Re: The pro-choice argument against healthcare reform

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, James wrote:
> Do the insurance companies do any differently right now?  Do they not 
> choose what treatments they are willing to fund?  What people they are 
> willing to cover?  People can always fund their own treatment or use a 
> different insurer, can they not?  Where is the free market if there 
> isn't some company to fill the gap?

Well, some of the Americans I've debated this with say that there is very 
little freedom to choose your insurer because you're stuck with whoever 
your employer chooses for you.  To me, the obvious solution would seem to 
be to give the consumers *more* choice, rather than less, which is 
apparently what Obama's plan would do.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

Re: The pro-choice argument against healthcare reform

No it wouldnÂ’t.

It gives people one more choice.

The obvious solution of allowing cross state coverage is still being denied. 
Instead of opening the market to all choices, they are dangling a carrot then 
working to make sure no one wants anything else.

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl-ot-bounces@...
[mailto:dadl-ot-bounces@...] On Behalf Of 
Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: September 30, 2009 4:40 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The pro-choice argument against healthcare reform

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, James wrote:
> Do the insurance companies do any differently right now?  Do they not
> choose what treatments they are willing to fund?  What people they are
> willing to cover?  People can always fund their own treatment or use a
> different insurer, can they not?  Where is the free market if there
> isn't some company to fill the gap?

Well, some of the Americans I've debated this with say that there is very
little freedom to choose your insurer because you're stuck with whoever
your employer chooses for you.  To me, the obvious solution would seem to
be to give the consumers *more* choice, rather than less, which is
apparently what Obama's plan would do.

--

Re: The pro-choice argument against healthcare reform

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Karl wrote:
> No it wouldn’t.
> It gives people one more choice.

Well, one person I know says it will either remove his wife's options or 
jack up her premiums.  And the report below says "Requirements to purchase 
federally approved health insurance could eliminate healthcare sharing 
ministries".  That would seem to eliminate at least some choice.

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/15860

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

Re: The pro-choice argument against healthcare reform

Yea, sorry, I ready your email backwards.

He claims it gives more choices....what ajoke.

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl-ot-bounces@...
[mailto:dadl-ot-bounces@...] On Behalf Of 
Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: September 30, 2009 5:19 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The pro-choice argument against healthcare reform

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Karl wrote:
> No it wouldnt.
> It gives people one more choice.

Well, one person I know says it will either remove his wife's options or jack up 
her premiums.  And the report below says "Requirements to purchase federally 
approved health insurance could eliminate healthcare sharing ministries".  That 
would seem to eliminate at least some choice.

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/15860

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

Re: The case for the (almost) status quo in American health care

> Over to you, state single-system
> provider boosters.

You know, I'm really glad 89% of Americans are happy with their
healthcare.  But it *really* sucks to be denied health insurance.  Not
offered expensive health insurance, but *denied*.  *Period.*

And the fun thing is that on health insurance applications, one of the
questions is whether you've ever been denied coverage.  Woo hoo!  So
we get to be branded with a black mark forever and increase our
changes of being denied again.

Sorry to inconvenience everyone with my complaints.  :\

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

US secretly tried to make deal with Goldman Sachs in wake of financial crisis

US secretly tried to make deal with Goldman Sachs in wake of financial  
crisis

By John Byrne
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 -- 9:11 am

Warren Buffett balked at conflict of interest
BREAKING 10:08 AM ET:Vanity Fair will report in the next issue of the  
magazine that US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — a former head of  
the investment bank Goldman Sachs — tried to orchestrate secretive  
deals in the midst of the financial crisis but got blowback from  
prominent investor Warren Buffett. The following press release was  
obtained by Raw Story; the magazine appears today on newsstands in New  
York and Los Angeles.

NEW YORK, N.Y.—The government secretly tried to orchestrate a deal  
involving Goldman Sachs in the week following Lehman Brothers’  
collapse and considered using the Federal Reserve to help support such  
a transaction, Andrew Ross Sorkin reports in the new issue of Vanity  
Fair.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, Too Big To Fail: The Inside  
Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial  
System—and Themselves, Sorkin reports that the deal, which was nearly  
consummated, would have merged Goldman Sachs and Wachovia. Henry M.  
Paulson, the Treasury secretary and former C.E.O. of Goldman, was  
deeply involved in the process, contacting both Lloyd Blankfein,  
Goldman’s current C.E.O., and a Wachovia board member, and strongly  
urged both to consider it. Wachovia’s C.E.O., Robert Steel, was a  
former vice-chairman at Goldman Sachs and Paulson’s former number two  

Re: The Consensus Dodge

> France is frustrated with America’s lack of leadership and indifference to a
> looming international threat.

Ha.  Well, they didn't like Bush's leadership; so be it.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

Only saw Blagojevich one time?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

Re: Only saw Blagojevich one time?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

Re: Only saw Blagojevich one time?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot