http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* was anyone here now, on at the Y2K scare? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/73a6174a478bd0a3?hl=en
* How 2 Become An Alpha Male? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3fb465a6194ebef5?hl=en
* 【Paypal Payment】China Wholesale authentic Jordan Shoes Cheap Air Jordan
Fusion,Nike Jordan Sneakers,Air Jordans,Gucci Shoes,Nike shoes wholesale - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2fb8afd8442a899e?hl=en
* No surprise - Opposition to Obama's "destruction" of "health care sector"
profits is led by the For Profit "health care sector" - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en
* Eggplant going bad? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/22a79542d7957093?hl=en
* There is no "right" to profit from Health Insurance. It is Fraud. - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: was anyone here now, on at the Y2K scare?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/73a6174a478bd0a3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 8:31 pm
From: The Real Bev
sr wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al said
>
>>> Maybe we need a new crisis to
>>> highlight some of these simple technologies.
>>
>> Unlikely that a new crisis would help. Katrina presented an interesting
>> new crisis which seemed to generate more whining and dependency than
>> simple and practical solutions.
>>
>> I bought a tape called "Subliminal Advertising"
>> The next day I bought 47 more.
> Good Quip: love your tags, felt good to have a laugh today, thanks Bev
I wish I had made ALL of them up, not just some of them. That one I stole.
--
Cheers, Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
You know how dumb the average person is?
Well, by definition, half are *even dumber*!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:39 pm
From: "JRWeiss"
sr wrote:
> So, when the Big Bang didn't happen, what did you think?
The people hired to sto it from happening did their jobs!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How 2 Become An Alpha Male?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3fb465a6194ebef5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 9:42 pm
From: apurwi
Start Acting Like an Alpha Male
Seduce a Woman Easily and Properly
http://dating-guide-review.123probiz.com
Happy Dating :)
Agus Purwiyanto
Marketing
http://www.gogonai.info/?id=purwi
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 【Paypal Payment】China Wholesale authentic Jordan Shoes Cheap Air
Jordan Fusion,Nike Jordan Sneakers,Air Jordans,Gucci Shoes,Nike shoes
wholesale
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2fb8afd8442a899e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 9:47 pm
From: ckedsdfs
payment www.wholesale789.com
Welcome to our website (www.wholesale789.com)
Besthonestshoes Co,Ltd is a professional exporting company dealing
with brand name footwear such as Nike Air Jordan(jordan retro 1-24,
DubZero, jordan fusion, woman jordan, kids and youth jordan), Nike
fusion shoes, 6 rings, Nike Max (MAX 87, MAX90, max 90 boots, MAX 91,
MAX95, MAX97, MAX2005, MAX 360, MAX TN, Max Mix, Max 2007,max 2009,
Max LTD, Air Stabb), Nike Shox (NZ R4 R5 TL TL3 R3 R2, r3-r4 mixed,
TZ, oz, nz-oz mixed), Air Force One AF1 25th Anniversary, AF1 2009
desgins, Dunk SB, Adidas(adidas jacket, tracksuit, adidas 35th
anniversary, adicolor, adidas NBA, adidas zx 700 sport LG Graph),
Dolce & Gabbana Shoes, Bape Sta, Air Bape, Ice Cream, Puma, Prada,
Gucci, Dsquareds, Timberland, Nike work boots, Lacoste, Converse,
Christian Audigier, Ed Hardy, Football Shoes, Air Yeezy, ATO, supra
Indy NS, Supra skytop NS, coogi, Raf Simons, mauri ed hardy shoes,
Dress Shoes(LV, Gucci), Sandal, and woman fashion boots. we also
supply world brand Apparel(jackets, hoodies, jeans, t-shirts,
sweater,
suites), : A&F, Abercrombie & Fitch, armani, artful dodger,
affliction, Antik Demin, blac label, bape, bbc, Billionaire Boys
Club,
baby phat, coogi, christian audigier, crown holder, Dolce & Gabbana,
ed hardy, evisu, Gino Green Globla, ggg, g-star, gucci, prada, polo,
kidrobot, red monkey, lacoste,levi's, M+4, JACK&Jones, rich yung,
roca
wear, rock and Republic, seven, true religion, ect. Juicy, gucci, ed
hardy, D&G, prada, chanel, coach, chloe, burberry handbags,
sunglasses, new era, ed hardy, coogi, gucci, laguna beach, christian
audigier, bape caps, blets. All our products are of AAA grade high
quality with original boxes and tags, and with competitive price. We
accept both retail and wholesale orders. PLS Feel free to browse our
website: www.wholesale789.com
Welcome to our website (www.wholesale789.com)
Besthonestshoes Co,Ltd is a professional exporting company dealing
with brand name footwear such as Nike Air Jordan(jordan retro 1-24,
DubZero, jordan fusion, woman jordan, kids and youth jordan), Nike
fusion shoes, 6 rings, Nike Max (MAX 87, MAX90, max 90 boots, MAX 91,
MAX95, MAX97, MAX2005, MAX 360, MAX TN, Max Mix, Max 2007,max 2009,
Max LTD, Air Stabb), Nike Shox (NZ R4 R5 TL TL3 R3 R2, r3-r4 mixed,
TZ, oz, nz-oz mixed), Air Force One AF1 25th Anniversary, AF1 2009
desgins, Dunk SB, Adidas(adidas jacket, tracksuit, adidas 35th
anniversary, adicolor, adidas NBA, adidas zx 700 sport LG Graph),
Dolce & Gabbana Shoes, Bape Sta, Air Bape, Ice Cream, Puma, Prada,
Gucci, Dsquareds, Timberland, Nike work boots, Lacoste, Converse,
Christian Audigier, Ed Hardy, Football Shoes, Air Yeezy, ATO, supra
Indy NS, Supra skytop NS, coogi, Raf Simons, mauri ed hardy shoes,
Dress Shoes(LV, Gucci), Sandal, and woman fashion boots. we also
supply world brand Apparel(jackets, hoodies, jeans, t-shirts,
sweater,
suites), : A&F, Abercrombie & Fitch, armani, artful dodger,
affliction, Antik Demin, blac label, bape, bbc, Billionaire Boys
Club,
baby phat, coogi, christian audigier, crown holder, Dolce & Gabbana,
ed hardy, evisu, Gino Green Globla, ggg, g-star, gucci, prada, polo,
kidrobot, red monkey, lacoste,levi's, M+4, JACK&Jones, rich yung,
roca
wear, rock and Republic, seven, true religion, ect. Juicy, gucci, ed
hardy, D&G, prada, chanel, coach, chloe, burberry handbags,
sunglasses, new era, ed hardy, coogi, gucci, laguna beach, christian
audigier, bape caps, blets. All our products are of AAA grade high
quality with original boxes and tags, and with competitive price. We
accept both retail and wholesale orders. PLS Feel free to browse our
website: www.wholesale789.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: No surprise - Opposition to Obama's "destruction" of "health care
sector" profits is led by the For Profit "health care sector"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:13 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jerry Okamura wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> It is a question of how important our freedoms are.
>> Nope. The voters LONG ago decided that that is irrelevant
>> to the VA system, medicare, public education, the military,
>> the cops, the judiciary etc etc etc and are currently
>> discussing how best to do health care, essentially because
>> they have decided that pissing TWICE the percentage of
>> GDP against the wall that every other modern first and
>> second world country does is just plain barking mad and
>> that its completely unacceptible to be bankrupted by a
>> serious medical problem even if you do have health insurance.
> yes, and they said, when they did that, that our freedom is less important than our safety.
None of that has anything to do with freedoms except in the
sense that with them you are free to avoid bankruptcy if you
end up with a serious medical problem and you are more
free of criminals than you would otherwise be etc etc etc.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:16 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jerry Okamura wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Nickname unavailable <Video61@tcq.net> wrote Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot
>>>> leftist looters who say it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>> it race and stupidity, which ever comes first.
>>> Why is it "stupid" to want my fellow citizens to have as much
>>> freedom as possible?
>> The debate is always about the 'as possible'
>> It turns out that with so many prepared to blow themselves
>> to bits etc that it isnt feasible/sensible to allow complete
>> freedom to carry anything you like onto aircraft etc.
> I did not use the words "complete freedom" did I?
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What words you may or may not have used in spades.
>>> Can you be truly free when you are dependent on
>>> someone else to provide for your healthcare needs?
>> That isnt what is happenening when we choose to raise
>> taxes to pay for a decent universal health care system.
> Of couse it is. With a Universal healthcare system, you have given up your freedom to choose to someone else who will
> make that decision for you whether you like it or not.
Wrong, as always. You are always free to completely ignore
the universal healthcare system and to pay anyone you like
to deliver whatever healthcare services you decide you
want outside of that if you dont like the way it operates.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:26 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jerry Okamura wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> If you want as much freedom as possible, you do not want to depend on anyone to take care of your healthcare needs.
>> The modern reality is that some health care
>> needs are only affordable by the stinking rich.
> The "rich" will win regardless of what system we have.
Like hell they do. The bulk of them piss their pathetic
excuses for 'lives' against the wall chasing money.
>> So we have to work out a mechanism that allows those who do need a
>> heart bypass or hip replacement to get one without that bankrupting them.
>>> If you value safety above freedom you deserve neither safety or freedom.
>> Utterly mindless silly stuff.
> Only because you do not put a very high value on freedom.
Wrong, as always. I prefer the freedom to not be bankrupted when I have a serious medical problem.
I still have the freedom to just die or to kill myself if I dont like the best
that medical science can offer if I end up with a serious medical problem.
I certainly wont ever be stupid enough to end up bed ridden in a fucking nursing home etc.
>>> When you depend on someone else to pay for your healtcare needs,
>>> you are betting that they will provide those needs when you need it.
>> No bet whatever involved when the voters decide thats what they want the govt to do.
> It does not matter what the voters want, the simple fact is that when
> you depend on someone else to give you what you want or need,
I'm not when I avail myself of a decent universal health care
system that the voters have decided that is the most appropriate
way to deliver health care services, funded by taxation.
I'm always free to pay for the health care I want outside the universal
system if I dont like some detail of the universal health care system too.
> you have given them the right to give you what you want or need,
Like hell I have when they have a legal obligation to provide the health care that I need.
> and you have also given them the right not to give you what you want or need.
Like hell I have when they have a legal obligation to provide the health care that I need.
And I'm always free to pay out of my own pocket for what health care services
that I decide I need that the health care system refuses to provide as well.
>>> Of course since you are dependent on them to provide you with what you want or need, you have also given them the
>>> power to not provide what you want or need when you think you need it.
>> Wrong again when that has been settled by the voters deciding
>> what they want the govt to provide, and to pay for via taxation.
> There is not enough taxes you cannot collect to pay for the ever increasing cost of healthcare.
THE COST GOES DOWN, FOOL. EVERY OTHER MODERN FIRST
AND SECOND WORLD COUNTRY GETS IT HEALTH CARE FOR HALF
THE PERCENTAGE OF GDP THAT THE US IS STUPID ENOUGH TO
PISS AGAINST THE WALL, AND THEY GET A BETTER RESULT ON
EVERY SENSIBLE MEASURE OF HEALTH CARE TOO LIKE LONGEVITY
AND YEARS IN GOOD HEALTH.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Eggplant going bad?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/22a79542d7957093?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:18 pm
From: "sr"
Salt is a preservative
Remember how hams are salted down, etc
"noel888" <harri85274@aol.com> wrote in message news:dbb1e50e-dcbd-4a9b-b933-60c0b399a5d1@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> My wife had setup salting sliced eggplants for today's meal. She had
> put them in a colander with salt to get rid of the bitterness. The
> problem? She left them out on the kitchen counter overnight. I said to
> her that it has to be thrown out and she said that the salt has
> preserved them...now we are debating. Any suggestions?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:40 pm
From: The Real Bev
sr wrote:
> Salt is a preservative
> Remember how hams are salted down, etc
Salting eggplant is supposed to remove the water from it. There isn't enough
salt in the world to make eggplant not-nasty-feeling.
> "noel888" <harri85274@aol.com <mailto:harri85274@aol.com>> wrote:
> > My wife had setup salting sliced eggplants for today's meal. She had
> > put them in a colander with salt to get rid of the bitterness. The
> > problem? She left them out on the kitchen counter overnight. I said to
> > her that it has to be thrown out and she said that the salt has
> > preserved them...now we are debating. Any suggestions?
--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
Election 2008:
There's never been a better time to vote libertarian.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 11:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
sr <solos42@uninets.net> wrote
> Salt is a preservative
Not with vegetables it isnt.
> Remember how hams are salted down, etc
Thats meat, not a vegetable.
> noel888 <harri85274@aol.com> wrote
>> My wife had setup salting sliced eggplants for today's meal. She
>> had put them in a colander with salt to get rid of the bitterness.
>> The problem? She left them out on the kitchen counter overnight.
>> I said to her that it has to be thrown out and she said that the salt
>> has preserved them...now we are debating. Any suggestions?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no "right" to profit from Health Insurance. It is Fraud.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 11:25 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:52:33 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:06:51 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:24:49 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:52:12 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>>>> freeisbest wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:25 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> tmclone, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 12:17 am, Coffee's For Closers
>>>>>>>>>>> <Usenet2...@THE-DOMAIN- IN.SIG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bcedb7bc-0004-40dc-9480-
>>>>>>>>>>>> 088c38e95...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> tmcl...@searchmachine.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That the USA doesn't have universal, free healthcare for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, funded by taxes is shameful. We are supposedly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "greatest country on earth" yet we can't provide healthcare
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to all our citizens. We rank behind Cuba on healthcare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pathetic. The idea of "for profit" healthcare is insane. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that it is wrong to make money by providing
>>>>>>>>>>>> healthcare? So does that mean that doctors, nurses, etc,
>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be paid, since that involves personally profiting
>>>>>>>>>>>> from providing healthcare?
>>>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot. The "profit" isn't the money being paid to
>>>>>>>>>>> the medical providers for the actual care.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course a very large part of it is. The pharmaceutical
>>>>>>>>>> companies make profits. The manufacturers of MRI and CT
>>>>>>>>>> machines make profits.
>>>>>>>>>> The blood labs and other diagnostic test centers make profits.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> investor-owned hospital chains are making profits. And of
>>>>>>>>>> course the doctors, and many nurses, are very well paid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's the "cost" of the care.
>>>>>>>>>> It's cost to someone, and revenue to those who receive it, and
>>>>>>>>>> in that revenue is profit for those who run their businesses
>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > > The "profit" is the billions of $ the insurance companies
>>>>>>>>> > > make.
>>>>>>>>>>> At least 30% of our healthcare $ goes right into the pockets
>>>>>>>>> > > of the insurance companies.
>>>>>>>>>> I keep hearing that figure tossed around carelessly by slovenly
>>>>>>>>>> weak thinkers like you, and I can never get anyone to give a
>>>>>>>>>> citation for it.
>>>>>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> You keep hearing that figure, but no one knows the truth but
>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>> I never said that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If everyone but you is a slovenly weak thinker,
>>>>>>>> No, but the whiny mentally disturbed looter 'tmclone' certain is
>>>>>>>> a weak thinker.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consider doing the
>>>>>>>>> research yourself instead of trying to profit from someone
>>>>>>>>> else's time and effort.
>>>>>>>> I requested people who toss this figure around substantiated it.
>>>>>>>> They don't, probably because they can't - they're merely
>>>>>>>> repeating an "everybody knows" bit of folk wisdom.
>>>>>>> Right. All anyone has to do is look at the insurer's financial
>>>>>>> statements and they'd know it's bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, you have to be able to READ a financial
>>>>>>> statement........
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other day, that Reid character who runs the Senate said that
>>>>>>> there was no point in pushing tort reform because tort would only
>>>>>>> save 56B of the 2T dollar cost of health care reform.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Let's put aside the fact that the 2T is a 20 year number, while
>>>>>>> the 56B is per year, making it one of the larger whoppers I've
>>>>>>> heard in some time.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are the profit figures from the five largest insurers in the
>>>>>>> US, taken directly from their 08 financial reports:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wellpoint: 2.5 billion
>>>>>>> Humana: 657M
>>>>>>> Cigna: 292M
>>>>>>> Aetna: 1.3B (Aetna also has other lines of business) UnitedHealth:
>>>>>>> 3B
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, the the above five insurers had total net profits of a bit
>>>>>>> less than 9B, which is only 16% of the number that Reid just said
>>>>>>> was too small to worry about compared to the total cost of the
>>>>>>> reform package.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or if you prefer, wiping out the profits of the above insurers
>>>>>>> pays .45% of the cost of health reform.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JG
>>>>>> This seems to be an endemic problem for the "private insurance"
>>>>>> supporters. There simply is no reason, no advantage, in allowing
>>>>>> the pursuit of profits or massive salaries and bonuses in the
>>>>>> medical insurance field.
>>>>> You keep asserting that, but it's clearly a normative belief based
>>>>> on nothing more than personal animus. There's absolutely *no*
>>>>> economic theory behind the belief - just your simplistic and utterly
>>>>> ideological division of the world into good guys and bad guys.
>>>>
>>>> I think most intelligent people can see that if the insurance system
>>>> is totally transparent and fraud and waste are well controlled then
>>>> that is all that can actually be done. Profit simply adds to cost
>>>> while providing no benefit.
>>>
>>> False. Profit is the residue for efficiently organizing the risk
>>> pooling, and for carrying out the administration function, of a system
>>> in which people are privately responsible for paying for the medical
>>> care they receive, but don't wish to face catastrophic losses.
>>>
>>> In the private responsibility system we have, insurance is efficient,
>>> and profit is the earning for providing that efficiency.
>>
>> You are enlarging the scope of health insurance profitability to
>> include non relevant factors because all of the crap about people
>> paying for insurance exists whether they pay a government entity or a
>> private entity. Here, I mention the proposed "Public Option" and the
>> actual health care bill as opposed to a "communist takeover". The
>> "Public Option" will be a non-profit health insurance provider funded
>> by premiums like any other. Such an organization is the "acid test"
>> that will ultimately prove that private, for profit looting in the
>> delivery of health insurance is a waste.
>
>> There is no rationale that would support the idea that inefficiency
>> will be tolerated in a fully transparent public health insurance
>> system.
>
> Bullshit. That happens right thruout the world where govt operations are
> used.
When inefficiencies occur in government systems the cause is non
transparency. The current Social Security system here in the USA and to
a lesser extent, the Medicare system is proof that full transparency
works to remove the inefficiencies. The purchase of $600 hammers in the
Defense appropriations is an example of the opposite. The concept of
placing individual systems OFF BUDGET and strictly accounting for all of
the income (FICA and MEDICARE TAXES) and all expenditures in a system
totally separate from general tax revenues and expenditures is a primary
tool for accomplishing this. The "public option" will be an example in
that all costs MUST be borne by the policy holders and the administration
will be done by government employees or contractors just as it is done in
the current Medicare system. We will see what gives.
>> The problem with the private entity is, in fact, that it is private and
>> therefore NEVER fully transparent and inappropriately policed.
>
> Yes, but the profit motive does work toward better efficiency,
> essentially because the savings end up in their pocket.
>
> That never happens with a govt operation.
The point is that efficiency maximization by profit seeking is not
necessary in a fully transparent accountable insurance system. The
policy holders and the government together have a direct interest in the
efficiency of the organization. The possible failing of other government
run systems is that they are not totally accountable within themselves
and are too difficult to monitor and police because of the "mixing" with
other government funding and priorities.
>> And the transparency that DOES exist illustrates the looting of the
>> insurance funds by the individuals delivering the service. While the
>> current social insurance systems are underfunded and will need to be
>> adjusted, they are by all accounts highly efficient, transparent, and
>> not looted by the government employees.
>
> Yes, but they have their own downsides, like any govt operation does.
And to address those inadequacies is entirely possible if the funding and
the spending are accounted properly and citizens are direct billed for
the services. The current medicare system is a good starting point in
that it is partly tax funded and partly premium funded. The problems are
that income tax is being used to fund some of it and Medicare tax is used
also. There should be a single progressive Medicare tax for the Medicare
system and NO involvement with the Income Tax or General tax revenue. It
should be an OFF BUDGET system on its own totally accountable in itself.
The "Public Option" is the real test in that NO tax revenue will be used
for the system and all expenses will be borne by the policy holder.
Transparency and accountability are what matter.
>> And thus, an argument for efficiency delivered by private operation
>> fails miserably.
>
> Nope.
Yep. It fails because the loss to profit is simply not needed.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 11:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:52:33 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:06:51 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:24:49 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:52:12 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>>>>> freeisbest wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:25 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> tmclone, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 12:17 am, Coffee's For Closers
>>>>>>>>>>>> <Usenet2...@THE-DOMAIN- IN.SIG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bcedb7bc-0004-40dc-9480-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 088c38e95...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tmcl...@searchmachine.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That the USA doesn't have universal, free healthcare for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, funded by taxes is shameful. We are supposedly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "greatest country on earth" yet we can't provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> healthcare to all our citizens. We rank behind Cuba on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> healthcare. Pathetic. The idea of "for profit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> healthcare is insane. It ought to be illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that it is wrong to make money by providing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> healthcare? So does that mean that doctors, nurses, etc,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be paid, since that involves personally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> profiting from providing healthcare?
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot. The "profit" isn't the money being paid to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the medical providers for the actual care.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course a very large part of it is. The pharmaceutical
>>>>>>>>>>> companies make profits. The manufacturers of MRI and CT
>>>>>>>>>>> machines make profits.
>>>>>>>>>>> The blood labs and other diagnostic test centers make
>>>>>>>>>>> profits. The
>>>>>>>>>>> investor-owned hospital chains are making profits. And of
>>>>>>>>>>> course the doctors, and many nurses, are very well paid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the "cost" of the care.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's cost to someone, and revenue to those who receive it,
>>>>>>>>>>> and in that revenue is profit for those who run their
>>>>>>>>>>> businesses well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > > The "profit" is the billions of $ the insurance
>>>>>>>>>> companies > > make.
>>>>>>>>>>>> At least 30% of our healthcare $ goes right into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> pockets
>>>>>>>>>> > > of the insurance companies.
>>>>>>>>>>> I keep hearing that figure tossed around carelessly by
>>>>>>>>>>> slovenly weak thinkers like you, and I can never get anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> to give a citation for it.
>>>>>>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> You keep hearing that figure, but no one knows the truth
>>>>>>>>>> but you.
>>>>>>>>> I never said that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If everyone but you is a slovenly weak thinker,
>>>>>>>>> No, but the whiny mentally disturbed looter 'tmclone' certain
>>>>>>>>> is a weak thinker.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consider doing the
>>>>>>>>>> research yourself instead of trying to profit from someone
>>>>>>>>>> else's time and effort.
>>>>>>>>> I requested people who toss this figure around substantiated
>>>>>>>>> it. They don't, probably because they can't - they're merely
>>>>>>>>> repeating an "everybody knows" bit of folk wisdom.
>>>>>>>> Right. All anyone has to do is look at the insurer's financial
>>>>>>>> statements and they'd know it's bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, you have to be able to READ a financial
>>>>>>>> statement........
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The other day, that Reid character who runs the Senate said
>>>>>>>> that there was no point in pushing tort reform because tort
>>>>>>>> would only save 56B of the 2T dollar cost of health care
>>>>>>>> reform.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Let's put aside the fact that the 2T is a 20 year number,
>>>>>>>> while the 56B is per year, making it one of the larger
>>>>>>>> whoppers I've heard in some time.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are the profit figures from the five largest insurers in
>>>>>>>> the US, taken directly from their 08 financial reports:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wellpoint: 2.5 billion
>>>>>>>> Humana: 657M
>>>>>>>> Cigna: 292M
>>>>>>>> Aetna: 1.3B (Aetna also has other lines of business)
>>>>>>>> UnitedHealth: 3B
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, the the above five insurers had total net profits of a bit
>>>>>>>> less than 9B, which is only 16% of the number that Reid just
>>>>>>>> said was too small to worry about compared to the total cost
>>>>>>>> of the reform package.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or if you prefer, wiping out the profits of the above insurers
>>>>>>>> pays .45% of the cost of health reform.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JG
>>>>>>> This seems to be an endemic problem for the "private insurance"
>>>>>>> supporters. There simply is no reason, no advantage, in
>>>>>>> allowing the pursuit of profits or massive salaries and bonuses
>>>>>>> in the medical insurance field.
>>>>>> You keep asserting that, but it's clearly a normative belief
>>>>>> based on nothing more than personal animus. There's absolutely
>>>>>> *no* economic theory behind the belief - just your simplistic
>>>>>> and utterly ideological division of the world into good guys and
>>>>>> bad guys.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think most intelligent people can see that if the insurance
>>>>> system is totally transparent and fraud and waste are well
>>>>> controlled then that is all that can actually be done. Profit
>>>>> simply adds to cost while providing no benefit.
>>>>
>>>> False. Profit is the residue for efficiently organizing the risk
>>>> pooling, and for carrying out the administration function, of a
>>>> system in which people are privately responsible for paying for
>>>> the medical care they receive, but don't wish to face catastrophic
>>>> losses.
>>>>
>>>> In the private responsibility system we have, insurance is
>>>> efficient, and profit is the earning for providing that efficiency.
>>>
>>> You are enlarging the scope of health insurance profitability to
>>> include non relevant factors because all of the crap about people
>>> paying for insurance exists whether they pay a government entity or
>>> a private entity. Here, I mention the proposed "Public Option" and
>>> the actual health care bill as opposed to a "communist takeover".
>>> The "Public Option" will be a non-profit health insurance provider
>>> funded by premiums like any other. Such an organization is the
>>> "acid test" that will ultimately prove that private, for profit
>>> looting in the delivery of health insurance is a waste.
>>> There is no rationale that would support the idea that inefficiency
>>> will be tolerated in a fully transparent public health insurance system.
>> Bullshit. That happens right thruout the world where govt operations are used.
> When inefficiencies occur in government systems the cause is non transparency.
Nope, the real cause is that there is no real incentive for efficiency with govt operations.
Thats why the USPS is so grossly inefficient etc.
The VA system isnt that efficient either.
> The current Social Security system here in the USA and
> to a lesser extent, the Medicare system is proof that full
> transparency works to remove the inefficiencies.
Neither have removed inefficiencys.
All they have done is remove the need for the massive
paper shuffling that the insurance system cant do without,
and the need for most of the advertising etc because
they are the sole supplier in a particular area etc.
> The purchase of $600 hammers in the Defense
> appropriations is an example of the opposite.
Yes, and blows a damned great hole in your claim.
> The concept of placing individual systems OFF BUDGET and
> strictly accounting for all of the income (FICA and MEDICARE TAXES)
> and all expenditures in a system totally separate from general tax
> revenues and expenditures is a primary tool for accomplishing this.
Doesnt eliminate all inefficiencys.
Just saves the massive cost of the paper
shuffling empires and their advertising etc.
> The "public option" will be an example in that all costs MUST
> be borne by the policy holders and the administration will be
> done by government employees or contractors just as it is
> done in the current Medicare system. We will see what gives.
We wont see the complete elimination of all inefficiencys.
Not one single payer system has ever done that.
Not one govt operation has ever done that either.
>>> The problem with the private entity is, in fact, that it is private
>>> and therefore NEVER fully transparent and inappropriately policed.
>> Yes, but the profit motive does work toward better efficiency,
>> essentially because the savings end up in their pocket.
>> That never happens with a govt operation.
> The point is that efficiency maximization by profit seeking is not
> necessary in a fully transparent accountable insurance system.
Yes, but that does mean that you have lost the main driver for efficiency.
> The policy holders and the government together have
> a direct interest in the efficiency of the organization.
Yes, but that does NOT mean that they get that when the
individuals involved have no real incentive to be more efficient.
Its never going to be feasible for any administration to provide
as good an incentive for efficiency as the profit motive does.
> The possible failing of other government run systems is
> that they are not totally accountable within themselves
> and are too difficult to monitor and police because of
> the "mixing" with other government funding and priorities.
The real problem is that the profit motive is the best driver of efficiency,
essentially because the increased efficiency goes straight ot the bottom
line and into the pockets of those who get to pocket the profits.
That doesnt happen with a govt operation.
>>> And the transparency that DOES exist illustrates the looting
>>> of the insurance funds by the individuals delivering the service.
>>> While the current social insurance systems are underfunded and
>>> will need to be adjusted, they are by all accounts highly efficient,
>>> transparent, and not looted by the government employees.
>> Yes, but they have their own downsides, like any govt operation does.
> And to address those inadequacies is entirely possible
> if the funding and the spending are accounted properly
> and citizens are direct billed for the services.
Nope. There is nothing you can do about the lack of
incentive to get the govt operation to work more efficiently.
Thats why the USPS is so inefficient, even tho it does
have what you claim is the way to avoid that inefficiency.
> The current medicare system is a good starting point
> in that it is partly tax funded and partly premium funded.
Sure, but thats an entirely separate issue to whether the
lack of the profit motive has real downsides for efficiency.
> The problems are that income tax is being used
> to fund some of it and Medicare tax is used also.
That isnt the problem.
> There should be a single progressive Medicare
> tax for the Medicare system and NO involvement
> with the Income Tax or General tax revenue.
Doesnt fix the problem when its done like that.
> It should be an OFF BUDGET system on its own totally accountable in itself.
The problem is that the voters generally wont buy the very visible medicare tax rate.
Its a lot easier to hide part of it in the general tax stream.
> The "Public Option" is the real test in that NO tax revenue will be used
> for the system and all expenses will be borne by the policy holder.
That wont happen in practice, you watch.
> Transparency and accountability are what matter.
Nope, you still get inefficient operations like the USPS which has both.
>>> And thus, an argument for efficiency delivered by private operation fails miserably.
>> Nope.
> Yep. It fails because the loss to profit is simply not needed.
Have fun explaining why the USPS isnt anything like as efficient as it could be.
The VA system too.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment