(lost track of who wrote what)
>> But if you repeal ALL government mandates, you'll wind
>> up with lots of policies that appear to cover everything
>> a consumer might want, but are actually full of loopholes
>> so that the insurer need not pay for standard treatments.
>> That seems the op
Patrick said:
> It's kind of like playing with that old Eliza computer program. Anyone
> remember that?
From: Richard Baker
] Why do you say "anyone remember that?"?
How do you feel when you read "Why do you say "anyone remember that?"?"?
-- Matt
__
Original Message:
-
From: Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:14:29 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Doug wrote:
>> Has he been arrogant at times? Maybe, but that sort of thing is
difficult
Rob wrote:
>
Bruce wrote:
>> (Type mismatch error: expected boolean value but found string 'cake'.
>> Input not parsed.)
>
> The cake is a lie?
Apparently the cake is neither true nor false.
Doug
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedi
On 8/18/2009 4:22:27 PM, Bruce Bostwick (lihan161...@sbcglobal.net) wrote:
> Yeah, Eliza and Parry could be quite entertaining if they talked to
> each other.
>
> Eliza and Racter could be too, but Eliza
> didn't get to say much in
> those conversations ..
>
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Patric
Yeah, Eliza and Parry could be quite entertaining if they talked to
each other.
Eliza and Racter could be too, but Eliza didn't get to say much in
those conversations ..
On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Patrick Sweeney wrote:
It's kind of like playing with that old Eliza computer program. Any
Patrick said:
It's a put-on. And it's a put-on anyone who's been on the Internet for
more than 5 minutes has seen dozens of times. The repetitive "I'm just
asking questions to try to understand," the feigned cluelessness, the
detached pose, the deliberate obtuseness ... it's all carefully
calcul
It's a put-on. And it's a put-on anyone who's been on the Internet for
more than 5 minutes has seen dozens of times. The repetitive "I'm just
asking questions to try to understand," the feigned cluelessness, the
detached pose, the deliberate obtuseness ... it's all carefully
calculated to do one th
Doug wrote:
>Now see, I guess I dont understand what passive-aggressive means because I
>would think that his confrontational, >sometimes sarcastic style has any
>passivity to it.
I see it differently, perhaps. "Passive-agressive" may not be the right
clinical term here, but I find repeated
Jim wrote:
>
> The passive-agressive posts, though? I don't mind admitting that kind of
> stuff gets under my skin.
>
> Jim
> Admitting weakness maru
>
Now see, I guess I don't understand what passive-aggressive means because I
would think that his confrontational, sometimes sarcastic style has
John Williams wrote:
>I would go with lazy more than ignorant
I think that intellectual laziness leads to stupidity, though. How can live
your whole life in this country and not know Medicare is a government program,
to cite one of Maher's examples? Let alone not know there are two senators pe
Doug wrote:
>Has he been arrogant at times?
The arrogance doesn't fuss me; there's far too many brainy people here to
expect excessive modesty. :-)
The passive-agressive posts, though? I don't mind admitting that kind of stuff
gets under my skin.
Jim
Admitting weakness maru
--
Rob wrote:
>"We" are the entertainment
Well, if it makes you happy to think so... :-p
Jim
Pithy remarks Maru
Free Learning Centers Information. Click here.
Learning Center
http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1g0ZWEerlNvjcTnRsNo52A1FP8ZV
> From: lear...@mac.com
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:25:51 -0500
>
> I am just a lurker here. I seldom post. I follow for information and
> to watch debates unfold. To help me
I am just a lurker here. I seldom post. I follow for information and
to watch debates unfold. To help me make up my mind on some of the
issues discussed.
I personally am not getting much out of the John Williams threads at
this moment. Discussing the history, legitimacy and quality of
disc
Doug wrote:
> Has he been arrogant at times? Maybe, but that sort of thing is difficult
> to judge via email. One can often sound arrogant or diffident or whiny and
> not really mean to. But if arrogance was the criteria by which we judged
> people for their on list fitness, how long would JDG
Richard wrote:
>
>
> A few people have been removed, a couple of them long term listees and one
>> was a moderator here. We definitely are not queasy when it comes to pulling
>> the pin.
>>
>
> I'm definitely queasy about it, but I guess I'm not part of "we".
>
I'm queasy as well. To my knowled
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> On the Americans are stupid issue, I would agree somewhat, but I would use
> the terms ignorant and/or intellectualy lazy rather than stupid.
I would go with lazy more than ignorant, even though ignorant may be
technically accurate, I tend
Rob said:
A few people have been removed, a couple of them long term listees
and one was a moderator here. We definitely are not queasy when it
comes to pulling the pin.
I'm definitely queasy about it, but I guess I'm not part of "we".
Rich
___
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM, John Williams wrote:
> It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
> to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
> during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
> have been asking some uncomf
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:15 PM, xponentrob wrote:
> No one particular cares how many lurkers there are.
I care, that is why I asked.
> It is pretty much the same as using "we" when speaking for Americans even
> though Americans are very diverse there is still considerable commonality.
Usually
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2009 11:09:15 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Jo Anne wrote:
>>
>> > And there I rest my case on the tone thing.
>>
>> I wrote that as clearly and as sincerely as I could. I assure
On 8/17/2009 11:04:59 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob
> wrote:
>
> > But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you
> pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
>
>
> My apo
On 8/17/2009 11:03:58 PM, Trent Shipley (tship...@deru.com) wrote:
> > No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past
> booted people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one
> person in particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it
> be
John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob wrote:
>
>> But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you
>> pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
>
> My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are.
>
>> No,
- Original Message -
From: "John Williams"
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
>> W
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob wrote:
> But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you pegged
> as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are.
> No, when I say "we" in this context, I
> No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past booted
> people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one person in
> particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it behooves
> everyone to be "generally" inoffensive. A few people have b
- Original Message -
From: "John Williams"
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>>
>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> I note you snipped the etiquette guidelines. : )
I did snip it. I did read it.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
John Williams wrote:
...
We don't like straw men or trolls
...
There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this
email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How
did you determine that these people have that view?
You're not going to claim that all
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>
>>> We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
>>> explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do,
>>> indeed.
>>> W
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2009 9:12:11 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceeberger
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:3
>Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread
that??
I told John many of us had been. Maybe that got mangled. Maybe by me. :-)
Dan M.
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed.
We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two
r
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>
>> > We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
>> > explicit and implicit standards of behavio
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation?
We are starting from different worldviews, I think. I believe in
freedom for people to make agreements with each other as they choose
-- that is my starting point. You appear to bel
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> > We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
> > explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do,
> indeed.
> > We don't like straw men or t
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> >>Actually, a health insurance market without government interference
> >>would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which
> >>is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a
> >
> > Howso?
>
> Competitio
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
> explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed.
> We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two
> rather opposite e
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobby wrote:
>
> > Hi. Seriously, are you trolling, or just
> > dense? : ) We rank respect the way most communities
> > do--completely informally.
>
> Not trolling. Possibly dense. There is that refe
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Your statement reads quite humorously.
>>
>> That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous
> Do you think you're fooling anyone with this schtick?
I hope not. It is certainly not my intention to fool anyone.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger
> wrote:
>
> > Your statement reads quite humorously.
>
> That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and
> rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the be
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
> Your statement reads quite humorously.
That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and
rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the
doubt...
___
http://mccmedia.
On 8/17/2009 8:04:00 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>
> > That doesn't really prove anything. For instance,
> > a flame war would produce a large number of posts,
> > but one could hardly call that communication.
>
> Of co
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> And in most cases, the likelyhood of you developing those conditions
> is dependent on pre-existing conditions!
I have not seen any evidence that suggests this. There are a large
number of conditions that can result in a large increase in
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> That doesn't really prove anything. For instance,
> a flame war would produce a large number of posts,
> but one could hardly call that communication.
Of course it does not prove anything, but it is highly suggestive.
While you no doubt have
On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> >> Crystall wrote:
> >>
> >> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health stat
John Williams wrote:
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any
obv
Hello all --
I didn't mean to drop out of this, ummm, 'discussion', but I lost the email
I intended to respond to over the w/e. What can I say? I turned 61 and had
to put a 9 year old cat down due to cancer -- not a good day until Charlie
reminded me 61 is a prime number! Cheered me right up.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
>> Crystall wrote:
>> > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
>> >
>> >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
>> Crystall wrote:
>>
>> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status
>> insurance works. It takes into account the risks of healt
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
> > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
> >
> >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
> >> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsid
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
> > companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
> > but not based in reality: insurance allways
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Original Message:
> -
> From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Healt
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
>
>> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
>> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
>> who cannot afford to pay health insurance prem
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dave Land wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
>
>> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
>
> You call it interference, I call it participation.
I'd agree with forced participation.
Here's an example of government force
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
> companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
> but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks.
No, considering pre-existing co
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance.
Yes, government interference and people who would rather spend other
people's money for their own insurance.
___
http:
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any
obviously rude remarks.
T
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
You call it interference, I call it participation.
Well, at least you don't try to hide your bias.
Dave
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:03, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
> > conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
> > condition.
>
> That is not how health status insu
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
> insurance market to function rationally.
On 18/08/2009, at 12:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime
number.
It's really easy to find one...
...but then you go looking for another...
Charlie.
But There's One, So There Must Be Another Eventually Maru
_
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
>Another good reason for heath status insurance
John, you realize what you are arguing, don&#x
Doug Pensinger wrote (in html, and it's a hell to reformat):
>
>> I do occasionally blow up. Once when I was accused of racism,
>> once when a private discussion I'd had with someone was forwarded
>> to the list, and ISTR Nick and I talking completely at
>> cross-purposes. I was really annoyed on F
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
> So, you consider his post to me thoughtful, constructive, and worthy of
> respect?
Yes.
Martin
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:52 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> OK, I fear this won't work, but I'm going to try.
Work? How does it "work"?
> So, you can decide that everyone else is crazy or you can decide that there
> are areas that you can learn more about.
I choose the third one.
_
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote:
> The analogy between auto and health insurance fails in one regard: Most
> of the time, a 5x increase in auto insurance premiums is a direct result
> of decisions by the covered person. Many of causes for increases in
> health insurance pre
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
> So insurance could charge someone with type II diabetes more, but not
> someone with type I diabetes. You could charge more to people who,
> smoke, are over weight, who don't exercise, or who practice un-safe sex.
>
> You couldn't charge mor
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
> The people outside the boundary are not my responsibility. They are not
> my people. Furthermore, they don't participate in my moral economy.
> The status of the poor in my country has an immediate effect on me. I
> may be among the poor,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
> conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
> condition.
That is not how health status insurance works. It is insurance against
an increase in health insu
Original Message:
-
From: Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:19:16 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single
> silver bull
John Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
>> John Williams wrote:
>>> There are billions of people around the world with worse healthcare
>>> than virtually everyone in the United States. If the goal is to
>>> redistribute wealth to improve healthcare because of t
Trent Shipley wrote:
>> Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single
>> silver bullet for this problem. But, we do know things can be better,
>> because we are paying twice as much as the average developed country per
>> person with worse than average results.
>
> I have
Lance A. Brown wrote:
> John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>>
>>> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
>>> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
>>> anybody markets insurance against having your
John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>
>> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
>> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
>> anybody markets insurance against having your car
>> insurance premiums ri
On 16 Aug 2009 at 16:30, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > , so if you're a bad
> > health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
> > able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
> > place,
>
> T
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> , so if you're a bad
> health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
> able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
> place,
That is not the way health status insurance works. A pre-existing
On 16 Aug 2009 at 11:45, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> >FWIW the _Atlantic_ article is well worth reading carefully. I've
> >already forwarded the link with my recommendation to a couple of
> >other lists, and got a couple of comments back.
>
> The problems the article lists are r
On 16 Aug 2009 at 15:52, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
> > policys proposed...
>
> What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
That you'd simply once again reduce the num
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
> policys proposed...
What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
> to be charged (as their "status" insurance can be cancelled,
Health status insurance "cancelled"? Not
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:44, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
> > and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
>
> Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I po
> Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single
> silver bullet for this problem. But, we do know things can be better,
> because we are paying twice as much as the average developed country per
> person with worse than average results.
I have heard, but have been too la
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> And immediately you're creating the concept that as aoon as anything
> happens, your insurance will go up, because the risk to the insurer
> that you'll not be paying them anymore has been pushed to another
> party.
I do not see how this f
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
> and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I posted? This was
discussed in the article.
> Sure, evidence is
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:08, John Williams wrote:
> New ideas can be difficult to get used to. Perhaps they could be
> bundled together for those who prefer it. But it would be a bundle --
> the two types of insurance are fundamentally different, since one pays
> a lump sum or equivalent (like life in
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Patrick Sweeney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> But if I do fall ill, for the insurer to raise my rates rather than
> provide the agreed-upon care seems like dirty pool.
That is only true if you had an agreement with the insurance co
On 15 Aug 2009 at 20:00, John Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:51 PM,
> dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > That's a true statementbut the problem with failure with radically new
> > government is that the failures are horrid: (e.g. the French Revolution,
> > the Cultural Revolu
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
> anybody markets insurance against having your car
> insurance premiums rise dramatically.
I do not think there is a as large a risk of
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> I'd guess that Patrick is expecting health insurance
> to have health status insurance already built into it.
One would think the whole point of health insurance is to provide you
with health care (more precisely, the funds to acquire such) sh
John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeney wrote:
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other system.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeney wrote:
> When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
> overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
> insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
> other system.
Actually, char
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other system.
Patrick
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, John Williams wrote:
> One thing tha
One thing that is often discussed in reference to health insurance is
that if someone is unexpectedly afflicted with a chronic condition,
their health insurance premiums will usually increase drastically.
Health insurance for someone diagnosed with a chronic condition might
go from $2,000 a year to
John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobby wrote:
...
Yes, Charlie is someone I respect. His posts are
thoughtful, and when he argues, he does it in a fair
and constructive way.
So, you consider his post to me thoughtful, constructive, and worthy of respect?
That one
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobby wrote:
> Hi. Seriously, are you trolling, or just
> dense? : ) We rank respect the way most communities
> do--completely informally.
Not trolling. Possibly dense. There is that reference to "we" again,
which is what led me to believe that there was
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Ronn!
Blankenship wrote:
>
> I'm only a little way into the article, but I take it Semmelwies is no
> longer mentioned in the medical school (or pre-med) curriculum?
I think that the guidelines Goldhill refers to are more systematic and
comprehensive than anything
>FWIW the _Atlantic_ article is well worth reading carefully. I've
>already forwarded the link with my recommendation to a couple of
>other lists, and got a couple of comments back.
The problems the article lists are real; I won't argue that the present
system is really messed up. However,
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
