Re: Paypal has been hacked

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "mleuck" wrote:
>>
>>> I hope it was not (tongue in cheek). I'm not a liberal or
>>> conservative, Democrat nor Republican, but everything
>>> in the about quote I completely agree with.
>>
>> I find it interesting that many of the largest and supposedly
>> greedy corporations such as Google, Microsoft, Berkshire
>> Hathaway are headed by lefties. And as we've seen so far
>> the "regulation" always ends up being a government
>> takeover
>
> Interesting that you choose as examples companies that have nothing to
> do with any of the major issues confronting the nation.  Is there some
> reason you don't mention United Healthcare, Blue Cross, etc?
>

Are they headed by lefties?  'cause that was his point, as I read it.

>> Bush can't control the economy, neither can Obama because no president
>> can and changing the healthcare system into
>> another massive government program doesn't sound like an improvement
>> to me...
>
> That argument is based on a fallacy.  No one is trying to change the
> healthcare system into a "massive government program."  We are trying to
> regulate an industry that is wrecking the lives of American citizens
> while destroying the economy.  We are offering *an option*, for those
> who may choose if of their own volition, to compete with what the
> ravenous insurance companies offer.  We are trying to make insurance
> available and affordable to people with pre-existing conditions and to
> those who get laid off or whose employers are unable to help them.
>

Which is why I believe the answer should have been to expand medicare to
such folks - on a temporary or permanent basis as needed.

I also think that individuals should be able to deduct health insurance
costs just as employers can.

As far as I know, the tax incentive for an employer dropping a health
benefit is still there.  The payment to the Gov. for dropping benefit
has to be the same cast as having the benefit - that is how it is kept
neutral.

Mandatory participation is a payoff to the insurance companies.

As for medical costs - hospitals and doctors should not be allowed to
charge twice as much (or more) for a given procedure or visit because a
person does not have insurance.  I consider that to be partially a tax
dodge used by the medical community - one that should be addressed.

My son recently went to an urgent care - spent about one hour waiting
and five minutes with the doctor.  He didn't think we had insurance at
the time (as I had just lost my job).  The bill was for just over two
hundred bucks.

Turns out we do have insurance (tri-care standard) as I'm retired
military.  The bill was resubmitted and lo-and-behold, the bill dropped
one hundred dollars.  That was applied to my deductible so I had to pay
it anyway, but because the hospital offers a "discount" to insurance
carriers the bill was cut in half.

Those of you who run your own business know what happens to "discounts"
come tax time...

Point is, there are no innocents in this game except for the
consumers/tax payers.  Even then - if folks would treat doctors like
they do any other service they purchase prices would be market driven.
But the consumers need a reason or to do that - I like health savings
accounts WITH catastrophic coverage for that purpose.

Insurance companies I won't bother to demonize - plenty of folks around
here willing to do that - but suffice it to say I love caricature of the
insurance exec portrayed by "Gilbert Huph" in the "Incredibles".

Politicians are just about power - period.  Federal politicians are just
about consolidating power in DC - despite what the constitution has to
say about it.  The Obamastassi are just as bad as the Bushwaffen were.

The hospitals and to a lesser degree the doctors are out to get as much
as they can (not that I blame them, really, profit is profit but don't
ask me to feel sorry for them) while paying out the ass for protection
from lawyers who, while there may be honorable ones trying to look out
for people, are mostly just weasels trying to dip into the pockets of a
business that rakes in the dough.  You know what they say about lawyers
- the only good lawyer, is my lawyer...

And don't tell me the hospitals, for the most part (there may be some
shoe-string operations around, but not many), aren't raking it in.  I
see the hospital here whining about money all time, but when I walk
through the huge front foyer (it's basically a life-sized terrarium -
wasted space) and see all the opulent building materials they use, I
just can't feel sorry for them.

At the nursing facility my wife works at, they have laid off two-thirds
of the RN's citing the "economy" while they don't have a single empty
bed, still have a long waiting list and haven't dropped their rates one
bit.  I'm sure the hospital CEO got a nice fat bonus for cutting
expenses...

>> especially since Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and the
>> Post Office are essentially bankrupt.
>
> Really?  Yet if you ask anyone who uses the Post Office if they would
> prefer we shut it down and switch to FedEx or UPS, they'll ask if you're
> nuts as they walk in and plunk their package down on the counter.
>
> Welfare is indeed in need of fixing.  We probably agree on more about
> the problems of the welfare system than not.
>

I've lived in countries where welfare recipients have to DO something in
order to stay eligible but, if we did it here, what happens to those who
won't comply (and you know there will be)?  This country won't let them
rot.  I've also lived in countries where there is no welfare - you don't
NOT see that sort of poverty in this country - and you wouldn't.

> Medicare?  Ask anyone receiving it if they would like it stopped. The
> answer is universal -- no way.  There are holes in it that need plugging
> and there is a lot of fraud.  So fix it.  Go after crooked doctors and
> anyone else who abuses it.  Use the money saved to help pay for the
> things we need to do.
>
>> You and Bass are fools
>
> That was not necessary. We disagree but both of us are being polite to you.
>

There is no reason to get nasty on a news group other than show how bug
your balls are when you're not face to face.

Well, okay - I'm on another forum where I've gotten a bit testy with a
particular participant once or twice - but not often...