Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in news:hcqs7n$1mr$10
at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
coverage they already have.

How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?

That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with what
they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:bcj5f59g3dj3ik1vndnht3ep26doph7jbs at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal
falls short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some
of the big things that could save serious money.

You are very quick to show that stuff like tort reform is a small
percentage.....how about the report in Fortune 500 that shows that the
profit margin in healthcare insurance is about 2.2%? Do you have
figures that show different?

If it gets high just give more bonus money ...

Noted.....no figures that show different.

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq7hmgr5md8pq78uan8 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.

Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only
the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a
hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.

That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).

Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the
US.

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq7hmgr5md8pq78uan8 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.

Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only
the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a
hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.

That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).

Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the
US.

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd09md$spf$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
coverage they already have.

How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?

That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?

Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy with
it?


Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of people
with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get 100% out of
that comment?

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:17:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq7hmgr5md8pq78uan8 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.

Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is
only the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is
actually a hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private
sector.

That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).

Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in
the US.

"In many", eh? S oin others it's lower.

BTW, Do you care if you pay for health care with a 5% tax or
a 20% insurance fee?

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBAA65288B58hopewell at (no spam) 216.196.97.130...
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:bcj5f59g3dj3ik1vndnht3ep26doph7jbs at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal
falls short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some
of the big things that could save serious money.

You are very quick to show that stuff like tort reform is a small
percentage.....how about the report in Fortune 500 that shows that
the profit margin in healthcare insurance is about 2.2%? Do you
have figures that show different?

If it gets high just give more bonus money ...

Noted.....no figures that show different.

Take comfort in this delusion, RD. It's about all the insurance
industry has left. <g

Here's the truth of the situation: The insurance industry churns a lot
of money. In the case of health care insurers, 83% of it passes right
through their hands to the health care providers -- doctors,
hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. This has a close parallel in
the way that traditional advertising agencies used to work: 85% of
their "revenue" passed right through to the media in which they
advertise.

The "real" revenue of health care insurers, in other words, is the
remaining 17% of the total cash that runs through their hands. Thus,
the 2.2%, which is figured on the total cash that passes through
(their nominal "gross revenue") is more accurately something like 13%
net profit on real revenue -- the revenue they hold on to, to provide
services and to run their companies. Unlike most companies, in which
the costs of production or the internal costs of providing services
would be where most of the 83% goes, in the insurance industry, that
83% just goes out to external service providers. The insurance
companies have nothing to do with all of that production. They aren't
producing anything, except a lot of paper, and internal services, like
marketing, which help them run their companies.

Not bad at all. And that explains why their assets are a relatively
high multiple of their book value. In other words, their stock value
reflects a large amount of "goodwill," which, in this case, is another
way of saying that all of that "company value" which has nothing to do
with their tangible assets is really a sort of illusion. It's the
difference between what they're making on their initial investment,
and what the stock is worth based on its current and projected
profits.

For those who aren't into reading balance sheets with a jaundiced eye,
what all this means is this: The health care insurance business is a
pretty solid money-making machine. Thus, their stock values are high
relative to the tangible-asset values of the companies. But when those
insurance companies are liquidated, there's nothing much there but a
lot of wind and noise.

For that, we pay a bundle.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
coverage they already have.

How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?

That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?

Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy with
it?

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:17:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq7hmgr5md8pq78uan8 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.

Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only
the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a
hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.

That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).

Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the
US.

"In many", eh? S oin others it's lower.

BTW, Do you care if you pay for health care with a 5% tax or
a 20% insurance fee?

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd1slq$qf1$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:43:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd09md$spf$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health
insurance coverage they already have.

How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?

That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?

Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy
with it?


Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of
people with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get 100%
out of that comment?

Simple subtraction. 100% of the people minus 16% without insurance is
84% which is equal to the 84% you said are happy with theirs. 84/84 =
100%.

As I said, you don't read very well.

If the 84% was of people *WHO HAVE*
health insurance, how can you subtract 16% for people *WHO DO NOT HAVE*
health insurance? It is like me saying that 90% of all Honda owners are
happy with their Hondas and you claiming that can't be true because 55%
of Jaguar owners are unhappy.

Perhaps not utopia, but we would have a whole lot more freedom.

Yeah, Somalia has almost no government to interfere in their lives and
look how free they are!


Well, yes they are free.

A whole lot more free than we are in this country.

Some just choose to misuse their freedom.

That is the price of freedom.
When you allow people to be free, you are betting the "people" will act
responsibly with their freedom and not misue their freedom.

But there is a
difference between Somalia and this country. Our founding fathers gave us
our freedoms.

They obviously believed that we would act responsibly with
these freedoms, which we have been for the most part.

"Ed Huntress" <huntres23 at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote in
news:4af38557$0$4976$607ed4bc at (no spam) cv.net:


"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBAA65288B58hopewell at (no spam) 216.196.97.130...
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:bcj5f59g3dj3ik1vndnht3ep26doph7jbs at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal
falls short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some
of the big things that could save serious money.

You are very quick to show that stuff like tort reform is a small
percentage.....how about the report in Fortune 500 that shows that
the profit margin in healthcare insurance is about 2.2%? Do you
have figures that show different?

If it gets high just give more bonus money ...

Noted.....no figures that show different.

Take comfort in this delusion, RD. It's about all the insurance
industry has left. <g

Here's the truth of the situation: The insurance industry churns a lot
of money. In the case of health care insurers, 83% of it passes right
through their hands to the health care providers -- doctors,
hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. This has a close parallel in
the way that traditional advertising agencies used to work: 85% of
their "revenue" passed right through to the media in which they
advertise.

The "real" revenue of health care insurers, in other words, is the
remaining 17% of the total cash that runs through their hands. Thus,
the 2.2%, which is figured on the total cash that passes through
(their nominal "gross revenue") is more accurately something like 13%
net profit on real revenue -- the revenue they hold on to, to provide
services and to run their companies. Unlike most companies, in which
the costs of production or the internal costs of providing services
would be where most of the 83% goes, in the insurance industry, that
83% just goes out to external service providers. The insurance
companies have nothing to do with all of that production. They aren't
producing anything, except a lot of paper, and internal services, like
marketing, which help them run their companies.

Not bad at all. And that explains why their assets are a relatively
high multiple of their book value. In other words, their stock value
reflects a large amount of "goodwill," which, in this case, is another
way of saying that all of that "company value" which has nothing to do
with their tangible assets is really a sort of illusion. It's the
difference between what they're making on their initial investment,
and what the stock is worth based on its current and projected
profits.

For those who aren't into reading balance sheets with a jaundiced eye,
what all this means is this: The health care insurance business is a
pretty solid money-making machine. Thus, their stock values are high
relative to the tangible-asset values of the companies. But when those
insurance companies are liquidated, there's nothing much there but a
lot of wind and noise.

For that, we pay a bundle.


I agree with what you wrote......however, look at your last statement.
For everything the government runs, we pay a bundle. Medicare/Medicaid
close to being insolvent, the post office had to farm out work to UPS and
FedEx, Amtrak is a sinkhole instead of being a viable commodity, Social
Security (another Ponzi scheme) is soon going to have many more problems
when the baby boomers go on it instead of paying into it. The government
has no way of producing revenue. All they can do is increase taxes on
the private sector (or cut services) and that is a problem if there are
less jobs and less people earning money to pay taxes. All government
employees are a cost, not a revenue producer so as government numbers
increase, the cost of that government goes up and the private sector has
more of a load with over 10 unemployment. The estimates on the cost of
the health care bills are based on conjecture about what can be done to
eliminate waste and fraud (makes you wonder why nothing was done before
if all that was known) and not concrete numbers. So far, the government
has a poor record of hitting its estimates.

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:43:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd09md$spf$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health
insurance coverage they already have.

How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?

That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?

Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy
with it?


Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of
people with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get 100%
out of that comment?

Simple subtraction. 100% of the people minus 16% without insurance is
84% which is equal to the 84% you said are happy with theirs. 84/84 =
100%.

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd1slq$qf1$4 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:43:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hd09md$spf$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon at (no spam) live.com> wrote in
news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health
insurance coverage they already have.
How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy
with it?


Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of
people with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get 100%
out of that comment?
Simple subtraction. 100% of the people minus 16% without insurance is
84% which is equal to the 84% you said are happy with theirs. 84/84 =
100%.

As I said, you don't read very well. If the 84% was of people *WHO HAVE*
health insurance, how can you subtract 16% for people *WHO DO NOT HAVE*
health insurance? It is like me saying that 90% of all Honda owners are
happy with their Hondas and you claiming that can't be true because 55%
of Jaguar owners are unhappy. ;)

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:g868f5tjsq31qrh80o5ro5uhk1hft62tqo at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:17:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq7hmgr5md8pq78uan8 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.
Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is
only the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is
actually a hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private
sector.
That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).
Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in
the US.
"In many", eh? S oin others it's lower.

BTW, Do you care if you pay for health care with a 5% tax or
a 20% insurance fee?

Yep, because if I pay for it with an insurance fee it stops when I stop.
Those tax hits get passed on to my kids and their kids.