Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

Friday, May 5, 2017

Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 03:00PM -0700

...why have Trump's approval ratings gone down:
 
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may5>
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 05 06:05AM -0500


> It appears that the reason why this is being tagged as "bad" is
> because it apparently empowers Employers to take the decision *AWAY*
> from employees on if they want to be paid now (OT) or later (Comp).
 
-hh
 
I like that the Dems are the party of no. What a great Bill.
Employees have complete control in spite of what the Dems
say.
 
The only employees who might lose choice are unions. Presumably
union workers will be allowed to vote for an option, but who
knows what the crooks in charge might do.
 
More poor judgment by Dems.
 
 
--
"Welcome to Trumpton" <trumpton@maiIsorter.co.uk>: May 05 07:55PM

Dene wrote:
 
> > relying on a substandard charitable system to pick them up.
 
> Who are these people...the poor who have Medicaid. The uninsured?
> Who?
 
Any and everyone who risks having inadequate healthcare.
 
That includes you from your own discourse.
 
> > You are thinking like an insurance salesman not a healthcare
> > provider.
 
> Thank you!
 
You thank me for pointing out that you do not meet the base standard
for civilised society.
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOSPAM@Gmail.com>: May 05 09:55PM

David Laville wrote:
 
> treatment.
 
> Tells us again how shitty and corrupt our system is, we can use the
> laugh, clown.
 
The increased cost of health insurance is a central fact in any
discussion of health policy and health delivery. Annual premiums
reached $18,142 in 2016 for an average family.
 
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx
 
Of course it's not like for like as the Canadian figure covers everyone
wheras the US figure is just for those with insurance.
 
How's your apples and pears.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 02:54PM -0700

'Sitting in the Oval Office Tuesday evening, Trump dialed Upton in his
congressional office. The president raised his voice and swore at Upton
several times during a 10-minute conversation, sources familiar with the
call said. But Upton stood his ground. He explained that he, like Trump,
wanted to ensure people with pre-existing conditions were protected,
even quoting the president verbatim talking about the need to do so.
 
"I am not supporting this bill without a legislative fix," Upton said,
according to a source familiar with the conversation.
 
Trump did not want to talk about the merits of the legislation — he
didn't care much about those specifics, senior officials said. What
mattered to him was how a failed vote would hobble his presidency and
the ability to get other legislation through Congress.
 
He wanted a win.'
 
 
<http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/05/donald-trump-obamacare-repeal-timeline-238016>
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:29PM -0500

On Wed, 3 May 2017 14:33:19 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
 
>Did you read his first book? It was a best-seller and he didn't
>get others to write it for him.

I read it and the only reason it was a best seller was because of the
authors name not the content.
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:32PM -0500


>> Obama, up til now, hasn't made a lot of money. What should he have
>> done with the $60m book offer, say no that's too much?
 
>Yes,yes. And Hillary was flat broke when they left the whitehouse, LOL!

Remember the uproar from the left when Newt Gingrich got a $4.5
million dollar book deal? Dee Dee Myers, White House Press Secretary,
was even suggesting it needed to be investigated.
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:33PM -0500

On Wed, 3 May 2017 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
 
>> "at some point, you've made enough money..."
 
>Obama, up til now, hasn't made a lot of money. What should he have
>done with the $60m book offer, say no that's too much?

Dude, do you live in fantasy land? In addition to his salary he's
made over $20 million dollars since 2005;
 
http://tiny.cc/445yky
 
That's not making a lot of money?
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:34PM -0500

On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:10:41 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
>> Yes, and?
 
>The anti-capitalist statements from Obama could fill a book.

Notice how he completely ignored the hypocrisy? Yet he's the same guy
who microscopically scans the internet for anything he can find about
republicans.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 02:39PM -0700

On 2017-05-05 2:34 PM, David Laville wrote:
 
> Notice how he completely ignored the hypocrisy? Yet he's the same guy
> who microscopically scans the internet for anything he can find about
> republicans.
 
I'm still waiting for an example of this "anti-capitalist" rhetoric you
seem to agree exists...
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 02:40PM -0700

On 2017-05-05 2:32 PM, David Laville wrote:
 
> Remember the uproar from the left when Newt Gingrich got a $4.5
> million dollar book deal? Dee Dee Myers, White House Press Secretary,
> was even suggesting it needed to be investigated.
 
'Responding to criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, the
incoming House Speaker, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, today announced that
he would forgo a $4.5 million book advance to avoid the appearance of
cashing in on his party's victory in the November elections.'
 
That one?
 
A little different cashing in when TAKING office, wouldn't you say?
 
<http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/31/us/gingrich-gives-up-4-million-advance-on-his-book-deal.html?pagewanted=all>
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:46PM -0500

On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:32:06 -0400, Carbon
 
>And, the only reason he's getting a 60m book deal is the current president
>is so awful that it makes him look like a genius in comparison.

Keep dreaming. The publishers know the same fools who voted for him
will be standing in line to buy his book. It's about capitalizing on
the fools from the left who idolize him as a God.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 05 11:47AM -0700

On 5/4/2017 10:35 PM, Welcome to Trumpton wrote:
 
> I see why you might take the gamble on not getting pregnant but do you
> really think it should be the individuals choice not to pay towards
> mental health.
 
Yes...the ultimate purpose of any insurance is that it should cover what
I'm willing and unable to cover myself. I can self insured mental health.
 
You really haven't got your head around the whole
> national healthcare ideology. You think it's okay for people to just
> get cover for what they fear they will need as opposed to they might
> really need.
 
Amount of insurance is always a subjective decision. For example, the
amount of deductible, etc. We are grownups. We do not need a nanny
state to decide this.
 
The difference is tens of millions of people having
> inadequate care and either not getting the care they need or relying on
> a substandard charitable system to pick them up.
 
Who are these people...the poor who have Medicaid. The uninsured? Who?
 
> You are thinking like an insurance salesman not a healthcare provider.
 
Thank you!
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 05 01:24PM -0700

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:47:54 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > mental health.
 
> Yes...the ultimate purpose of any insurance is that it should cover what
> I'm willing and unable to cover myself. I can self insured mental health.
 
FWIW, I think that mental health is a bad example, because by
definition, the subject of the need will impair the ability
to objectively self-assess the same.
 
 
> Amount of insurance is always a subjective decision. For example, the
> amount of deductible, etc. We are grownups. We do not need a nanny
> state to decide this.
 
A fair enough statement in principle ... but in reality, we
are all surrounded by thousands of "nanny" regulations, all
because we have learned that corporate self-interest cannot
be inherently trusted to be consistently in the public's
own interests.
 
FWIW, Industry has learned (well, some of them) that an external
entity setting standards is a good thing too, because it helps
to establish public standards when it comes to liability lawsuits.
 
The big problem with "nanny" in healthcare has been
that there's been ample historical examples of people
being deceived into buying really crappy policies which
don't really cover much of anything -- these are quite
frequently very complicated products and a lot can & does
get hidden in the fine print ... just look at the news on
Commercial Airlines throwing people off of flights this
past month for examples of the divergence between what
the public thinks they're getting and what the airline's
lawyers have hidden in the fine print.
 
> > inadequate care and either not getting the care they
> > need or relying on a substandard charitable system to pick them up.
 
> Who are these people...the poor who have Medicaid. The uninsured? Who?
 
To a great degree, they're normal middle class folks
who get hit with a huge medical bill.
 
For example, its the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA
...and more:
 
"Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults — more
than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64
— will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year,
according to NerdWallet Health."
 
 
<http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148>
 
 
<http://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/>
 
FYI, here's current real world example from a family member.
 
It started two years ago when there was a medical emergency
and they supposedly gave the okay to call for a MediVac by
chopper. But bad weather resulted in the chopper never
being able to take off to make the flight (so a ground
ambulance was used instead).
 
Well, the MediVac company is demanding $60K (I kid you not)
and the Health Insurance carrier is refusing to pay because
the MediVac company never provided any service, so they're
trying to get the adult who allegedly gave the verbal consent
to pay.
 
Yes, the demand is for the full $60K cost of a MediVac flight,
even though they never left the ground...supposedly, this
provision was buried in "fine print" which was never provided.
 
So...are you going to simply roll over and pay the bill?
 
And even if you say 'yes', do you even have this amount
of free cash just laying around?
 
Yeah, maybe today, but how much did you really have back
when your kids were between, oh, say 5 - 15 years old?
 
Back then, I know I didn't have anything even close to that.
 
FWIW, another contemporary real world: a colleague has a
still-young child who's a cancer survivor (Neuroblastoma).
 
After both his & his wife's insurance policies ...

<< yes, they both work & were DOUBLE insured >>
 
... they have a "bit over" $100K in outstanding bills
that they're personally responsible for paying. They'll
get there, but 100% of the reason why is because they
happen to make $200K more than the US Household Median Income.
 
Now try to imagine how much worse of their situation would
have been had it been only one parent working...
 
 
-hh
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:16PM -0500

On Thu, 4 May 2017 08:29:03 -0400, Carbon
 
>> I'm saying that our Federal government cannot possibly manage the
>> healthcare of 330 million people.
 
>Bias unsupported by fact.
 
You are clueless. The government can't manage the 9 million people
enrolled in VA health care system.
 
What is it that happened in your life that makes you think the
government is the solution to everything?
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:16PM -0500

>> And a lot of money is spent to ensure it stays that way.
 
>It works in Canada because you have a small population and you are used
>to pay horrific taxes.

The average family in Canada pays close to $12,000 a year in taxes
that goes to healthcare yet left wing zombies like Carbon like to tell
us about the free healthcare that get.
 
http://tiny.cc/ut6yky
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 05 04:29PM -0500

On Wed, 3 May 2017 23:04:10 -0400, Carbon
>insurance companies.
 
>Your average American has no clue how shitty and corrupt their system is.
>And a lot of money is spent to ensure it stays that way.
 
The average insurance cost in Canada is $12,000 a year and $10,000 in
the United States. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you
Canadians probably don't have a deductible but in the U.S. the average
is $4,300 dollars. So we're comparing $12,000 to $14,300, a $2,300
difference. The biggest difference is Canadians are coming to the
U.S. for healthcare because the waiting list is much shorter for
treatment, Americans aren't crossing the border into Canada for
treatment.
 
Tells us again how shitty and corrupt our system is, we can use the
laugh, clown.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 02:38PM -0700

On 2017-05-05 2:16 PM, David Laville wrote:
> that goes to healthcare yet left wing zombies like Carbon like to tell
> us about the free healthcare that get.
 
> http://tiny.cc/ut6yky
 
And yet our per capita health care costs are less than yours...
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 02:42PM -0700

On 2017-05-05 2:29 PM, David Laville wrote:
> treatment.
 
> Tells us again how shitty and corrupt our system is, we can use the
> laugh, clown.
 
Tell us how you laugh off that people die in your system for lack of the
ability to afford healthcare...
 
...or go bankrupt.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 02:00PM -0700

'"AARP is deeply disappointed in today's vote by the House to pass this
deeply flawed health bill," said AARP Executive Vice President Nancy
LeaMond. "The bill will put an age tax on us, harming millions of
American families with health insurance, forcing many to lose coverage
or pay thousands of dollars more for health care. In addition, the bill
now puts at risk the 25 million older adults with preexisting
conditions, such as cancer and diabetes, who would likely find health
care unaffordable or unavailable to them."'
 
<http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2017/fate-of-health-care-bill-with-senate-fd.html>
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 05 01:04PM -0700

...by the senate:
 
<http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/house-health-care-bill-senate-doa-238000>
 
<https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-05/senate-moves-obamacare-repeal-to-slow-lane-after-house-squeaker>
 
Oh, and also by:
 
Hospitals
 
Doctors
 
AND health insurance companies!
 
'"The American Health Care Act needs important improvements to better
protect low- and moderate-income families who rely on Medicaid or buy
their own coverage," Marilyn B. Tavenner, the chief executive of
America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group, said in a
strongly worded statement.'
 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/health/health-care-bill-criticisms.html>
 
'Others were even more direct about the effects the bill would have, not
only on patients but also on the industry. "To me, this is not a
reform," said Michael J. Dowling, the chief executive of Northwell
Health, a large health system in New York. "This is just a debacle."'
michaelunowho@gmail.com: May 05 10:50AM -0700

or anything else, for that matter.
michaelunowho@gmail.com: May 05 10:48AM -0700

just a natural born, Luzer.
 
A waste of skin.
michaelunowho@gmail.com: May 05 06:40AM -0700

and love it.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 05 06:36AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:23:36 PM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> its presence." His fathomless lack of interest in America's path to the
> present and his limitless gullibility leave him susceptible to being blown
> about by gusts of factoids that cling like lint to a disorderly mind.
 
Some conservatives can't abide the fact that some other conservatives
don't like Trump. So, they redefine them as centrists or RINOs.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment