pain & Suffering
> >
> > Medical insurance doesn't pay for "pain and suffering", except to
> > cause it at the hands of surgeons. It may pay for psychiatric
> > treatment of it.
> >
> >> Lost wages
> >
> > Medical insurance does not pay for lost wages. One can buy insurance
> > specifically to provide for lost wages while ill but it is not medical
> > insurance.
> >
> >> Inability to operate complicated machinery (i.e., a spoon)
> >
> > Medical insurance would pay for physical therapy or if one is
> > sufficiently disabled to need an attendant in order to survive might
> > go for the attendant, but it provides no direct compensation for
> > "inability to operate complicated machinery".
> >
> >> Loss of Consortium
> >
> > Medical insurance might pay for Viagra or for a penile implant or some
> > other corrective action, and might pay for psychiatric treatment, but
> > it does not pay directly for "loss of consortium".
> >
> >> Punative damages
> >
> > The medical insurance companies pay punitive damages only if the
> > insurance company was found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.
> >
> >> Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
> >
> > Which might or might not be covered depending on the terms of the
> > policy--if it covers psychiatric treatment then it would be covered,
> > if it does not then it would not.
> >
> >> Exposure to shame and ridicule by the general public
> >
> > Again, the only way insurance would be involved would be if the policy
> > covered psychiatric treatment.
> >
> >> Psychologically induced phobias (i.e., fear of tricycles, the color
> >> orange, parsnips, or bald women)
> >
> > Again covered only if the policy covers psychiatric treatment.
> >
> > You seem to be conflating liability insurance with medical insurance.
> > They are not the same.
>
> You misunderstand.
>
> These claims arise not from the original medical problem, but from the
> trauma and shock of the insurance company declining to pay the initial
> insurance claim. These are all new conditions arising from the actions of
> the claims adjuster.

If they are not paid then they are not costs.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Upscale wrote:
> >
> > And I have to reciprocate the same sentiment. We Canadians
> > essentially, take our national health care for granted. The crisis
> > that you're going through in the US is something that is foreign to
> > most Canadians. Not to say that our system is any better than what
> > you're trying to set up, just that we've had our system going for
> > awhile and *think* it's working as it should only because problems
> > with it don't always filter down to the patient level.
>
> One of the difficulties in "thinking" one might be experiencing good care is
> the possibility of lowered expectations.
>
> For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine during a tooth
> extraction because, well, it's not just part of the usual level of
> treatment.

What is your source for that information?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> Can you post in a larger font? I have to get up and walk across the room to
> read the text, sometimes!

The originator of the post does not control the font size on any decent
newsreader.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> One of the difficulties in "thinking" one might be experiencing good
> >> care is the possibility of lowered expectations.
> >>
> >> For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine during a
> >> tooth extraction because, well, it's not just part of the usual
> >> level of treatment.
> >
> > What is your source for that information?
>
> Glen Beck.

Who's Glen Beck?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:41:09 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> >
> >> A poll, released just yesterday, revealed that 81% of TV viewers got
> >> some or all of their news from cable news and, of those, Fox leads
> >> with 42%.
> >
> > Now *that's* scary! Especially since anyone who can prove that they
> > are alive qualifies to vote these days - don't even have to go to the
> > polls.
>
> That's why we need "special interests," so they can act as a buffer to the
> unwashed masses.
>
> Take the latest health care law for example. Who could be against
> "pre-existing conditions"? Three large health insurers in California, that's
> who. Wellpoint, Cigna, and CoventryOne announced last week that they would
> no longer write "children only*" health insurance policies.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092006665.html
>
> So, if your child has, say, asthma, you can't get insurance to cover him for
> a non-related sports injury, bee-bites, cancer, or anything else.
>
> -------
> * "Children only" policies affect about 8% of insured children in California
> and are used when an employer insures only the employee or employee and
> spouse. The administration says that these types of policies affect only a
> "small number" of children, somewhere between 100,000 and 700,000.

So after a while there will be legislation that requires them to write
children-only policies if they want to do business in the state of
California.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I stated an opinion when I should have kept my mouth shut. Not your fault
> and I apologize for doing so.

And I have to reciprocate the same sentiment. We Canadians essentially, take
our national health care for granted. The crisis that you're going through
in the US is something that is foreign to most Canadians. Not to say that
our system is any better than what you're trying to set up, just that we've
had our system going for awhile and *think* it's working as it should only
because problems with it don't always filter down to the patient level.

So yes, I need to keep my mouth shut too and not be so quick to jump in with
my one sided opinions. Pax

Josepi wrote:
> I have heard talk in Canada to refuse health care coverage to those that
> voluntarilly smoke cigarettes. With decades of health care coverage
> experience in Canada there may be something behind it.
>
> In a communistic / socialistic health care system the healthy have to pay
> for the lesser intelligence of the "fag sucker" that could never separate
> propaganda advertising from reality. I was a victim of this massive
> promotional garbage for smoking for about 13 years but realized early it
> wasn't the ball and chain I wanted to carry.
>
> Before people get silly the notion that the tobacco taxes pay for the the
> extra health care, a $10 per cigarette pack cost does not begin to cover the
> extra health costs, from the experience of Canada's health care system.
>

Just made this up, did you? Nothing worse than a'reformed' smoker. They
just hate everybody.

Oh yeah, did you see the recent study that said basically two-thirds of
the patients in Quebec hospitals were none smokers?

Wife worked in the insurance business for years and the trick is:

Never stop pestering. The minute you had a legal letter of notice sent to
them they set aside the cash to cover it. Just before it hits court they
just pay it out. It's cheaper than court for small items like that. The
courts will kick the insurance companies asses for everything and anything
for the little guy, usually. Most judges have a soft heart and know the
rumours.


"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Don't get me started about ASSurant Health ... they are my youngest
daughter's insurance provider and I've spent the last seven months
battling them singlehandedly on her behalf, including two formal
appeals, both of which I ultimately prevailed upon.

ASSurant are full of dirty tricks, will only settle when they know
without legal doubt that you have them against the wall, and most of the
time, then only when a suit is actually filed.

Their tricks are often so subtle that your are in danger of losing your
policy from a simple lack of attention to their billing practices.

In my case, and after reading and thoroughly understanding her policy
like the back of my hand, I was able to get them between a rock and hard
place using their own language/terms.

But it still took the intervention of friend of mine, who is a friend of
the lead attorney at ASSurant's law firm, to actually get them to pay
without going to the expense of me filing the suit, which I had waiting
in the wings.

I got full satisfaction by being persistent, and yes, a damn sight
smarter/craftier then they normally expect their customers, but how many
folks are going to take the time and effort?

I feel sorry for the all the idiots/fools out there.

Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but she
is stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from another
provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.

Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this for
some time to come.

US health insurance providers make their profits by NOT paying health
care claims ... it's that damn simple!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 9/27/2010 8:45 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/27/2010 8:37 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>>> Bzzzzztt ... only for children under 19.
>> ---------------------------------
>> Thought 26 was the magic number unless they have left home for other
>> than school.
>
> Nope ... you can keep them "children" on your existing policy until they
> are 26.
>
> Which begs another question ... why the hell are grown-ups in this
> country still considered "children"?

Hey, Lew ... I see you didn't bother to read O'Bama's legislation either!!

:)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Upscale wrote:
>
> And I have to reciprocate the same sentiment. We Canadians
> essentially, take our national health care for granted. The crisis
> that you're going through in the US is something that is foreign to
> most Canadians. Not to say that our system is any better than what
> you're trying to set up, just that we've had our system going for
> awhile and *think* it's working as it should only because problems
> with it don't always filter down to the patient level.

One of the difficulties in "thinking" one might be experiencing good care is
the possibility of lowered expectations.

For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine during a tooth
extraction because, well, it's not just part of the usual level of
treatment.

Han wrote:
>
> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no
> joke. Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is
> attempting. But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost
> becomes a tax. Fine with me.

But the Congress did it wrong. There is no way the Supreme Court is going to
allow a mandated purchase to stand under the Commerce Clause. If they did,
what's to stop the government from ordering you to buy a car to bail out the
auto industry?

But that's not the only mistake they made in the 2100-page legislation. The
omitted the severability clause. The severability clause usually states that
"... should any part of this law be found unconstitutional, the remaining
parts shall still be effective."

What this means is that if ANY part of the health-care law is found
unconstitutional, its a good bet that the whole thing will be tossed. While
it is true that the courts have left constitutional parts of a law to remain
after ditching the bad part, this severing is rare.

It's interesting how this omission came about. The House passed the first
rendition of the Health Care Act last Nov 7th. The Senate, after a
filibuster, substituted its own version and that version passed the Senate
Dec 23 (with the "Cornhusker Kickback"). The operative theory was that
technical adjustments would be made by staff during conference.

Oops! Scott Brown was elected January 19th of this year.

The House then had two options: A) Pass the bill as sent by the Senate and
forward it to the president, or B) Make changes in conference with NO HOPE
of getting the product passed a Republican senate filibuster. The House
opted to pass a bill with several flaws, some of which that were fixed in a
follow-up bill.

But a follow-up, fix-up, bill could not fix the absence of a severability
clause in the original.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> Did it have Pakistan and the last line?
> ------------------------------------------
> Like every story, ya gotta add something.
>
> Lew
>
>

Works as a stand alone too.

In news:[email protected],
HeyBub <[email protected]> spewed forth:
> ChairMan wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> spewed forth:
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:37:10 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Immediately snipped and sent to my joke listees. Priceless!)
>>>
>>> All of whom probably saw it a year or more ago. It's an *old* joke,
>>> Larry :-).
>>
>> What joke isn't?
>> Most new ones are just old ones redone or updated to fit the time.
>> Geez....lighten up :)
>
> I've been collecting jokes for decades, but there are new ones out
> there. For example:
>
> "Imagine two women sitting quitely on a park bench, minding their own
> business..."
>
> When I heard that, I laughed 'till I cried!

As have I, I use to run a list/email and have about 500 mb of jokes,
cartoons, mpegs and exes.
i went about 3 years before I started repeating jokes
And yes, there are a few new ones, but on the most part they are reworked
old ones
Have ya heard this one?

If a man yells "YOU LIE" in a room full of
politicans, How do they know who he's talking to?

That is even funnier. This happens frequently on Usenet 'cause you can't see
the face of the teller.



"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Han, it was a Joke. The last line ... the call center in Pakistan ...



"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> More than five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of
>> Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will
>> lead you to the Promised Land."
>>
>> Seventy five years ago Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on
>> your asses and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
>>
>> Today, Obama has stolen our shovels, taxed our asses, raised the price
>> of Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land.
>>
>> I was so discouraged last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the
>> economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, etc. that I
>> called a Suicide Hotline.
>>
>> I had to press one for English and got connected to a call center in
>> Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal.
>>
>> They got very excited and asked me if I could drive a truck!
>
> My experience is different. Healthcare is good. Had I had Dutch
> healthcare insurance, I wouldn't have had to argue with United Healthcare
> multiple times, submit the same documents plus each time more info, etc.
> I broke tibia and fibula in Holland while on vacation. Happened at 10:30
> AM. Took a while for the ambulance, but after ER and surgery to place 2
> plates and 9 screws, I was in a hospital room (out of recovery) at 2:30
> PM. It was nice talkingto the surgeon, and learning that he really
> wasn't interested in milking me for the utmost, but in caring for his
> patients, not being a "businessman". When I got the bills, there was one
> for the ambulance and one for the hospital treatment. The hospital bill
> was 2 lines (long and wrapped 3 times, but each was 1 line) - 1 for the
> ER and 1 for the surgery and hospitalization. Nothing extra for booties,
> TV, medications, or whatever. I wonder how that would compare to here in
> NJ/NY, both complexity and price wise.
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> More than five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of
> Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will
> lead you to the Promised Land."
>
> Seventy five years ago Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on
> your asses and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
>
> Today, Obama has stolen our shovels, taxed our asses, raised the price
> of Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land.
>
> I was so discouraged last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the
> economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, etc. that I
> called a Suicide Hotline.
>
> I had to press one for English and got connected to a call center in
> Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal.
>
> They got very excited and asked me if I could drive a truck!

My experience is different. Healthcare is good. Had I had Dutch
healthcare insurance, I wouldn't have had to argue with United Healthcare
multiple times, submit the same documents plus each time more info, etc.
I broke tibia and fibula in Holland while on vacation. Happened at 10:30
AM. Took a while for the ambulance, but after ER and surgery to place 2
plates and 9 screws, I was in a hospital room (out of recovery) at 2:30
PM. It was nice talkingto the surgeon, and learning that he really
wasn't interested in milking me for the utmost, but in caring for his
patients, not being a "businessman". When I got the bills, there was one
for the ambulance and one for the hospital treatment. The hospital bill
was 2 lines (long and wrapped 3 times, but each was 1 line) - 1 for the
ER and 1 for the surgery and hospitalization. Nothing extra for booties,
TV, medications, or whatever. I wonder how that would compare to here in
NJ/NY, both complexity and price wise.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> More than five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of
>>> Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I
>>> will lead you to the Promised Land."
>>>
>>> Seventy five years ago Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit
>>> on your asses and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
>>>
>>> Today, Obama has stolen our shovels, taxed our asses, raised the
>>> price of Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land.
>>>
>>> I was so discouraged last night thinking about Health Care Plans,
>>> the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, etc.
>>> that I called a Suicide Hotline.
>>>
>>> I had to press one for English and got connected to a call center in
>>> Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal.
>>>
>>> They got very excited and asked me if I could drive a truck!
>>
>> My experience is different. Healthcare is good. Had I had Dutch
>> healthcare insurance, I wouldn't have had to argue with United
>> Healthcare multiple times, submit the same documents plus each time
>> more info, etc. I broke tibia and fibula in Holland while on
>> vacation. Happened at 10:30 AM. Took a while for the ambulance, but
>> after ER and surgery to place 2 plates and 9 screws, I was in a
>> hospital room (out of recovery) at 2:30 PM. It was nice talkingto
>> the surgeon, and learning that he really wasn't interested in milking
>> me for the utmost, but in caring for his patients, not being a
>> "businessman". When I got the bills, there was one for the ambulance
>> and one for the hospital treatment. The hospital bill was 2 lines
>> (long and wrapped 3 times, but each was 1 line) - 1 for the ER and 1
>> for the surgery and hospitalization. Nothing extra for booties, TV,
>> medications, or whatever. I wonder how that would compare to here in
>> NJ/NY, both complexity and price wise.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
>
> Han, it was a Joke. The last line ... the call center in Pakistan
> ...

I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no joke.
Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is attempting.
But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost becomes a tax. Fine
with me.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:f7e53844-8f09-4b4c-8f80-
[email protected]:

> On Sep 24, 8:59 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>  
>> I broke tibia and fibula in Holland while on vacation.  Happened at 10:
> 30
>> AM.  
>
> That is just too early to go to those 'coffee houses' in Amsterdam,
> Han... that hydroponic will upset your balance!!!
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> I kid.

Rob, I have no experience with coffeehouses in A'dam, no kidding!! It
happened in Harderwijk's Dolfinarium - too far from Groot Mokum to hop and
skip over there ! Kidding!! And the morfine worked just fine, thank you!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:49:22 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no
>> joke. Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is
>> attempting. But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost
>> becomes a tax. Fine with me.
>
> I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health
> care dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies.
> By contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.

My fights with UHC to get reimbursed for legit expenses beas that out.
They made a mistake, it later turned out, and first denied payment for
physical therapy. Not only did that take a lot of my time on the phone
and faxing documentation, and upset me because they timed the letter of
refusal to arrive on Saturday, so I coul stew over it all weekend. Then
the next Saturday I got a repeat letter denying what they already had
approved. After another long phone call I got a supervisor to apologize
to me on the phone, but she would not sent a letter of apology. I lost
one physical therapy session, and respect for UHC, and they lost quite a
bit of needless admin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Josepi wrote:
>> Good thing you have health care then. I doubt they can do much about
>> your other problem though..."tired"
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no
>> joke. Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is
>> attempting. But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost
>> becomes a tax. Fine with me.
>
> The problem is that it establishes a precedent that solely as a
> condition of being allowed to exist within the United States, with no
> fiction of being a condition on the exercise of a restricted
> privilege, one is required to purchase a good or service. If they can
> make you buy insurance, then they can make you buy a car or a house or
> anything else. So when the car lobby or the can opener lobby
> convinces the Congress that it's good for the country for everyone to
> buy a car or a can opener then legislation will be enacted that fines
> everyone who doens't buy a car or a can opener.
>
> As for car insurance being mandatory, it is not unless you own and
> drive a car and is a condition on exercising the privilege of driving.
>
> Congress KNOWS that they can't sell taxpayer supported medical
> treatment in the US, so they tried to do an end run with legislation
> that requires everyone to have it. What they really did was codify
> the status quo--the way the law is written if you can't afford it then
> you aren't required to have it, and just about everybody who _can_
> afford it already has it, so nothing changes except that costs go up
> as the insurance companies jump through all the new hoops that have
> been set for them, and there's a big court battle in which it is
> decided whether the Congress does in fact have the authority to tell
> the American public that for no reason other than that they exist in
> the United States, they _must_ buy this good or service or be fined.
> I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to hand them their ass.
> Roosevelt could have gotten it by them, but Obama is no Roosevelt.

I have only a little objection against people not wanting to participate
in health insurance. If they don't want to pay insurance then they
really should pay the costs, and not (claim to) be too poor so society
needs to pay. Don't know how to enforce that. Actually I think health
insurance is akin to national defense and everyone should pay for it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> (BTW, that is the same daughter who got a concussion playing rugby in
> Ohio, bills for which are still showing up even after the insurance
> people have paid them, just an example of office automation designed
> to fuck people.)

That partially reminds me of 2004 when my mother was in Sunnybrook dying of
cancer. The donations arm of the hospital called me during that time for a
donation to the cancer wing. Of course, considering they were treating my
mother at the time, I agreed to donate $60. I said I'd send a cheque, but
they said they could only accept credit card donations. When asked if I'd
donate $60 twice yearly, I stated a categorical "no". Next thing I know, I
receive a letter in the mail thanking me for my twice yearly donation of $60
to be charged to my Mastercard. It took me four months including three
visits to the hospital bastards to get them to give me a letter retracting
that proposed Mastercard charge. That killed the golden goose. Since then,
I've refused *ALL* requests from everyone for donations over the phone.

I doubt you could that many non-smokers in Quebec!



"Gil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Just made this up, did you? Nothing worse than a'reformed' smoker. They
just hate everybody.

Oh yeah, did you see the recent study that said basically two-thirds of
the patients in Quebec hospitals were none smokers?



Josepi wrote:
> I have heard talk in Canada to refuse health care coverage to those that
> voluntarilly smoke cigarettes. With decades of health care coverage
> experience in Canada there may be something behind it.
>
> In a communistic / socialistic health care system the healthy have to pay
> for the lesser intelligence of the "fag sucker" that could never separate
> propaganda advertising from reality. I was a victim of this massive
> promotional garbage for smoking for about 13 years but realized early it
> wasn't the ball and chain I wanted to carry.
>
> Before people get silly the notion that the tobacco taxes pay for the the
> extra health care, a $10 per cigarette pack cost does not begin to cover
> the
> extra health costs, from the experience of Canada's health care system.
>

On 9/28/2010 12:31 PM, Robatoy wrote:

> The book of Proverbs makes it clear:
>
> A proud look
> A lying tongue
> Hands that shed innocent blood
> A heart that devises wicked plots
> Feet that are swift to run into mischief
> A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
> Him that soweth discord among brethren
>
> ...seems like a prerequisite for political life....

That, a perfect coiffure and a law degree ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 27, 12:31=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/27/2010 11:25 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
> > On 9/27/2010 11:09 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> >> Shoot all the lawyers, politicians and all those motherfuckers who
> >> insist a human being has to be either right or left in order for them
> >> to be allowed to exist.
> > What he said ...
>
> What the US needs to wake up to is just what the products of law schools
> have done to the this country, both as practicing lawyers and as lawyer
> politicians.
>

Zactly. Things don't become 'moral' just because there's a loophole in
the law.

Angela and I have a friend who is an 'expert witness' who specializes
in sexual and domestic assault cases. She's the one who takes the
pictures, swabs, statements, etc., at 'The Emerge' unit.
We know about things like 'technicalities'.
We have seen lives derailed over misplaced commas.... and those
bastards KNOW they are way away from any moral grounds when presenting
their case to the judge/jury but they have been trained not to give a
shit...and THAT is the scum that runs for office.

and it's getting worse.

"You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all want to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait"

"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health care
>> dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies. By
>> contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.

My annual INCREASE NOTICE arrived in yesterday's mail from Assurant
Health (subsidiary of John Alden Life). This year's increase? How about
27-fucking-percent. $361/mo. on top of $1336/mo. which was approximately a
$300/mo increase a year ago. $20,000/year. What bullshit. And that's for
a $2000 deductible and no co-pays. NOT for my wife and me either - just me.
I had a physical in April with the usual lab work and I had to visit an
orthopedist this past week for the swelling and soreness in the center
knuckle of my left hand. They've paid NOTHING for my healthcare in the past
11 months.
They have just priced me out of the market.

Dave in Houston

"basilisk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Also don't forget that smoking probably wasn't as dangerous
> until after the US dropped several hundred Abombs in the
> southwest and dripped plutonium over the entire nation's
> cropland, one atom of which is supposed to be able to cause
> lung cancer.

Now there's a conspiracy theory I'd never heard before! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA!

Dave in Houston

On Sep 25, 11:29=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This notion that "good healthcare is expensive" is bullshit. =A0If you're
> healthy you need no "care". =A0What's expensive is good treatment for
> difficult illnesses and goldplated treatment for common injuries.


Or ... as I've always said it ....

The fundamental interests of the primary actors, in health care, are
horribly mis-aligned.

Patients ... want ... to be healthy.

Doctors, insurers, biotech firms, hospitals, Big Pharmaceutical, et
al, want ... to make profits -- massive profits.

Those things tend to work at cross purposes, far more often than not.

There's no money in well people.
There's no money in dead people.
All the money is somewhere in the middle.

At least ... the way things are, now.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:37:10 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> (Immediately snipped and sent to my joke listees. Priceless!)
>
>All of whom probably saw it a year or more ago. It's an *old* joke,
>Larry :-).

Old but good, and newly updated. Works for me.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

Josepi wrote:
> Again you seem to hung up on exact terminolgy that usually doesn't
> matter.
>
> If you have proof that "liabilty medical insurance" is cheap provide
> it.
>

Well, malpractice insurance is a LOT cheaper in Texas - and other states
that have reformed their tort system - than it used to be. For six years in
a row, the insurance carriers have reduced their malpractice insurance rates
(13% the first year) and less than a third of what it is in some states.
We've had a doubling of the number of doctors moving into our state, and,
for the first time in living memory, almost everybody in the state is within
driving range of an obstetrician.

Soon, if this keeps up, Canadians will be coming WAY south for medical care.

Josepi wrote:
>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Josepi wrote:
>
>>>> Getting old is inevitable. Getting lazy - hell, that ain't so bad...
>>
>>> Can you post in a larger font? I have to get up and walk across the
>>> room to read the text, sometimes!
>>
>> First I've ever heard that request in almost 30 years on the net.
>> Are you sure it isn't your reader settings?
>
>> It was a joke. Don't let J.C. get you rattled...LOL
>

I guess we must shrink some when we get old too, 'cause I'm noticing some
things flying right over my head these days...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:01:34 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

> Josepi wrote:
>> Some will play the "religion" card. Mennonite doe not subcribe and pay
>> for their own.
>>
>> Wanna' talk about smokers big bills bringing your coverage down to
>> nothing?
>>
>>
> No - let's talk about more realistic things... like obesity and other
> heart problem provoking issues that really cost you and I more than the
> load from smokers. And then there's all the pregnancy related stuff for
> the "underpriviledged", and while we're at it, let's talk about things
> like breast cancer since you want to single out groups. More money goes
> into those areas of care than the care of smokers.

Also don't forget that smoking probably wasn't as dangerous
until after the US dropped several hundred Abombs in the
southwest and dripped plutonium over the entire nation's
cropland, one atom of which is supposed to be able to cause
lung cancer.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke and never have.

basilisk



--
A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse

Again you seem to hung up on exact terminolgy that usually doesn't matter.

If you have proof that "liabilty medical insurance" is cheap provide it.


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> Again. One of the biggest costs of medical stuff is medical insurance.
> Think
> what a surgeon pays in premiums to take patient and open them up after
> half
> killing them with drugs so they feel no pain.

You seem to be another one who doesn't understand the difference between
"medical insurance" and "liability insurance".

Liability insurance is a significant cost, but if you have reason to
believe that it is the _major_ cost please provide a source.

> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for an
> appendectomy? What's the actual cost of an appendectomy?
>
> What's the administrative cost of authorizing and paying for a heart
> transplant? What's the actual cost of a heart transplant?
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:19:54 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see an agenda in that statement. Old people need and receive
> > > more health care. That's a fact. If it costs the same to
> > > administratively service a 70 year old as it does to service a 30 year
> > > old, the administrative costs percentage will look smaller.
> > > Hypothetically: a 70 year old uses $10k a year in health care while
> > > the
> > > 30 year old uses $2k, but the administrative costs are the same. $300
> > > is 3% to the elderly, but 15% to the younger.
> >
> > You have a point, but it's a long way from 2% to 30% :-).
> >
> > And insurance companies have overhead costs for healthy people too. Of
> > course they make a lot of profit off of those.

On Sep 24, 8:59=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
=A0
> I broke tibia and fibula in Holland while on vacation. =A0Happened at 10:=
30
> AM. =A0

That is just too early to go to those 'coffee houses' in Amsterdam,
Han... that hydroponic will upset your balance!!!
.
.
.
.
.
I kid.

On 9/26/2010 10:00 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:

> My annual INCREASE NOTICE arrived in yesterday's mail from Assurant
> Health (subsidiary of John Alden Life). This year's increase? How about
> 27-fucking-percent. $361/mo. on top of $1336/mo. which was approximately
> a $300/mo increase a year ago. $20,000/year. What bullshit. And that's
> for a $2000 deductible and no co-pays. NOT for my wife and me either -
> just me.
> I had a physical in April with the usual lab work and I had to visit an
> orthopedist this past week for the swelling and soreness in the center
> knuckle of my left hand. They've paid NOTHING for my healthcare in the
> past 11 months.
> They have just priced me out of the market.

Don't get me started about ASSurant Health ... they are my youngest
daughter's insurance provider and I've spent the last seven months
battling them singlehandedly on her behalf, including two formal
appeals, both of which I ultimately prevailed upon.

ASSurant are full of dirty tricks, will only settle when they know
without legal doubt that you have them against the wall, and most of the
time, then only when a suit is actually filed.

Their tricks are often so subtle that your are in danger of losing your
policy from a simple lack of attention to their billing practices.

In my case, and after reading and thoroughly understanding her policy
like the back of my hand, I was able to get them between a rock and hard
place using their own language/terms.

But it still took the intervention of friend of mine, who is a friend of
the lead attorney at ASSurant's law firm, to actually get them to pay
without going to the expense of me filing the suit, which I had waiting
in the wings.

I got full satisfaction by being persistent, and yes, a damn sight
smarter/craftier then they normally expect their customers, but how many
folks are going to take the time and effort?

I feel sorry for the all the idiots/fools out there.

Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but she
is stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from another
provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.

Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this for
some time to come.

US health insurance providers make their profits by NOT paying health
care claims ... it's that damn simple!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 25, 2:53=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
> > Beware of _any_ statistics slinger with an agenda ...
>
> --------------
> Or as my father often said to me, "Son, just remember, figures don't
> lie, but liars can figure".
>
> Lew

printed and on my wall.

On 9/26/2010 5:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
>> Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but
>> she is stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from
>> another provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.
>>
>> Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this
>> for some time to come.
> -----------------------------------
> Thought the health care law changes that went into effect this week
> eliminated the exclusion because of pre-existing conditions loop hole
> the insurance companies have been hiding behind.

Bzzzzztt ... only for children under 19.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd
>>>> and a high-dollar item. That forces them:
>>>>
>>>> A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
>>>> B. Actually go to trial, or
>>>> C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the
>>>> remainder (that way he can look good to his boss).
>>>
>>> And how do you propose to "pad" a health insurance claim with a
>>> "bogus" claim?
>>
>> Pain & Suffering
>
> Medical insurance doesn't pay for "pain and suffering", except to
> cause it at the hands of surgeons. It may pay for psychiatric
> treatment of it.
>
>> Lost wages
>
> Medical insurance does not pay for lost wages. One can buy insurance
> specifically to provide for lost wages while ill but it is not medical
> insurance.
>
>> Inability to operate complicated machinery (i.e., a spoon)
>
> Medical insurance would pay for physical therapy or if one is
> sufficiently disabled to need an attendant in order to survive might
> go for the attendant, but it provides no direct compensation for
> "inability to operate complicated machinery".
>
>> Loss of Consortium
>
> Medical insurance might pay for Viagra or for a penile implant or some
> other corrective action, and might pay for psychiatric treatment, but
> it does not pay directly for "loss of consortium".
>
>> Punative damages
>
> The medical insurance companies pay punitive damages only if the
> insurance company was found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.
>
>> Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
>
> Which might or might not be covered depending on the terms of the
> policy--if it covers psychiatric treatment then it would be covered,
> if it does not then it would not.
>
>> Exposure to shame and ridicule by the general public
>
> Again, the only way insurance would be involved would be if the policy
> covered psychiatric treatment.
>
>> Psychologically induced phobias (i.e., fear of tricycles, the color
>> orange, parsnips, or bald women)
>
> Again covered only if the policy covers psychiatric treatment.
>
> You seem to be conflating liability insurance with medical insurance.
> They are not the same.

You misunderstand.

These claims arise not from the original medical problem, but from the
trauma and shock of the insurance company declining to pay the initial
insurance claim. These are all new conditions arising from the actions of
the claims adjuster.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:16:57 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave In Texas" wrote:
>
>> My annual INCREASE NOTICE arrived in yesterday's mail from
>> Assurant Health (subsidiary of John Alden Life). This year's
>> increase? How about 27-fucking-percent. $361/mo. on top of
>> $1336/mo. which was approximately a $300/mo increase a year ago.
>> $20,000/year.
>--------------------------------
>Same order of magnitude increases have taken place here in California.
>
>Public option anyone?

My teeth are disintegrating, Lew. I want you to pay for new dentures
for me, uppers and lowers. You, Obama, and the public option sure are
swell. Thanks. Oh, and I need it TOMORROW, please.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> More than five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of
>> Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will
>> lead you to the Promised Land."
>>
>> Seventy five years ago Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on
>> your asses and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
>>
>> Today, Obama has stolen our shovels, taxed our asses, raised the price
>> of Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land.
>>
>> I was so discouraged last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the
>> economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, etc. that I
>> called a Suicide Hotline.
>>
>> I had to press one for English and got connected to a call center in
>> Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal.
>>
>> They got very excited and asked me if I could drive a truck!
>
> My experience is different. Healthcare is good. Had I had Dutch
> healthcare insurance, I wouldn't have had to argue with United Healthcare
> multiple times, submit the same documents plus each time more info, etc.
> I broke tibia and fibula in Holland while on vacation. Happened at 10:30
> AM. Took a while for the ambulance, but after ER and surgery to place 2
> plates and 9 screws, I was in a hospital room (out of recovery) at 2:30
> PM. It was nice talkingto the surgeon, and learning that he really
> wasn't interested in milking me for the utmost, but in caring for his
> patients, not being a "businessman". When I got the bills, there was one
> for the ambulance and one for the hospital treatment. The hospital bill
> was 2 lines (long and wrapped 3 times, but each was 1 line) - 1 for the
> ER and 1 for the surgery and hospitalization. Nothing extra for booties,
> TV, medications, or whatever. I wonder how that would compare to here in
> NJ/NY, both complexity and price wise.
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid


Han, it was a Joke. The last line ... the call center in Pakistan ...

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> More than five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel,
>> "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you
>> to
>> the Promised Land."
>>
>> Seventy five years ago Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on
>> your
>> asses and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
>>
>> Today, Obama has stolen our shovels, taxed our asses, raised the price of
>> Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land.
> ----------------------------------------
> Ye gad is this one is old and moldy.
>
> First time I heard it, kicked the slats out of the cradle.
>
> Lew
>
>

Did it have Pakistan and the last line?

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:49:22 +0000, Han wrote:

> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no joke.
> Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is attempting.
> But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost becomes a tax.
> Fine with me.

I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health care
dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies. By
contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:37:10 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> (Immediately snipped and sent to my joke listees. Priceless!)

All of whom probably saw it a year or more ago. It's an *old* joke,
Larry :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 9/25/10 11:48 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:49:22 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no joke.
>> Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is attempting.
>> But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost becomes a tax.
>> Fine with me.
>
> I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health care
> dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies. By
> contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.
>

Most of the real numbers I've seen for *net* profit (which is what
profit really is after all) are actually down between 3-4 percent.

But yes, they have a very large overhead. They do employ millions and
millions of people, however.

As to Medicare's seemingly low overhead, there are several economists
who've taken that claim down a few notches. This page nut-shells it
pretty well...
http://www.qando.net/?p=3362


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 9/25/2010 12:48 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:49:22 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no joke.
>> Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is attempting.
>> But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost becomes a tax.
>> Fine with me.
>
> I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health care
> dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies. By
> contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.

This notion that "good healthcare is expensive" is bullshit. If you're
healthy you need no "care". What's expensive is good treatment for
difficult illnesses and goldplated treatment for common injuries.

On 9/25/10 1:08 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/25/2010 12:15 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 9/25/10 11:48 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:49:22 +0000, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>>>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no joke.
>>>> Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is
>>>> attempting.
>>>> But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost becomes a tax.
>>>> Fine with me.
>>>
>>> I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health
>>> care
>>> dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies. By
>>> contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.
>>>
>>
>> Most of the real numbers I've seen for *net* profit (which is what
>> profit really is after all) are actually down between 3-4 percent.
>>
>> But yes, they have a very large overhead. They do employ millions and
>> millions of people, however.
>>
>> As to Medicare's seemingly low overhead, there are several economists
>> who've taken that claim down a few notches. This page nut-shells it
>> pretty well...
>> http://www.qando.net/?p=3362
>
> Hmmm ... he's rails about an "apples and oranges" comparison, then makes
> one himself to prove _his_ point:
>
> "But here’s the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a
> population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of
> medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than
> private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a
> percentage of total costs."
>
> Beware of _any_ statistics slinger with an agenda ...
>

I don't see an agenda in that statement.
Old people need and receive more health care. That's a fact.
If it costs the same to administratively service a 70 year old as it
does to service a 30 year old, the administrative costs percentage will
look smaller.
Hypothetically: a 70 year old uses $10k a year in health care while the
30 year old uses $2k, but the administrative costs are the same. $300
is 3% to the elderly, but 15% to the younger.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:54:18 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:

> There's no money in well people.
> There's no money in dead people.
> All the money is somewhere in the middle.

I think we can all agree on that one.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:19:54 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

> I don't see an agenda in that statement. Old people need and receive
> more health care. That's a fact. If it costs the same to
> administratively service a 70 year old as it does to service a 30 year
> old, the administrative costs percentage will look smaller.
> Hypothetically: a 70 year old uses $10k a year in health care while the
> 30 year old uses $2k, but the administrative costs are the same. $300
> is 3% to the elderly, but 15% to the younger.

You have a point, but it's a long way from 2% to 30% :-).

And insurance companies have overhead costs for healthy people too. Of
course they make a lot of profit off of those.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:54:18 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:

> There's no money in well people.
> There's no money in dead people.
> All the money is somewhere in the middle.

I responded to the above with agreement. Then I thought again.
Insurance companies make a *lot* of money off of well people.

And I wonder how many dead people don't get a refund to their estate of
unused medical premiums?

There's a way to make money off of any situation - the only thing
required is to check your morals at the door.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:49:22 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
>> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no joke.
>> Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is attempting.
>> But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost becomes a tax.
>> Fine with me.
>
> I read something the other day that claimed 30 cents of every health care
> dollar went to administration and profits of insurance companies. By
> contrast, Medicare overhead is 2% and of course 0% for profits.


Except that the overhead is underestimated because Other agencies do some of
the work. IRS

Josepi wrote:
> Good thing you have health care then. I doubt they can do much about
> your other problem though..."tired"
>
> LOL
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> I realize it was a joke, Lobby. But I am sick and tired of all the
> healthcare bashers. Yes, good healthcare is expensive - that's no
> joke. Keeping it affordable for most s what current legislation is
> attempting. But ALL have to participate, and yes, then it almost
> becomes a tax. Fine with me.

The problem is that it establishes a precedent that solely as a condition of
being allowed to exist within the United States, with no fiction of being a
condition on the exercise of a restricted privilege, one is required to
purchase a good or service. If they can make you buy insurance, then they
can make you buy a car or a house or anything else. So when the car lobby
or the can opener lobby convinces the Congress that it's good for the
country for everyone to buy a car or a can opener then legislation will be
enacted that fines everyone who doens't buy a car or a can opener.

As for car insurance being mandatory, it is not unless you own and drive a
car and is a condition on exercising the privilege of driving.

Congress KNOWS that they can't sell taxpayer supported medical treatment in
the US, so they tried to do an end run with legislation that requires
everyone to have it. What they really did was codify the status quo--the
way the law is written if you can't afford it then you aren't required to
have it, and just about everybody who _can_ afford it already has it, so
nothing changes except that costs go up as the insurance companies jump
through all the new hoops that have been set for them, and there's a big
court battle in which it is decided whether the Congress does in fact have
the authority to tell the American public that for no reason other than that
they exist in the United States, they _must_ buy this good or service or be
fined. I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to hand them their ass.
Roosevelt could have gotten it by them, but Obama is no Roosevelt.

"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:49:03 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:37:10 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> (Immediately snipped and sent to my joke listees. Priceless!)
>>
>>All of whom probably saw it a year or more ago. It's an *old* joke,
>>Larry :-).
>
> Old but good, and newly updated. Works for me.

And sure touched a few nerves ....

Sheesh!

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> My teeth are disintegrating, Lew. I want you to pay for new dentures
>> for me, uppers and lowers. You, Obama, and the public option sure
>> are
>> swell. Thanks. Oh, and I need it TOMORROW, please.
> ----------------------------------------
> Piss poor planning on your part does not mean an emergency for the
> rest of us.
>
> You have obviously known you had dental problems for some time.
>
> Dental insurance not available in your area?
>
> Assume that if you ignored your problem it would go away?
>
> BTW, the current health care package does NOT include dental coverage.
>
> If you would like dental to be included, you need to talk to your
> congressional representatives and let them know.
>
> Lew
>


One thing you'll learn is that the dental (and medical) industry has
different "standards of care" (just like on drywall work: 1-5). After
paying for dental coverage for a few years, I learned I needed a root
canal and crown, but the "standard of care" provided by my insurer only
covered pulling the tooth and adding a bridge (so I dropped them and
paid for the whole higher standard of care out of my pocket). I suspect
this kind of thing will come up a great deal once the government gets
more involved.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:12:51 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Thought the health care law changes that went into effect this week
> eliminated the exclusion because of pre-existing conditions loop hole
> the insurance companies have been hiding behind.

But of course they are still free to raise rates to cover all that and
naturally, a little bit extra :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:58:57 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> My teeth are disintegrating, Lew. I want you to pay for new dentures for
> me, uppers and lowers. You, Obama, and the public option sure are
> swell. Thanks. Oh, and I need it TOMORROW, please.

Larry, if we had national health insurance like all the other
industrialized nations (and some unindustrialized ones as well) all that
would be covered. And some insurance company couldn't deny the claim,
void your policy, or raise your rates because you filed a claim.

But that would conflict with your philosophy. You'd rather be screwed by
an insurance company than agree to government involvement. So I guess
your bad teeth are your problem :-).

BTW, just in case you really do have bad teeth, take heart. I've had
dentures since I was 40 and they've been great.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:04:19 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

>>BTW, just in case you really do have bad teeth, take heart. I've had
>>dentures since I was 40 and they've been great.
>
> Thanks for the sentiment. I think I'm having a health crisis. Last
> year, one tooth died. In the past 3 months, one tooth died and two teeth
> with crowns have broken off at the gumline. Something hinky this way
> comes.

My wife's teeth aren't overly bad, but she has to have them cleaned twice
a year as plaque builds up rapidly and she usually has one or two
cavities a year. And yes, she's religious about cleaning them. But
after I'd had dentures for about 5 years, she started looking for a
dentist who would pull her teeth and put in dentures :-). So far no luck.

I know that some people don't have that good a luck with dentures, but
I've got a couple of friends with them and their experience is the same
as mine. One who is now 80 has had them for 60 years - his teeth got
destroyed in an accident in a machine shop. I suspect attitude has a lot
to do with it.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:26:50 -0500, Swingman wrote:

> Just a few of the reasons ... most owners pay for vet care out of
> pocket, therefore the cost remains reasonable relative to human
> healthcare; the dog can't vote and thus has no politician's involved in
> the process; vets have shallower pockets and therefore barely worth the
> lawyers trouble; and the pet health insurance industry has yet to
> entrench itself into local and federal politician's pockets.

Well, there is the cost of equipment. Few if any vets have anything more
than an X-ray machine.

For example, I have to travel 300 miles in a couple of weeks to get a
treatment that's not available in my smaller (300,000 or so) town. Not
enough patients to cover the cost of the equipment. It's an outpatient
procedure taking an hour or less, but costs about $6000. I saw one
estimate of $20,000 but that has to be an overstatement. Most of the
cost is to cover the cost of the equipment.

BTW, results are complete eradication of a precancerous condition in 90%
of recipients so I'd probably have it even if insurance didn't cover it.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/27/2010 8:37 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>>> Bzzzzztt ... only for children under 19.
>> ---------------------------------
>> Thought 26 was the magic number unless they have left home for other
>> than school.
>
> Nope ... you can keep them "children" on your existing policy until they
> are 26.
>
> Which begs another question ... why the hell are grown-ups in this country
> still considered "children"?

For Insurance purposes.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 9/26/2010 5:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Her policy is up for renewal and it indeed increased by 25% ... but
>>>> she is stuck with them because changing now would mean denial from
>>>> another provider under"pre-existing conditions" clauses.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, she still needs two more surgeries, so I will be doing this
>>>> for some time to come.
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> Thought the health care law changes that went into effect this week
>>> eliminated the exclusion because of pre-existing conditions loop hole
>>> the insurance companies have been hiding behind.
>>
>> Bzzzzztt ... only for children under 19.
>
> And very many carriers have stopped writing "children-only"* policies.
>
> From last Tuesday:
> "Major health insurance companies in California and other states have
> decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a
> new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with
> preexisting medical conditions."
> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921
>
> --------------
> * "Children only" policies are used when an employer offers "employee
> only" or "employee and spouse only" policies.
>

It Begins ...

on both sides of the health care part of my "joke" would just go to the
polls in November and

VOTE AGAINST ALL INCUMBENTS

we might just start finding our way out of this mess!

Send new faces to the local, state and federal government with the message
that what happened to the person you beat Will happen to you, should you
wander off the reservation. We can no longer afford Career Politicians.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:36:45 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

>> For example, many patients in the UK don't expect Novacaine during a
>> tooth extraction because, well, it's not just part of the usual level
>> of treatment.
>
> What is your source for that information?

Glenn Beck?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:41:09 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> A poll, released just yesterday, revealed that 81% of TV viewers got
> some or all of their news from cable news and, of those, Fox leads with
> 42%.

Now *that's* scary! Especially since anyone who can prove that they are
alive qualifies to vote these days - don't even have to go to the polls.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:41:09 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> A poll, released just yesterday, revealed that 81% of TV viewers got
>> some or all of their news from cable news and, of those, Fox leads with
>> 42%.
>
>Now *that's* scary! Especially since anyone who can prove that they are
>alive qualifies to vote these days - don't even have to go to the polls.

In Chicago, and Gary Indiana, you don't even have to be alive to vote.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:02:10 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> The way the health care law is written, a child doesn't have to have
> insurance and can buy it only if he needs it. So when your kid breaks
> his arm playing junior-league football, you can buy this
> must-be-available insurance on the way to the hospital and cancel the
> policy after the arm heals.
>
> But that's okay - it's for the children.

If that's a correct interpretation of the law, I agree with you that it's
wrong and needs to be changed.

But knowing the glacial speed with which an insurance company can move,
the kids arm could well be healed before the policy is issued. Surely
the law doesn't require a company to pay for something that happened
before a policy was in effect.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Mike Marlow wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>>
>> In that case, pad your notice with something that's almost absurd and
>> a high-dollar item. That forces them:
>>
>> A. Ultimately pay the high-dollar "bogus" claim,
>> B. Actually go to trial, or
>> C. Give the adjuster something to deny while he approves the
>> remainder (that way he can look good to his boss).
>
> And how do you propose to "pad" a health insurance claim with a
> "bogus" claim?

Pain & Suffering
Lost wages
Inability to operate complicated machinery (i.e., a spoon)
Loss of Consortium
Punative damages
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
Exposure to shame and ridicule by the general public
Psychologically induced phobias (i.e., fear of tricycles, the color orange,
parsnips, or bald women)

Robatoy wrote:
>>
> Christine O'Donnell maybe?
>
> With 'gifts' like Palin, Beck, O'Donnell etc., does the RNC really
> want to win any seats? Maybe, deep down, the Republicans want to let
> The Great Implosion take place on the Dem's watch? Then ride into DC
> as the Party That Saves The Nation? With Beck at the front of the
> parade?

Nah, the really difficult part is letting the liberals win every ten to
fifteen years. We do that to refresh the memory of how bad things can really
be!

For example, Jimmy Carter's administration supervised an increase in
inflation and a decrease in the oil supply.

The Democratic congress in '06 & '08 led to a melt-down in the financial
markets and the housing industry, but most of us felt that wasn't enough to
completely discredit their efforts, so the country got Obama and healthcare.

We're now on the Hunt for Red November.

>
> My friends, (American & Canadian) ask me why I pay so much attention
> to US politics. Well, there is no other great comedy available on TV.
> Now there' are presidential hopefuls who can't appear on networks
> other than Fox due to contracts with Fox...how hilarious is that?

There's a whole article expanding on your observation:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42745.html

Sounds pretty smart to me. A poll, released just yesterday, revealed that
81% of TV viewers got some or all of their news from cable news and, of
those, Fox leads with 42%.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42738.html


Of the major GOP presidential wannabees (Palin, Gingrich, Romney, etc.), the
one with the highest favorable rating was Huckabee - and he's got an entire
SHOW on Fox.

>On
> the other channels, Rachel Maddow is trying to mobilize RugMunchers
> for Democracy. DOES it get funnier than that?
> There's always somebody getting caught with their hand in the cookie
> jar or down the pants of some staffer.

The same poll (cited above) reported that 55% of respondents had never heard
of Rachel Maddow.