gretchen evans

On 15 Oct 2003 01:40:53 -0700, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan

If memory serves me, you referenced yourself as an 'expert' in one
posting. Aside from that, you claim to have been a 'consultant'..
Which everyone knows is someone who possesses a briefcase and has
traveled more then 50 miles from his residence.

And it's so nice that you've had your share of successes.. Needless to
say that hasn't inflated your own opinion of yourself, has it?

And as for myself, differing from you, I much prefer that my
'successes' be labeled as such by others, not by myself.

pixie

gretchen evans

On 15 Oct 2003 03:03:17 -0700, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan


Anyone and everyone can obtain this insurance for $42/Month? Doubtful
at best. The so-called major med policy you cite at $162/month is
inadequate on the basis of the front-end deductable and lack of drug
coverage regardless of the maximum OOP. No, not a Cadillac... more
like a Yugo since you wish to make auto comparisons.


Wrong again. I, personally, have cared for many people with illnesses
or injuries requiring only minimal in-patient care yet extensive
follow-up treatment required. Try getting out in the real world for a
change instead of simply citing those states that seem to support your vapid position.

Not always available


Not always available but always indicated.


Counseling on smoking, excessive drinking, nutrition, a whole host of
issues that would improve the general health of the population.


Been to a dentist recently? Had ANY restorative procedures performed?


And for those that require glasses.. do they simply fall into your
gouping of having a 'fairly low incidence'? And in what part of the
country is vision or hearing screening available to all?

No kidding.. pity it's not available to everyone. Excellent concept,
miserable implementation of a great plan.
<< Prior blathering snipped >>

Yes I certainly do.. that, or one with additional coverages that we meet OOP

Again, you've failed to explain the exodus of Americans to Canada to
purchase prescriptions.. Now just WHY do these people to this if
they're 'paying a lot more'?


<< More snipped >>


Quite different, in fact. and yes, both Medicare and Medicaid are
considered an SP type of program, though modified in certain areas. so?

I just did. And the rationale for the question is?
<< more snipping of blather >>


Actually I find your overall position quite hilarious but also.. and
unfortunately, quite typical of the complacent elderly male who
enjoys, perhaps, an above average standard of living yet is adament
against sharing even an iota with others less fortunate. And yes, the
'chess playing' is ignored.


First issue is that you can't 'refute' the need for adequate
healthcare for everyone.. and also the fact that the only way to
provide such a system is via a nationalized delivery system. And as to
the second, yes, I'd be most willing to accept a lesser plan than I
now have should everyone be granted fully adequate healthcare
coverage.

And you?

Don't bother with an answer, your prior comments have already
established your position.

pixie

gretchen evans

On 15 Oct 2003 03:21:15 -0700, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan

Wrong still again.. I've never claimed to have 'Cadillac' healthcare
coverage. Nor do I.. Assuming, of course, that there is some true
definition of that term. I have coverage that's quite adequate for
our needs at the present time since we have sufficient resources to
fill the 'holes'..

You might take the time to review HIM-10, the Hospital Insurance
Manual for Medicare once again. They provide quite a clear
description of what is 'required' by hospitals in the way of
uncompensated care. And the term, BTW, also includes contractual
discounts as well as true uncompensated, i.e., 'charity' care.


And changes cannot be made to an existing act?


So if Medicare coverage is of no value to you, do you plan on becoming
self pay at age 76? Most policies reduce coverage at that age due to
the automatic coverage of Medicare Part A.

And for those without sufficient income to fully fund an MSA? Oh, I
forgot.. Just let them use the available 'free services' that are so
plentiful... Or possibly just die.

Don't you find it odd that those who claim to have a certain amount of
financial resources that grant them adequate care are so adament about
not providing the same adequacy to those less fortunate?

And here comes the old self acclaim once again. How impressive!

Let's face it, Karl, this klutz makes Marner look like a
philanthropist.

pixie

gretchen evans

Of course not, Karl, he's only concerned about his 5 bath home.

pixie

karl

You know JS you can live on next to nothing. It's surprising what
a person wastes money on it's true. But your 'example' really is laughable.

Rent at $400? Yeah there's always the projects. Want NOT to take your life
in your hands you might want a decent place to live. I don't see many
palces for
$400 around me. Certainly not if you have kids.

Health care alone could use most if not all the $1000 for a family plan.
Heck my Blue
Cross is around $500 a month for just me! Car insurance? You have another
$75-100
depending on you and your car. Clothing well you have goodwill but the
stuff isn't
free. Screw entertainment, go to the library lest JS objects to peasants
having fun.

Utilities? $100 a month? Holy shit I spent several hundred a month on Gas
Bills
last winter. Who cares about cable. Actually I never had it and don't want
it for
free anyway.

Okay then if you bought your 70K house, doubtful in many areas, but if you
did
what about TAXES....yikes! A 70-85K house in my county would be taxed
at around $2800-3000 per year which is about $233-250 a month. Then you
have maintenance too. Stuff breaks JS.

So your numbers come up short. You obivisously pulled them out of
you butt anyway.

You could save one way though....use ketchup as a vegetable and get a part
time job...maybe several?

Your compassion underwhelms me!

These catastrophic policies are they screened by medical underwriting?
So the cost or even availability are issues in of themselves.

Do you hunt and peck for suitable 'facts' then forget you're dealing
with real world issues with real people.

If it was as cut and dried as you make it out JS this issue wouldn't
have the political life to linger as long as it has.

karl

Did I SAY that? I asked if you wanted votes in general public
elections for Congress, Presidential, etc. cast according to
the amounts you pay in taxes or according to your net-worth?

That was a big position of AMP's.

He wanted more votes for Presidents because he paid
more in taxes and thus in his eyes he should have a bigger say.

Well?

george conklin

Next JS will tell you you can live in the street in a cardboard box for
even less. After all, he does.

karl

So you think Bill Gates should have VASTLY more to say on whom gets to be
President? You feel Warren Buffet should have VASTLY more to say when we
choose Senators and Representatives.

Should we give them 'titles' too? Dukes, Barons, Earls, or Counts?

Why don't you think about that position a bit.

karl

This was an 'Amp' position he liked that idea. I thought JS would jump on
the idea!

All we need are the fancy titles and a King or Emperor!

All ye "Hail the Emperor Gates or Buffet or ......?" Scarry thought!

george conklin

Currently right-wing thought equates money with free speech. As in: the
freedom of the press belongs to them that own them.

And of course they should get better medical care too, the same logic
goes.