Speaking of misinformation

On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie


Government and private business do not operate in the same
manner. Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept
honest. Private business has external checks and balances, to be
kept honest. And while those checks and balances don't always
prevent an unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little
avenue of redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while
profit-making insurance companies do offer the same kinds of
maddening rationing decisions that the government will, two things
are dramatically different. One is that in order to protect a profit
base, a company has to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory
resolution is thus tied to self interest, buffering rash and bad
decisions. Government has no such pressure point. The other is that
if satisfactory resolution isn't achieved, there are other pressures
one can bring to bear against a profit making company. Bad press.
And legal redress. Again, two pressure points not available with
government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government
provides a service. One cannot simply go to another government to
receive a better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike
your profit making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they
might try, take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into
custody for incarceration because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie

Government and private business do not operate in the same
manner. Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept
honest. Private business has external checks and balances, to be
kept honest. And while those checks and balances don't always
prevent an unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little
avenue of redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while
profit-making insurance companies do offer the same kinds of
maddening rationing decisions that the government will, two things
are dramatically different. One is that in order to protect a profit
base, a company has to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory
resolution is thus tied to self interest, buffering rash and bad
decisions. Government has no such pressure point. The other is that
if satisfactory resolution isn't achieved, there are other pressures
one can bring to bear against a profit making company. Bad press.
And legal redress. Again, two pressure points not available with
government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government
provides a service. One cannot simply go to another government to
receive a better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike
your profit making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they
might try, take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into
custody for incarceration because you ****ed them off.

Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

That is obvious! After all, government can't build
bridges, can't build a highway system, manage air
traffic, can't deal with sewer systems or water either.
And government can't deliver fire protection, police
protection, or manage school systems of any kind either.

But most of all, in every other First World nation it is
clear that government can't deliver better health care
than we do in the US either. After all, they do have
lower infant mortality rates and higher longevity
rates...

The sky is falling, but still... you need to down your
book of Fairy Tales and give this some serious thought.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 9/17/09 05:23 , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"D. Peter wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie

Government and private business do not operate in the same
manner. Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept
honest. Private business has external checks and balances, to be
kept honest. And while those checks and balances don't always
prevent an unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little
avenue of redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while
profit-making insurance companies do offer the same kinds of
maddening rationing decisions that the government will, two things
are dramatically different. One is that in order to protect a profit
base, a company has to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory
resolution is thus tied to self interest, buffering rash and bad
decisions. Government has no such pressure point. The other is that
if satisfactory resolution isn't achieved, there are other pressures
one can bring to bear against a profit making company. Bad press.
And legal redress. Again, two pressure points not available with
government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government
provides a service. One cannot simply go to another government to
receive a better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike
your profit making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they
might try, take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into
custody for incarceration because you ****ed them off.

Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

That is obvious! After all, government can't build
bridges, can't build a highway system, manage air
traffic, can't deal with sewer systems or water either.
And government can't deliver fire protection, police
protection, or manage school systems of any kind either.

But most of all, in every other First World nation it is
clear that government can't deliver better health care
than we do in the US either. After all, they do have
lower infant mortality rates and higher longevity
rates...

The sky is falling, but still... you need to down your
book of Fairy Tales and give this some serious thought.



How are things up there in Barrow? I'm looking to buy some land
in Alaska and relocate.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie


Government and private business do not operate in the same manner.
Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept honest.
Private business has external checks and balances, to be kept honest.
And while those checks and balances don't always prevent an
unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little avenue of
redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while profit-making
insurance companies do offer the same kinds of maddening rationing
decisions that the government will, two things are dramatically
different. One is that in order to protect a profit base, a company has
to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory resolution is thus tied to
self interest, buffering rash and bad decisions. Government has no such
pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory resolution isn't
achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to bear against a
profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress. Again, two
pressure points not available with government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government provides a
service. One cannot simply go to another government to receive a better
product. And, no matter how much you may dislike your profit making
insurance company, they can't, no matter how they might try, take all
you own, and with armed agents, take you into custody for incarceration
because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.


So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you like the
insurance company more?

Stephanie

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie

Government and private business do not operate in the same
manner. Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept
honest. Private business has external checks and balances, to be
kept honest. And while those checks and balances don't always
prevent an unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little
avenue of redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while
profit-making insurance companies do offer the same kinds of
maddening rationing decisions that the government will, two things
are dramatically different. One is that in order to protect a profit
base, a company has to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory
resolution is thus tied to self interest, buffering rash and bad
decisions. Government has no such pressure point. The other is that
if satisfactory resolution isn't achieved, there are other pressures
one can bring to bear against a profit making company. Bad press.
And legal redress. Again, two pressure points not available with
government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government
provides a service. One cannot simply go to another government to
receive a better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike
your profit making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they
might try, take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into
custody for incarceration because you ****ed them off.

Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

That is obvious! After all, government can't build
bridges, can't build a highway system, manage air
traffic, can't deal with sewer systems or water either.
And government can't deliver fire protection, police
protection, or manage school systems of any kind either.

Oh, Uncle Joe Stalin's government did all those things. Therefore government
must be good for you whether you like it or not, even if it sends you to the
gulags for criticizing it. It's all for your own good.

On 9/17/09 09:45 , wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie


Government and private business do not operate in the same manner.
Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept honest.
Private business has external checks and balances, to be kept honest.
And while those checks and balances don't always prevent an
unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little avenue of
redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while profit-making
insurance companies do offer the same kinds of maddening rationing
decisions that the government will, two things are dramatically
different. One is that in order to protect a profit base, a company
has to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory resolution is thus
tied to self interest, buffering rash and bad decisions. Government
has no such pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory
resolution isn't achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to
bear against a profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress.
Again, two pressure points not available with government provided
services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government provides a
service. One cannot simply go to another government to receive a
better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike your profit
making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they might try,
take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into custody for
incarceration because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.


So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you like the
insurance company more?


I don't use insurance for most health care issues. I negotiate a
better rate, and pay out of my own pocket.

The public option will exist in a system where insurance is
mandatory. Mandatory ANYTHING is a bad idea, and a breeding ground
for precisely the issues you fear so much.

wrote in message ...
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie


Government and private business do not operate in the same manner.
Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept honest.
Private business has external checks and balances, to be kept honest. And
while those checks and balances don't always prevent an unsatisfactory
outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little avenue of
redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while profit-making
insurance companies do offer the same kinds of maddening rationing
decisions that the government will, two things are dramatically
different. One is that in order to protect a profit base, a company has
to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory resolution is thus tied to
self interest, buffering rash and bad decisions. Government has no such
pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory resolution isn't
achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to bear against a
profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress. Again, two
pressure points not available with government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government provides a
service. One cannot simply go to another government to receive a better
product. And, no matter how much you may dislike your profit making
insurance company, they can't, no matter how they might try, take all you
own, and with armed agents, take you into custody for incarceration
because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.


So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you like the
insurance company more?

The fact that the so-called public option will squeeze out private insurance
companies and then you won't have any choice. Obama understands this clearly
and intimated some time ago that that's how it will work. The "option" part
is therefore a hoax, eventually.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/17/09 09:45 , wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health
care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care
right?

Stephanie


Government and private business do not operate in the same manner.
Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept honest.
Private business has external checks and balances, to be kept honest.
And while those checks and balances don't always prevent an
unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little avenue of
redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while profit-making
insurance companies do offer the same kinds of maddening rationing
decisions that the government will, two things are dramatically
different. One is that in order to protect a profit base, a company
has to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory resolution is thus
tied to self interest, buffering rash and bad decisions. Government
has no such pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory
resolution isn't achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to
bear against a profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress.
Again, two pressure points not available with government provided
services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government provides a
service. One cannot simply go to another government to receive a
better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike your profit
making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they might try,
take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into custody for
incarceration because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.


So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you like the
insurance company more?


I don't use insurance for most health care issues. I negotiate a
better rate, and pay out of my own pocket.

The public option will exist in a system where insurance is mandatory.
Mandatory ANYTHING is a bad idea, and a breeding ground for precisely
the issues you fear so much.






Well my bet is they (the right wing) are GOING to make insurance
Mandatory with NO public option forcing everyone into the current
insurance system. You heard it here first.

Stephanie

wrote in message ...
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/17/09 09:45 , wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:


But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care?
We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care
right?

Stephanie


Government and private business do not operate in the same manner.
Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept honest.
Private business has external checks and balances, to be kept honest.
And while those checks and balances don't always prevent an
unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little avenue of
redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while profit-making
insurance companies do offer the same kinds of maddening rationing
decisions that the government will, two things are dramatically
different. One is that in order to protect a profit base, a company
has to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory resolution is thus
tied to self interest, buffering rash and bad decisions. Government
has no such pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory
resolution isn't achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to
bear against a profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress.
Again, two pressure points not available with government provided
services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government provides a
service. One cannot simply go to another government to receive a
better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike your profit
making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they might try,
take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into custody for
incarceration because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.


So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you like the
insurance company more?


I don't use insurance for most health care issues. I negotiate a better
rate, and pay out of my own pocket.

The public option will exist in a system where insurance is mandatory.
Mandatory ANYTHING is a bad idea, and a breeding ground for precisely the
issues you fear so much.






Well my bet is they (the right wing) are GOING to make insurance Mandatory
with NO public option forcing everyone into the current insurance system.
You heard it here first.

That is the Democrat plan, not the right wing. Apparently you heard THIS
here first, though it's not exactly news.

Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message ...
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:

But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care right?

Stephanie

Government and private business do not operate in the same manner.
Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept honest.
Private business has external checks and balances, to be kept honest. And
while those checks and balances don't always prevent an unsatisfactory
outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little avenue of
redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while profit-making
insurance companies do offer the same kinds of maddening rationing
decisions that the government will, two things are dramatically
different. One is that in order to protect a profit base, a company has
to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory resolution is thus tied to
self interest, buffering rash and bad decisions. Government has no such
pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory resolution isn't
achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to bear against a
profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress. Again, two
pressure points not available with government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government provides a
service. One cannot simply go to another government to receive a better
product. And, no matter how much you may dislike your profit making
insurance company, they can't, no matter how they might try, take all you
own, and with armed agents, take you into custody for incarceration
because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you like the
insurance company more?

The fact that the so-called public option will squeeze out private insurance
companies and then you won't have any choice.

Maybe the CEO won't take $200 million bonus and their profits won't rise
800% over the next 5 years but I highly doubt they will fold. They NEED
to be squeezed. On one hand you claim the insurance would do a better
job managing this than the gov ever could with less waste, then turn
around and say they can't compete.


Obama understands this clearly
and intimated some time ago that that's how it will work. The "option" part
is therefore a hoax, eventually.



Oh it's a Hoax? :-) Maybe you can show us the video of Obama explaining
this hoax for us? Or did they hide this from us too to make this magic
trick more special?

Stephanie