Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics

Sunday, June 25, 2017

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 25 03:24AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 1:25:22 AM UTC-4, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
 
> > Which is why they should just repeal it.
 
> You seem to have forgotten the second half of your slogan...
 
> "and replace"
 
Oh, but they did, namely:
 
"...and replace it with tax cuts for the Rich".
 
 
> People deserve healthcare and anyone with the slightest hint of
> compassion in their soul is not going to let you selfish narcisists
> take it away.
 
"Deserve" here is an interesting word, as there's been political sound-biting
done with the terminology so say that Healthcare is a "Right" ... and that
has become a source of pushback (MDs as "slaves", even).
 
But what the true "Right" that is present here is that people have a right to
be treated equally when a business provides their services.
 
That means that you don't get asked to pay $500 for the same medical test
that I only pay $50 for because I'm white ^H^H^H^H .. I have "Insurance".
 
 
Insurance is supposed to pay the bill - - not negotiate a 90% discount.
 
If you had a car accident and your car worth $40K gets totaled, would you be
okay with getting a replacement car that the insurance company claims is
worth $40K, even when their own paperwork reveals only actually cost $4K?
 
Of course not!
When the worth of the product is $40K, that's what the insurance should pay,
and that's what we expect them to pay.
 
But that's not the way it works in Healthcare. That's what's broken.
 
 
-hh
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 25 07:49AM -0700

> People deserve healthcare and anyone with the slightest hint of
> compassion in their soul is not going to let you selfish narcisists
> take it away.
 
"Deserve" here is an interesting word, as there's been political sound-biting
done with the terminology so say that Healthcare is a "Right" ... and that
has become a source of pushback (MDs as "slaves", even).
 
Health providers have a right to be paid for services rendered and not be stiffed because someone is too irresponsible to acquire health insurance.
 
But what the true "Right" that is present here is that people have a right to
be treated equally when a business provides their services.
 
That means that you don't get asked to pay $500 for the same medical test
that I only pay $50 for because I'm white ^H^H^H^H .. I have "Insurance".
 
 
Insurance is supposed to pay the bill - - not negotiate a 90% discount.
 
Fail to see what is wrong with negotiating a better deal.
 
If you had a car accident and your car worth $40K gets totaled, would you be
okay with getting a replacement car that the insurance company claims is
worth $40K, even when their own paperwork reveals only actually cost $4K?
 
Of course not!
When the worth of the product is $40K, that's what the insurance should pay,
and that's what we expect them to pay.
 
And thus pay a higher premium???
 
But that's not the way it works in Healthcare. That's what's broken.
 
What is broken is the insured paying the claims of the uninsured. Also broken is a system that insurance companies have to take all comers. It is possible to wait until you're sick and then buy health insurance.. or run up a hospital bill and then claim bankruptcy.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 25 04:22PM

Dene wrote:
 
> Also broken is a system that insurance companies have to take all
> comers. It is possible to wait until you're sick and then buy health
> insurance.. or run up a hospital bill and then claim bankruptcy.
 
What's broken is the morals of people like you.
 
If you don't see a problem with what you are saying you don't deserve
to be called civilised.
 
AND FFS learn to quote.
 
Misattribution isn't just childishly lazy, technically inept and
irritating, it is fraud.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 25 10:40AM -0700

What's broken is the morals of people like you.
 
If you don't see a problem with what you are saying you don't deserve
to be called civilised.
 
AND FFS learn to quote.
 
Misattribution isn't just childishly lazy, technically inept and
irritating, it is fraud.
 
Puhlonk...
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 25 11:28AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 10:49:29 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> And thus pay a higher premium???
 
> But that's not the way it works in Healthcare. That's what's broken.
 
> What is broken is the insured paying the claims of the uninsured. Also broken is a system that insurance companies have to take all comers. It is possible to wait until you're sick and then buy health insurance.. or run up a hospital bill and then claim bankruptcy.
 
Why are you more concerned about the prerogatives of insurance cos.
than about people's access to health insurance? There is no perfect
system and there never will be.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 25 07:09PM

Moderate wrote:
 
 
> > It's about time you lot stopped whining and actually did something
> > about it.
 
> I don't buy into slogans.
 
Bollocks. That's all you have.
 
> Just get rid of government health care.
 
Your latest slogan?
 
What is "government healthcare?
 
What level of healthcare do you think should be available to those that
can't afford insurance?
 
Who do you prefer your money supporting, healthcare providers or
insurance company investors?
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 25 07:10PM

Dene wrote:
 
 
> Misattribution isn't just childishly lazy, technically inept and
> irritating, it is fraud.
 
> Puhlonk...
 
Ah, the little snowflake shows his true colour.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 25 01:12PM -0700

Why are you more concerned about the prerogatives of insurance cos.
than about people's access to health insurance? There is no perfect
system and there never will be.
 
Last time I checked, insurance companies are the entities that pay the claims. Do you think people should be able to wait until their house is on fire and then buy fire insurance?
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 25 03:05PM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 10:49:29 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > has become a source of pushback (MDs as "slaves", even).
 
> > Health providers have a right to be paid for services rendered and not be
> > stiffed because someone is too irresponsible to acquire health insurance.
 
No, *everyone* deserves to be paid for services rendered: there's nothing
unique about healthcare in this regards.
 
But where the crux of the matter is that they charge vastly different rates
for the same damn services, where the differentiation is based on if you
have insurance or not.
 
Sorry, that's not insurance - - its a classical "Mafia" protection scheme,
where those who didn't pay in get their kneecaps broken.
 
Which is precisely why I said:
 
>> that I only pay $50 for because I'm white ^H^H^H^H .. I have "Insurance".
 
> Insurance is supposed to pay the bill - - not negotiate a 90% discount.
 
> Fail to see what is wrong with negotiating a better deal.
 
Because what you're missing is when something like a bloodwork test really
only costs $50, then charging **anyone** $500 for the same service is the
poster child for "usury."
 
>> When the worth of the product is $40K, that's what the insurance should pay,
>> and that's what we expect them to pay.
 
> And thus pay a higher premium???
 
Nope. With or without insurance a $40K car sells for essentially $40K.
 
Hint: most folks wouldn't think it was right or fair if a dealership selling the
same car were to tell you that if a white guy was the buyer, its $40K, but when
they sell the same car to your wife (or a black neighbor, etc) that its cost
magically becomes $400K and not a penny less.
 
 
>> But that's not the way it works in Healthcare. That's what's broken.
 
> What is broken is the insured paying the claims of the uninsured.
 
No, that's done because the law says that healthcare providers can't
turn away any patients based on any means test (e.g., ability to pay).
In an emergency room setting, this is what saves your ass when your
wallet didn't make it from your crashed car to the ER with you.
 
In classical government terms, that's an "unfounded mandate", since
the lawmakers didn't include the means to pay the hospitals directly
for this regulatory mandate. Instead, they copped out and chose to hide
the cost of that public policy by putting it on the backs of regular insured.
 
 
> Also broken is a system that insurance companies have to take all comers.
 
Incorrect, because risk pooling is the fundamental principle underlying ALL insurance.
 
> It is possible to wait until you're sick and then buy health insurance.. or run
> up a hospital bill and then claim bankruptcy.
 
There's always some ways that people can think of to "game" the system,
but these are also inherent factors in risk pooling that Actuaries do. Overall,
in insurance in general, they're not particularly significant to the bottom line,
particularly in those instances where fraud is involved.
 
And FYI, here's is an example of why families go bankrupt: just contemplate
having to pay just one of these bills at the claimed "Full MSRP" rate:
 
<http://www.scarymommy.com/mom-shares-son-hospital-bill-twitter/>
 
Without the Healthcare "Mafia" Insurance program to knock this bill down,
even just a relatively "short" (2 weeks) hospital stay becomes a bankruptcy event.
 
That's why 80% of all domestic household bankruptcies in the USA are
primarily due to healthcare expenses.
 
 
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 25 04:22PM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 4:12:55 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> than about people's access to health insurance? There is no perfect
> system and there never will be.
 
> Last time I checked, insurance companies are the entities that pay the claims. Do you think people should be able to wait until their house is on fire and then buy fire insurance?
 
Not a very compelling analogy. Homeowners' insurance is cheap.
Health insurance is so expensive that very few people can afford to
pay for it on their own. If we let insurance cos. off the hook for
pre-existing conditions, then we give them license to screw people
for conditions they used to have, like they did before ACA. That's
why ACA stopped them from denying those policies to those people.
Insurance cos. have armies of lobbyists in DC who pour money into
their campaign funds and so-called leadership PACs. Several of the
Senators who wrote the current bill are among their favorite
beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 25 05:32PM -0700

Not a very compelling analogy. Homeowners' insurance is cheap.
Health insurance is so expensive that very few people can afford to
pay for it on their own. If we let insurance cos. off the hook for
pre-existing conditions, then we give them license to screw people
for conditions they used to have, like they did before ACA. That's
why ACA stopped them from denying those policies to those people.
Insurance cos. have armies of lobbyists in DC who pour money into
their campaign funds and so-called leadership PACs. Several of the
Senators who wrote the current bill are among their favorite
beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
 
That's the trouble with liberal thinking. You're great at spending other people's money. Part of that is the erroneous belief that insurance companies have an endless amount of money. If you allow people to be irresponsible with their pre-existing conditions, I.e. go without coverage, then acquire it after, you have it unsustainable business model. This is also known as the death spiral. It's happening right now.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 25 08:17PM -0500

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 17:32:53 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>
wrote:
 
>beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
>don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
 
>That's the trouble with liberal thinking. You're great at spending other people's money. Part of that is the erroneous belief that insurance companies have an endless amount of money. If you allow people to be irresponsible with their pre-existing conditions, I.e. go without coverage, then acquire it after, you have it unsustainable business model. This is also known as the death spiral. It's happening right now.
 
Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
"deadbeats". What about those who had coverage and were dropped
because of a major illness? And that does happen.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 25 06:47PM -0700

Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
"deadbeats".
 
So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
 
What about those who had coverage and were dropped
because of a major illness? And that does happen.
 
That has never happened in my 27 year career.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 25 09:02PM -0500

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>
wrote:
 
>really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
>"deadbeats".
 
>So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
 
From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
of them want to be in that situation?
 
You didn't respond to the major part of my post.
 
 
 
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 25 07:19PM -0700

Bobby wrote:
> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible.
 
Or reality. Unfortunately, a class in Civics isn't a required part of our education
system, so too many of our native-born don't even understand the basics as well as
a naturalized immigrant had to learn to pass their citizenship test. But them there
foreigners can't be trusted because they're non-Christians, and in the Bible, Jesus
said to Love ... oh, wait: that's .. **Look! Bad Guy! Terrorism! Be Afraid & Obey!**
 
 
> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
> "deadbeats".
 
Meantime, they also try to claim that they ain't never been a slacker who got
a handout, while overlooking how they're driving on public roads (taxpayer-paid)
through the countryside (which has its infrastructure thanks to Rural Electrification
& Communication programs ... also paid for by taxpayers & never to ever be
economically repaid by who uses it), and so on.
 
> What about those who had coverage and were dropped
> because of a major illness? And that does happen.
 
There was an illuminating article in the NYT this past weekend; I'll dig up a link.
 
-hh
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 25 07:33PM -0700

Re: NYT:
 
Looks like the article isn't online yet.
 
On the hard copy, it's on the bottom of Page 1 in the "Sunday Review" section.
 
Title is "I Am the Man Who Denied Your Claims"
Author is Justin Ordoñez
 
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 25 08:26PM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:32:55 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
> don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
 
> That's the trouble with liberal thinking. You're great at spending other people's money. Part of that is the erroneous belief that insurance companies have an endless amount of money. If you allow people to be irresponsible with their pre-existing conditions, I.e. go without coverage, then acquire it after, you have it unsustainable business model. This is also known as the death spiral. It's happening right now.
 
That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
other people's money. The government spends my money and
if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
them.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 25 08:29PM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:47:09 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
> "deadbeats".
 
> So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
 
Yes, they increased. There was a severe recession and the
unemployment rate hit 10%. Obama didn't cause any of that.
He got stuck with it.
 
> What about those who had coverage and were dropped
> because of a major illness? And that does happen.
 
> That has never happened in my 27 year career.
 
It happens. Try to enlighten yourself about it.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 25 06:31AM -0500


>>> There's nothing to dispute. Everything you provided is unsubstantiated opinion.
 
>>As did the liberal opinion piece you posted.
 
> By learned people, unlike you.
 
Please,
Sonam Sheth is a liberal shill just like you.
--
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 25 10:17AM -0500

Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 25 12:33PM -0500

> accelerated rate.
 
> It's about time you lot stopped whining and actually did something
> about it.
 
I don't buy into slogans. Just get rid of government health care.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 25 02:19PM -0500


> 3M more votes than Trump. I see he has stopped peddling the lie that
> it was because of massive voter fraud.
 
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-v
ote-number-higher-than-estimat/
--
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 25 10:14AM -0500

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:31:28 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>>>As did the liberal opinion piece you posted.
 
>> By learned people, unlike you.
 
>Please, Sonam Sheth is a liberal shill just like you.
 
So? What does that have to do with the fact that he's
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 25 10:15AM -0500

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:31:28 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>>>As did the liberal opinion piece you posted.
 
>> By learned people, unlike you.
 
>Please, Sonam Sheth is a liberal shill just like you.
 
Smarter than you, as all are.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 25 11:21AM -0700

On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 8:31:56 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> > 1. It happened under O's watch and the empty suit did nothing..
> What did you expect him to do?
 
> Sanction them heavily instead of his typical weak-ass wrist slap.
 
He did sanction them, maybe not as heavily as you would have liked,
but foreign policy is more complicated than you think.
 
> > 2. It did not affect the outcome of the election.
> How do you know?
 
> After one year, the effect would've been revealed. So far. Nothing...because there is nothing.
 
Revealed how? Through a press leak? It's still under investigation
and Mueller's people don't leak.
 
> > 3. There was no collusion.
> How do you know?
 
> After one year, the effect would've been revealed. So far. Nothing...because there is nothing.
 
Same. Still under investigation.
 
> > 4. Most Americans don't give a damn. Just liberals who need an excuse why they lost the election.
> BS. Most Americans do give a damn.
 
 
> Wrong. Most Americans care about the economy. Just hide and watch.
 
Most Americans care about the economy as it affects them. Low- to
middle-income Americans are scared Trump is going to pull the
rug out from under them re their heath insurance.
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