A middle class family of four earning $63,000 would have to pay more
than $7000 a year under the health care reform program being
considered:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_affordability

Call it whatever you want . . . . it's a new tax, and a heavy one at
that.

On Oct 3, 10:31 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

A middle class family of four earning $63,000 would have to pay more
than $7000 a year under the health care reform program being
considered:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_affordability

Call it whatever you want . . . . it's a new tax, and a heavy one at
that.

Good thing it will not happen.

A middle class family of four earning $63,000 would have to pay more
than $7000 a year under the health care reform program being
considered:

On Oct 6, 9:05�pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM... at (no spam) email.msn.com> wrote:

"BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpoolji... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message

I believe what you said was "would it be o.k for the government to
decide that it was too expensive to keep her alive.." Do you think
they would actually say "too costly, let that woman go"?

A death panel, no?

The odd thing is that there currently ARE death panels who make just that
decision, yet Topaz says very little about them, except that "most people"
are happy with them. I guess it's ok if the decision is in the name of
profit instead of triage.

See my next post to Jimmy; I believe we are covering overlapping
material. �I agree with you ,, yes, that in the private sector there
are "guidelines", "medical directors", call them whatever, who make
decisions that lead to the deaths of the patients, and �yes, they will
never call themselves "death panels". �Imagine if they did that, what
it would do for say Kaiser Permanente's bottom line.
I can see it �now (sarcasm), a new bulletin board asking the public to
sign up for Kaiser Permanente, "Come join our HMO, we even have death
panels to guide your health care decisions". �I am not in favor of
managed care as I have said several times elsewhere. I consider
Managed Care to be an oxymoron and it really should be called Managed
Money. �What I also am against is the entire government being one big
Managed Care organization for health care.

"BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpoolji... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message

I believe what you said was "would it be o.k for the government to
decide that it was too expensive to keep her alive.." Do you think
they would actually say "too costly, let that woman go"?

A death panel, no?

The odd thing is that there currently ARE death panels who make just that
decision, yet Topaz says very little about them, except that "most people"
are happy with them. I guess it's ok if the decision is in the name of
profit instead of triage.

They need to leave the health care system alone, it is working fine
the way it is.

I agree. I am concerned that the changes will make things worse.

Notsodumb <Notsodumb at (no spam) somehow.com> wrote:
OFF-TOPIC

No shit. That's why the thread title says "OT".

"RichL" <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Notsodumb <Notsodumb at (no spam) somehow.com> wrote:
OFF-TOPIC

No shit. That's why the thread title says "OT".



Ummm, no - it doesn't.

I would like the insurers out altogether, because American health
insurers are rabid dogs, and unlikely to stop biting their customers.
But in many other countries, insurers do have a place in a working
health care system. But insurers are not allowed to make a profit: a
rationally good living yes, but profits no. They exist to handle the
paperwork, to cover gaps, and so on. Doctors make less grandiose
profits, but again good livings. But it appears the only way to stop the
beats that are American insurers is to kill them on the spot: to drive
them into insuring liposuction, and other elective surgeries, and
extraordinary demands from certain patients willing to pay for the
"above and beyond".

But to imagine monster health insurers will turn their savings back to
their customers is - I think - such a cute idea...

dmh