georgerussia

I do not even consider "texting while driving" - it is stupid, and none of my kids will be allowed to do so. If they want to tell someone something, call them. No other considerations needed. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Who is Cora? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Agree, they suck. "Astroglide" from Safeway is a little more expensive, but works much better. My choice. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And universal pot health care too. Paid by confiscating any outrageous profits exceeding 5% allowance. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My teen is not allowed to do any texting at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

As I read the topic subject I thought Obama wants to kill veterinarians :D * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Of course, this was expected. Usually the anti-crime measures look very helpful when being applied to the past, like "we'd catch them easily if we had a camera on this intersection". People (except equipment suppliers and contractors) tend to forget that there is counter-measure for each measure. Well, if there was a camera, the criminals would know about it and put a stocking on their heads. What if there was a high-quality infrared camera with infrared light to see through it? Criminals would shot it. And so on. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I found really amusing this article and reader comments like: Well, if it was KGB, nobody would threat to kill your children. They would start with chopping their fingers in front of you - of course, after chopping your dick and all your fingers. Gestapo also did some nasty things in 1934-1945. This is torture. Death threats for the people ready to explode themselves and their loved ones in the name of their God? Give me a break. Even Russian police would laugh their asses off such definitions of torture. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

At the moment the doctor finishes up this evaluation, all the ER costs are already spent. If the results of initial evaluation are not obvious, then more tests are needed until the doctor can say whether the person should be admitted as inpatient immediately, or just be given some painkillers and let go. The only difference you suggest is that in the non-emergency case the doctor does not tell the patient their findings, and not write prescription - something not really important on cost savings. You cannot screen out patients just by symptoms. Even a sore throat could mean acute tonsillitis or diphtheria - and sometime a lab test is required to see the difference. A cough with fever might mean flu or pneumonia, and might require x-ray to find it out. Vomiting and head pain might indicate meningitis. Even sending back someone with a flu telling them "you'll be fine" might not be a good idea as it's communicable disease. In short, such approach is not really cost effective and too risky. If the patient gets home and dies, expect a malpractice suit - which, in such a case, would be pretty well-grounded. As multiple revolutions have showed us, there is no disincentive for those who have nothing to lose anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A full 200ml glass of Russian vodka together with a spoon of honey remedy is a well-known cure and prevention tool for any known disease, cancer and HIV included :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem here is different - basically nobody but doctor could tell if the case is an emergency or not. To do so the doctor needs to see the patient, and in some cases see the lab exams results, like x-ray or MRI. At this moment the costs are already added up, so even if the case is non-emergent, treating is would add only a tiny fraction comparing to the costs already spent. Tort reform is different subject, and does nothing to prevent "ER-no pay" scenarios. Also we have a kind of tort reform here in California, which caps medical malpractice suits, and it seems to do nothing to stop the soaring costs. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's what the bill is about - it is offering an alternative. What kind of alternative you would offer? Skipping non-emergency cases sounds good in theory, but the problem is who is going to do it? Obviously not a receptionist; in a lot of cases only the doctor could tell whether the case is emergent or not. And at this moment all the money are already spent, so no savings here. Maybe. It depends on what kind of reform. Details please. Well, it does. Now they just have no other option; if they have coverage, they will have another option, and at least some people will use it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, life sucks; I would be more happy if the tax rate increased for everyone, not just the "rich" - after all, it would benefit everyone, and the "rich" will have the least benefits from it. Saying that, to be taxed extra $10k a year a person should make $500K/year taxable income. Extra 10k is not a huge burden there. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem is that right now it doesn't really matter where you switch to, or whether you switch at all. California health insurance companies have pretty similar rates and plans, which means their "death panels" should be very similar as well. Not really different from the government. And in both cases those "filthy rich" who could afford $3000/mo plan, will have no issues with either "death panel". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Honestly most arguments from those who oppose the healthcare bill sound like they rented a part of their brain to their political party propaganda. I discuss it in three different places, and the arguments are so similar that I could just copypaste my replies with little to no changes. Seems like the only way to keep your mind is to have no party affiliation at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Screening more would just make it much easier to prove that people would have been illegally denied the coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It will be much cheaper to just accept everyone who applied. Well, it doesn't help and we in California have seen several hospitals closed because larger than average number of people didn't pay. No, it's low because doctors only have limited time where they could see patients for free. Still a good place where uninsured could get immunizations for their kids. There are more costs which are hidden. People who didn't get immunization and got infected will in turn infect more people. Longer treatment time means less availability for others, as the number of beds in hospital is limited. Longer treatment also means the person will be longer out of work, and therefore pay less taxes (and might lose the job as well). That's what I was telling you. Of course, they might provide a more expensive plan with more options, or with better coverage (more than mandated 70/30 for example). Same way UPS and FedEx do. Same way private schools do. So what do you consider root of the issue, and how would you realistically deal with it? Those regulations are already signed into a law, so the companies should already start "making for lost profits". Why would they wait for the effective date? You sound like you know some inner details. Do you work for a credit card issuer, or it is pure speculation from your side? What you suggest is already happening. The results: ERs are full and their resources are wasted on non-emergency things, which in turn costs all of us - in fact my own insurance company claimed that the number of uninsured people treated in ERs are the main reason the rates go up, as the hospitals have to charge everyone else to cover the costs. With raised rates the number of insured people drops down, and we have more uninsured which need to be compensated by another rate increase. The estimated economic impact would be US$71.3 to $166.5 billion, excluding disruptions to commerce and society. The Economic Impact of Pandemic Influenza in the United States: Priorities for Intervention With $45 flu shot cost (they were still available in Bay Area last year; you don't need to see a doctor to get a shot) we're at 2B max (and some percentage will be covered by copays - it's still not completely free). From a societal level it definitely makes pretty much the same sense as providing free education to all. Of course there is no incentive for a private company to do so - private companies have different motives. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, here it depends on how much experience one has doing that. Skills required are actually pretty basic (on my scale); the most important skill is patience. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's what the bill is for. Health insurers will not be able to dump sick people on the government (i.e. rest of us to pay). True, it makes no difference for them, but it makes difference for the rest of us - who eventually will pay for his treatment. It makes huge difference for the hospital if they have to write off $10K bill or $1M bill, and multiple of those bills could easily lead to hospital closure. Again, you think you misunderstood the main point of the healthcare bill. It is NOT to provide health coverage for uninsured. They already have it via ER. The point is to make sure hospitals and ERs are paid. Do you have any personal experience with those? Free clinics are good example of rationed care - cheap and good quality, but the availability is very low. I'd say the scale is much larger, the costs of preventive care are likely to be 1/1000 and greater, depending on disease. Just consider the fact that someone who gets immunization or is early diagnosed with diphtheria will not be spreading it, resulting in fewer people to treat. It doesn't matter. If the plan could only cover its obligations relying on voluntary future payments or member involvements, it is not self sustaining plan already. No, new enrollment will not be tougher. It could only be more expensive. Remember, insurance companies cannot discriminate over pre-existing conditions, so basically there is no room for them to deny coverage. More expensive plan means people will join less expensive plan provided by another company. This is competition you want - in action. Where did you get it? I've received multiple credit card offers in last month, and none of them had annual fee. Maybe it's time to cross-check with reality? Why then everyone else does not go to a doctor every time they have the sniffles? After all, those people have insurance. The wait will be more. As I said, it will move from ERs to doctors office. Hopefully there are more doctors than ERs. But as you said above, if the person cannot afford it, it doesn't really matter to them if it's $10K or $1M bill, so why would it change now? You gonna be treated anyway, no matter whether you have it or not. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, this thread is about how to punish the people responsible for.... Check the subject. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I believe it would only work if you're Republican. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do we have an option? It's not like the people would drop cable, cell phone, booze and pot to get health insurance. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Every plan could be self-sustaining if you are allowed to cherry-pick customers. The way those plans work right now is that as soon as you become too costly, the company forces you into the "government plan AKA ER/nopay" by dropping you. This is no different from a bank which gives bad loans and enjoys hefty profits, and as soon as the loan defaults, it dumps it on the government. Both such banks and such health insurance companies aren't benefiting the society; in fact they just create more burden. So what is your point? Do you agree that despite having the government-sponsored education, we still have private school as an option (but this is really an option only for minority)? Are you saying that as soon as health standards are met, it should be matter of choice whether a person choses government or private health insurance? Health insurance, however, is also different from for example auto insurance - everyone has some chance to become a public burden. With car insurance it's easy - don't drive, and you wouldn't have liability claims. With health insurance it is different - you might live healthy life, and then suddenly get brain cancer and require VERY expensive treatment. Easy. Treating sore throat, bad cold or a fever in a doctor office is cheaper than doing it in emergency room. Currently those who cannot afford healthcare, have only one treatment option - which is also the most expensive one. By providing them insurance they would be able to go to a doctor office, and we the taxpayers wouldn't be paying for them in ERs. Preventive care is also important. This is not something uninsured could get in ER, and for a lot of diseases early detection decreases overall treatment costs dramatically, and often means less people to get infected from them. Existing claims are supposed to be covered by premium already collected. An insurance plan which relies on future payments to cover existing claims is by definition not self sustaining, and is pretty close to Ponzi scheme. Did you read the bill? Insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, nor they will be allowed to dump insured. This was required exactly to prevent the situation you described. I do not understand this logic, as it assumes we'll suddenly get 40M more people to treat. We will not; those 40M uninsured are already receiving treatment, and that's why people have to wait 8 hours in ER to see a doctor. This will shift them from ERs to regular doctor offices, but I really do not see how it would significantly increase the amount of care. No, it does - mainly because people now will go to ERs for _emergencies_, so the overall bill will be smaller. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem is that all private existing plans are not self sustaining now, as they are allowed to deny coverage and kick people out, therefore shifting the burden to the government to pay for the healthcare for those who cannot get private coverage. Are you saying that before the government-provided public education became mandatory, the country was full of affordable and quality private schools? My guess is that quality private schools were ALWAYS out of reach for majority of the people, and were always only available to the minority which had money to pay for it. It is just common sense - the school could only handle limited number of students, so their fees should go up as long as there is enough student attendance. You obviously understand that the end result would just be a private school making more money, not students saving money. See above; this would mean that each student could now pay $750 more, why not to cap those money? Why would a business pass its savings on the customers if it's guaranteed to sell all available space anyway? Sure, there will be some incentive to join the government plan. And I'd say insurers are to blame as well. Actually one of the reasons my insurer claimed when they raised the premium twice over two years was "Increased amount of uninsured driving up overall healthcare costs". Why would they need to raise rates? Less insured people means less probability that they would have to pay for their treatment. You could see it right now - the premium rates charged by both small and large insurance companies are practically the same for the same coverage. There is also another option for private insurers - to provide better service, which will be more expensive, or they could provide cheaper service because they have more control about the costs (like Kaizer). Again, some people choose USPS, and some chose UPS, and last time I checked UPS wasn't bankrupt - even though it's obvious USPS is "stealing" their business. This is a completely different scenario; if you do not agree, I'd like to hear your rationale. How do you envision it? Buy a health insurance for $100 today and resell it in a year for $200? Again, we're already giving to them. It is just done in a different way - people go to ER, do not pay and the hospitals get bankrupt. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You have some malware running. Try to: - Go http://qscan.bitdefender.com (press "Start" button at the top). It will scan your pc for running malware. - Download and install BitDefender http://www.bitdefender.com - a trial version is free for 30 days. Run a full system scan after reboot. - If you cannot open any of those sites, it's probably time to get a rescue disk. I used http://download.bitdefender.com/rescue_cd/ and in past I used http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Kaspersky-Rescue-Disk-Download-100454.html - download them on a different machine, burn a CD, and reboot your machine from this CD; scan the drive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Of course you are! You're smarter than your Jesus! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *