Unbelievable: Woman's Rape Called "Pre-Existing...

Main Page | Report this Page

Religion Forum Index » Christian Orthodox Forum » Unbelievable: Woman's Rape Called "Pre-Existing...

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Unbelievable: Woman's Rape Called "Pre-Existing...

Author

Message

agg...

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:42 pm

Guest

***This BULLSHIT shouldn't happen in America!!!

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted
after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking
proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of
anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The
next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and
bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV
infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and
sought new coverage, she ran into a problem.

Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said
the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she
explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because
the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they
might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was
still AIDS-free.

Stories of how victims of sexual assault can get tangled in the health
insurance system have been one result of the Huffington Post
Investigative Fund's citizen journalism project, which is calling on
readers to provide information and anecdotes about the inner workings of
the insurance industry. The project aims to uncover details and data
that can inform the larger debate over how to fix the nation's health
care system. As the Investigative Fund reported in September, health
insurance companies are not required to make public their records on how
often claims are denied and for what reasons.

Some women have contacted the Investigative Fund to say they were deemed
ineligible for health insurance because they had a pre-existing
condition as a result of a rape, such as post traumatic stress disorder
or a sexually transmitted disease. Other patients and therapists wrote
in with allegations that insurers are routinely denying long-term mental
health care to women who have been sexually assaulted.

Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for the health insurance industry's largest
trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said insurers do not
discriminate against victims of sexual assault and ordinarily would not
even know if a patient had been raped.

"These issues you are bringing up, they deserve to be brought up," said
Pisano. "People who have experienced rape and sexual assault are victims
and we want them to be in a system where everyone is covered."

Turner's story about HIV drugs is not unusual, said Cindy Holtzman, an
insurance agent and expert in medical billing at Medical Refund Service,
Inc. of Marietta, Ga. Insurers generally categorize HIV-positive people
as having a pre-existing condition and deny them coverage. Holtzman said
that health insurance companies also consistently decline coverage for
anyone who has taken anti-HIV drugs, even if they test negative for the
virus. "It's basically an automatic no," she said.

Pisano, of the insurance trade group, said: "If you put down on a form
that you are or were taking anti-HIV drugs at any time, they [the
insurance companies] are going to understand that you are or were in
treatment for HIV, period," she said. "That could be a factor in
determining whether you get coverage."

Some doctors and nurses said that the industry's policy is not medically
sound. "The chance of a rape victim actually contracting AIDS is very
low. It doesn't make any sense to use that as a calculus for determining
who get health insurance," said Dr. Alex Schafir, faculty instructor at
Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Ore.

Nurses who deal with sexual assault cases say the industry's policy
creates a significant problem for those treating women who have been
assaulted. "It's difficult enough to make sure that rape victims take
the drugs," said Diana Faugno, a forensic nurse in California and board
director of End Violence Against Women International. "What are we
supposed to tell women now? Well, I guess you have a choice - you can
risk your health insurance or you can risk AIDS. Go ahead and choose."

Turner, now a life and casualty insurance agent, said she went without
health coverage for three years after the attack. She second-guesses her
decision to take the HIV drugs. "I'm going to be penalized my whole life
because of this," she said.

Several women told the Investigative Fund that after being sexually
assaulted they had been denied care or ruled ineligible for health
insurance because of what were deemed pre-existing conditions stemming
from their assaults -- particularly post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and
then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she
mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The
woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and
months later, her doctor's office sent her a bill for treatment. She
said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital's billing
department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield,
not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay
for therapy or medication for trauma because she "had been raped before."

Fallon says she now has trouble getting coverage for gynecological
exams. To avoid the hassle of fighting with her insurance company, she
goes to Planned Parenthood instead and pays out of pocket.

A New Mexico woman told the Investigative Fund she was denied coverage
at several health insurance companies because she had suffered from PTSD
after being attacked and raped in 2003. She did not want to disclose her
name because she feared that she would lose her group health insurance
if she went on the record as a rape victim. "I remember just feeling
infuriated," she said.

"I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying
coverage based on the fact that someone was raped," said Pisano of the
insurance trade group. "But PTSD could be a factor in denied coverage."

"That might not be a discriminatory action, but it certainly would seem
to have a discriminatory impact," said Sandra Park, staff attorney at
the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Insurance discrimination against rape victims will only further
discourage them from coming forward to law enforcement and seeking
medical help."

Even when patients have coverage, there are fundamental disagreements
between insurance companies and doctors about what mental health
treatment is medically necessary. The Investigative Fund spoke with
doctors, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers around the
country who work regularly with victims of sexual assault. They said
that their patients have been experiencing an increase in delays and
denials, particularly for talk therapy.

"There's a lot of anger about this in the medical community," said Dr.
George Shapiro-Weiss, a psychiatrist in Middletown, Conn. "You don't
realize what an Alice in Wonderland web this has become."

"A lot of my patients are being told that their treatment isn't
medically necessary," said Keri Nola, an Orlando, Fla., psychologist,
who said about 75 percent of her patients are victims of sexual violence.

Several therapists cited problems with managed care companies that
specialize in mental health. Such firms generally work under contract
with health insurers to hold down costs while still authorizing
appropriate care.

WATCH a video about a rape victim's efforts to obtain mental health
services: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDDHScYy5PY

Some therapists and patients said the managed care companies have cut
off necessary treatment for sexual assault victims in the name of cost
containment. "The companies are peppering them with questions about
their symptoms, and about their histories, and asking, 'Well, are you
sure you really need therapy?'" said Jeffrey Axelbank, a New Jersey
psychologist. "For someone who has been traumatized, it can feel like
another trauma, and it makes the therapy less effective."

Pisano, of the insurance association, said it was not fair to draw a
larger pattern from such anecdotal evidence. "These situations are
evaluated on a person-by-person basis," she said. "There is nothing
routine about this."

Jim Wrich, a Madison, Wis., a consultant who helps employers evaluate
the companies that manage their mental health care, said his work has
made him wary of the industry. "This is absolutely routine - these
denials," Wrich said. "The default position is to reject care."

Magellan Behavioral Health Services, Inc., one of the nation's largest
managed-care companies with more than 58 million customers, said that it
does not routinely turn down treatment requests from victims of sexual
assault or other clients. "We're not denying care. We are exercising our
responsibility to make sure that medical necessity is met," said Dr.
Lawrence Nardozzi, Magellan's medical director. "I think the process
works well."

Asked if cost is a factor in the company's decisions, Magellan
spokeswoman Erin Somers said: "If all the safeguards are in place to
determine whether treatment is medically necessary and appropriate" then
"the cost takes care of itself."

A former care manager for Magellan said in an interview that she felt
pressure to deny care for cost reasons. Lois Gorwitz, a psychologist
with thirty years of experience who went to work for Magellan in
California in 2000, said her superiors would tell her: "We are not
denying this person treatment, we are denying them their benefit. If
they want the treatment they can still pay out of pocket." But, Gorwitz
said, "You know that means that the person is not going to get the
treatment because they can't afford to pay out of pocket."

Gorwitz quit after two years. "It's a very uncomfortable feeling of not
being able to offer help," she said.

Asked for a response, Magellan's Somers said, "I think you should keep
in mind that there have been a lot of changes at Magellan in the last
seven years. I think the people who work at Magellan now are not having
that experience."

Stephen Adams...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:25 pm

Guest

"agg" <Queensland at (no spam) Pacific.qld.au> writes:

Quote:

"Stephen Adams" <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote in message
agg <aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:

***This BULLSHIT shouldn't happen in America!!!

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted
after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking
proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of
anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

The insruance comapnies have to mitigate their risk. Let's assume for a
moment that we have mandatory coverage and no limits (ie what Obama has
been proposing), any payer (government or private) is now on the hook for
effectively unlimited expenses, but premiums are limited either by the
market or by the government. A recipe for bankruptcy.

So, to avoid bankruptcy you have to either exclude certain people, exclude
certain procedures or limit the amount spent on an individual. All reform
will do is create DIFFERENT outrages. And ones that affect more people.

***Understand, Stephen, that my imposter started this thread.

Sure. But the point here is that while the lady's situation is terrible,
there will be terrible situations even with reform...

-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathvagbcvn at (no spam) tznvy.pbz (rot13)

agg...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:25 pm

Guest

On 10/22/2009 12:38 PM, Stephen Adams wrote:

Quote:

agg<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:

***This BULLSHIT shouldn't happen in America!!!

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted
after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking
proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of
anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

The insruance comapnies have to mitigate their risk. Let's assume for a
moment that we have mandatory coverage and no limits (ie what Obama has
been proposing), any payer (government or private) is now on the hook for
effectively unlimited expenses, but premiums are limited either by the
market or by the government. A recipe for bankruptcy.

So, to avoid bankruptcy you have to either exclude certain people, exclude
certain procedures or limit the amount spent on an individual. All reform
will do is create DIFFERENT outrages. And ones that affect more people.

-Stephen

***Guess again, Mr. Gattica! Insurance companies cut these women off so
they can fatten their profits. A direct correlation between increasing
numbers of cutoffs and ever increasing profits margins has been drawn by
a many study. I don't know about you. I couldn't give a fuck about an
outraged, worthless CEO making profits on the death of kids.

***Hey! Make sure to educate your wife to avoid the medical system if
she's raped. Wouldn't want another necessary sacrifice for the common
good of insurance executives, would you?

Stephen Adams...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:43 am

Guest

agg <aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:

Quote:

On 10/22/2009 12:38 PM, Stephen Adams wrote:
agg<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:

***This BULLSHIT shouldn't happen in America!!!

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted
after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking
proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of
anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

The insruance comapnies have to mitigate their risk. Let's assume for a
moment that we have mandatory coverage and no limits (ie what Obama has
been proposing), any payer (government or private) is now on the hook for
effectively unlimited expenses, but premiums are limited either by the
market or by the government. A recipe for bankruptcy.

So, to avoid bankruptcy you have to either exclude certain people, exclude
certain procedures or limit the amount spent on an individual. All reform
will do is create DIFFERENT outrages. And ones that affect more people.

***Guess again, Mr. Gattica! Insurance companies cut these women off so
they can fatten their profits.

Wrong. They do so to limit their losses! And this will be true of ANY
program, state, federal, public, private. It is an out and out LIE to
say otherwise. You lie. Period.

Quote:

A direct correlation between increasing
numbers of cutoffs and ever increasing profits margins has been drawn by
a many study. I don't know about you. I couldn't give a fuck about an
outraged, worthless CEO making profits on the death of kids.

The insurance company profits are a TINY portion of health-care costs.
And no matter what you do, there are limited resources. No matter how
you slice the pie, it doesn't get any bigger.

What will happen is that services will go down and costs will go up for
most people under the new plan. It HAS to happen if everyone is covered.
There is no way around it. You LIE when you say that this is not the case.

Quote:

***Hey! Make sure to educate your wife to avoid the medical system if
she's raped. Wouldn't want another necessary sacrifice for the common
good of insurance executives, would you?

A 'public' program will exlcude procedures or ration care. It WILL
happen. Anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR.

-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathvagbcvn at (no spam) tznvy.pbz (rot13)

agg...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:37 pm

Guest

"Stephen Adams" <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote in message
news:hbsbuc12frb at (no spam) news3.newsguy.com...

Quote:

agg <aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:
On 10/22/2009 12:38 PM, Stephen Adams wrote:
agg<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:

***This BULLSHIT shouldn't happen in America!!!

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted
after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking
proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of
anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

The insruance comapnies have to mitigate their risk. Let's assume for a
moment that we have mandatory coverage and no limits (ie what Obama has
been proposing), any payer (government or private) is now on the hook
for
effectively unlimited expenses, but premiums are limited either by the
market or by the government. A recipe for bankruptcy.

So, to avoid bankruptcy you have to either exclude certain people,
exclude
certain procedures or limit the amount spent on an individual. All
reform
will do is create DIFFERENT outrages. And ones that affect more people.

***Guess again, Mr. Gattica! Insurance companies cut these women off so
they can fatten their profits.

Wrong. They do so to limit their losses! And this will be true of ANY
program, state, federal, public, private. It is an out and out LIE to
say otherwise. You lie. Period.

A direct correlation between increasing
numbers of cutoffs and ever increasing profits margins has been drawn by
a many study. I don't know about you. I couldn't give a fuck about an
outraged, worthless CEO making profits on the death of kids.

The insurance company profits are a TINY portion of health-care costs.
And no matter what you do, there are limited resources. No matter how
you slice the pie, it doesn't get any bigger.

What will happen is that services will go down and costs will go up for
most people under the new plan. It HAS to happen if everyone is covered.
There is no way around it. You LIE when you say that this is not the
case.

***Hey! Make sure to educate your wife to avoid the medical system if
she's raped. Wouldn't want another necessary sacrifice for the common
good of insurance executives, would you?

A 'public' program will exlcude procedures or ration care. It WILL
happen. Anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR.

-Stephen

***You're not responding to me, Stephen, but my imposter. I NEVER post
through a gmail email address or through "echoes.net."

Al

agg---...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:44 am

Guest

On 10/23/2009 8:43 AM, Stephen Adams wrote:

Quote:

***Predictions, predictions, more whiny predictions.

Quote:

***Another false prediction.

Quote:

***Opinion rooted in fantasy.

It WILL

Quote:

happen..........

***Opinion rooted in fantasy.

***Pound salt, Libertoidian. The fact of the existence of private
insurance companies ADDS worthless costs and bureaucracy to EVERYONE'S
medical bills. Money diverted to their profits and "JUST SAY NO!" Stasi
is money not spent on healing a kid's cancer. It's proven fact that
private health insurance wastes far more money on bureaucracy than Medicare.

***Let's pray together in hope that Mrs. Adams isn't raped. In the
event should it happen, Mr. Adams WILL say: "Walk it off, pumpkin! We
can't have you taking health care away from someone more worthy!"

Stephen Adams...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:56 pm

Guest

agg--- <aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:

Quote:

On 10/23/2009 8:43 AM, Stephen Adams wrote:
agg<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:
On 10/22/2009 12:38 PM, Stephen Adams wrote:
agg<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:

***This BULLSHIT shouldn't happen in America!!!

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted
after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking
proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of
anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

The insruance comapnies have to mitigate their risk. Let's assume for a
moment that we have mandatory coverage and no limits (ie what Obama has
been proposing), any payer (government or private) is now on the hook for
effectively unlimited expenses, but premiums are limited either by the
market or by the government. A recipe for bankruptcy.

So, to avoid bankruptcy you have to either exclude certain people, exclude
certain procedures or limit the amount spent on an individual. All reform
will do is create DIFFERENT outrages. And ones that affect more people.

***Guess again, Mr. Gattica! Insurance companies cut these women off so
they can fatten their profits.

Wrong. They do so to limit their losses! And this will........

***Predictions, predictions, more whiny predictions.

Not a prediction. A fact. You anonymous wimp. If you had any REAL
cojones, you would use your real name, rather than cowardly forge Al's.
But what can we expect from someone who won't take responsibility for
their own posts.

Quote:

Nope. A fact.

Quote:

***Hey! Make sure to educate your wife to avoid the medical system if
she's raped. Wouldn't want another necessary sacrifice for the common
good of insurance executives, would you?

A 'public' program will........

***Opinion rooted in fantasy.

It WILL
happen..........

***Opinion rooted in fantasy.

***Pound salt, Libertoidian. The fact of the existence of private
insurance companies ADDS worthless costs and bureaucracy to EVERYONE'S
medical bills.

Just like government beuaracracy. Every person employed by the
government DECREASES productivity and thus decreases wealth. Your
fantasy world is crumbling, even the Swedes are cutting taxes and
size of government. Why? Because it interferes with growth and
an increasing standard of living when it becomes too large.

Quote:

Money diverted to their profits and "JUST SAY NO!" Stasi
is money not spent on healing a kid's cancer. It's proven fact that
private health insurance wastes far more money on bureaucracy than Medicare.

Medicare may not waste money, but they drive up EVERYONE's costs by
charging EVERYONE for the premiums, forcing providers to accept
reimbursement that is loss-making and thus increases prices for everyone
else. Medicare is bankrupt as it is. If it had to pay REAL rates to
doctors and hospitals, it would have bankrupted the whole country
already.

Quote:

You are the scum of the earth. You are a coward.

-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathvagbcvn at (no spam) tznvy.pbz (rot13)

agg---...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:55 pm

Guest

On 10/24/2009 1:56 PM, Stephen Adams wrote:

Quote:

agg---<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:
***Opinion rooted in fantasy.

***Pound salt, Libertoidian. The fact of the existence of private
insurance companies ADDS worthless costs and bureaucracy to EVERYONE'S
medical bills.

Just like government beuaracracy. Every person employed by the
government DECREASES productivity and thus decreases wealth........

***Decreased productivity??? Like you working on USENET all day? Does
your employer know about that? I wonder.

***Hypocrite.

Quote:

fantasy world is crumbling, even the Swedes are cutting taxes and
size of government. Why? Because it interferes with growth and
an increasing standard of living when it becomes too large.

***Irrelevant. The Swedes can nibble on the edges since their government
expenditures as part of the GDP and taxes far exceed the US even after
this nibbling. Americans have a ways to go to build a government that
works so well for the people.

Quote:

***Description, obviously, hit home.

***Prayer makes you angry, Mr. Adams. Pay attention to work and less
time to USENET personas. You're wasting employer money and losing
productivity.

***I'll continue praying for Mrs. Adams in the sincere hope she's not
violated. She'll need it when Mr. Adams withholds medical care.

agg---...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:37 pm

Guest

On 10/25/2009 5:24 AM, Stephen Adams wrote:

Quote:

agg---<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:
On 10/24/2009 1:56 PM, Stephen Adams wrote:
agg---<aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net> writes:
***Opinion rooted in fantasy.

***Pound salt, Libertoidian. The fact of the existence of private
insurance companies ADDS worthless costs and bureaucracy to EVERYONE'S
medical bills.

Just like government beuaracracy. Every person employed by the
government DECREASES productivity and thus decreases wealth........

***Decreased productivity??? Like you working on USENET all day? Does
your employer know about that? I wonder.

Ah, visions of Steve Winter. Now I KNOW you are a certified loon. As
for 'all day' - reading this group does not take 'all day.'

***Doesn't matter whether it's all day or one hour of your employer's
time. You're wasting your employer's money. Libertoadian hypocrite.

Quote:

***Hypocrite.

Not at all. But it is a fact that government employees do not contribute
to productivity. Every government employee must be supported by other
workers who are taxes to support them. Every expansion of government
reduces the amount of money available to be spent by individual citizens.

***Curiously no complaint about it from Libertoidians and conservatives
until they're out of office and with no responsibility to solve
problems. Talk is cheap, Mr. Adams. Put you clowns in power, deficits,
recessions, and massive transfer of wealth upward are the norm.

Quote:

The only thing that's kept this fraud going is continued expansion of
the money supply and outrageous government debt levels.

***A fraud perpetuated in the worst ways by conservatives and supply
side witch doctors when they lord the manor.

Quote:

fantasy world is crumbling, even the Swedes are cutting taxes and
size of government. Why? Because it interferes with growth and
an increasing standard of living when it becomes too large.

***Irrelevant. The Swedes can nibble on the edges since their government
expenditures as part of the GDP and taxes far exceed the US even after
this nibbling.

Sweden has lower business taxes than the US. And once you calculate in

***In terms of revenue collected, US corporations pay the third lowest
in the world. Do your homework. Sweden may levy lower corporate taxes
than the United States but they don't have the same gaping loopholes nor
look the other way at businesses hiding assets abroad.

Quote:

government allowances for children, etc, many Swedes pay less in taxes.
Fraudsters and liars like you ignore that. Just as you ignore that 50%
of Americans pay NO income tax and more than half of those get money
BACK from the government (despite having paid nothign in), which you
conveniently 'forget' when calculating such things.

***Nope. You lie and make shit up. Sweden possesses:

- Socialized health care
- Socialized day care
- Socialized transportation
- Socialized university education

***Not one bit of that is changing, Libertoidian. You bring up a
recurring contradiction in rightist bitching. We're to believe the top 5
percent and corporations are brutally oppressed in this country, but you
shift gears into reverse and bitch you don't want this country to turn
to the socialist Euro model. Do you really expect no one to notice your
cluttered, hysterical logic?

Quote:

Americans have a ways to go to build a government that
works so well for the people.

Too funny, since the Swedes don't think it works so well. That's why
they are slowing dismantling portions of the nanny state. They CAN'T
simply turn it off. But they elected the center-right coalition to
wean them off the insane plans put forward by the left.

***No they didn't. The center-right has no plans to end the socialist
programs enumerated. Not one candidate proposed such. What you consider
controversial, a public option, was settled matter decades ago in
Europe. The centre-right politicians in Europe laughed at you teabaggers
protesting European socialized medicine. Cameron openly took you to task
for criticizing NHS, an agency created by no less than Churchill himself.

Quote:

***Let's pray together in hope that Mrs. Adams isn't raped. In the
event should it happen, Mr. Adams WILL say: "Walk it off, pumpkin! We
can't have you taking health care away from someone more worthy!"

You are the scum of the earth. You are a coward.

***Description, obviously, hit home.

Not at all. You are trying to silence those you disagree with. Typical
tactic of the left, AND you are hiding behind an anonymous id. You are
the classic coward.

-Stephen

***You hide behind a wall of phony bullshit, Mr. Adams. A classic
Internet Libertoidian imagining himself wealthier, more important than
is probably the case. I bet you sport a pony tail. I doubt you ever
served in the military. I know you types. Likely a passive aggressive
hot head, to boot.

Alexander Arnakis...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Guest

On 25 Oct 2009 10:24:28 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:

Quote:

Not at all. But it is a fact that government employees do not contribute
to productivity. Every government employee must be supported by other
workers who are taxed to support them. Every expansion of government
reduces the amount of money available to be spent by individual citizens.

Nonsense. Most of the functions of government are "necessary overhead"

that is needed to keep the rest of the economy functioning. For
example, where would private business be if we didn't have police and
regulators to protect it and keep it honest, or the armed forces to
keep out external aggressors? These functions are just as "productive"
as, say, the headquarters functions at any major corporation. Let's
try this again -- how many front-line workers are underpaid ("taxed")
to pay the outrageous salaries of their corporate CEO's, whose forte
seems to be running their companies into the ground?

---agg---...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:40 pm

Guest

"Alexander Arnakis" <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:u1q9e5tf3bicupcb0dn65nln1c039ktd7f at (no spam) 4ax.com...

Quote:

On 25 Oct 2009 10:24:28 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:

Not at all. But it is a fact that government employees do not contribute
to productivity. Every government employee must be supported by other
workers who are taxed to support them. Every expansion of government
reduces the amount of money available to be spent by individual citizens.

Nonsense. Most of the functions of government are "necessary overhead"
that is needed to keep the rest of the economy functioning. For
example, where would private business be if we didn't have police and
regulators to protect it and keep it honest, or the armed forces to
keep out external aggressors? These functions are just as "productive"
as, say, the headquarters functions at any major corporation. Let's
try this again -- how many front-line workers are underpaid ("taxed")
to pay the outrageous salaries of their corporate CEO's, whose forte
seems to be running their companies into the ground?

***Underpaid??? Give me a break. What a bunch of baloney. NO ONE is forced
to work. If you don't like the pay, get out of the business. Geesh!

Alexander Arnakis...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:46 am

Guest

On 26 Oct 2009 13:45:16 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:

Quote:

Alexander Arnakis <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> writes:
On 25 Oct 2009 10:24:28 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:

Not at all. But it is a fact that government employees do not contribute
to productivity. Every government employee must be supported by other
workers who are taxed to support them. Every expansion of government
reduces the amount of money available to be spent by individual citizens.

Nonsense. Most of the functions of government are "necessary overhead"
that is needed to keep the rest of the economy functioning.

Nonesense. No they aren't. How does, for example, the National Endowment
for the Arts keep the economy running? Or the Department of Education?
The former is simply a welfare program for 'artists' (using the term
VERY loosely) and the latter a complete waste of time, effort and money
that belongs at the state, not federal level. It duplicates functions
handled by every state already.

And tht's just two examples.

We can quibble about examples (and I tend to agree that *some*

government programs are inappropriate or wasteful), but you made a
blanket statement that "goevernment employees" generally don't
contribute to productivity. This is not true. The infrastructure
provided by the government is absolutely essential to make private
economic activity even possible.

Alexander Arnakis...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:48 am

Guest

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:53:26 -0400, "---agg---"
<Northern.Territory at (no spam) Pacific-Rim.nt.au> wrote:

Quote:

***There is a large sign posted outside a cemetery on Old Vestal Road
outside of Binghamton, NY, that reads: "The [name deleted] cemetery is
contributing to the local economy."

Obviously employs gravediggers. What's the payroll?

Stephen Adams...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:28 pm

Guest

Alexander Arnakis <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> writes:

Quote:

On 26 Oct 2009 13:45:16 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:
Alexander Arnakis <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> writes:
On 25 Oct 2009 10:24:28 GMT, Stephen Adams <adamst at (no spam) no.spam> wrote:

Not at all. But it is a fact that government employees do not contribute
to productivity. Every government employee must be supported by other
workers who are taxed to support them. Every expansion of government
reduces the amount of money available to be spent by individual citizens.

Nonsense. Most of the functions of government are "necessary overhead"
that is needed to keep the rest of the economy functioning.

Nonesense. No they aren't. How does, for example, the National Endowment
for the Arts keep the economy running? Or the Department of Education?
The former is simply a welfare program for 'artists' (using the term
VERY loosely) and the latter a complete waste of time, effort and money
that belongs at the state, not federal level. It duplicates functions
handled by every state already.

And tht's just two examples.

We can quibble about examples (and I tend to agree that *some*
government programs are inappropriate or wasteful), but you made a
blanket statement that "goevernment employees" generally don't
contribute to productivity. This is not true. The infrastructure
provided by the government is absolutely essential to make private
economic activity even possible.

The IRS does NOT facilitate economic activity. And so on, and so on and so
on. Far more take away from productivity rather than contribute to it.

I also disagree that they are essential. They are ONE way to solve the
problem, but not the only way.

-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathvagbcvn at (no spam) tznvy.pbz (rot13)

---agg---...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:49 pm

Guest

"Alexander Arnakis" <invalid at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3lkbe5dejijiujdfpilpa8u4b1v4j6tmkb at (no spam) 4ax.com...

Quote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:53:26 -0400, "---agg---"
Northern.Territory at (no spam) Pacific-Rim.nt.au> wrote:

***There is a large sign posted outside a cemetery on Old Vestal Road
outside of Binghamton, NY, that reads: "The [name deleted] cemetery is
contributing to the local economy."

Obviously employs gravediggers. What's the payroll?

***I don't know the pay scale, but it can't be much more than minimum wage.

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:14 pm Religion Forum Index