Discussion:
FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
(too old to reply)
Oscar Lobo
2010-03-22 06:07:20 UTC
Permalink
During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
for President Obama and what

encouragement does to bring out the best in people.



Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
Bill which was brought about by

President Barrack Obama!



Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
Insurance and kudos to President Obama

and his administration.



Oscar C. Lobo

Melbourne.







--- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:


From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noble Peace Award for President Obama.

People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
Committee
(NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.

While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
overlooked the
fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
America. This
in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
community and
he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead of
putting
spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
greater
work being at the helm of his career.

Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the worst.
How
many of us fall in each category!

We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
identity
alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and what
encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
e-mails and
washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
non-Goans in
India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.

Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are not
progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
your
community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani) and
Jealousy
(Nosai).

Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if necessary

apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people because
of ego
or perhaps miss judgement.

The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
loved you"
This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
our
community the quicker we will stand to gain.

Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.

Oscar C. Lobo
Melbourne.
floriano
2010-03-22 14:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear Oscar,

Thank you for saying what you have said.

And Yes, encouragement does wonders but severe non-constructive criticism
dries out the enthusiasm and often works on rebound.

I have said many a times that Goans need to get behind just one agenda and
push it through. The Agenda that is needed to be pushed in Goa is the
'political sanity' agenda. All else must go to sleep comparatably to this
agenda since 'political madness' as it exists in Goa today is like a huge
deadweight tied to one's feet and thrown into the sea. If Goans will see
better reason to get behind the PPS movement which is underway, Goa's
political scenario is bound to change for the better and usher in kudoses to
Goans rather than the shame that is howering over their heads. And to ignore
this cover of shame that will engulf Goa's posterity, will be criminal
negligence on the part of the peers.

I must congratulate you for bringing Barrack Obama in the line of vision of
Goans. And I will never forget Obama's words as spoken at his Victory Speech
Quote $5 and $10 from the multitude of Americans given in good faith towards
my election is the result you see today Unquote [not in exact words]. To
that effect, my party has the slogan which runs like this: "Small money from
a lot of people makes better sense that a lot of money from one person"

Citizens' Initiative - 'People for Political Sanity - People's Power System'
must take over as a Maha Pressure Group if Goa will see a sea change in the
2012 elections, which elections are very very very precarious for the health
of Goa and Goans.

Cheers
floriano
PPS to PPS
9890470896
www.goasu-raj.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Lobo" <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>
Cc: <bosco at goanet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:37 AM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.


> During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
> for President Obama and what
>
> encouragement does to bring out the best in people.
>
>
>
> Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
> Bill which was brought about by
>
> President Barrack Obama!
>
>
>
> Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
> Insurance and kudos to President Obama
>
> and his administration.
>
>
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
>
> Melbourne.
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
> To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
> Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Noble Peace Award for President Obama.
>
> People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
> Committee
> (NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.
Joe Lobo
2010-03-22 14:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Oscar,

While you and , perhaps many like you in their charitable way of
thinking, will laud this first step to bringing medical assurance to
the poorer and " caught -in -the present economic times"
folk...............a lot of the fat-cat medical insurance companies who
have spent perhaps thousands of dollars on their lobbyists to stymie Mr.
Obama`s efforts, will find a way to get around the eventual growing of
this scheme of things in the future.
The spirit of free enterprise and growth of corporate control of vital
systems from defence to energy makes richer USA folk nervous of any
project that has odour of a socialistic approach that may lead to
the rich having to indirectly support the poor............... and
there is still a lot of that in America.
I could be horribly wrong in my thinking and I hope some
other netters will offer their opinions on the subject.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Lobo" <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>
Cc: <bosco at goanet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:07 AM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.


> During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
> for President Obama and what
>
> encouragement does to bring out the best in people.
>
>
>
> Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
> Bill which was brought about by
>
> President Barrack Obama!
>
>
>
> Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
> Insurance and kudos to President Obama
>
> and his administration.
>
>
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
>
> Melbourne.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
> To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
> Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Noble Peace Award for President Obama.
>
> People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
> Committee
> (NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.
>
> While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
> overlooked the
> fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
> America. This
> in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
> community and
> he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead
> of
> putting
> spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
> greater
> work being at the helm of his career.
>
> Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the
> worst.
> How
> many of us fall in each category!
>
> We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
> contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
> identity
> alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and
> what
> encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
> e-mails and
> washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
> non-Goans in
> India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.
>
> Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are
> not
> progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
> your
> community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani)
> and
> Jealousy
> (Nosai).
>
> Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if
> necessary
>
> apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people
> because
> of ego
> or perhaps miss judgement.
>
> The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
> loved you"
> This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
> our
> community the quicker we will stand to gain.
>
> Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
> Melbourne.
>
viviana
2010-03-22 15:24:32 UTC
Permalink
One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE, which is different from health INSURANCE. If you don't believe this I'll send you the name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.

This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care for the average American will change only for the worse.

Viviana




________________________________
From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: goanet at goanet.org
Cc: bosco at goanet.org
Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 11:07:20 PM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.

During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
for President Obama and what

encouragement does to bring out the best in people.



Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
Bill which was brought about by

President Barrack Obama!



Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
Insurance and kudos to President Obama

and his administration.



Oscar C. Lobo

Melbourne.







--- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:


From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noble Peace Award for President Obama.

People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
Committee
(NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.

While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
overlooked the
fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
America. This
in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
community and
he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead of
putting
spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
greater
work being at the helm of his career.

Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the worst.
How
many of us fall in each category!

We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
identity
alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and what
encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
e-mails and
washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
non-Goans in
India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.

Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are not
progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
your
community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani) and
Jealousy
(Nosai).

Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if necessary

apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people because
of ego
or perhaps miss judgement.

The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
loved you"
This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
our
community the quicker we will stand to gain.

Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.

Oscar C. Lobo
Melbourne.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-22 21:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Dears,

I was holding off comment on this bill ....until I got to read it. It
is a pretty big document (I understand), and I would prefer not to
comment on what was eventually agreed upon and passed until I read it.

However, after having read Viviana's comment, I thought I'd ask her,
what she really meant by 'ACCESS'. It is a specific term and has
specific connotations.

Allow me first to wish a Very Happy Birthday to all those on the West
Coast who are celebrating their birthday today......esp Viviana (:-)

The example which Viviana has given, refers to Emergency care - which
we all know (I believe) is taken care of. Even the word, "emergency
care" and what is provided .....may mean stabilization.

BTW: Whenever one looks at health care, One looks in one particular
indicator i.e. Infant Mortality Rate. It gives a fair idea of the
state of health care in a country.

Attached infra are the IMR for a few select countries. It speaks for itself

Australia 4.75
Portugal 4.78
United Kingdom 4.85
Canada 5.04
Cuba 5.82
United States 6..22
India 50.78

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

=========
- Hide quoted text -

On 22 March 2010 11:24, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:

One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access
to health CARE, which is different from health INSURANCE. If you
don't believe this I'll send you the name/email of my nephew in Texas
who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in church (exhaustion from
the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response was
provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.

This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing
to do with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on
the day the Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks
skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be
repealed, and health care for the average American will change only
for the worse.
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-23 01:04:52 UTC
Permalink
viviana wrote:
> One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE,
> which is different from health INSURANCE.? If you don't believe this I'll send you the
> name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in
> church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response
> was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.?




Viviana,
According to the CNN,?medical bills are the cause for the majority of bankruptcy cases
in the US. And most of these bankrupts HAD medical insurance.
Here are some quotes:

"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may
chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that
more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

-snip-

?
"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the
individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills,
mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness.
On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including
$26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

-snip-

?
"Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance,
they say. 'That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent
of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there
were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,'
says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job
and lost their insurance."?
?

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/?

?

> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing
> health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill
> health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
> rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care
> for the average American will change only for the worse.

?
My in-laws in Texas also expect Obama to create death panels which will decide on who
lives and who?gets govt?medical care. I see this as a positive?outcome as?these death panels?
will result in Govt job creation?for US residents.


Finally, I must salute Obama for the cherry on this health care cake.
According to those who passed this?law, this health care bill is actually?going to save
taxpayers money :-)


MervynPerhapsitstimetoreturntotheUSLobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
viviana
2010-03-23 04:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

Viv


________________________________
From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

viviana wrote:
> One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE,
> which is different from health INSURANCE. If you don't believe this I'll send you the
> name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in
> church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response
> was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.




Viviana,
According to the CNN, medical bills are the cause for the majority of bankruptcy cases
in the US. And most of these bankrupts HAD medical insurance.
Here are some quotes:

"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may
chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that
more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

-snip-


"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the
individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills,
mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness.
On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including
$26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

-snip-


"Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance,
they say. 'That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent
of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there
were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,'
says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job
and lost their insurance."


Here is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/



> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing
> health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill
> health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
> rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care
> for the average American will change only for the worse.


My in-laws in Texas also expect Obama to create death panels which will decide on who
lives and who gets govt medical care. I see this as a positive outcome as these death panels
will result in Govt job creation for US residents.


Finally, I must salute Obama for the cherry on this health care cake.
According to those who passed this law, this health care bill is actually going to save
taxpayers money :-)


MervynPerhapsitstimetoreturntotheUSLobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-23 09:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Dears,

I am fascinated by the 'word machinations' of some of our folks. I
wonder why 'we' do it.

If we take the time, we will probably realize the subtle but
noticeable change between Viviana's two statements (24 hours apart).
Only slick politicians make those kind of 'bait and switch'
statements.

Please note the new phrase 'immediate health care' in Viviana's second
statement.

I will assume that Viviana's 'immediate health care' refers to Health
Care in the case of an emergency ...... and not Health care for
non-emergent situation delivered 'immediately'.

I will submit here that it is AWFUL medicine to make patients wait
till they develop 'emergencies' before they become eligible for health
care access (without a bill!). The best way to provide medical care
....is to make preventive care available.

Will Viviana advise us, please ... IF ..... in the US ....antes 2010,
Preventive Medicine e.g. routine annual physicals, pap smears,
mammograms, mantoux testing etc ..... were available to the
non-insured?

And ....IF the coverage was so great, WHY did members of the Congress
have separate health insurance? Would she care to tell us IF she knows
anybody (including herself) who has purchased private health insurance
.....and why the folks purchased it IF .....there was "Free Access to
Health Care'?

Antes 2010, were patients (with illnesses) who lost their jobs and who
got new health coverage, dumped by Health Insurance Companies because
of "pre-existing conditions"?

Viviana should stop using the 'emergency' help that her nephew
received ...to gloss over the problems caused by health care bills in
the US. It is patently disingenuous to do so.

Besides, one swallow does not make a summer.

I must say this: One never hears of anyone in Canada who was rendered
'broke' by the weight of the health care bills. Can Viviana say the
same thing about the US?

>From my review of some of the health care systems around the world,
Britain had the best health care system until that Rt Wing Thatcher
(milk snatcher) screwed it up to the present state. It is the system
screwed up by the Conservatives (first cousins of the Pubbies) that is
being used to criticise 'health care for all'. It is like destroying a
place and then saying.....'Look ....this place is in a shambles'.

At this moment, Canada has the best health care for its citizens and residents.

If anyone wishes to display a particular Canadian case ...(of having
to wait), please advise what was available elsewhere ....without
Health Cover or the ability to pay ....under the IDENTICAL clinical
conditions.

Oh yes ...... some politician in Goa will also beat his chest and say:
Everyone with their feet in Goa has free access to health CARE ....and
also access to free health care.

Yeah Right!


jc


[1] On 22 March 2010 11:24, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:
One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access
to health CARE,

[2] On 23 March 2010 00:47, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example
marlon menezes
2010-03-23 15:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Vivian,

As my late advisor in Grad school used to say, if something is being offered to you for "free", you better watch out. The fact is nothing is or was ever free - unless you believe in the proverbial statement that money grows on trees. Even a socialist knows that! The pre-Obama socialized health care system forced medical institutions to provide "free" emergency health care to individuals regardless of their ability to pay. Two problems with that: First of all, emergency care is multiple times more costly to the hospital than routine care. Secondly, these costs are then passed on by the hospitals to those who have insurance, thus resulting in society and industry still having to pay for these costs. So, what exactly is free, or free market in the pre-Obama set up?


Regarding the "reforms" that are being proposed, I have serious doubts about anything that has significant government involvement in it and am absolutely against it. In my opinion, we should be moving to a more pay at the point of service system in which routine care does not involve the the insurance middle men, who needlessly complicate the process. The whole point of insurance, whether for one's home, or one's vehicle or for health should be to take care of the unforeseen disasters - and not for day to day/routine issues. If I seek routine care in America and I tell the health provider that I wish to pay with cash, discounts of as much as 50% are possible because it saves them the costs and hassles of having to deal with the insurance companies.
Marlon Menezes
Austin, Tx.





----- Original Message ----
From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

Viv
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-23 23:15:34 UTC
Permalink
I think I have raised this on here before; a friend's parents had decided to
emirate to Florida. Father fell in and was taken into Hospital - 10 days
later a bill for USD30,000. Aparrently there were tests done, for this that
and the other, to no avail. The folks asked if the man was fit to travel,
and on receiving approval the couple returned to the U.K.

The NHS diagnosed gall bladder problem and quickly sorted the man out.
Needless to say the couple have given up their American dream and decided
that the U.K. is, after all said and done, the only place for peace of mind!

I have seen this kind of process in the Middle East, where they take a stool
test, a urine test, blood test....many X-Rays; all bill building. I fear
that in some of the more expensive hospitals in Goa this is now becoming the
norm.

--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-23 23:15:34 UTC
Permalink
I think I have raised this on here before; a friend's parents had decided to
emirate to Florida. Father fell in and was taken into Hospital - 10 days
later a bill for USD30,000. Aparrently there were tests done, for this that
and the other, to no avail. The folks asked if the man was fit to travel,
and on receiving approval the couple returned to the U.K.

The NHS diagnosed gall bladder problem and quickly sorted the man out.
Needless to say the couple have given up their American dream and decided
that the U.K. is, after all said and done, the only place for peace of mind!

I have seen this kind of process in the Middle East, where they take a stool
test, a urine test, blood test....many X-Rays; all bill building. I fear
that in some of the more expensive hospitals in Goa this is now becoming the
norm.

--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-23 23:15:34 UTC
Permalink
I think I have raised this on here before; a friend's parents had decided to
emirate to Florida. Father fell in and was taken into Hospital - 10 days
later a bill for USD30,000. Aparrently there were tests done, for this that
and the other, to no avail. The folks asked if the man was fit to travel,
and on receiving approval the couple returned to the U.K.

The NHS diagnosed gall bladder problem and quickly sorted the man out.
Needless to say the couple have given up their American dream and decided
that the U.K. is, after all said and done, the only place for peace of mind!

I have seen this kind of process in the Middle East, where they take a stool
test, a urine test, blood test....many X-Rays; all bill building. I fear
that in some of the more expensive hospitals in Goa this is now becoming the
norm.

--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-23 09:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Dears,

I am fascinated by the 'word machinations' of some of our folks. I
wonder why 'we' do it.

If we take the time, we will probably realize the subtle but
noticeable change between Viviana's two statements (24 hours apart).
Only slick politicians make those kind of 'bait and switch'
statements.

Please note the new phrase 'immediate health care' in Viviana's second
statement.

I will assume that Viviana's 'immediate health care' refers to Health
Care in the case of an emergency ...... and not Health care for
non-emergent situation delivered 'immediately'.

I will submit here that it is AWFUL medicine to make patients wait
till they develop 'emergencies' before they become eligible for health
care access (without a bill!). The best way to provide medical care
....is to make preventive care available.

Will Viviana advise us, please ... IF ..... in the US ....antes 2010,
Preventive Medicine e.g. routine annual physicals, pap smears,
mammograms, mantoux testing etc ..... were available to the
non-insured?

And ....IF the coverage was so great, WHY did members of the Congress
have separate health insurance? Would she care to tell us IF she knows
anybody (including herself) who has purchased private health insurance
.....and why the folks purchased it IF .....there was "Free Access to
Health Care'?

Antes 2010, were patients (with illnesses) who lost their jobs and who
got new health coverage, dumped by Health Insurance Companies because
of "pre-existing conditions"?

Viviana should stop using the 'emergency' help that her nephew
received ...to gloss over the problems caused by health care bills in
the US. It is patently disingenuous to do so.

Besides, one swallow does not make a summer.

I must say this: One never hears of anyone in Canada who was rendered
'broke' by the weight of the health care bills. Can Viviana say the
same thing about the US?

>From my review of some of the health care systems around the world,
Britain had the best health care system until that Rt Wing Thatcher
(milk snatcher) screwed it up to the present state. It is the system
screwed up by the Conservatives (first cousins of the Pubbies) that is
being used to criticise 'health care for all'. It is like destroying a
place and then saying.....'Look ....this place is in a shambles'.

At this moment, Canada has the best health care for its citizens and residents.

If anyone wishes to display a particular Canadian case ...(of having
to wait), please advise what was available elsewhere ....without
Health Cover or the ability to pay ....under the IDENTICAL clinical
conditions.

Oh yes ...... some politician in Goa will also beat his chest and say:
Everyone with their feet in Goa has free access to health CARE ....and
also access to free health care.

Yeah Right!


jc


[1] On 22 March 2010 11:24, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:
One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access
to health CARE,

[2] On 23 March 2010 00:47, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example
marlon menezes
2010-03-23 15:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Vivian,

As my late advisor in Grad school used to say, if something is being offered to you for "free", you better watch out. The fact is nothing is or was ever free - unless you believe in the proverbial statement that money grows on trees. Even a socialist knows that! The pre-Obama socialized health care system forced medical institutions to provide "free" emergency health care to individuals regardless of their ability to pay. Two problems with that: First of all, emergency care is multiple times more costly to the hospital than routine care. Secondly, these costs are then passed on by the hospitals to those who have insurance, thus resulting in society and industry still having to pay for these costs. So, what exactly is free, or free market in the pre-Obama set up?


Regarding the "reforms" that are being proposed, I have serious doubts about anything that has significant government involvement in it and am absolutely against it. In my opinion, we should be moving to a more pay at the point of service system in which routine care does not involve the the insurance middle men, who needlessly complicate the process. The whole point of insurance, whether for one's home, or one's vehicle or for health should be to take care of the unforeseen disasters - and not for day to day/routine issues. If I seek routine care in America and I tell the health provider that I wish to pay with cash, discounts of as much as 50% are possible because it saves them the costs and hassles of having to deal with the insurance companies.
Marlon Menezes
Austin, Tx.





----- Original Message ----
From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

Viv
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-23 09:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Dears,

I am fascinated by the 'word machinations' of some of our folks. I
wonder why 'we' do it.

If we take the time, we will probably realize the subtle but
noticeable change between Viviana's two statements (24 hours apart).
Only slick politicians make those kind of 'bait and switch'
statements.

Please note the new phrase 'immediate health care' in Viviana's second
statement.

I will assume that Viviana's 'immediate health care' refers to Health
Care in the case of an emergency ...... and not Health care for
non-emergent situation delivered 'immediately'.

I will submit here that it is AWFUL medicine to make patients wait
till they develop 'emergencies' before they become eligible for health
care access (without a bill!). The best way to provide medical care
....is to make preventive care available.

Will Viviana advise us, please ... IF ..... in the US ....antes 2010,
Preventive Medicine e.g. routine annual physicals, pap smears,
mammograms, mantoux testing etc ..... were available to the
non-insured?

And ....IF the coverage was so great, WHY did members of the Congress
have separate health insurance? Would she care to tell us IF she knows
anybody (including herself) who has purchased private health insurance
.....and why the folks purchased it IF .....there was "Free Access to
Health Care'?

Antes 2010, were patients (with illnesses) who lost their jobs and who
got new health coverage, dumped by Health Insurance Companies because
of "pre-existing conditions"?

Viviana should stop using the 'emergency' help that her nephew
received ...to gloss over the problems caused by health care bills in
the US. It is patently disingenuous to do so.

Besides, one swallow does not make a summer.

I must say this: One never hears of anyone in Canada who was rendered
'broke' by the weight of the health care bills. Can Viviana say the
same thing about the US?

>From my review of some of the health care systems around the world,
Britain had the best health care system until that Rt Wing Thatcher
(milk snatcher) screwed it up to the present state. It is the system
screwed up by the Conservatives (first cousins of the Pubbies) that is
being used to criticise 'health care for all'. It is like destroying a
place and then saying.....'Look ....this place is in a shambles'.

At this moment, Canada has the best health care for its citizens and residents.

If anyone wishes to display a particular Canadian case ...(of having
to wait), please advise what was available elsewhere ....without
Health Cover or the ability to pay ....under the IDENTICAL clinical
conditions.

Oh yes ...... some politician in Goa will also beat his chest and say:
Everyone with their feet in Goa has free access to health CARE ....and
also access to free health care.

Yeah Right!


jc


[1] On 22 March 2010 11:24, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:
One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access
to health CARE,

[2] On 23 March 2010 00:47, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:
The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example
marlon menezes
2010-03-23 15:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Vivian,

As my late advisor in Grad school used to say, if something is being offered to you for "free", you better watch out. The fact is nothing is or was ever free - unless you believe in the proverbial statement that money grows on trees. Even a socialist knows that! The pre-Obama socialized health care system forced medical institutions to provide "free" emergency health care to individuals regardless of their ability to pay. Two problems with that: First of all, emergency care is multiple times more costly to the hospital than routine care. Secondly, these costs are then passed on by the hospitals to those who have insurance, thus resulting in society and industry still having to pay for these costs. So, what exactly is free, or free market in the pre-Obama set up?


Regarding the "reforms" that are being proposed, I have serious doubts about anything that has significant government involvement in it and am absolutely against it. In my opinion, we should be moving to a more pay at the point of service system in which routine care does not involve the the insurance middle men, who needlessly complicate the process. The whole point of insurance, whether for one's home, or one's vehicle or for health should be to take care of the unforeseen disasters - and not for day to day/routine issues. If I seek routine care in America and I tell the health provider that I wish to pay with cash, discounts of as much as 50% are possible because it saves them the costs and hassles of having to deal with the insurance companies.
Marlon Menezes
Austin, Tx.





----- Original Message ----
From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

Viv
viviana
2010-03-23 04:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

Viv


________________________________
From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

viviana wrote:
> One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE,
> which is different from health INSURANCE. If you don't believe this I'll send you the
> name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in
> church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response
> was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.




Viviana,
According to the CNN, medical bills are the cause for the majority of bankruptcy cases
in the US. And most of these bankrupts HAD medical insurance.
Here are some quotes:

"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may
chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that
more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

-snip-


"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the
individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills,
mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness.
On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including
$26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

-snip-


"Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance,
they say. 'That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent
of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there
were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,'
says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job
and lost their insurance."


Here is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/



> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing
> health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill
> health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
> rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care
> for the average American will change only for the worse.


My in-laws in Texas also expect Obama to create death panels which will decide on who
lives and who gets govt medical care. I see this as a positive outcome as these death panels
will result in Govt job creation for US residents.


Finally, I must salute Obama for the cherry on this health care cake.
According to those who passed this law, this health care bill is actually going to save
taxpayers money :-)


MervynPerhapsitstimetoreturntotheUSLobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
viviana
2010-03-23 04:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

Viv


________________________________
From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

viviana wrote:
> One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE,
> which is different from health INSURANCE. If you don't believe this I'll send you the
> name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in
> church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response
> was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.




Viviana,
According to the CNN, medical bills are the cause for the majority of bankruptcy cases
in the US. And most of these bankrupts HAD medical insurance.
Here are some quotes:

"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may
chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that
more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

-snip-


"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the
individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills,
mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness.
On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including
$26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

-snip-


"Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance,
they say. 'That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent
of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there
were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,'
says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job
and lost their insurance."


Here is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/



> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing
> health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill
> health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
> rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care
> for the average American will change only for the worse.


My in-laws in Texas also expect Obama to create death panels which will decide on who
lives and who gets govt medical care. I see this as a positive outcome as these death panels
will result in Govt job creation for US residents.


Finally, I must salute Obama for the cherry on this health care cake.
According to those who passed this law, this health care bill is actually going to save
taxpayers money :-)


MervynPerhapsitstimetoreturntotheUSLobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-22 21:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Dears,

I was holding off comment on this bill ....until I got to read it. It
is a pretty big document (I understand), and I would prefer not to
comment on what was eventually agreed upon and passed until I read it.

However, after having read Viviana's comment, I thought I'd ask her,
what she really meant by 'ACCESS'. It is a specific term and has
specific connotations.

Allow me first to wish a Very Happy Birthday to all those on the West
Coast who are celebrating their birthday today......esp Viviana (:-)

The example which Viviana has given, refers to Emergency care - which
we all know (I believe) is taken care of. Even the word, "emergency
care" and what is provided .....may mean stabilization.

BTW: Whenever one looks at health care, One looks in one particular
indicator i.e. Infant Mortality Rate. It gives a fair idea of the
state of health care in a country.

Attached infra are the IMR for a few select countries. It speaks for itself

Australia 4.75
Portugal 4.78
United Kingdom 4.85
Canada 5.04
Cuba 5.82
United States 6..22
India 50.78

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

=========
- Hide quoted text -

On 22 March 2010 11:24, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:

One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access
to health CARE, which is different from health INSURANCE. If you
don't believe this I'll send you the name/email of my nephew in Texas
who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in church (exhaustion from
the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response was
provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.

This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing
to do with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on
the day the Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks
skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be
repealed, and health care for the average American will change only
for the worse.
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-23 01:04:52 UTC
Permalink
viviana wrote:
> One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE,
> which is different from health INSURANCE.? If you don't believe this I'll send you the
> name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in
> church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response
> was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.?




Viviana,
According to the CNN,?medical bills are the cause for the majority of bankruptcy cases
in the US. And most of these bankrupts HAD medical insurance.
Here are some quotes:

"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may
chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that
more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

-snip-

?
"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the
individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills,
mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness.
On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including
$26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

-snip-

?
"Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance,
they say. 'That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent
of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there
were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,'
says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job
and lost their insurance."?
?

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/?

?

> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing
> health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill
> health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
> rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care
> for the average American will change only for the worse.

?
My in-laws in Texas also expect Obama to create death panels which will decide on who
lives and who?gets govt?medical care. I see this as a positive?outcome as?these death panels?
will result in Govt job creation?for US residents.


Finally, I must salute Obama for the cherry on this health care cake.
According to those who passed this?law, this health care bill is actually?going to save
taxpayers money :-)


MervynPerhapsitstimetoreturntotheUSLobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-22 21:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Dears,

I was holding off comment on this bill ....until I got to read it. It
is a pretty big document (I understand), and I would prefer not to
comment on what was eventually agreed upon and passed until I read it.

However, after having read Viviana's comment, I thought I'd ask her,
what she really meant by 'ACCESS'. It is a specific term and has
specific connotations.

Allow me first to wish a Very Happy Birthday to all those on the West
Coast who are celebrating their birthday today......esp Viviana (:-)

The example which Viviana has given, refers to Emergency care - which
we all know (I believe) is taken care of. Even the word, "emergency
care" and what is provided .....may mean stabilization.

BTW: Whenever one looks at health care, One looks in one particular
indicator i.e. Infant Mortality Rate. It gives a fair idea of the
state of health care in a country.

Attached infra are the IMR for a few select countries. It speaks for itself

Australia 4.75
Portugal 4.78
United Kingdom 4.85
Canada 5.04
Cuba 5.82
United States 6..22
India 50.78

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

=========
- Hide quoted text -

On 22 March 2010 11:24, viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com> wrote:

One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access
to health CARE, which is different from health INSURANCE. If you
don't believe this I'll send you the name/email of my nephew in Texas
who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in church (exhaustion from
the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response was
provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.

This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing
to do with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on
the day the Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks
skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be
repealed, and health care for the average American will change only
for the worse.
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-23 01:04:52 UTC
Permalink
viviana wrote:
> One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE,
> which is different from health INSURANCE.? If you don't believe this I'll send you the
> name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in
> church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response
> was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.?




Viviana,
According to the CNN,?medical bills are the cause for the majority of bankruptcy cases
in the US. And most of these bankrupts HAD medical insurance.
Here are some quotes:

"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may
chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that
more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

-snip-

?
"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the
individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills,
mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness.
On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including
$26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

-snip-

?
"Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance,
they say. 'That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent
of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there
were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services,'
says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job
and lost their insurance."?
?

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/?

?

> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing
> health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill
> health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get
> rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care
> for the average American will change only for the worse.

?
My in-laws in Texas also expect Obama to create death panels which will decide on who
lives and who?gets govt?medical care. I see this as a positive?outcome as?these death panels?
will result in Govt job creation?for US residents.


Finally, I must salute Obama for the cherry on this health care cake.
According to those who passed this?law, this health care bill is actually?going to save
taxpayers money :-)


MervynPerhapsitstimetoreturntotheUSLobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Venantius J Pinto
2010-03-22 21:13:29 UTC
Permalink
A few minutes ago I had decided that I would really not get into a non Goan
issue anymore, and after this post will adhere with my decision.

Now, what Ms Coelho says below is correct, and there is more to this which
is not worth getting into. Many things happened right from the first week of
the presidency. The Pres Obama is a player---a big one. The Nobel prize did
not enlighten Obama at all. I doubt whether the NP is a koan to bring about
satori. Not one bit. In addition, if this bill had not passed his Presidency
was finished. His Presidency would not have recovered. It practically
appears to be shredded and more so on account a few things currently in
play.

I personally do not feel he believed in bipartisanship and that it would
work. All this crap about socialism etc., is also nonsense. This does not
mean it will not be viewed as socialism; just that work are thrown to elicit
responses. The language used in America is very, very complex. Much better
to observe from afar, and not get too excited. Much better to read something
on Goa and post that.

Perhaps he and his advisers simply could not envisage what he was against.
Basically, people will get helped on account of the Bill, and many will get
screwed, But the players across both parties have done well, and have served
the insurance companies admirably so.

We like to believe in goodness and should but with eyes wide open. If we did
not, things would get really weird. So keep those senses open, and even if
someone seems to be doing good by you, do not necessarily accept it at face
value unless you are very strong underneath.

venantius j pinto


Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
>
> (DEL)

> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do
> with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the
> Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest
> levels EVER. Politicians will get rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle
> which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care for the average American
> will change only for the worse.
>
> Viviana
>
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-24 02:31:24 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:
> As my late advisor in Grad school used to say, if something is being offered to you for "free",?
> you better watch out.? The fact is nothing is or was ever free - unless you believe in the
> proverbial statement that money grows on trees.



Marlon,
Money does grow on trees.
Money is made from paper which is made from trees.

The last time I tried to explain this to you here, I even gave you the name of the Canadian
company to buy that makes paper for money. The share price of Fortress Paper has gone
up 400% in the last 52 weeks.?


>?The whole point of insurance, whether for one's home, or one's vehicle or for health should
> be to take care of the unforeseen disasters - and not for day to day/routine issues.?


I think you hit the nail on the head here.
If you take this line of thought a step further, when you are hit with a catastrophe such as
Hurricane Katrina,?it is the responsibility of the?unaffected members of society that you?live
in to help out the weaker?members of the same society. The strong have to support the?elderly
and the weak. Anything less would be to return to?the law of the jungle.
?



viviana wrote:
?
> Thank you for your response.? I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote??
> The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care,
> regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who
> have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO
> ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.?

?
Viv,
The US is the only nation in the?Western world that does not offer its people basic,
universal health care. What Obama has accomplished is a political masterpiece. Sadly
enough, the people who will benefit the most from this?are those who do not vote.



Earlier this evening, someone sent me a news clip which?claims that the attorneys
general of 13 states are now suing the US govt.?I love this. Essentially, US residents
are suing themselves.?However, I do understand the pain involved since the state govts
are broke and have no money to pay for the medical bills that will be coming their way.
Wait a minute!
If the state govts find it difficult pay medical bills without going bankrupt, how?can?you
expect the average US?resident to pay for catastrophic?sickness without going bankrupt
too???Again, I will point out that most bankruptcies in the US?are by people who HAD
health insurance.
?
?

> So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not
> to get rich from it?? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he
> want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS
> ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

?
?
Yep, there are staggering amounts of money involved. I can still show you how to profit
from all these changes.?
?
?
Mervyn1102Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
MD
2010-03-24 23:27:32 UTC
Permalink
'Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want
to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?' True? - NO.

Quite the contrary. For the insurance companies, even being a woman
could be a 'pre-existing' condition to deny coverage. Under the new
law, 'every employee should subscribe to health insurance coverage
(the premium is less than 2% of gross pay), increased subscription
will increase the revenue of the insurance companies and 'exclusion
or denial of coverage on the basis of 'pre-existing conditions' is
'kaput'. (NAA - not applicable anymore!!!).

Why the republicans voted against? I do not know, pressure from the
lobby? perhaps.

As for your nephew and his 'immediate (I think in some countries it is
called EMR (emergency medical response?) free medical (health)
care...but as Marlon said, ultimately the cost is passed
on the the rest of the subscribers by way of increased premium, so in
real sense of the term 'free immediate' could be 'rob peter to pay
paul?'

MD.

From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to
do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical
care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE
RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their
physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the
insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the
country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET
RICHER.

Viv
Yahoo
2010-03-25 05:21:08 UTC
Permalink
I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for. No one who lives here will deny this.

I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.

V

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:27 PM, MD <mmdmello at gmail.com> wrote:

'Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want
to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?' True? - NO.

Quite the contrary. For the insurance companies, even being a woman
could be a 'pre-existing' condition to deny coverage. Under the new
law, 'every employee should subscribe to health insurance coverage
(the premium is less than 2% of gross pay), increased subscription
will increase the revenue of the insurance companies and 'exclusion
or denial of coverage on the basis of 'pre-existing conditions' is
'kaput'. (NAA - not applicable anymore!!!).

Why the republicans voted against? I do not know, pressure from the
lobby? perhaps.

As for your nephew and his 'immediate (I think in some countries it is
called EMR (emergency medical response?) free medical (health)
care...but as Marlon said, ultimately the cost is passed
on the the rest of the subscribers by way of increased premium, so in
real sense of the term 'free immediate' could be 'rob peter to pay
paul?'

MD.

From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to
do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical
care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE
RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their
physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the
insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the
country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET
RICHER.

Viv
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-25 13:49:31 UTC
Permalink
viviana coelho wrote:

[1] I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to
healthcare that they don't have to pay for. ?No one who lives here
will deny this.

[2] I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by
forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

[3] If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to
people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another
bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

[4] I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to
those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the
problem.


COMMENT:

I'd like to start with the premise that Viviana is one or more of the
following (a) a Pubbie (b) unaware (c) plain wrong (d) disingenuous
(e) all of the preceding.

re #1: I hope she has evidence (besides her nephew) to support her
claim that "anyone in the US has access to health care that they don't
have to pay for"

Of course, one will have to determine what Viviana means by 'access.
This time around, Viviana does not even bother to use the qualifier to
the health-care e.g. 'emergency'.

The business of 'don't have to pay for it' is an interesting comment.
Please see #4 infra


re #2: This is surely correct. Someone is going to get rich .....IF
he/she provides the service.


re #3: I do not believe that civil servants are the best
administrators of health care. However, if the Govt is "forced' into
providing a service .....who else will run it but the civil service?


re #4: If that is so ......why has NOBODY provided it yet for the poor?

Now .....how does Viviana's comment in #4 "I don't know anyone who is
against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it"
cohabit with her comment in #1 "anyone in the US has access to
healthcare that they don't have to pay for" ?

Hopefully, Viviana will possibly explain ....WHO will pay for the cost
of health care ....which according to Viviana "Everyone has access to
and No one has to pay for"?


For future guidance, here is a word or two for Pubbies like Viviana:

a: When you have many unfolding international situations, allow your
President to concentrate on his work, and indulge in consensual
private affairs. Do not entrap him and try to embarrass him and try to
get him to lie to protect himself from the wrath of his wife.

b: Do not put unnecessary pressure on him by repeating (ad nauseam)
the 'Tail wag the dog' like comments.

c: Spend money wisely .....not on unnecessary 'guerras'. Did not read
any post from Viviana .....complaining about 'Somebody will get rich
from the unnecessary guerra'.....based on bondollam.

d: If money is not wasted on unnecessary 'guerras', then perhaps,
there would be more that enough money for the Govt to pay every
person's health insurance premiums and possibly repair the roads and
bridges ....build some new inner city schools and also provide for
better maternal-child health.

e: That way .....the only folks who would make money would be the
Insurance Companies who support the Pubbies, and the Trial lawyers who
support the Dems. The doctors will also make money ....and they will
support whoever is in power.

f: Life will go on happily ever after

jc
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-25 13:49:31 UTC
Permalink
viviana coelho wrote:

[1] I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to
healthcare that they don't have to pay for. ?No one who lives here
will deny this.

[2] I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by
forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

[3] If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to
people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another
bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

[4] I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to
those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the
problem.


COMMENT:

I'd like to start with the premise that Viviana is one or more of the
following (a) a Pubbie (b) unaware (c) plain wrong (d) disingenuous
(e) all of the preceding.

re #1: I hope she has evidence (besides her nephew) to support her
claim that "anyone in the US has access to health care that they don't
have to pay for"

Of course, one will have to determine what Viviana means by 'access.
This time around, Viviana does not even bother to use the qualifier to
the health-care e.g. 'emergency'.

The business of 'don't have to pay for it' is an interesting comment.
Please see #4 infra


re #2: This is surely correct. Someone is going to get rich .....IF
he/she provides the service.


re #3: I do not believe that civil servants are the best
administrators of health care. However, if the Govt is "forced' into
providing a service .....who else will run it but the civil service?


re #4: If that is so ......why has NOBODY provided it yet for the poor?

Now .....how does Viviana's comment in #4 "I don't know anyone who is
against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it"
cohabit with her comment in #1 "anyone in the US has access to
healthcare that they don't have to pay for" ?

Hopefully, Viviana will possibly explain ....WHO will pay for the cost
of health care ....which according to Viviana "Everyone has access to
and No one has to pay for"?


For future guidance, here is a word or two for Pubbies like Viviana:

a: When you have many unfolding international situations, allow your
President to concentrate on his work, and indulge in consensual
private affairs. Do not entrap him and try to embarrass him and try to
get him to lie to protect himself from the wrath of his wife.

b: Do not put unnecessary pressure on him by repeating (ad nauseam)
the 'Tail wag the dog' like comments.

c: Spend money wisely .....not on unnecessary 'guerras'. Did not read
any post from Viviana .....complaining about 'Somebody will get rich
from the unnecessary guerra'.....based on bondollam.

d: If money is not wasted on unnecessary 'guerras', then perhaps,
there would be more that enough money for the Govt to pay every
person's health insurance premiums and possibly repair the roads and
bridges ....build some new inner city schools and also provide for
better maternal-child health.

e: That way .....the only folks who would make money would be the
Insurance Companies who support the Pubbies, and the Trial lawyers who
support the Dems. The doctors will also make money ....and they will
support whoever is in power.

f: Life will go on happily ever after

jc
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-25 15:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi Vivian (Coelho),

I am not sure about the gist and what exactly are you implying in the random statements you have made below. Yet let me take a chance and respond to these statements even though I do not understand where you are coming from. I have not followed your prior posts on this subject.
?
VC: I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for.? No one who lives here will deny this.?

GL: By law no one irrespective of insurance can be denied emergency healthcare (law signed by Pres. Reagan).? Many physicians will refer such patients to the hospital's emergency room. For non-emergency patients,?doctors can /?will decline patients with no insurance or insurance?from a carrier that the doctor does not?deal with.

VC: I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

GL:? The goal is to provide the patient service and care. Anyone / corporation who does this is entitled to the compensation. So in other words no one gets rich by sitting on their rear end.

VC: If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

GL:? So exactly how do you propose these patients handle the reimbursement for their care?? Are you suggesting?the system to be like in Goa /?Mumbai - direct payment by the patient after the service is delivered?? In practice, we know that "Self-pay" means "No-pay".? Insurance as an?intermediary assures that the patients is not financially ripped off by the healthcare provider - doctors or hospitals (which is what happens now).

VC: I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.

GL: This statement is most confusing. Who and how?will this "free healthcare" be paid for?

Conclusion:?Providing care is not caring for an individual when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved?in Preventive and Maintenance care.? And there has to be?a system of someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in expensive care at a more advanced?stage of the disease.? This is the one of the main problems with the current healthcare system, specially in a society which has less and?less social support at home to ensure the individual is prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the doctor's advice.?

Regards, GL
viviana
2010-03-25 16:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Okay, I see I'm having trouble being understood so I'll write a little slower. :-))




________________________________
From: Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2114 at yahoo.com>
To: goanet at goanet.org
Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 8:51:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Hi Vivian (Coelho),


Hi Gilbert (Lawrence), :-))

As a disclaimer I want to state that I've had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Gilbert Lawrence and I'm aware of the yeoman charitable work he does in his area. Also, he's a well known
and well respected Oncologist - this is easily verifiable by anyone who doesn't believe me. I've been a cancer patient and I've spent LOTS of time in hospitals and I sincerely
appreciate the work that Dr. Gilbert Lawrence does in his hospital and for his larger community.


I am not sure about the gist and what exactly are you implying in the random statements you have made below. Yet let me take a chance and respond to these statements even though I do not understand where you are coming from. I have not followed your prior posts on this subject.

Very clever. You insulate yourself by stating a the outset that you haven't been following the posts.



VC: I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for. No one who lives here will deny this.

GL: By law no one irrespective of insurance can be denied emergency healthcare (law signed by Pres. Reagan). Many physicians will refer such patients to the hospital's emergency room. For non-emergency patients, doctors can / will decline patients with no insurance or insurance from a carrier that the doctor does not deal with.

We're off to a good start! I agree with you on both counts. This does not contradict anything I've written.



VC: I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

GL: The goal is to provide the patient service and care. Anyone / corporation who does this is entitled to the compensation. So in other words no one gets rich by sitting on their rear end.

I don't agree 100% with that last part - but I do certainly agree that health care providers are entitled to be paid for the services they provide. In this neck of the woods this is
known as, dare I say it, CAPITALISM.



VC: If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

GL: So exactly how do you propose these patients handle the reimbursement for their care? Are you suggesting the system to be like in Goa / Mumbai - direct payment by the patient after the service is delivered? In practice, we know that "Self-pay" means "No-pay". Insurance as an intermediary assures that the patients is not financially ripped off by the health care provider - doctors or hospitals (which is what happens now).

Here is where I suggest that you read posts in a thread before you jump in! We're talking about people who CANNOT pay for the services they need, not people who can but won't.
So in your second sentence you imply that it's the doctors who are being ripped off by "NO PAY" patients, and then you imply that patients are being ripped off by health care providers.
I'm having trouble keeping up with who is ripping off whom.

Again, I firmly support the notion that people should be paid adequately for the services they render (the C word at work). I just don't think that forcing people to buy health insurance
AGAINST THEIR WILL is the answer.



VC: I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.

GL: This statement is most confusing. Who and how will this "free healthcare" be paid for?

Conclusion: Providing care is not caring for an individual when they are sick. There is a lot achieved in Preventive and Maintenance care. And there has to be a system of someone supervising these aspects of care. It is the absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in expensive care at a more advanced stage of the disease. This is the one of the main problems with the current healthcare system, specially in a society which has less and less social support at home to ensure the individual is prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the doctor's advice.

I think you mean that providing care is not MERELY caring for an individual when they (sic) are sick. The rest of this para has nothing to do with health
care or its accessibility and everything to do with the behavior of individual patients. How is forcing someone to buy health insurance going to remedy that? It's a
problem which health insurance cannot solve, it's a problem of individual responsibility.

I've never said that the current system is perfect, where many, probably millions, of indigent patients are provided health care which they personally don't pay for but we taxpayers
DO pay for instead.

I do believe that attempting to force everyone to buy health insurance is the absolutely wrong way to fix the system, particularly since the IRS is in charge of enforcing this. Can you really believe,
Dr. Lawrence, that this is a good idea?

No, I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it's not and this bill is a perfect example of making things worse. So, if Nancy Pelosi and that sap side kick of hers, Harry Reid,
are willing to go against the will of the people with regard to this bill and risk getting kicked out of office and losing the House or Representatives, what is in it for them?

Money.


Regards, GL

Regards, VMC
viviana
2010-03-25 16:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Okay, I see I'm having trouble being understood so I'll write a little slower. :-))




________________________________
From: Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2114 at yahoo.com>
To: goanet at goanet.org
Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 8:51:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Hi Vivian (Coelho),


Hi Gilbert (Lawrence), :-))

As a disclaimer I want to state that I've had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Gilbert Lawrence and I'm aware of the yeoman charitable work he does in his area. Also, he's a well known
and well respected Oncologist - this is easily verifiable by anyone who doesn't believe me. I've been a cancer patient and I've spent LOTS of time in hospitals and I sincerely
appreciate the work that Dr. Gilbert Lawrence does in his hospital and for his larger community.


I am not sure about the gist and what exactly are you implying in the random statements you have made below. Yet let me take a chance and respond to these statements even though I do not understand where you are coming from. I have not followed your prior posts on this subject.

Very clever. You insulate yourself by stating a the outset that you haven't been following the posts.



VC: I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for. No one who lives here will deny this.

GL: By law no one irrespective of insurance can be denied emergency healthcare (law signed by Pres. Reagan). Many physicians will refer such patients to the hospital's emergency room. For non-emergency patients, doctors can / will decline patients with no insurance or insurance from a carrier that the doctor does not deal with.

We're off to a good start! I agree with you on both counts. This does not contradict anything I've written.



VC: I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

GL: The goal is to provide the patient service and care. Anyone / corporation who does this is entitled to the compensation. So in other words no one gets rich by sitting on their rear end.

I don't agree 100% with that last part - but I do certainly agree that health care providers are entitled to be paid for the services they provide. In this neck of the woods this is
known as, dare I say it, CAPITALISM.



VC: If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

GL: So exactly how do you propose these patients handle the reimbursement for their care? Are you suggesting the system to be like in Goa / Mumbai - direct payment by the patient after the service is delivered? In practice, we know that "Self-pay" means "No-pay". Insurance as an intermediary assures that the patients is not financially ripped off by the health care provider - doctors or hospitals (which is what happens now).

Here is where I suggest that you read posts in a thread before you jump in! We're talking about people who CANNOT pay for the services they need, not people who can but won't.
So in your second sentence you imply that it's the doctors who are being ripped off by "NO PAY" patients, and then you imply that patients are being ripped off by health care providers.
I'm having trouble keeping up with who is ripping off whom.

Again, I firmly support the notion that people should be paid adequately for the services they render (the C word at work). I just don't think that forcing people to buy health insurance
AGAINST THEIR WILL is the answer.



VC: I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.

GL: This statement is most confusing. Who and how will this "free healthcare" be paid for?

Conclusion: Providing care is not caring for an individual when they are sick. There is a lot achieved in Preventive and Maintenance care. And there has to be a system of someone supervising these aspects of care. It is the absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in expensive care at a more advanced stage of the disease. This is the one of the main problems with the current healthcare system, specially in a society which has less and less social support at home to ensure the individual is prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the doctor's advice.

I think you mean that providing care is not MERELY caring for an individual when they (sic) are sick. The rest of this para has nothing to do with health
care or its accessibility and everything to do with the behavior of individual patients. How is forcing someone to buy health insurance going to remedy that? It's a
problem which health insurance cannot solve, it's a problem of individual responsibility.

I've never said that the current system is perfect, where many, probably millions, of indigent patients are provided health care which they personally don't pay for but we taxpayers
DO pay for instead.

I do believe that attempting to force everyone to buy health insurance is the absolutely wrong way to fix the system, particularly since the IRS is in charge of enforcing this. Can you really believe,
Dr. Lawrence, that this is a good idea?

No, I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it's not and this bill is a perfect example of making things worse. So, if Nancy Pelosi and that sap side kick of hers, Harry Reid,
are willing to go against the will of the people with regard to this bill and risk getting kicked out of office and losing the House or Representatives, what is in it for them?

Money.


Regards, GL

Regards, VMC
Santosh Helekar
2010-03-25 17:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert and others have made a very good case for why people of America, including many Goans who live there, badly needed health care reform.

But I believe Viviana and other genuine and honest opponents of the reform law that has just been enacted, have some valid criticisms. She has tried to articulate some of them. Let me tell you what I think the most reasonable of these criticisms are, even though I support the law that has been passed, provided some additional reforms and corrections are enacted at a later stage. Reasonable concerns regarding this law are:

1. The government is forcing people to buy health insurance, even if they don't want to do so. It is imposing a fine on those who refuse to buy insurance. Such a practice goes against the principle of individual liberty in a free democracy.

2. The government is expanding health and tax administration bureaucracy by a significant amount. To those who believe in small government this violates one of their most important ideological principles.

3. The government is increasing the tax on rich people and on those who buy or receive high-end expensive insurance plans through their employers. To those who believe in reduced taxation this violates one of their most important ideological principles.

4. The government is making promises to pay for the reform program by cutting spending and from increased tax revenue projections, predicting a reduction in the overall deficit. It is reasonable for people to be skeptical about any government being able to keep promises, and realize all its long term predictions.

5. The government is imposing new taxes and limits on insurance companies and health care device manufacturers, which might force them to raise the prices for their products, and reduce their ability to compete in a global free market. To those who believe in capitalist free market economy and in maintaining America's competitive edge this violates one of their most important ideological principles.

Cheers,

Santosh

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2114 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Conclusion:?Providing care is not caring for an individual
> when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved?in Preventive
> and Maintenance care.? And there has to be?a system of
> someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the
> absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in
> expensive care at a more advanced?stage of the disease.?
> This is the one of the main problems with the current
> healthcare system, specially in a society which has less
> and?less social support at home to ensure the individual is
> prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the
> doctor's advice.?
>
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-26 03:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helekar wrote:
>5. The government is imposing new taxes and limits on insurance companies and
> health care device manufacturers, which might force them to raise the prices for
> their products, and reduce their ability to compete in a global free market. To those
> who believe in capitalist free market economy and in maintaining America's
> competitive edge this violates one of their most important ideological principles.




Santosh,
Rest assured that the US?will?have?to raise taxes?soon to pay for the?new?health package.
I am talking about both Federal and State taxes. Today, fully half the states?are on the verge
of bankruptcy and?the new health bill will make them slide faster into?that position,
unless they raise taxes.?
.?

Also rest assured that US health?insurance companies will soon be going broke and will
be receiving financial aid from the US govt.?The aid package to?US financial companies
that went broke last year is unfortunately going to be repeated with the insurance and
health industries.?


I just love the rational behind the peculiar type of capitalism the US is practising today
i.e. profits of public companies are to be shared among shareholders and losses are to
be?absorbed by?the tax payers. And one more thing, a company can be deemed "too
large to fail'? and then it must be kept alive because that is the proper thing to do.


While the US residents ponder how much more taxes they will have to pay for the new
medical?system in the country, the rest of the world has a weightier problem i.e.?Should
US states be allowed to go bankrupt? When you lend money to a company, you know
the risks involved and you get a?premium corresponding to the risk you take.


On the other hand, people lending money to US states got low?rewards as they?relied on
the fact that the state could always raise revenue by increasing taxes. Now that it is
becoming clearer that some?states and even the federal govt?is in no position to raise taxes,
because of the state of the US?economy and the large number of unemployed people,
there is this huge possibility?that some?govts will be?unable to service their debts and
will default on them. If you or your financial institution has lent money to a state govt,
these are interesting times....


This new health?system was long over due but the US will pay dearly for it.


Mervyn1092Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
marlon menezes
2010-03-26 04:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn,

There is a lot of fat in state (and federal) budgets that can and should be cut. For all its capitalist credentials, the average public sector (federal, state and cities) worker is better paid and has better benefits than one in the private sector. A lot of them have been promised lavish pensions that have not been budgeted for and reversing such entitlements will be very challenging from a legal point of view. The amount of abuse by state are quite incredible. For example pensions are based on the employee's last annual salary, so employees often spike their pre-retirement salaries by working overtime in their last year. Another common trick is to retire for a few years and join back again after a few years (as per local laws). Net result? These workers are effectively taking in a double salary thanks to their pension and salary with their "new" job.

BTW, it was just announced today that the US Social Security program will experience a negative cash outflow this year. The earlier estimate was 2017. And now of course, we have this new boondoggle known as public health care. I'm sorry, but many aspects of society here has just gotten plain lazy if not spoilt. We just expect a lot for doing nothing. When I see bums begging for money in America, I am often tempted to give them a piece of my mind on what real poverty is.

Marlon Menezes
Austin, Tx.




----- Original Message ----
From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>


While the US residents ponder how much more taxes they will have to pay for the new
medical system in the country, the rest of the world has a weightier problem i.e. Should
US states be allowed to go bankrupt? When you lend money to a company, you know
the risks involved and you get a premium corresponding to the risk you take.


On the other hand, people lending money to US states got low rewards as they relied on
the fact that the state could always raise revenue by increasing taxes. Now that it is
becoming clearer that some states and even the federal govt is in no position to raise taxes,
because of the state of the US economy and the large number of unemployed people,
there is this huge possibility that some govts will be unable to service their debts and
will default on them. If you or your financial institution has lent money to a state govt,
these are interesting times....


This new health system was long over due but the US will pay dearly for it.


Mervyn1092Lob
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-27 02:41:27 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:?
> There is a lot of fat in state (and federal) budgets that can and should be cut.
> For all its capitalist credentials, the average public sector (federal, state and
> cities) worker is better paid and has better benefits than one in the private sector.



Marlon,
I am all for paying workers according to their performance as?the better?a person is paid,
the more are?your chances of getting served properly unless, of course, the server
has a union job.?


As for cutting fat in the state govts,?its never going to happen. There is no politician
who will?cut programs/jobs if s/he is seeking re-election.?Further more, I read this morning?
that some US states spend more on?their prison systems than they do on education.


Lets see, a person does not get an education because the education budget is
inadequate. The person then winds up going to jail for stealing. It now costs the?
state?$30,000 a year to keep the guy in prison. That $30,000 could have given the
prisoner a decent education and vocation. I need not remind you that the US
has the highest number of inmates in the world.?



> BTW, it was just announced today that the US Social Security program will experience
> a negative cash outflow this year. The earlier estimate was 2017. And now of course,
> we have this new boondoggle known as public health care.?



On the positive side, since expenses at home will?leave little money?for foreign adventures,
perhaps the US will now declare victory in Iraq, declare Osama as?'insignificant' and withdraw
from both countries. The Toronto Star had a lead article last week?that showed US troops
guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan. Afghanistan now supplies 70% of the worlds opium.


Which brings me to my final point. I?am willing to bet that before you see another?Republican
president, the US will legalize and tax the street?drug trade.
If this happens, in one blow you would have:
1)?New, lucrative sources of income from taxes
2) Increased employment for all those growing?the merchandise in the US as opposed to Canada/Mexico.
3) A smaller?population of?prison inmates.


If the above does not happen, get prepared for higher insurance premiums and higher taxes. Both will
result in industries becoming less competitive in the US and?of employers moving jobs out of the
country. As you are aware, the biggest export of the US since George Bush (43) took power has
been the export of jobs.

Mervyn1106Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-27 02:41:27 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:?
> There is a lot of fat in state (and federal) budgets that can and should be cut.
> For all its capitalist credentials, the average public sector (federal, state and
> cities) worker is better paid and has better benefits than one in the private sector.



Marlon,
I am all for paying workers according to their performance as?the better?a person is paid,
the more are?your chances of getting served properly unless, of course, the server
has a union job.?


As for cutting fat in the state govts,?its never going to happen. There is no politician
who will?cut programs/jobs if s/he is seeking re-election.?Further more, I read this morning?
that some US states spend more on?their prison systems than they do on education.


Lets see, a person does not get an education because the education budget is
inadequate. The person then winds up going to jail for stealing. It now costs the?
state?$30,000 a year to keep the guy in prison. That $30,000 could have given the
prisoner a decent education and vocation. I need not remind you that the US
has the highest number of inmates in the world.?



> BTW, it was just announced today that the US Social Security program will experience
> a negative cash outflow this year. The earlier estimate was 2017. And now of course,
> we have this new boondoggle known as public health care.?



On the positive side, since expenses at home will?leave little money?for foreign adventures,
perhaps the US will now declare victory in Iraq, declare Osama as?'insignificant' and withdraw
from both countries. The Toronto Star had a lead article last week?that showed US troops
guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan. Afghanistan now supplies 70% of the worlds opium.


Which brings me to my final point. I?am willing to bet that before you see another?Republican
president, the US will legalize and tax the street?drug trade.
If this happens, in one blow you would have:
1)?New, lucrative sources of income from taxes
2) Increased employment for all those growing?the merchandise in the US as opposed to Canada/Mexico.
3) A smaller?population of?prison inmates.


If the above does not happen, get prepared for higher insurance premiums and higher taxes. Both will
result in industries becoming less competitive in the US and?of employers moving jobs out of the
country. As you are aware, the biggest export of the US since George Bush (43) took power has
been the export of jobs.

Mervyn1106Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
marlon menezes
2010-03-26 04:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn,

There is a lot of fat in state (and federal) budgets that can and should be cut. For all its capitalist credentials, the average public sector (federal, state and cities) worker is better paid and has better benefits than one in the private sector. A lot of them have been promised lavish pensions that have not been budgeted for and reversing such entitlements will be very challenging from a legal point of view. The amount of abuse by state are quite incredible. For example pensions are based on the employee's last annual salary, so employees often spike their pre-retirement salaries by working overtime in their last year. Another common trick is to retire for a few years and join back again after a few years (as per local laws). Net result? These workers are effectively taking in a double salary thanks to their pension and salary with their "new" job.

BTW, it was just announced today that the US Social Security program will experience a negative cash outflow this year. The earlier estimate was 2017. And now of course, we have this new boondoggle known as public health care. I'm sorry, but many aspects of society here has just gotten plain lazy if not spoilt. We just expect a lot for doing nothing. When I see bums begging for money in America, I am often tempted to give them a piece of my mind on what real poverty is.

Marlon Menezes
Austin, Tx.




----- Original Message ----
From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>


While the US residents ponder how much more taxes they will have to pay for the new
medical system in the country, the rest of the world has a weightier problem i.e. Should
US states be allowed to go bankrupt? When you lend money to a company, you know
the risks involved and you get a premium corresponding to the risk you take.


On the other hand, people lending money to US states got low rewards as they relied on
the fact that the state could always raise revenue by increasing taxes. Now that it is
becoming clearer that some states and even the federal govt is in no position to raise taxes,
because of the state of the US economy and the large number of unemployed people,
there is this huge possibility that some govts will be unable to service their debts and
will default on them. If you or your financial institution has lent money to a state govt,
these are interesting times....


This new health system was long over due but the US will pay dearly for it.


Mervyn1092Lob
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-26 03:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Santosh Helekar wrote:
>5. The government is imposing new taxes and limits on insurance companies and
> health care device manufacturers, which might force them to raise the prices for
> their products, and reduce their ability to compete in a global free market. To those
> who believe in capitalist free market economy and in maintaining America's
> competitive edge this violates one of their most important ideological principles.




Santosh,
Rest assured that the US?will?have?to raise taxes?soon to pay for the?new?health package.
I am talking about both Federal and State taxes. Today, fully half the states?are on the verge
of bankruptcy and?the new health bill will make them slide faster into?that position,
unless they raise taxes.?
.?

Also rest assured that US health?insurance companies will soon be going broke and will
be receiving financial aid from the US govt.?The aid package to?US financial companies
that went broke last year is unfortunately going to be repeated with the insurance and
health industries.?


I just love the rational behind the peculiar type of capitalism the US is practising today
i.e. profits of public companies are to be shared among shareholders and losses are to
be?absorbed by?the tax payers. And one more thing, a company can be deemed "too
large to fail'? and then it must be kept alive because that is the proper thing to do.


While the US residents ponder how much more taxes they will have to pay for the new
medical?system in the country, the rest of the world has a weightier problem i.e.?Should
US states be allowed to go bankrupt? When you lend money to a company, you know
the risks involved and you get a?premium corresponding to the risk you take.


On the other hand, people lending money to US states got low?rewards as they?relied on
the fact that the state could always raise revenue by increasing taxes. Now that it is
becoming clearer that some?states and even the federal govt?is in no position to raise taxes,
because of the state of the US?economy and the large number of unemployed people,
there is this huge possibility?that some?govts will be?unable to service their debts and
will default on them. If you or your financial institution has lent money to a state govt,
these are interesting times....


This new health?system was long over due but the US will pay dearly for it.


Mervyn1092Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-26 02:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Hi Viviana,

Now that you have baited me into this, lets talk about healthcare ... a topic I have voluntarily immersed myself in the last few months.? Thanks for telling me that we have met. So I now know whom I am responding to; and?will show?'a lot of?mog'.:=)) ?If I am not mistaken, don't you work in the?health-field? So likely you know the issues.?

To limit myself I will take?only three?points you raise and analyze them in?detail.?

VMC: I've never said that the current system is perfect, where many, probably millions, of indigent patients are provided health care which they personally don't pay for but we taxpayers?DO pay for instead.??
??????? I do believe that attempting to force everyone to buy health insurance is the absolutely wrong way to fix the system, particularly since the IRS is in charge of enforcing this.? Can you really believe,?Dr. Lawrence, that this is a good idea?

GL responds: Thank you for telling us the current system needs over-hauling. A healthcare system where 45,000 die every year from lack of insurance and 30,000 die every year from over-treatment cannot be a good system ... in fact it is a bad system for our great country.

The IRS is involved becasue the level?of govt help to the poor is related to their income. Complaining about?IRS involvement in healthcare reform is another right-wing canard and a distraction.?

You do not want to force everyone to buy insurance?? But you also complain "provided health care (to probably millions, of indigent patients) which they personally don't pay for, but we taxpayers?DO pay for instead".? If all DO NOT?contribute to insurance, who and when will people financially contribute to insurance?? When they get sick?? Do you complain about ALL being forced to buy auto-insurance?

Forcing all to insure (a.k.a. individual mandate) was a Republican proposal in 1993?(Senators Hatch and Grassley). Do you have a position other than being against to what others have proposed?
---------------
?
VMC: I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for.? No one who lives here will deny this.?

GL: By law no one irrespective of insurance can be denied emergency healthcare (law signed by Pres. Reagan).? Many physicians will refer such patients to the hospital's emergency room. For non-emergency patients, doctors can / will decline patients with no insurance or insurance from a carrier that the doctor does not deal with.

?VMC: We're off to a good start!? I agree with you on both counts.? This does not contradict anything I've written.

GL responds: We do not agree. In the current system, patients do not get Preventive and Maintenance healthcare for chronic illness which is 70% of all healthcare.? Accessing only emergency care is expensive, often futile and is?the end-result?of a broken system.
------------------

VMC: Here is where I suggest that you read posts in a thread before you jump in!? .... So in your second sentence you imply that it's the doctors who are being ripped off by "NO PAY" patients, and then you imply that patients are being ripped off by health care providers.?I'm having trouble keeping up with who is ripping off whom.

GL responds: After accusing me of insulating myself with?my disclaimer about not following this thread, you encourage me to know the issues being presented in the thread.:=))? Yet this? will not stop me from?explaining this important point about lack of insurance.? This is specially important for young adults / college students,?who may?believe they do not need insurance.

Insurance companies have a negotiated payment schedule for the hospital's charges. It may be as low as 30% of their fee.? An individual patient does not have that negotiating clout and hence HAS TO PAY 100% of the bill. If the medical bill is too high, the individuals can / do declare bankruptcy.? All of this can be avoided by having a powerful insurance?intermediary between the patient and the healthcare provider.
----------

Conclusion: Hope the above provides some explanation. I have maintained / written that no bill is perfect, because we do not know how patients, doctors, hospitals and insurers will behave and work around the system.? So every year or two?Congress will have to visit the subject to close loopholes and regulate abuses that businesses come up with.

My apologies for misspelling your name in the prior post.

Regards ani mog. GL.
MD
2010-03-26 14:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Failing to fix the U.S. health-insurance system - where the government
insures the elderly and the very ill and employers are expected to
insure their employees - is so difficult that every Democratic
president since Harry Truman has tried and failed.

The Health care reform was one of Obama's key election promises.

1. The bill will provide health insurance to some 32 million Americans
who are currently not insured, either because they can't afford the
fees or because they are already ill (pre-existing condition(s).

2. Insurance companies will not be allowed to drop subscribers when
they get ill and may not refuse to insure children because they are
ill.

3. Insurance companies must allow children to remain on their
parents' health insurance plan until they are 26. Currently most
insurance companies age limit is 19. (post graduation/higher studies
may not enable these to work).

4. Ill, uninsured adults are eligible for insurance through a new
program that will expire in 2014 when insurance companies have to
start accepting customers who are already ill.

Insurance companies will cover everyone when everyone subscribes. IRS
will be involved to make sure every one complies. Auto insurance is
compulsory to cover personal injury/third party injury/property damage
claims and that is accepted, so is health coverage less important than
auto insurance?.

Next issue will be 'foreclosures'

Without prejudice.
MD.

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.
Message-ID: <907467.73568.qm at web110310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Gilbert and others have made a very good case for why people of
America, including many Goans who live there, badly needed health care
reform.

But I believe Viviana and other genuine and honest opponents of the
reform law that has just been enacted, have some valid criticisms. She
has tried to articulate some of them. Let me tell you what I think the
most reasonable of these criticisms are, even though I support the law
that has been passed, provided some additional reforms and corrections
are enacted at a later stage. Reasonable concerns regarding this law
are:

1. The government is forcing people to buy health insurance, even if
they don't want to do so. It is imposing a fine on those who refuse to
buy insurance. Such a practice goes against the principle of
individual liberty in a free democracy.

2. The government is expanding health and tax administration
bureaucracy by a significant amount. To those who believe in small
government this violates one of their most important ideological
principles.

3. The government is increasing the tax on rich people and on those
who buy or receive high-end expensive insurance plans through their
employers. To those who believe in reduced taxation this violates one
of their most important ideological principles.

4. The government is making promises to pay for the reform program by
cutting spending and from increased tax revenue projections,
predicting a reduction in the overall deficit. It is reasonable for
people to be skeptical about any government being able to keep
promises, and realize all its long term predictions.

5. The government is imposing new taxes and limits on insurance
companies and health care device manufacturers, which might force them
to raise the prices for their products, and reduce their ability to
compete in a global free market. To those who believe in capitalist
free market economy and in maintaining America's competitive edge this
violates one of their most important ideological principles.

Cheers,

Santosh

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2114 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Conclusion:?Providing care is not caring for an individual
when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved?in Preventive
and Maintenance care.? And there has to be?a system of
someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the
absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in
expensive care at a more advanced?stage of the disease.?
This is the one of the main problems with the current
healthcare system, specially in a society which has less
and?less social support at home to ensure the individual is
prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the
doctor's advice.?
marlon menezes
2010-03-27 04:14:51 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message ----
From: MD <mmdmello at gmail.com>
Insurance companies will cover everyone when everyone
subscribes. IRS
will be involved to make sure every one complies.
Auto insurance is
compulsory to cover personal injury/third party
injury/property damage
claims and that is accepted, so is health
coverage less important than
auto insurance?.

Next issue will
be 'foreclosures'

Without prejudice.
MD.
-----
MD, do you use your auto insurance when you do an oil change or routine work on you car? Likewise, why should insurance come into the picture for routine medical care? The whole notion of using insurance for routine care is bogus. While there are some benefits (such as reducing costly emergency care) the new system only propagates this concept of using the costly insurance system for routine care for the entire population.

The US government just announced a program today on the foreclosure issue. Here we have the government rewarding bad behavior. I did not go into debt. I did not buy a home that was a ridiculous portion of my household income. Yet, people who went in over their heads and splurged during the boom years and who now have negative equity are getting a government sponsored bail out. Furthermore, this government intervention is artificially propping the real estate market by keeping prices higher than they would be, thus preventing others from entering the market.

We seem to be lurching from one extreme in which the previous administration was quite clueless and impervious to one that may be a little too smart for its own good. The current government seems to think it has a solution for every thing.

Marlon Menezes
Austin, Tx.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-27 12:22:40 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:

[1] MD, do you use your auto insurance when you do an oil change or
routine work on you car?
[2]Likewise, why should insurance come into the picture for routine
medical care?
[3]The whole notion of using insurance for routine care is bogus.
[4]While there are some benefits (such as reducing costly emergency
care) the new system only propagates this concept of using the costly
insurance system for routine care for the entire population.

COMMENT:

I am quite surprised by Marlon's post. I hope it was written when he
was 'called to the Bar'.

Isn't the Auto insurance that Marlon refers to - an insurance in case
of a Collision?

Is an (say) oil change necessitated by a collision? If not, why is he
using that example to make a indefensible point?

Does one not get a full service when one leases a car from a
dealership? Is that not 'billed' into the monthly premium one pays for
the lease?

Would you rather prevent (say) Measles, Chicken Pox, Diphtheria,
Tetanus, Whooping cough than treat those conditions?

Would you rather identify the presence of early High Blood Pressure
than treat the complications?

...other example upon request.

Some people only look at the 'bottom line'. They are called business chaps.

jc
marlon menezes
2010-03-29 16:40:08 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message ----
From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <colaco1 at gmail.com>

marlon menezes wrote:

[1] MD, do you use your auto insurance when you do an oil change or
routine work on you car?
[2]Likewise, why should insurance come into the picture for routine
medical care?
[3]The whole notion of using insurance for routine care is bogus.
[4]While there are some benefits (such as reducing costly emergency
care) the new system only propagates this concept of using the costly
insurance system for routine care for the entire population.

COMMENT:

From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <colaco1 at gmail.com>
Isn't the Auto insurance that Marlon refers to - an insurance in case
of a Collision?

Is an (say) oil change necessitated by a collision? If not, why is he
using that example to make a indefensible point?
---
My point is that why do we have to bring in the insurance system that entails costly over head/paper work/documentation/high fixed cost etc for routine health care? It is like using a costly Saturn V rocket to pick up groceries. In my opinion, routine care should be a low cost direct cash transaction between the doctor and the patient, with no involvement of the bureaucracy.


Would you rather prevent (say) Measles, Chicken Pox, Diphtheria,
Tetanus, Whooping cough than treat those conditions?

Would you rather identify the presence of early High Blood Pressure
than treat the complications?
---
I fully agree that prevention is better and more importantly, cheaper than the cure, to which I would add the corollary, that cheaper routine preventative care is better than expensive routine care. The costs of most of these routine care treatments are detections is quite low - unless one gets the insurance process involved, which then balloons the costs. This is true regardless whether it is paid for via the employee/employer or the government. The "reforms" are basically just passing the buck from the employee/employer to the government. While there will probably be cost savings from the reduction in costly emergency care, it will do nothing to reduce the costs of routine care. Furthermore, knowing how inefficiently governments work, routine care costs will probably increase.

Again, I am not really arguing about public/private insurance coverage. What I am stating is that there has to be a monetary threshold before the expensive insurance system kicks in. Having a high cost bureaucracy (public or private) to deal with what should be low cost routine care, makes everything expensive.

One way the insurance companies have tried to incorporate this concept is via a cumulative deductible. Jim gave an example of the $3000 deductible he has for his family. However, even here, the insurance process/bureaucracy is still involved (to a lesser degree perhaps) in tracking the deductible amounts, so the cost savings are not fully gained. The cost savings with this approach may be around 10-15%. On the other hand, if one were to skip the insurance bureaucracy for routine care, routine care costs could be even lower.

Marlon
Tim de Mello
2010-03-30 02:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Posting this because of the current debate ensuing on Goa-Net.
Has nothing to do with Goa.

Some of you my know that Canadian (and now also American) David Frum was one of George W. Bush's speech writers.
A solid Republican. He was fired from his position of resident scholar at the AEI because of his criticism of the Republican Party over the Health Care debate - ironically losing all his health benefits.

You might be interested in this article from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/786175--david-frum-a-republican-pariah-in-health-care-debate
Note the last para.

"The Canadian system is like the bumblebee ? it shouldn't be able to fly when you look at the diagrams. But because everyone behaves better than the system invites them to behave, it works.

"But that's also a reason why it is not a model for export ? Americans might not behave that way," Frum says.

==================================
David Frum a Republican pariah in health-care debate
WASHINGTON?It wasn't the first time David Frum suggested his own kind have lost the plot.



But this week, when Frum branded America's health-care breakthrough a defeat for Republicans akin to Waterloo, the Toronto-born political commentator felt the fury of the far right as never before.

"We went for all the marbles, we ended with none," Frum lamented in a blog posting that sparked a system-crashing torrent of traffic at his web portal, www.frumforum.com.

By obsessing on the humiliation of U.S. President Barack Obama above all else, Frum wrote, the Republican strategy of "no negotiations, no compromise, nothing" consigned American conservatives to their "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." And the wound was entirely self-inflicted.



Frum's solution: Republican leaders now must show the courage of their convictions, abandon the frothing yet futureless extremes of the right and instead stake out sober, reasoned middle-ground where most Americans live.



On cue, many stateside conservatives went straight for the messenger, finding new ways to shred the former speech writer to George W. Bush. The cacophony of Frum-bashing appeared to reach a zenith on Thursday, when the conservative American Enterprise Institute confirmed it was terminating Frum's position as a resident scholar. Though AEI insists the dismissal was coincidental ? relating to money rather than politics ? it came with one especially stinging irony: Frum and family will lose their health-care benefits.

None of this is a laughing matter if you are David Frum. But when the Toronto Star caught up with him at his Washington home, Frum couldn't help but chuckle at some of the invective. Especially the attacks suggesting his greatest sin of all was to be Canadian.



"Calling someone a Canadian is not an insult that has a lot of bite in the United States," said Frum, who in fact added American citizenship to his repertoire in 2007.

What Frum wants to make abundantly clear at the outside is this: love it or hate it, he remains as conservative as ever. He opposed Obamacare. But unlike the Republican leadership, he saw it as inevitable. With control of both the House and Senate and a solid presidential mandate, Democrats were simply not going to miss the opportunity to "pass the one thing they wanted for half a century.

"If the Democrats failed on heath-care reform, it would be like an Olympic athlete inadvertently tying his shoelaces together and losing the race because he fell face forward into the dirt," Frum said.

"If they failed, the country would have turned on them, saying, `They can't govern.' Well, now they've governed. The country will decide if it likes it or not.

"That is the key mistake of the (Republican) obstructionists ? they failed to accept this reality. And now the bill is forever. This is a generational change, like Medicare in the 1960s. Once you achieve these things they are permanent," he told the Star.



The 49-year-old son of late, great CBC broadcaster Barbara Frum and Toronto developer Murray Frum, says he's still proud to bear the "Canadian" insult.

His sister, Linda, is now a senator in Ottawa, his eldest daughter attends University of Toronto and his summertime centre of gravity remains Ontario's Prince Edward County ? where he and his wife, journalist Danielle Crittenden, are "finally getting around to building our own house" after 20 years at the vacation retreat of his father-in-law, Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington.

Though he has spent much of his adult life stateside ? first Yale, then Harvard Law School, and later, opinion-shaping gigs at the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine before jumping to the White House to craft such phrases as "Axis of Evil" for George W. Bush ? Frum says his Canadian eyes help him see American conservatism more clearly.

"Canadian conservatives really have seen the bottom of the well ? they know what happens if you put your own partisan imperatives ahead of responsibility to governance. It led to the series of catastrophes between 1993 and the election of Stephen Harper and that sort of thing really can shape your thinking.



"Lessons are being taught in Canada ? and Britain, too ? that are not being learned in the United States. And that's why American conservatism seems to be heading deeper into trouble rather than emerging from it. Eventually they will take these lessons. Because people do learn."



In the meantime, Frum reckons the American right will be "trapped" by the firebrand fulminations of the conservative media until Republican leaders "exert leadership" and recognize that neither the Tea Party movement nor the audience of talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh represents enough votes to win re-election.



"There are 122 million eligible voters in presidential elections ? you need 50 to 60 million people to vote for you," said Frum. "That's a lot bigger than Rush, a lot bigger than the Tea Party. It is true that hundreds of thousands of Americans believe that free preventive care is socialism. But there are hundreds of millions who don't."



Watching Canada's health-care system get smacked around like a political pinata during the year-long U.S. debate left Frum with mixed feelings.

On one hand he views Canadian health care as "way too rigid, way too centralized."



But he also observes the Canadian system "works better than it has any reason to work" ? partly because of outstanding doctors who ignore opportunities to earn more money in the U.S., and partly because Canadians are "socially responsible patients" who don't use all the heath care they could.



"The Canadian system is like the bumblebee ? it shouldn't be able to fly when you look at the diagrams. But because everyone behaves better than the system invites them to behave, it works.

"But that's also a reason why it is not a model for export ? Americans might not behave that way," Frum says.




_________________________________________________________________
Take your contacts everywhere
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712959
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-30 10:42:19 UTC
Permalink
On 30 March 2010 03:54, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Posting this because of the current debate ensuing on Goa-Net.
> Has nothing to do with Goa.
>
> Some of you my know that Canadian (and now also American) David Frum was
> one of George W. Bush's speech writers.
> A solid Republican. He was fired from his position of resident scholar at
> the AEI because of his criticism of the Republican Party over the Health
> Care debate - ironically losing all his health benefits.
>
> You might be interested in this article from:
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/786175--david-frum-a-republican-pariah-in-health-care-debate
> Note the last para.
>

COMMENT: Reps making headlines yet again.... but for the wrong reasons;
check this out:-

The Republican chairman, Michael Steele, promised on taking office that he
would bring the party to corners of America it had not reached before. It is
a fair bet that most Republicans did not expect these corners to include the
Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage and S&M club in Los Angeles.

It emerged today that the Republicans spent almost $2,000 last month on a
visit to the club where topless women hang from nets on the ceiling and
simulate sex in a glass case.


Full read @
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/29/republicans-visit-la-bondage-club






--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-30 10:42:19 UTC
Permalink
On 30 March 2010 03:54, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Posting this because of the current debate ensuing on Goa-Net.
> Has nothing to do with Goa.
>
> Some of you my know that Canadian (and now also American) David Frum was
> one of George W. Bush's speech writers.
> A solid Republican. He was fired from his position of resident scholar at
> the AEI because of his criticism of the Republican Party over the Health
> Care debate - ironically losing all his health benefits.
>
> You might be interested in this article from:
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/786175--david-frum-a-republican-pariah-in-health-care-debate
> Note the last para.
>

COMMENT: Reps making headlines yet again.... but for the wrong reasons;
check this out:-

The Republican chairman, Michael Steele, promised on taking office that he
would bring the party to corners of America it had not reached before. It is
a fair bet that most Republicans did not expect these corners to include the
Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage and S&M club in Los Angeles.

It emerged today that the Republicans spent almost $2,000 last month on a
visit to the club where topless women hang from nets on the ceiling and
simulate sex in a glass case.


Full read @
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/29/republicans-visit-la-bondage-club






--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
Tim de Mello
2010-03-30 02:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Posting this because of the current debate ensuing on Goa-Net.
Has nothing to do with Goa.

Some of you my know that Canadian (and now also American) David Frum was one of George W. Bush's speech writers.
A solid Republican. He was fired from his position of resident scholar at the AEI because of his criticism of the Republican Party over the Health Care debate - ironically losing all his health benefits.

You might be interested in this article from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/786175--david-frum-a-republican-pariah-in-health-care-debate
Note the last para.

"The Canadian system is like the bumblebee ? it shouldn't be able to fly when you look at the diagrams. But because everyone behaves better than the system invites them to behave, it works.

"But that's also a reason why it is not a model for export ? Americans might not behave that way," Frum says.

==================================
David Frum a Republican pariah in health-care debate
WASHINGTON?It wasn't the first time David Frum suggested his own kind have lost the plot.



But this week, when Frum branded America's health-care breakthrough a defeat for Republicans akin to Waterloo, the Toronto-born political commentator felt the fury of the far right as never before.

"We went for all the marbles, we ended with none," Frum lamented in a blog posting that sparked a system-crashing torrent of traffic at his web portal, www.frumforum.com.

By obsessing on the humiliation of U.S. President Barack Obama above all else, Frum wrote, the Republican strategy of "no negotiations, no compromise, nothing" consigned American conservatives to their "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." And the wound was entirely self-inflicted.



Frum's solution: Republican leaders now must show the courage of their convictions, abandon the frothing yet futureless extremes of the right and instead stake out sober, reasoned middle-ground where most Americans live.



On cue, many stateside conservatives went straight for the messenger, finding new ways to shred the former speech writer to George W. Bush. The cacophony of Frum-bashing appeared to reach a zenith on Thursday, when the conservative American Enterprise Institute confirmed it was terminating Frum's position as a resident scholar. Though AEI insists the dismissal was coincidental ? relating to money rather than politics ? it came with one especially stinging irony: Frum and family will lose their health-care benefits.

None of this is a laughing matter if you are David Frum. But when the Toronto Star caught up with him at his Washington home, Frum couldn't help but chuckle at some of the invective. Especially the attacks suggesting his greatest sin of all was to be Canadian.



"Calling someone a Canadian is not an insult that has a lot of bite in the United States," said Frum, who in fact added American citizenship to his repertoire in 2007.

What Frum wants to make abundantly clear at the outside is this: love it or hate it, he remains as conservative as ever. He opposed Obamacare. But unlike the Republican leadership, he saw it as inevitable. With control of both the House and Senate and a solid presidential mandate, Democrats were simply not going to miss the opportunity to "pass the one thing they wanted for half a century.

"If the Democrats failed on heath-care reform, it would be like an Olympic athlete inadvertently tying his shoelaces together and losing the race because he fell face forward into the dirt," Frum said.

"If they failed, the country would have turned on them, saying, `They can't govern.' Well, now they've governed. The country will decide if it likes it or not.

"That is the key mistake of the (Republican) obstructionists ? they failed to accept this reality. And now the bill is forever. This is a generational change, like Medicare in the 1960s. Once you achieve these things they are permanent," he told the Star.



The 49-year-old son of late, great CBC broadcaster Barbara Frum and Toronto developer Murray Frum, says he's still proud to bear the "Canadian" insult.

His sister, Linda, is now a senator in Ottawa, his eldest daughter attends University of Toronto and his summertime centre of gravity remains Ontario's Prince Edward County ? where he and his wife, journalist Danielle Crittenden, are "finally getting around to building our own house" after 20 years at the vacation retreat of his father-in-law, Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington.

Though he has spent much of his adult life stateside ? first Yale, then Harvard Law School, and later, opinion-shaping gigs at the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine before jumping to the White House to craft such phrases as "Axis of Evil" for George W. Bush ? Frum says his Canadian eyes help him see American conservatism more clearly.

"Canadian conservatives really have seen the bottom of the well ? they know what happens if you put your own partisan imperatives ahead of responsibility to governance. It led to the series of catastrophes between 1993 and the election of Stephen Harper and that sort of thing really can shape your thinking.



"Lessons are being taught in Canada ? and Britain, too ? that are not being learned in the United States. And that's why American conservatism seems to be heading deeper into trouble rather than emerging from it. Eventually they will take these lessons. Because people do learn."



In the meantime, Frum reckons the American right will be "trapped" by the firebrand fulminations of the conservative media until Republican leaders "exert leadership" and recognize that neither the Tea Party movement nor the audience of talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh represents enough votes to win re-election.



"There are 122 million eligible voters in presidential elections ? you need 50 to 60 million people to vote for you," said Frum. "That's a lot bigger than Rush, a lot bigger than the Tea Party. It is true that hundreds of thousands of Americans believe that free preventive care is socialism. But there are hundreds of millions who don't."



Watching Canada's health-care system get smacked around like a political pinata during the year-long U.S. debate left Frum with mixed feelings.

On one hand he views Canadian health care as "way too rigid, way too centralized."



But he also observes the Canadian system "works better than it has any reason to work" ? partly because of outstanding doctors who ignore opportunities to earn more money in the U.S., and partly because Canadians are "socially responsible patients" who don't use all the heath care they could.



"The Canadian system is like the bumblebee ? it shouldn't be able to fly when you look at the diagrams. But because everyone behaves better than the system invites them to behave, it works.

"But that's also a reason why it is not a model for export ? Americans might not behave that way," Frum says.




_________________________________________________________________
Take your contacts everywhere
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712959
marlon menezes
2010-03-29 16:40:08 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message ----
From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <colaco1 at gmail.com>

marlon menezes wrote:

[1] MD, do you use your auto insurance when you do an oil change or
routine work on you car?
[2]Likewise, why should insurance come into the picture for routine
medical care?
[3]The whole notion of using insurance for routine care is bogus.
[4]While there are some benefits (such as reducing costly emergency
care) the new system only propagates this concept of using the costly
insurance system for routine care for the entire population.

COMMENT:

From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <colaco1 at gmail.com>
Isn't the Auto insurance that Marlon refers to - an insurance in case
of a Collision?

Is an (say) oil change necessitated by a collision? If not, why is he
using that example to make a indefensible point?
---
My point is that why do we have to bring in the insurance system that entails costly over head/paper work/documentation/high fixed cost etc for routine health care? It is like using a costly Saturn V rocket to pick up groceries. In my opinion, routine care should be a low cost direct cash transaction between the doctor and the patient, with no involvement of the bureaucracy.


Would you rather prevent (say) Measles, Chicken Pox, Diphtheria,
Tetanus, Whooping cough than treat those conditions?

Would you rather identify the presence of early High Blood Pressure
than treat the complications?
---
I fully agree that prevention is better and more importantly, cheaper than the cure, to which I would add the corollary, that cheaper routine preventative care is better than expensive routine care. The costs of most of these routine care treatments are detections is quite low - unless one gets the insurance process involved, which then balloons the costs. This is true regardless whether it is paid for via the employee/employer or the government. The "reforms" are basically just passing the buck from the employee/employer to the government. While there will probably be cost savings from the reduction in costly emergency care, it will do nothing to reduce the costs of routine care. Furthermore, knowing how inefficiently governments work, routine care costs will probably increase.

Again, I am not really arguing about public/private insurance coverage. What I am stating is that there has to be a monetary threshold before the expensive insurance system kicks in. Having a high cost bureaucracy (public or private) to deal with what should be low cost routine care, makes everything expensive.

One way the insurance companies have tried to incorporate this concept is via a cumulative deductible. Jim gave an example of the $3000 deductible he has for his family. However, even here, the insurance process/bureaucracy is still involved (to a lesser degree perhaps) in tracking the deductible amounts, so the cost savings are not fully gained. The cost savings with this approach may be around 10-15%. On the other hand, if one were to skip the insurance bureaucracy for routine care, routine care costs could be even lower.

Marlon
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-28 00:20:28 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:?
> The US government just announced a program today on the foreclosure issue. Here we
> have the government rewarding bad behavior. I did not go into debt. I did not buy a home
> that was a ridiculous portion of my household income. Yet, people who went in over their
> heads and splurged during the boom years and who now have negative equity are getting
> a government sponsored bail out. Furthermore, this government intervention is artificially
> propping the real estate market by keeping prices higher than they would be, thus
> preventing others from entering the market.




Marlon,
A few points:
1)?Mortgage abuse?is what brought the US financial system to its knees and it is only now,
two years later, that the US govt is taking steps to address the situation or at least stop the?
cesspool from becoming larger.


2) Some US financial institutions targeted poor?people?with?loans that they could?ill afford
as the financial institutions, and their agents, were getting paid handsomely for all loans made.
People were?approved for loans they could not possibly re-pay. They?were also?unaware?
of the risks they were taking.?These people were told, time and again, that the price of their
real estate would go in only one direction. Up.


3) The current govt intervention into the housing market is not to help the home owner.
The intervention is to prevent another round of mortgage defaults which would send some
financial institutions into a tailspin, if not bankruptcy.?Some mortgage holders?now
realize that they have a mortgage that is larger than what their home is worth. It makes
more sense for some?to walk away from their mortgage rather than?make?exorbitant
payments to the financial institutions. If?people walk away from their mortgages, the prices
of real estate falls?further,?sending?the industry into another downward spiral.?


4)?I am totally with you when you suggest that the govt should not be interfering with the
mechanism of the real estate market. A one bed room house in Florida?is now selling for
$50,000 which is less than?the cost of a parking spot in down town Toronto. A two bedroom
house in Florida, where Canadians retirees spend their winter,?cost only?25% of what a similar
property costs in Toronto. In addition, there?are plenty of people in Florida?willing to rent
these?properties as those who have just walked away from their mortgage realize that they
can rent a house for half the amount they were paying for their mortgage.

A real eye opener is this recent?lead article from The Toronto Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/newsfeatures/article/779603--half-price-homes-canadians-pounce-on-the-sunbelt

??

> We seem to be lurching from one extreme in which the previous administration was quite
> clueless and impervious to one that may be a little too smart for its own good. The current
> government seems to think it has a solution for every thing.



George Bush (43) took a budget surplus and turned it into a horrendous deficit. The current
administration is not doing any better as it has taken?that deficit and turned that into a super
horrendous deficit.


?
The only way out, dare I say it, is to raise taxes.


Mervyn1106Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-27 12:22:40 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:

[1] MD, do you use your auto insurance when you do an oil change or
routine work on you car?
[2]Likewise, why should insurance come into the picture for routine
medical care?
[3]The whole notion of using insurance for routine care is bogus.
[4]While there are some benefits (such as reducing costly emergency
care) the new system only propagates this concept of using the costly
insurance system for routine care for the entire population.

COMMENT:

I am quite surprised by Marlon's post. I hope it was written when he
was 'called to the Bar'.

Isn't the Auto insurance that Marlon refers to - an insurance in case
of a Collision?

Is an (say) oil change necessitated by a collision? If not, why is he
using that example to make a indefensible point?

Does one not get a full service when one leases a car from a
dealership? Is that not 'billed' into the monthly premium one pays for
the lease?

Would you rather prevent (say) Measles, Chicken Pox, Diphtheria,
Tetanus, Whooping cough than treat those conditions?

Would you rather identify the presence of early High Blood Pressure
than treat the complications?

...other example upon request.

Some people only look at the 'bottom line'. They are called business chaps.

jc
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-28 00:20:28 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:?
> The US government just announced a program today on the foreclosure issue. Here we
> have the government rewarding bad behavior. I did not go into debt. I did not buy a home
> that was a ridiculous portion of my household income. Yet, people who went in over their
> heads and splurged during the boom years and who now have negative equity are getting
> a government sponsored bail out. Furthermore, this government intervention is artificially
> propping the real estate market by keeping prices higher than they would be, thus
> preventing others from entering the market.




Marlon,
A few points:
1)?Mortgage abuse?is what brought the US financial system to its knees and it is only now,
two years later, that the US govt is taking steps to address the situation or at least stop the?
cesspool from becoming larger.


2) Some US financial institutions targeted poor?people?with?loans that they could?ill afford
as the financial institutions, and their agents, were getting paid handsomely for all loans made.
People were?approved for loans they could not possibly re-pay. They?were also?unaware?
of the risks they were taking.?These people were told, time and again, that the price of their
real estate would go in only one direction. Up.


3) The current govt intervention into the housing market is not to help the home owner.
The intervention is to prevent another round of mortgage defaults which would send some
financial institutions into a tailspin, if not bankruptcy.?Some mortgage holders?now
realize that they have a mortgage that is larger than what their home is worth. It makes
more sense for some?to walk away from their mortgage rather than?make?exorbitant
payments to the financial institutions. If?people walk away from their mortgages, the prices
of real estate falls?further,?sending?the industry into another downward spiral.?


4)?I am totally with you when you suggest that the govt should not be interfering with the
mechanism of the real estate market. A one bed room house in Florida?is now selling for
$50,000 which is less than?the cost of a parking spot in down town Toronto. A two bedroom
house in Florida, where Canadians retirees spend their winter,?cost only?25% of what a similar
property costs in Toronto. In addition, there?are plenty of people in Florida?willing to rent
these?properties as those who have just walked away from their mortgage realize that they
can rent a house for half the amount they were paying for their mortgage.

A real eye opener is this recent?lead article from The Toronto Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/newsfeatures/article/779603--half-price-homes-canadians-pounce-on-the-sunbelt

??

> We seem to be lurching from one extreme in which the previous administration was quite
> clueless and impervious to one that may be a little too smart for its own good. The current
> government seems to think it has a solution for every thing.



George Bush (43) took a budget surplus and turned it into a horrendous deficit. The current
administration is not doing any better as it has taken?that deficit and turned that into a super
horrendous deficit.


?
The only way out, dare I say it, is to raise taxes.


Mervyn1106Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
marlon menezes
2010-03-27 04:14:51 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message ----
From: MD <mmdmello at gmail.com>
Insurance companies will cover everyone when everyone
subscribes. IRS
will be involved to make sure every one complies.
Auto insurance is
compulsory to cover personal injury/third party
injury/property damage
claims and that is accepted, so is health
coverage less important than
auto insurance?.

Next issue will
be 'foreclosures'

Without prejudice.
MD.
-----
MD, do you use your auto insurance when you do an oil change or routine work on you car? Likewise, why should insurance come into the picture for routine medical care? The whole notion of using insurance for routine care is bogus. While there are some benefits (such as reducing costly emergency care) the new system only propagates this concept of using the costly insurance system for routine care for the entire population.

The US government just announced a program today on the foreclosure issue. Here we have the government rewarding bad behavior. I did not go into debt. I did not buy a home that was a ridiculous portion of my household income. Yet, people who went in over their heads and splurged during the boom years and who now have negative equity are getting a government sponsored bail out. Furthermore, this government intervention is artificially propping the real estate market by keeping prices higher than they would be, thus preventing others from entering the market.

We seem to be lurching from one extreme in which the previous administration was quite clueless and impervious to one that may be a little too smart for its own good. The current government seems to think it has a solution for every thing.

Marlon Menezes
Austin, Tx.
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-27 11:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Response to Viviana (part 2)

You did not think you would get off so easily?? I have a lot of mog to share! :=))

VMC: I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.?

GL: This statement is most confusing. Who and how will this "free healthcare" be paid for?
Providing care is not caring for an individual when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved in Preventive and Maintenance care.? And there has to be a system of someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the absence of Preventive and Maintenance care that results in expensive care at a more advanced stage of the disease.? This is the one of the main problems with the current healthcare system, specially in a society which has less and less social support at home to ensure the individual is prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the doctor's advice.??

VMC:?I think you mean that providing care is not MERELY caring for an individual when they (sic) are sick.? The rest of this para has nothing to do with healthcare or its accessibility and everything to do with the behavior of individual patients.? How is forcing someone to buy health insurance going to remedy that?? It's a?problem which health insurance cannot solve, it's a problem of individual responsibility.?

GL responds: Not having insurance is often the crux of the healthcare conundrum. These patients do not go to doctors for preventive and maintenance care, because of out-of-pocket costs. For non-emergency care, they go to the hospital's emergency room. This is expensive.? Then when in doubt, these ER patients are admitted. Upon discharge there is no one to supervise, follow-up?and provide these patients any continuity of care.

Having all into the system permits the system to be efficient. There is no cost-shifting of the financial burden, and no?finger-pointing?by various stake-holders in?the healthcare system.

IMO there?needs to be?Rewards and Disincentives to all stake-holders. Currently USA spends 17.3% of its GDP on healthcare (which is 30% more that its next western economic competitor) and on the international scale ranks just above Cuba.??

You may or may not be delighted to know that I am not a strong proponent of 'Single Payer'.

Regards ani mog, GL
Jim Fernandes
2010-03-27 15:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Folks,

It is no secret that one of the main platforms that candidate Obama ran for the White House, was to bring about, reform to the health care system in the United States. If you watched any of his video clips during his campaign, you would notice that health care was mentioned 100% of the time in his speeches. Universal access to health care, is not something that Obama recently happened to add to his agenda - it was in his election manifesto right from get go.

So when he won the elections in the fall of 2008, Obama's supporters knew he would deliver on his campaign promises. So what are you cry babies crying about? Mind you, it wasn't just another simple win - Obama and his party won the elections by a landslide!

When I hear the sore looser Republicans screaming foul, I don't pay too much attention to that. If you haven't earned the political capital to oppose Obama's health plan, your voice does not count. If you didn't want health care, you should have voted John McCain to power. Its as simple as that.

Incidentally, McCain and his pretty chick are still campaigning for elections. Could someone please tell them that the elections were over, way back in 2008 !!! I kid you not, I watched the jokers singing together, their usual looser Republican songs last night on TV. Quite entertaining, them loosers.

Jokes aside, let me tell you why I support the health plan. Back in 2001, when I first purchased independent insurance coverage for myself and my family, it cost me a little over $8,000 a year. Year after year, I helplessly watched my insurance premiums go up, at unsustainable rates.

A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar benefits as the plan I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000 a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay another $3,000 deductible, before the insurance punks begin to pay out, incase of a medical problem). How do you justify such a price hike over such a short duration? At this rate, there is no way, my income can keep pace with such a massive hike.

Only if everybody in the system begin to buy into the insurance plans, can the overall cost go down. Ofcourse, there is a lot of unwanted crap in the system and it needs to be flushed out. What Obama has done, is that, he has taken a first major step towards covering the entire US population. As time goes by, like everything else, the plan could be tweaked and improved upon.

In the meantime, the woman named Viviana who famously wrote on GoaNet about her nephew getting free care in the US, needs to understand that HER NEWPHEW OWES ME MONEY. Its people like me, who finance that "free" care, by way of higher premiums, year after year.

Jim F
New York
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-27 23:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Jim Fernandes wrote:?
> A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar benefits as the plan
> I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000 a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay
> another $3,000 deductible, before the insurance punks begin to pay out, incase of a medical
> problem).



Jim F,
Is this some kind of April Fools joke?
Mervyn1106Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-28 10:38:55 UTC
Permalink
[1] Jim Fernandes wrote:

A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar
benefits as the plan I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000
a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay another $3,000 deductible,
before the insurance punks begin to pay out, in case of a medical
problem).

[2] Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:

Jim F, Is this some kind of April Fools joke?


RESPONSE:

Dear Mervyn,

Where is the joke in what Jim has written?

The only part Jim has inadvertently (perhaps) missed out is the following:

After the $3000 deductible is met, the insurance companies (depending
upon the network policies) will cover 60-80% of what they term as
reasonable charges.

A particular health insurance company's version of 'what is
reasonable' has zip to do with what has been agreed as reasonable by
the AMA.

And -never mind what Viviana writes- (and I believe both Marlon and
Jim have alluded to this) There is NO such thing as "free" health
care. Somebody (else) is paying for the free-ER care which is mandated
by law.

jc
Jim Fernandes
2010-03-28 16:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn,

I am serious about the cost of insurance here in the US, my man. The cost is ridiculously high and out of line! The plan I got, is sold by Oxford (Freedom Plan). You can probably go online and request for a quote yourself. If you still don't believe me, I'll show you my cancelled checks, if we happened to meet down the line ... and beer is on me.

Don't get me wrong ... one could get cheaper plans. I could get one for about $10,000 - if you call that cheap, but none of our existing doctors - whether my kids pediatricians or the primay care physicians would accept the cheaper plan. I asked the pediatrician why would he not accept it and the answer he gave me was that, the insurance punks would pay him hardly any money on the cheaper plan. So he told the cheapo insurance guys to take a hike.

I am sure Dr J Colaco and the other physicians on GoaNet are fully aware of what's happening with the healthcare cost in the US. Its high time that everybody share the cost of healthcare - the individuals who can afford it and the corporations who want healthy workers.

Jim F
New York.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <colaco1 at gmail.com>
>
> [1] Jim Fernandes wrote:
>
> A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar
> benefits as the plan I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000
> a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay another $3,000 deductible,
> before the insurance punks begin to pay out, in case of a medical
> problem).
>
> [2] Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Jim F, Is this some kind of April Fools joke?
>
>
> RESPONSE:
>
> Dear Mervyn,
>
> Where is the joke in what Jim has written?
>
> The only part Jim has inadvertently (perhaps) missed out is the following:
>
> After the $3000 deductible is met, the insurance companies (depending
> upon the network policies) will cover 60-80% of what they term as
> reasonable charges.
>
> A particular health insurance company's version of 'what is
> reasonable' has zip to do with what has been agreed as reasonable by
> the AMA.
>
> And -never mind what Viviana writes- (and I believe both Marlon and
> Jim have alluded to this) There is NO such thing as "free" health
> care. Somebody (else) is paying for the free-ER care which is mandated
> by law.
>
> jc
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-28 22:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Jim Fernandes wrote:
> I am serious about the cost of insurance here in the US, my man. The cost is
> ridiculously high and out of line!



Jim F,
I am astounded by the price you have to pay for health insurance for your family!
This is an extremely heavy burden.


You may be aware that?the provinces here in Canada guarantee the health care of
their?residents. This weekend, as I was gathering the documents for my tax returns,
I found a letter from my family doctor informing me that from now on he would be
charging $60.00 for a missed annual check-up. The comprehensive check up is
free but missing it is now going to cost me money.


I guess the govt is serious about cutting costs. They know that the cost of treating
any?medical condition?is drastically lower when the disease is identified?early.



> Don't get me wrong ... one could get cheaper plans. I could get one for about $10,000
> - if you call that cheap, but none of our existing doctors - whether my kids pediatricians
> or the primay care physicians would accept the cheaper plan. I asked the pediatrician
> why would he not accept it and the answer he gave me was that, the insurance punks
> would pay him hardly any money on the cheaper plan. So he told the cheapo insurance
> guys to take a hike.



The time I?really get?annoyed is when I read about people with insurance who wind up
with horrendous bills when their health insurer refuses to pay. I guess you have seen?plenty
such?stories on 60 minutes about people who had to sue?before their insurance company?
paid?for their treatment.?This is a uniquely American problem, driven by the need for
profits, I guess.



> I am sure Dr J Colaco and the other physicians on GoaNet are fully aware of what's
> happening with the healthcare cost in the US. Its high time that everybody share the
> cost of healthcare - the individuals who can afford it and the corporations who want
> healthy workers.



A few days ago,?I was reading about?this car manufacturer who decided to locate its factory
in Canada, rather than in the USA,?because the local govt?would bear the cost of health?
expenses. They would be saving $600 on the costs?of each?car by locating in Canada.


Once again, I must congratulate President Obama and?the democrats for the super work
done on this new health plan. However, without universal health care,?US residents?are?
nowhere close to receiving the health care that the residents of all other western
democracies enjoy.


Mervyn1110Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/gift/
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-29 11:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:

Jim F, I am astounded by the price you have to pay for health
insurance for your family! This is an extremely heavy burden.

You may be aware that the provinces here in Canada guarantee the
health care of their residents.

I found a letter from my family doctor informing me that from now on
he would be charging $60.00 for a missed annual check-up. The
comprehensive check up is free but missing it is now going to cost me
money.


COMMENT:

1: That having been noted, would you say that the level of taxation in
Canada is significantly higher than that in the USA.

2: In Scandinavian countries, the level of taxation is much higher -
but the citizens of those countries are said to be happier because
their health, education and retirement are well looked after. (Chacha
Alfred0 may wish to confirm).

3: The problem with many countries is that (a) increased bureaucracy =
a waste of money (b) the ones who are trained to make decisions i.e.
the health care professionals, are not the ones who always make the
decisions. (c) politicians and the lobbywallas waste money on
unprovoked guerras. (Mario may deny the premise of this statement -
and so be it)

4: I am surprised that in Canada, one can be fined for missing an
annual check up. Is this true in the country of 'Malette v Shulman'?
Does this mean that an individual is forced to provide consent to a
doctor for an annual physical exam (or risk a fine)? Where will the
'socialist system' stop when it comes to patients' rights? Can they
force you to have a termination of pregnancy or a tubal ligation /
vasectomy because you have (say) 5 children? (I know that the 5
children family would be welcome ....but this is just an example)

jc
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-29 12:12:23 UTC
Permalink
On 29 March 2010 12:54, J. Colaco < jc> <colaco1 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> COMMENT:
>
> 1: That having been noted, would you say that the level of taxation in
> Canada is significantly higher than that in the USA.
>
> 2: In Scandinavian countries, the level of taxation is much higher -
> but the citizens of those countries are said to be happier because
> their health, education and retirement are well looked after. (Chacha
> Alfred0 may wish to confirm).
>
> 3: The problem with many countries is that (a) increased bureaucracy =
> a waste of money (b) the ones who are trained to make decisions i.e.
> the health care professionals, are not the ones who always make the
> decisions. (c) politicians and the lobbywallas waste money on
> unprovoked guerras. (Mario may deny the premise of this statement -
> and so be it)
>
> 4: I am surprised that in Canada, one can be fined for missing an
> annual check up. Is this true in the country of 'Malette v Shulman'?
> Does this mean that an individual is forced to provide consent to a
> doctor for an annual physical exam (or risk a fine)? Where will the
> 'socialist system' stop when it comes to patients' rights? Can they
> force you to have a termination of pregnancy or a tubal ligation /
> vasectomy because you have (say) 5 children? (I know that the 5
> children family would be welcome ....but this is just an example)
>
> jc
>
RESPONSE: Missed Doctor's appointments cost the NHS a bundle here; so some
Surgeries charge ?20 for missed appointments.

Viviana, it seems is out on a limb, suffering from gun shy syndrome; Goveia,
whom she could rely on in the past, has gone with the wind. Come back Mario,
all is forgiven.

What about the free radios given in India to perform sterilisation? That
episode cost Indira a bit and some more...

On the cost being paid by Jim - it depends on how many people are covered
and the ages therein. He has got children being dealt by paeditricians, as
well as one who escaped the World Trade Centre inferno! Any aged parents to
boot?


--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
Jim Fernandes
2010-03-30 06:15:43 UTC
Permalink
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Gabe Menezes <gabe.menezes at gmail.com>
....
....
>
> On the cost being paid by Jim - it depends on how many people are covered
> and the ages therein. He has got children being dealt by paeditricians, as
> well as one who escaped the World Trade Centre inferno! Any aged parents to
> boot?
>
>
> Gabe Menezes.


Hello Gabe,

I don't want to make my age public (unless you want to find that on your own), but I can state that I wasn't yet born, when the last major social benefits overhaul took place in the US. That overhaul took place when Medicare legislation was signed back in 1965. My young family and I, have zero medical issues - other than usual children's shots and annual physicals. In the US, it does not matter whether you have one child or 10 children, the cost of insurance for all kids is the same - meaning, someone like myself who has two kids pays the same as someone who has 10 kids. I could live without insurance and pocket the money, but that would mean, I'd become another of those nephews that Ms Viviana Coelho was talking about :( .

The insurance cost that I stated previously, is a TYPICAL insurance cost for a family of four in the US. New York being a little more expensive, might have a small markup to cover the extra cost of living. Single persons pay the least for their coverage. If folks on GoaNet aren't accustomed to the kind of costs I am talking about, its because they are either single, have no kids whatsoever under their plan, or their employers absorb most of the cost. Alternatively, they may not be purchasing any coverage - I know many Goans who don't and are relying on a government bailout to pick up the tab, incase of a catastrophic event. Its a good thing that Mr Obama rounded up all these bums under his plan and would now be forced to comply or risk getting a visit from the tax man (IRS).

In the US, the older parents cannot be included in the medical coverage of their working children. That group is either covered under AARP, Medicare, employers (if they still have a job that provides medical benefits), self funded or a combination of these entities. In a worst case scenario, their cost is absorbed by Medicaid - which is another government funded program for the really poor. I am not 100% certain, but I believe, if you are a senior citizen, the insurance costs are probably subsidized through plans available through AARP or Medicare.

I strongly believe everyone should pay their fair share for medical coverage - just like how we pay our taxes and just like how we purchase auto insurance. We should also curb the abuses by the insurance carriers - and chop their appetite for getting ultra rich on the backs of hard working families.

This is what Obama care is all about.

Jim F
New York.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-30 12:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Jim Fernandes <amigo007 at att.net> wrote:

[1] I could live without insurance and pocket the money, but that
would mean, I'd become another of those nephews that Ms Viviana Coelho
was talking about :( .
[2] The insurance cost that I stated previously, is a TYPICAL
insurance cost for a family of four in the US. New York being a little
more expensive, might have a small markup to cover the extra cost of
living.
[3] I strongly believe everyone should pay their fair share for
medical coverage - just like how we pay our taxes and just like how we
purchase auto insurance.
[4] We should also curb the abuses by the insurance carriers - and
chop their appetite for getting ultra rich on the backs of hard
working families.


COMMENT:

I re-posted the above to emphasise the points made (very correctly) by Jim.

Both Viviana and Vivian are probably unaware.

I agree with much of what Marlon has written on the subject - in his
latest post. Part of the problem is that "Insurers' are actually
brokers who re and re and re-insure with Mega Insurers like (say)
Lloyds. It is a risk-spreading and money-creaming exercise.

If anything happens e.g. Hurricane, Earthquake ....All costs go up.
Every event is used by the 'greedy' (and the agents) to rake in some
more profits. These are the chaps that the Pubbies support.

On the Dem side is the huge bureaucracy, unions, trial lawyers who
also milk the system.

In the middle are the health-care professionals and patients.

Just in case there is a notion that only large families with many
medical problems have High Insurance premiums, here is an exchange
between a client (party of 2) who has never claimed (and hopes he
never has to) and the insurance representative:


Q: In a previous correspondence, I had asked about No Claim reductions
in premiums. You promised to check. Grateful for update

A: I'm afraid that we do not give any reductions on renewal premiums
--sorry for any delay of the answer to your question.


good wishes

jc
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-30 12:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Jim Fernandes <amigo007 at att.net> wrote:

[1] I could live without insurance and pocket the money, but that
would mean, I'd become another of those nephews that Ms Viviana Coelho
was talking about :( .
[2] The insurance cost that I stated previously, is a TYPICAL
insurance cost for a family of four in the US. New York being a little
more expensive, might have a small markup to cover the extra cost of
living.
[3] I strongly believe everyone should pay their fair share for
medical coverage - just like how we pay our taxes and just like how we
purchase auto insurance.
[4] We should also curb the abuses by the insurance carriers - and
chop their appetite for getting ultra rich on the backs of hard
working families.


COMMENT:

I re-posted the above to emphasise the points made (very correctly) by Jim.

Both Viviana and Vivian are probably unaware.

I agree with much of what Marlon has written on the subject - in his
latest post. Part of the problem is that "Insurers' are actually
brokers who re and re and re-insure with Mega Insurers like (say)
Lloyds. It is a risk-spreading and money-creaming exercise.

If anything happens e.g. Hurricane, Earthquake ....All costs go up.
Every event is used by the 'greedy' (and the agents) to rake in some
more profits. These are the chaps that the Pubbies support.

On the Dem side is the huge bureaucracy, unions, trial lawyers who
also milk the system.

In the middle are the health-care professionals and patients.

Just in case there is a notion that only large families with many
medical problems have High Insurance premiums, here is an exchange
between a client (party of 2) who has never claimed (and hopes he
never has to) and the insurance representative:


Q: In a previous correspondence, I had asked about No Claim reductions
in premiums. You promised to check. Grateful for update

A: I'm afraid that we do not give any reductions on renewal premiums
--sorry for any delay of the answer to your question.


good wishes

jc
Jim Fernandes
2010-03-30 06:15:43 UTC
Permalink
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Gabe Menezes <gabe.menezes at gmail.com>
....
....
>
> On the cost being paid by Jim - it depends on how many people are covered
> and the ages therein. He has got children being dealt by paeditricians, as
> well as one who escaped the World Trade Centre inferno! Any aged parents to
> boot?
>
>
> Gabe Menezes.


Hello Gabe,

I don't want to make my age public (unless you want to find that on your own), but I can state that I wasn't yet born, when the last major social benefits overhaul took place in the US. That overhaul took place when Medicare legislation was signed back in 1965. My young family and I, have zero medical issues - other than usual children's shots and annual physicals. In the US, it does not matter whether you have one child or 10 children, the cost of insurance for all kids is the same - meaning, someone like myself who has two kids pays the same as someone who has 10 kids. I could live without insurance and pocket the money, but that would mean, I'd become another of those nephews that Ms Viviana Coelho was talking about :( .

The insurance cost that I stated previously, is a TYPICAL insurance cost for a family of four in the US. New York being a little more expensive, might have a small markup to cover the extra cost of living. Single persons pay the least for their coverage. If folks on GoaNet aren't accustomed to the kind of costs I am talking about, its because they are either single, have no kids whatsoever under their plan, or their employers absorb most of the cost. Alternatively, they may not be purchasing any coverage - I know many Goans who don't and are relying on a government bailout to pick up the tab, incase of a catastrophic event. Its a good thing that Mr Obama rounded up all these bums under his plan and would now be forced to comply or risk getting a visit from the tax man (IRS).

In the US, the older parents cannot be included in the medical coverage of their working children. That group is either covered under AARP, Medicare, employers (if they still have a job that provides medical benefits), self funded or a combination of these entities. In a worst case scenario, their cost is absorbed by Medicaid - which is another government funded program for the really poor. I am not 100% certain, but I believe, if you are a senior citizen, the insurance costs are probably subsidized through plans available through AARP or Medicare.

I strongly believe everyone should pay their fair share for medical coverage - just like how we pay our taxes and just like how we purchase auto insurance. We should also curb the abuses by the insurance carriers - and chop their appetite for getting ultra rich on the backs of hard working families.

This is what Obama care is all about.

Jim F
New York.
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-29 12:12:23 UTC
Permalink
On 29 March 2010 12:54, J. Colaco < jc> <colaco1 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> COMMENT:
>
> 1: That having been noted, would you say that the level of taxation in
> Canada is significantly higher than that in the USA.
>
> 2: In Scandinavian countries, the level of taxation is much higher -
> but the citizens of those countries are said to be happier because
> their health, education and retirement are well looked after. (Chacha
> Alfred0 may wish to confirm).
>
> 3: The problem with many countries is that (a) increased bureaucracy =
> a waste of money (b) the ones who are trained to make decisions i.e.
> the health care professionals, are not the ones who always make the
> decisions. (c) politicians and the lobbywallas waste money on
> unprovoked guerras. (Mario may deny the premise of this statement -
> and so be it)
>
> 4: I am surprised that in Canada, one can be fined for missing an
> annual check up. Is this true in the country of 'Malette v Shulman'?
> Does this mean that an individual is forced to provide consent to a
> doctor for an annual physical exam (or risk a fine)? Where will the
> 'socialist system' stop when it comes to patients' rights? Can they
> force you to have a termination of pregnancy or a tubal ligation /
> vasectomy because you have (say) 5 children? (I know that the 5
> children family would be welcome ....but this is just an example)
>
> jc
>
RESPONSE: Missed Doctor's appointments cost the NHS a bundle here; so some
Surgeries charge ?20 for missed appointments.

Viviana, it seems is out on a limb, suffering from gun shy syndrome; Goveia,
whom she could rely on in the past, has gone with the wind. Come back Mario,
all is forgiven.

What about the free radios given in India to perform sterilisation? That
episode cost Indira a bit and some more...

On the cost being paid by Jim - it depends on how many people are covered
and the ages therein. He has got children being dealt by paeditricians, as
well as one who escaped the World Trade Centre inferno! Any aged parents to
boot?


--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-29 11:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:

Jim F, I am astounded by the price you have to pay for health
insurance for your family! This is an extremely heavy burden.

You may be aware that the provinces here in Canada guarantee the
health care of their residents.

I found a letter from my family doctor informing me that from now on
he would be charging $60.00 for a missed annual check-up. The
comprehensive check up is free but missing it is now going to cost me
money.


COMMENT:

1: That having been noted, would you say that the level of taxation in
Canada is significantly higher than that in the USA.

2: In Scandinavian countries, the level of taxation is much higher -
but the citizens of those countries are said to be happier because
their health, education and retirement are well looked after. (Chacha
Alfred0 may wish to confirm).

3: The problem with many countries is that (a) increased bureaucracy =
a waste of money (b) the ones who are trained to make decisions i.e.
the health care professionals, are not the ones who always make the
decisions. (c) politicians and the lobbywallas waste money on
unprovoked guerras. (Mario may deny the premise of this statement -
and so be it)

4: I am surprised that in Canada, one can be fined for missing an
annual check up. Is this true in the country of 'Malette v Shulman'?
Does this mean that an individual is forced to provide consent to a
doctor for an annual physical exam (or risk a fine)? Where will the
'socialist system' stop when it comes to patients' rights? Can they
force you to have a termination of pregnancy or a tubal ligation /
vasectomy because you have (say) 5 children? (I know that the 5
children family would be welcome ....but this is just an example)

jc
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-28 22:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Jim Fernandes wrote:
> I am serious about the cost of insurance here in the US, my man. The cost is
> ridiculously high and out of line!



Jim F,
I am astounded by the price you have to pay for health insurance for your family!
This is an extremely heavy burden.


You may be aware that?the provinces here in Canada guarantee the health care of
their?residents. This weekend, as I was gathering the documents for my tax returns,
I found a letter from my family doctor informing me that from now on he would be
charging $60.00 for a missed annual check-up. The comprehensive check up is
free but missing it is now going to cost me money.


I guess the govt is serious about cutting costs. They know that the cost of treating
any?medical condition?is drastically lower when the disease is identified?early.



> Don't get me wrong ... one could get cheaper plans. I could get one for about $10,000
> - if you call that cheap, but none of our existing doctors - whether my kids pediatricians
> or the primay care physicians would accept the cheaper plan. I asked the pediatrician
> why would he not accept it and the answer he gave me was that, the insurance punks
> would pay him hardly any money on the cheaper plan. So he told the cheapo insurance
> guys to take a hike.



The time I?really get?annoyed is when I read about people with insurance who wind up
with horrendous bills when their health insurer refuses to pay. I guess you have seen?plenty
such?stories on 60 minutes about people who had to sue?before their insurance company?
paid?for their treatment.?This is a uniquely American problem, driven by the need for
profits, I guess.



> I am sure Dr J Colaco and the other physicians on GoaNet are fully aware of what's
> happening with the healthcare cost in the US. Its high time that everybody share the
> cost of healthcare - the individuals who can afford it and the corporations who want
> healthy workers.



A few days ago,?I was reading about?this car manufacturer who decided to locate its factory
in Canada, rather than in the USA,?because the local govt?would bear the cost of health?
expenses. They would be saving $600 on the costs?of each?car by locating in Canada.


Once again, I must congratulate President Obama and?the democrats for the super work
done on this new health plan. However, without universal health care,?US residents?are?
nowhere close to receiving the health care that the residents of all other western
democracies enjoy.


Mervyn1110Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Jim Fernandes
2010-03-28 16:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Mervyn,

I am serious about the cost of insurance here in the US, my man. The cost is ridiculously high and out of line! The plan I got, is sold by Oxford (Freedom Plan). You can probably go online and request for a quote yourself. If you still don't believe me, I'll show you my cancelled checks, if we happened to meet down the line ... and beer is on me.

Don't get me wrong ... one could get cheaper plans. I could get one for about $10,000 - if you call that cheap, but none of our existing doctors - whether my kids pediatricians or the primay care physicians would accept the cheaper plan. I asked the pediatrician why would he not accept it and the answer he gave me was that, the insurance punks would pay him hardly any money on the cheaper plan. So he told the cheapo insurance guys to take a hike.

I am sure Dr J Colaco and the other physicians on GoaNet are fully aware of what's happening with the healthcare cost in the US. Its high time that everybody share the cost of healthcare - the individuals who can afford it and the corporations who want healthy workers.

Jim F
New York.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <colaco1 at gmail.com>
>
> [1] Jim Fernandes wrote:
>
> A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar
> benefits as the plan I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000
> a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay another $3,000 deductible,
> before the insurance punks begin to pay out, in case of a medical
> problem).
>
> [2] Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Jim F, Is this some kind of April Fools joke?
>
>
> RESPONSE:
>
> Dear Mervyn,
>
> Where is the joke in what Jim has written?
>
> The only part Jim has inadvertently (perhaps) missed out is the following:
>
> After the $3000 deductible is met, the insurance companies (depending
> upon the network policies) will cover 60-80% of what they term as
> reasonable charges.
>
> A particular health insurance company's version of 'what is
> reasonable' has zip to do with what has been agreed as reasonable by
> the AMA.
>
> And -never mind what Viviana writes- (and I believe both Marlon and
> Jim have alluded to this) There is NO such thing as "free" health
> care. Somebody (else) is paying for the free-ER care which is mandated
> by law.
>
> jc
colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )
2010-03-28 10:38:55 UTC
Permalink
[1] Jim Fernandes wrote:

A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar
benefits as the plan I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000
a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay another $3,000 deductible,
before the insurance punks begin to pay out, in case of a medical
problem).

[2] Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:

Jim F, Is this some kind of April Fools joke?


RESPONSE:

Dear Mervyn,

Where is the joke in what Jim has written?

The only part Jim has inadvertently (perhaps) missed out is the following:

After the $3000 deductible is met, the insurance companies (depending
upon the network policies) will cover 60-80% of what they term as
reasonable charges.

A particular health insurance company's version of 'what is
reasonable' has zip to do with what has been agreed as reasonable by
the AMA.

And -never mind what Viviana writes- (and I believe both Marlon and
Jim have alluded to this) There is NO such thing as "free" health
care. Somebody (else) is paying for the free-ER care which is mandated
by law.

jc
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-27 23:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Jim Fernandes wrote:?
> A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar benefits as the plan
> I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000 a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay
> another $3,000 deductible, before the insurance punks begin to pay out, incase of a medical
> problem).



Jim F,
Is this some kind of April Fools joke?
Mervyn1106Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
Venantius J Pinto
2010-03-29 05:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mervyn,
Seriously---did you really not know the cost of insurance in the U.S., and
the basic permutations of what one gets in the US for what one puts out in
the US? Perhaps you were attempting to draw a composite picture, and
hopefully did not really find what you Jim said---too funny. Its not funny
and not a joke bro. Its very real. People we know are in trouble in various
ways.

I have a faint feeling that if all this info has just come to your notice,
then you must be relieved that the cards life dealt you placed your being in
Canada, or perhaps for good reason you made a decision not to come to the
U.S.

Jim F and Dr. J Colaco to his superb credit as a doctor---both put it well.

venantius j pinto


> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:28:54 +0000
> From: "Jim Fernandes" <amigo007 at att.net>
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Thank you Mr Obama
>
> Mervyn,
>
> I am serious about the cost of insurance here in the US, my man. The cost
> is ridiculously high and out of line! The plan I got, is sold by Oxford
> (Freedom Plan). You can probably go online and request for a quote yourself.
> If you still don't believe me, I'll show you my cancelled checks, if we
> happened to meet down the line ... and beer is on me.
>
> DEL
>
> Jim F
> New York.
>
> > [2] Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Jim F, Is this some kind of April Fools joke?
> >
> >
> > RESPONSE:
> >
> > Dear Mervyn,
> >
> > Where is the joke in what Jim has written?
> >
> > The only part Jim has inadvertently (perhaps) missed out is the
> following:
> >
> > After the $3000 deductible is met, the insurance companies (depending
> > upon the network policies) will cover 60-80% of what they term as
> > reasonable charges.
> >(DEL)
> >
> > jc
>
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-29 09:00:44 UTC
Permalink
On 29 March 2010 06:38, Venantius J Pinto <venantius.pinto at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Mervyn,
> Seriously---did you really not know the cost of insurance in the U.S., and
> the basic permutations of what one gets in the US for what one puts out in
> the US? Perhaps you were attempting to draw a composite picture, and
> hopefully did not really find what you Jim said---too funny. Its not funny
> and not a joke bro. Its very real. People we know are in trouble in various
> ways.
>
> I have a faint feeling that if all this info has just come to your notice,
> then you must be relieved that the cards life dealt you placed your being
> in
> Canada, or perhaps for good reason you made a decision not to come to the
> U.S.
>
> Jim F and Dr. J Colaco to his superb credit as a doctor---both put it well.
>
> venantius j pinto
>
> COMMENT: I was fortunate that my employer (Bank of NewYork Mellon) had us
covered with Travellers Insurance co. We did however have to pay an excess
on each claim that we made. Another thing, we had a percentage sum deducted
each month, from our salary, for a charity, which was a pet of the Chairman!
The United Way Charity - one could opt out - none would dare though.

--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
Gabe Menezes
2010-03-29 09:00:44 UTC
Permalink
On 29 March 2010 06:38, Venantius J Pinto <venantius.pinto at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Mervyn,
> Seriously---did you really not know the cost of insurance in the U.S., and
> the basic permutations of what one gets in the US for what one puts out in
> the US? Perhaps you were attempting to draw a composite picture, and
> hopefully did not really find what you Jim said---too funny. Its not funny
> and not a joke bro. Its very real. People we know are in trouble in various
> ways.
>
> I have a faint feeling that if all this info has just come to your notice,
> then you must be relieved that the cards life dealt you placed your being
> in
> Canada, or perhaps for good reason you made a decision not to come to the
> U.S.
>
> Jim F and Dr. J Colaco to his superb credit as a doctor---both put it well.
>
> venantius j pinto
>
> COMMENT: I was fortunate that my employer (Bank of NewYork Mellon) had us
covered with Travellers Insurance co. We did however have to pay an excess
on each claim that we made. Another thing, we had a percentage sum deducted
each month, from our salary, for a charity, which was a pet of the Chairman!
The United Way Charity - one could opt out - none would dare though.

--
DEV BOREM KORUM

Gabe Menezes.
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-29 20:40:33 UTC
Permalink
------------- Jim Fernandes

I am sure Dr J Colaco and the other physicians on GoaNet are fully aware of what's happening with the healthcare cost in the US. Its high time that everybody share the cost of healthcare.

------------ GL responds;

Like all insurance, the costs are distributed.? As in education, the poor and middle class has palmed off their?healthcare duties to the SYSTEM.? The middle class would rather pay the SYSTEM than care for / address / solve many issues themselves.? All this contributes to WASTE.

Between not being covered and having a high deductible and co-pays if covered, the middle class are very vulnerable.? Yet like in many situations, we are our own worst enemies.? What we all need to do is SAVE the cost of healthcare?NOT?SHARE its cost.? Here are some suggestions:

1. Preventive Care - Stop smoking. Exercise and Prevent obesity and other illness with proper diet and life style.? Regular check-ups

2.?Care for elderly parents, uncles and?aunts?saving hospital and nursing home costs. End-of-life care, (last few months), account for 30% to 40% of all healthcare costs.

3. Help relatives cope with their chronic illness which accounts for 75% of medical costs and is responsible for 70% of deaths.

4.?Prevent relatives, neighbors and friends?making hospitals' ER the first line of care?- a very expensive way to access healthcare.

5. Doctors and Hospitals have to end the 40% of over-treatment, under-treatment and in-appropriate treatment .... without further?excuses of why it occurs.

We have to stop blaming the govt. and take-over at the grass-roots by doing the right thing, even if it is inconvenient.

Regards, GL
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-31 00:45:21 UTC
Permalink
J. Colaco? wrote:
> 1: That having been noted, would you say that the level of taxation in
> Canada is significantly higher than that in the USA.



jc,
Every year, I file a tax return in both Canada and the US.
Every year, regardless of my income, I get a refund of a few dollars from
the US tax authority. In other words, the US tax rates are marginally
lower than that of Canada.



> 4: I am surprised that in Canada, one can be fined for missing an
> annual check up. Is this true in the country of 'Malette v Shulman'?
> Does this mean that an individual is forced to provide consent to a
> doctor for an annual physical exam (or risk a fine)?


To make this clear, the doctor is allowed to charge his patient
for missing the annual exam. The reasoning is that doctor was deprived of
his income and?thus s/he is?now allowed to charge the patient?in lieu of
the fee?the doctor?would have got from the govt. If the patient does not
want to pay, the patient is free to change doctors.

?
?
venantius j pinto wrote:
> Seriously---did you really not know the cost of insurance in the U.S., and
> the basic permutations of what one gets in the US for what one puts out in
> the US? Perhaps you were attempting to draw a composite picture, and
> hopefully did not really find what you Jim said---too funny. Its not funny
> and not a joke bro. Its very real. People we know are in trouble in various
> ways.

?
?
v,
When I was working in the US, 20 years ago, my health insurance premiums
were $150 per month. When I got laid off, the insurance company was kind
enough to inform me that they would now provide the same insurance for
$300.00 a month. My health?situation had not changed. All that had changed
was that I?had become?jobless.?The insurance company?felt that it?was a good
moment to er, capitalize on the situation.?
?

I understand that the US population has got bigger since I left and since there
are?more people buying health insurance, the premiums must go higher, but I
was totally?totally astounded when Jim F. pointed out that it now cost him ?
$15,000 annually to insure?his family.?
??

Another way?to view?this?scenario, since the province?provides?our health services,
I have an extra $15,000 a year to save or spend, just because I live in Canada and
not the US.
?

> I have a faint feeling that if all this info has just come to your notice,
> then you must be relieved that the cards life dealt you placed your being in
> Canada, or perhaps for good reason you made a decision not to come to the
> U.S.

?
I actually earned two degrees in the US before I moved to Canada.?The reason?I
moved here is?because there is a social life in Toronto. The?additional bonus?for
me is that the people I grew up with in Tanzania,?all live within?45 minutes?from
where I do.

?
??
> Jim F and Dr. J Colaco to his superb credit as a doctor---both put it well.
?

Just in case you are not aware of it, Dr. J. Colaco is both a doctor and a lawyer.
?
Obama is only a lawyer but he gets the fact that you reduce medical?expenses
by prevention of diseases, rather than by treatment. Those who do not understand
this are the very people who are?bitching about the new health bill.
?

Mervyn1108Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Oscar Lobo
2010-03-22 06:07:20 UTC
Permalink
During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
for President Obama and what

encouragement does to bring out the best in people.



Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
Bill which was brought about by

President Barrack Obama!



Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
Insurance and kudos to President Obama

and his administration.



Oscar C. Lobo

Melbourne.







--- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:


From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noble Peace Award for President Obama.

People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
Committee
(NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.

While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
overlooked the
fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
America. This
in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
community and
he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead of
putting
spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
greater
work being at the helm of his career.

Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the worst.
How
many of us fall in each category!

We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
identity
alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and what
encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
e-mails and
washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
non-Goans in
India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.

Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are not
progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
your
community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani) and
Jealousy
(Nosai).

Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if necessary

apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people because
of ego
or perhaps miss judgement.

The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
loved you"
This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
our
community the quicker we will stand to gain.

Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.

Oscar C. Lobo
Melbourne.
floriano
2010-03-22 14:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear Oscar,

Thank you for saying what you have said.

And Yes, encouragement does wonders but severe non-constructive criticism
dries out the enthusiasm and often works on rebound.

I have said many a times that Goans need to get behind just one agenda and
push it through. The Agenda that is needed to be pushed in Goa is the
'political sanity' agenda. All else must go to sleep comparatably to this
agenda since 'political madness' as it exists in Goa today is like a huge
deadweight tied to one's feet and thrown into the sea. If Goans will see
better reason to get behind the PPS movement which is underway, Goa's
political scenario is bound to change for the better and usher in kudoses to
Goans rather than the shame that is howering over their heads. And to ignore
this cover of shame that will engulf Goa's posterity, will be criminal
negligence on the part of the peers.

I must congratulate you for bringing Barrack Obama in the line of vision of
Goans. And I will never forget Obama's words as spoken at his Victory Speech
Quote $5 and $10 from the multitude of Americans given in good faith towards
my election is the result you see today Unquote [not in exact words]. To
that effect, my party has the slogan which runs like this: "Small money from
a lot of people makes better sense that a lot of money from one person"

Citizens' Initiative - 'People for Political Sanity - People's Power System'
must take over as a Maha Pressure Group if Goa will see a sea change in the
2012 elections, which elections are very very very precarious for the health
of Goa and Goans.

Cheers
floriano
PPS to PPS
9890470896
www.goasu-raj.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Lobo" <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>
Cc: <bosco at goanet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:37 AM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.


> During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
> for President Obama and what
>
> encouragement does to bring out the best in people.
>
>
>
> Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
> Bill which was brought about by
>
> President Barrack Obama!
>
>
>
> Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
> Insurance and kudos to President Obama
>
> and his administration.
>
>
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
>
> Melbourne.
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
> To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
> Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Noble Peace Award for President Obama.
>
> People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
> Committee
> (NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.
Joe Lobo
2010-03-22 14:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Oscar,

While you and , perhaps many like you in their charitable way of
thinking, will laud this first step to bringing medical assurance to
the poorer and " caught -in -the present economic times"
folk...............a lot of the fat-cat medical insurance companies who
have spent perhaps thousands of dollars on their lobbyists to stymie Mr.
Obama`s efforts, will find a way to get around the eventual growing of
this scheme of things in the future.
The spirit of free enterprise and growth of corporate control of vital
systems from defence to energy makes richer USA folk nervous of any
project that has odour of a socialistic approach that may lead to
the rich having to indirectly support the poor............... and
there is still a lot of that in America.
I could be horribly wrong in my thinking and I hope some
other netters will offer their opinions on the subject.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Lobo" <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>
Cc: <bosco at goanet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:07 AM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.


> During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
> for President Obama and what
>
> encouragement does to bring out the best in people.
>
>
>
> Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
> Bill which was brought about by
>
> President Barrack Obama!
>
>
>
> Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
> Insurance and kudos to President Obama
>
> and his administration.
>
>
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
>
> Melbourne.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
> To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
> Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Noble Peace Award for President Obama.
>
> People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
> Committee
> (NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.
>
> While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
> overlooked the
> fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
> America. This
> in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
> community and
> he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead
> of
> putting
> spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
> greater
> work being at the helm of his career.
>
> Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the
> worst.
> How
> many of us fall in each category!
>
> We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
> contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
> identity
> alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and
> what
> encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
> e-mails and
> washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
> non-Goans in
> India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.
>
> Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are
> not
> progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
> your
> community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani)
> and
> Jealousy
> (Nosai).
>
> Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if
> necessary
>
> apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people
> because
> of ego
> or perhaps miss judgement.
>
> The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
> loved you"
> This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
> our
> community the quicker we will stand to gain.
>
> Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
> Melbourne.
>
viviana
2010-03-22 15:24:32 UTC
Permalink
One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE, which is different from health INSURANCE. If you don't believe this I'll send you the name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.

This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care for the average American will change only for the worse.

Viviana




________________________________
From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: goanet at goanet.org
Cc: bosco at goanet.org
Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 11:07:20 PM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.

During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
for President Obama and what

encouragement does to bring out the best in people.



Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
Bill which was brought about by

President Barrack Obama!



Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
Insurance and kudos to President Obama

and his administration.



Oscar C. Lobo

Melbourne.







--- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:


From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noble Peace Award for President Obama.

People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
Committee
(NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.

While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
overlooked the
fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
America. This
in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
community and
he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead of
putting
spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
greater
work being at the helm of his career.

Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the worst.
How
many of us fall in each category!

We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
identity
alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and what
encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
e-mails and
washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
non-Goans in
India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.

Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are not
progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
your
community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani) and
Jealousy
(Nosai).

Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if necessary

apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people because
of ego
or perhaps miss judgement.

The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
loved you"
This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
our
community the quicker we will stand to gain.

Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.

Oscar C. Lobo
Melbourne.
Venantius J Pinto
2010-03-22 21:13:29 UTC
Permalink
A few minutes ago I had decided that I would really not get into a non Goan
issue anymore, and after this post will adhere with my decision.

Now, what Ms Coelho says below is correct, and there is more to this which
is not worth getting into. Many things happened right from the first week of
the presidency. The Pres Obama is a player---a big one. The Nobel prize did
not enlighten Obama at all. I doubt whether the NP is a koan to bring about
satori. Not one bit. In addition, if this bill had not passed his Presidency
was finished. His Presidency would not have recovered. It practically
appears to be shredded and more so on account a few things currently in
play.

I personally do not feel he believed in bipartisanship and that it would
work. All this crap about socialism etc., is also nonsense. This does not
mean it will not be viewed as socialism; just that work are thrown to elicit
responses. The language used in America is very, very complex. Much better
to observe from afar, and not get too excited. Much better to read something
on Goa and post that.

Perhaps he and his advisers simply could not envisage what he was against.
Basically, people will get helped on account of the Bill, and many will get
screwed, But the players across both parties have done well, and have served
the insurance companies admirably so.

We like to believe in goodness and should but with eyes wide open. If we did
not, things would get really weird. So keep those senses open, and even if
someone seems to be doing good by you, do not necessarily accept it at face
value unless you are very strong underneath.

venantius j pinto


Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
>
> (DEL)

> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do
> with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the
> Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest
> levels EVER. Politicians will get rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle
> which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care for the average American
> will change only for the worse.
>
> Viviana
>
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-24 02:31:24 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:
> As my late advisor in Grad school used to say, if something is being offered to you for "free",?
> you better watch out.? The fact is nothing is or was ever free - unless you believe in the
> proverbial statement that money grows on trees.



Marlon,
Money does grow on trees.
Money is made from paper which is made from trees.

The last time I tried to explain this to you here, I even gave you the name of the Canadian
company to buy that makes paper for money. The share price of Fortress Paper has gone
up 400% in the last 52 weeks.?


>?The whole point of insurance, whether for one's home, or one's vehicle or for health should
> be to take care of the unforeseen disasters - and not for day to day/routine issues.?


I think you hit the nail on the head here.
If you take this line of thought a step further, when you are hit with a catastrophe such as
Hurricane Katrina,?it is the responsibility of the?unaffected members of society that you?live
in to help out the weaker?members of the same society. The strong have to support the?elderly
and the weak. Anything less would be to return to?the law of the jungle.
?



viviana wrote:
?
> Thank you for your response.? I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote??
> The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care,
> regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who
> have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO
> ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.?

?
Viv,
The US is the only nation in the?Western world that does not offer its people basic,
universal health care. What Obama has accomplished is a political masterpiece. Sadly
enough, the people who will benefit the most from this?are those who do not vote.



Earlier this evening, someone sent me a news clip which?claims that the attorneys
general of 13 states are now suing the US govt.?I love this. Essentially, US residents
are suing themselves.?However, I do understand the pain involved since the state govts
are broke and have no money to pay for the medical bills that will be coming their way.
Wait a minute!
If the state govts find it difficult pay medical bills without going bankrupt, how?can?you
expect the average US?resident to pay for catastrophic?sickness without going bankrupt
too???Again, I will point out that most bankruptcies in the US?are by people who HAD
health insurance.
?
?

> So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not
> to get rich from it?? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he
> want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS
> ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

?
?
Yep, there are staggering amounts of money involved. I can still show you how to profit
from all these changes.?
?
?
Mervyn1102Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
MD
2010-03-24 23:27:32 UTC
Permalink
'Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want
to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?' True? - NO.

Quite the contrary. For the insurance companies, even being a woman
could be a 'pre-existing' condition to deny coverage. Under the new
law, 'every employee should subscribe to health insurance coverage
(the premium is less than 2% of gross pay), increased subscription
will increase the revenue of the insurance companies and 'exclusion
or denial of coverage on the basis of 'pre-existing conditions' is
'kaput'. (NAA - not applicable anymore!!!).

Why the republicans voted against? I do not know, pressure from the
lobby? perhaps.

As for your nephew and his 'immediate (I think in some countries it is
called EMR (emergency medical response?) free medical (health)
care...but as Marlon said, ultimately the cost is passed
on the the rest of the subscribers by way of increased premium, so in
real sense of the term 'free immediate' could be 'rob peter to pay
paul?'

MD.

From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to
do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical
care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE
RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their
physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the
insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the
country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET
RICHER.

Viv
Yahoo
2010-03-25 05:21:08 UTC
Permalink
I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for. No one who lives here will deny this.

I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.

V

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:27 PM, MD <mmdmello at gmail.com> wrote:

'Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want
to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?' True? - NO.

Quite the contrary. For the insurance companies, even being a woman
could be a 'pre-existing' condition to deny coverage. Under the new
law, 'every employee should subscribe to health insurance coverage
(the premium is less than 2% of gross pay), increased subscription
will increase the revenue of the insurance companies and 'exclusion
or denial of coverage on the basis of 'pre-existing conditions' is
'kaput'. (NAA - not applicable anymore!!!).

Why the republicans voted against? I do not know, pressure from the
lobby? perhaps.

As for your nephew and his 'immediate (I think in some countries it is
called EMR (emergency medical response?) free medical (health)
care...but as Marlon said, ultimately the cost is passed
on the the rest of the subscribers by way of increased premium, so in
real sense of the term 'free immediate' could be 'rob peter to pay
paul?'

MD.

From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to
do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical
care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE
RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their
physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the
insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the
country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET
RICHER.

Viv
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-25 15:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi Vivian (Coelho),

I am not sure about the gist and what exactly are you implying in the random statements you have made below. Yet let me take a chance and respond to these statements even though I do not understand where you are coming from. I have not followed your prior posts on this subject.
?
VC: I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for.? No one who lives here will deny this.?

GL: By law no one irrespective of insurance can be denied emergency healthcare (law signed by Pres. Reagan).? Many physicians will refer such patients to the hospital's emergency room. For non-emergency patients,?doctors can /?will decline patients with no insurance or insurance?from a carrier that the doctor does not?deal with.

VC: I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

GL:? The goal is to provide the patient service and care. Anyone / corporation who does this is entitled to the compensation. So in other words no one gets rich by sitting on their rear end.

VC: If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

GL:? So exactly how do you propose these patients handle the reimbursement for their care?? Are you suggesting?the system to be like in Goa /?Mumbai - direct payment by the patient after the service is delivered?? In practice, we know that "Self-pay" means "No-pay".? Insurance as an?intermediary assures that the patients is not financially ripped off by the healthcare provider - doctors or hospitals (which is what happens now).

VC: I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.

GL: This statement is most confusing. Who and how?will this "free healthcare" be paid for?

Conclusion:?Providing care is not caring for an individual when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved?in Preventive and Maintenance care.? And there has to be?a system of someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in expensive care at a more advanced?stage of the disease.? This is the one of the main problems with the current healthcare system, specially in a society which has less and?less social support at home to ensure the individual is prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the doctor's advice.?

Regards, GL
Santosh Helekar
2010-03-25 17:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert and others have made a very good case for why people of America, including many Goans who live there, badly needed health care reform.

But I believe Viviana and other genuine and honest opponents of the reform law that has just been enacted, have some valid criticisms. She has tried to articulate some of them. Let me tell you what I think the most reasonable of these criticisms are, even though I support the law that has been passed, provided some additional reforms and corrections are enacted at a later stage. Reasonable concerns regarding this law are:

1. The government is forcing people to buy health insurance, even if they don't want to do so. It is imposing a fine on those who refuse to buy insurance. Such a practice goes against the principle of individual liberty in a free democracy.

2. The government is expanding health and tax administration bureaucracy by a significant amount. To those who believe in small government this violates one of their most important ideological principles.

3. The government is increasing the tax on rich people and on those who buy or receive high-end expensive insurance plans through their employers. To those who believe in reduced taxation this violates one of their most important ideological principles.

4. The government is making promises to pay for the reform program by cutting spending and from increased tax revenue projections, predicting a reduction in the overall deficit. It is reasonable for people to be skeptical about any government being able to keep promises, and realize all its long term predictions.

5. The government is imposing new taxes and limits on insurance companies and health care device manufacturers, which might force them to raise the prices for their products, and reduce their ability to compete in a global free market. To those who believe in capitalist free market economy and in maintaining America's competitive edge this violates one of their most important ideological principles.

Cheers,

Santosh

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2114 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Conclusion:?Providing care is not caring for an individual
> when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved?in Preventive
> and Maintenance care.? And there has to be?a system of
> someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the
> absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in
> expensive care at a more advanced?stage of the disease.?
> This is the one of the main problems with the current
> healthcare system, specially in a society which has less
> and?less social support at home to ensure the individual is
> prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the
> doctor's advice.?
>
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-26 02:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Hi Viviana,

Now that you have baited me into this, lets talk about healthcare ... a topic I have voluntarily immersed myself in the last few months.? Thanks for telling me that we have met. So I now know whom I am responding to; and?will show?'a lot of?mog'.:=)) ?If I am not mistaken, don't you work in the?health-field? So likely you know the issues.?

To limit myself I will take?only three?points you raise and analyze them in?detail.?

VMC: I've never said that the current system is perfect, where many, probably millions, of indigent patients are provided health care which they personally don't pay for but we taxpayers?DO pay for instead.??
??????? I do believe that attempting to force everyone to buy health insurance is the absolutely wrong way to fix the system, particularly since the IRS is in charge of enforcing this.? Can you really believe,?Dr. Lawrence, that this is a good idea?

GL responds: Thank you for telling us the current system needs over-hauling. A healthcare system where 45,000 die every year from lack of insurance and 30,000 die every year from over-treatment cannot be a good system ... in fact it is a bad system for our great country.

The IRS is involved becasue the level?of govt help to the poor is related to their income. Complaining about?IRS involvement in healthcare reform is another right-wing canard and a distraction.?

You do not want to force everyone to buy insurance?? But you also complain "provided health care (to probably millions, of indigent patients) which they personally don't pay for, but we taxpayers?DO pay for instead".? If all DO NOT?contribute to insurance, who and when will people financially contribute to insurance?? When they get sick?? Do you complain about ALL being forced to buy auto-insurance?

Forcing all to insure (a.k.a. individual mandate) was a Republican proposal in 1993?(Senators Hatch and Grassley). Do you have a position other than being against to what others have proposed?
---------------
?
VMC: I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for.? No one who lives here will deny this.?

GL: By law no one irrespective of insurance can be denied emergency healthcare (law signed by Pres. Reagan).? Many physicians will refer such patients to the hospital's emergency room. For non-emergency patients, doctors can / will decline patients with no insurance or insurance from a carrier that the doctor does not deal with.

?VMC: We're off to a good start!? I agree with you on both counts.? This does not contradict anything I've written.

GL responds: We do not agree. In the current system, patients do not get Preventive and Maintenance healthcare for chronic illness which is 70% of all healthcare.? Accessing only emergency care is expensive, often futile and is?the end-result?of a broken system.
------------------

VMC: Here is where I suggest that you read posts in a thread before you jump in!? .... So in your second sentence you imply that it's the doctors who are being ripped off by "NO PAY" patients, and then you imply that patients are being ripped off by health care providers.?I'm having trouble keeping up with who is ripping off whom.

GL responds: After accusing me of insulating myself with?my disclaimer about not following this thread, you encourage me to know the issues being presented in the thread.:=))? Yet this? will not stop me from?explaining this important point about lack of insurance.? This is specially important for young adults / college students,?who may?believe they do not need insurance.

Insurance companies have a negotiated payment schedule for the hospital's charges. It may be as low as 30% of their fee.? An individual patient does not have that negotiating clout and hence HAS TO PAY 100% of the bill. If the medical bill is too high, the individuals can / do declare bankruptcy.? All of this can be avoided by having a powerful insurance?intermediary between the patient and the healthcare provider.
----------

Conclusion: Hope the above provides some explanation. I have maintained / written that no bill is perfect, because we do not know how patients, doctors, hospitals and insurers will behave and work around the system.? So every year or two?Congress will have to visit the subject to close loopholes and regulate abuses that businesses come up with.

My apologies for misspelling your name in the prior post.

Regards ani mog. GL.
MD
2010-03-26 14:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Failing to fix the U.S. health-insurance system - where the government
insures the elderly and the very ill and employers are expected to
insure their employees - is so difficult that every Democratic
president since Harry Truman has tried and failed.

The Health care reform was one of Obama's key election promises.

1. The bill will provide health insurance to some 32 million Americans
who are currently not insured, either because they can't afford the
fees or because they are already ill (pre-existing condition(s).

2. Insurance companies will not be allowed to drop subscribers when
they get ill and may not refuse to insure children because they are
ill.

3. Insurance companies must allow children to remain on their
parents' health insurance plan until they are 26. Currently most
insurance companies age limit is 19. (post graduation/higher studies
may not enable these to work).

4. Ill, uninsured adults are eligible for insurance through a new
program that will expire in 2014 when insurance companies have to
start accepting customers who are already ill.

Insurance companies will cover everyone when everyone subscribes. IRS
will be involved to make sure every one complies. Auto insurance is
compulsory to cover personal injury/third party injury/property damage
claims and that is accepted, so is health coverage less important than
auto insurance?.

Next issue will be 'foreclosures'

Without prejudice.
MD.

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at yahoo.com>
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
<goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.
Message-ID: <907467.73568.qm at web110310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Gilbert and others have made a very good case for why people of
America, including many Goans who live there, badly needed health care
reform.

But I believe Viviana and other genuine and honest opponents of the
reform law that has just been enacted, have some valid criticisms. She
has tried to articulate some of them. Let me tell you what I think the
most reasonable of these criticisms are, even though I support the law
that has been passed, provided some additional reforms and corrections
are enacted at a later stage. Reasonable concerns regarding this law
are:

1. The government is forcing people to buy health insurance, even if
they don't want to do so. It is imposing a fine on those who refuse to
buy insurance. Such a practice goes against the principle of
individual liberty in a free democracy.

2. The government is expanding health and tax administration
bureaucracy by a significant amount. To those who believe in small
government this violates one of their most important ideological
principles.

3. The government is increasing the tax on rich people and on those
who buy or receive high-end expensive insurance plans through their
employers. To those who believe in reduced taxation this violates one
of their most important ideological principles.

4. The government is making promises to pay for the reform program by
cutting spending and from increased tax revenue projections,
predicting a reduction in the overall deficit. It is reasonable for
people to be skeptical about any government being able to keep
promises, and realize all its long term predictions.

5. The government is imposing new taxes and limits on insurance
companies and health care device manufacturers, which might force them
to raise the prices for their products, and reduce their ability to
compete in a global free market. To those who believe in capitalist
free market economy and in maintaining America's competitive edge this
violates one of their most important ideological principles.

Cheers,

Santosh

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2114 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Conclusion:?Providing care is not caring for an individual
when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved?in Preventive
and Maintenance care.? And there has to be?a system of
someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the
absence of Preventive and Maintain care that results in
expensive care at a more advanced?stage of the disease.?
This is the one of the main problems with the current
healthcare system, specially in a society which has less
and?less social support at home to ensure the individual is
prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the
doctor's advice.?
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-27 11:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Response to Viviana (part 2)

You did not think you would get off so easily?? I have a lot of mog to share! :=))

VMC: I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.?

GL: This statement is most confusing. Who and how will this "free healthcare" be paid for?
Providing care is not caring for an individual when they are sick.? There is a lot achieved in Preventive and Maintenance care.? And there has to be a system of someone supervising these aspects of care.? It is the absence of Preventive and Maintenance care that results in expensive care at a more advanced stage of the disease.? This is the one of the main problems with the current healthcare system, specially in a society which has less and less social support at home to ensure the individual is prompt in their medical appointments and following-up the doctor's advice.??

VMC:?I think you mean that providing care is not MERELY caring for an individual when they (sic) are sick.? The rest of this para has nothing to do with healthcare or its accessibility and everything to do with the behavior of individual patients.? How is forcing someone to buy health insurance going to remedy that?? It's a?problem which health insurance cannot solve, it's a problem of individual responsibility.?

GL responds: Not having insurance is often the crux of the healthcare conundrum. These patients do not go to doctors for preventive and maintenance care, because of out-of-pocket costs. For non-emergency care, they go to the hospital's emergency room. This is expensive.? Then when in doubt, these ER patients are admitted. Upon discharge there is no one to supervise, follow-up?and provide these patients any continuity of care.

Having all into the system permits the system to be efficient. There is no cost-shifting of the financial burden, and no?finger-pointing?by various stake-holders in?the healthcare system.

IMO there?needs to be?Rewards and Disincentives to all stake-holders. Currently USA spends 17.3% of its GDP on healthcare (which is 30% more that its next western economic competitor) and on the international scale ranks just above Cuba.??

You may or may not be delighted to know that I am not a strong proponent of 'Single Payer'.

Regards ani mog, GL
Jim Fernandes
2010-03-27 15:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Folks,

It is no secret that one of the main platforms that candidate Obama ran for the White House, was to bring about, reform to the health care system in the United States. If you watched any of his video clips during his campaign, you would notice that health care was mentioned 100% of the time in his speeches. Universal access to health care, is not something that Obama recently happened to add to his agenda - it was in his election manifesto right from get go.

So when he won the elections in the fall of 2008, Obama's supporters knew he would deliver on his campaign promises. So what are you cry babies crying about? Mind you, it wasn't just another simple win - Obama and his party won the elections by a landslide!

When I hear the sore looser Republicans screaming foul, I don't pay too much attention to that. If you haven't earned the political capital to oppose Obama's health plan, your voice does not count. If you didn't want health care, you should have voted John McCain to power. Its as simple as that.

Incidentally, McCain and his pretty chick are still campaigning for elections. Could someone please tell them that the elections were over, way back in 2008 !!! I kid you not, I watched the jokers singing together, their usual looser Republican songs last night on TV. Quite entertaining, them loosers.

Jokes aside, let me tell you why I support the health plan. Back in 2001, when I first purchased independent insurance coverage for myself and my family, it cost me a little over $8,000 a year. Year after year, I helplessly watched my insurance premiums go up, at unsustainable rates.

A few weeks ago, I purchased a new plan which includes about similar benefits as the plan I bought in 2001, but it now cost me some $15,000 a year (actually $12,000 but I have to pay another $3,000 deductible, before the insurance punks begin to pay out, incase of a medical problem). How do you justify such a price hike over such a short duration? At this rate, there is no way, my income can keep pace with such a massive hike.

Only if everybody in the system begin to buy into the insurance plans, can the overall cost go down. Ofcourse, there is a lot of unwanted crap in the system and it needs to be flushed out. What Obama has done, is that, he has taken a first major step towards covering the entire US population. As time goes by, like everything else, the plan could be tweaked and improved upon.

In the meantime, the woman named Viviana who famously wrote on GoaNet about her nephew getting free care in the US, needs to understand that HER NEWPHEW OWES ME MONEY. Its people like me, who finance that "free" care, by way of higher premiums, year after year.

Jim F
New York
Venantius J Pinto
2010-03-29 05:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mervyn,
Seriously---did you really not know the cost of insurance in the U.S., and
the basic permutations of what one gets in the US for what one puts out in
the US? Perhaps you were attempting to draw a composite picture, and
hopefully did not really find what you Jim said---too funny. Its not funny
and not a joke bro. Its very real. People we know are in trouble in various
ways.

I have a faint feeling that if all this info has just come to your notice,
then you must be relieved that the cards life dealt you placed your being in
Canada, or perhaps for good reason you made a decision not to come to the
U.S.

Jim F and Dr. J Colaco to his superb credit as a doctor---both put it well.

venantius j pinto


> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:28:54 +0000
> From: "Jim Fernandes" <amigo007 at att.net>
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Thank you Mr Obama
>
> Mervyn,
>
> I am serious about the cost of insurance here in the US, my man. The cost
> is ridiculously high and out of line! The plan I got, is sold by Oxford
> (Freedom Plan). You can probably go online and request for a quote yourself.
> If you still don't believe me, I'll show you my cancelled checks, if we
> happened to meet down the line ... and beer is on me.
>
> DEL
>
> Jim F
> New York.
>
> > [2] Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Jim F, Is this some kind of April Fools joke?
> >
> >
> > RESPONSE:
> >
> > Dear Mervyn,
> >
> > Where is the joke in what Jim has written?
> >
> > The only part Jim has inadvertently (perhaps) missed out is the
> following:
> >
> > After the $3000 deductible is met, the insurance companies (depending
> > upon the network policies) will cover 60-80% of what they term as
> > reasonable charges.
> >(DEL)
> >
> > jc
>
Gilbert Lawrence
2010-03-29 20:40:33 UTC
Permalink
------------- Jim Fernandes

I am sure Dr J Colaco and the other physicians on GoaNet are fully aware of what's happening with the healthcare cost in the US. Its high time that everybody share the cost of healthcare.

------------ GL responds;

Like all insurance, the costs are distributed.? As in education, the poor and middle class has palmed off their?healthcare duties to the SYSTEM.? The middle class would rather pay the SYSTEM than care for / address / solve many issues themselves.? All this contributes to WASTE.

Between not being covered and having a high deductible and co-pays if covered, the middle class are very vulnerable.? Yet like in many situations, we are our own worst enemies.? What we all need to do is SAVE the cost of healthcare?NOT?SHARE its cost.? Here are some suggestions:

1. Preventive Care - Stop smoking. Exercise and Prevent obesity and other illness with proper diet and life style.? Regular check-ups

2.?Care for elderly parents, uncles and?aunts?saving hospital and nursing home costs. End-of-life care, (last few months), account for 30% to 40% of all healthcare costs.

3. Help relatives cope with their chronic illness which accounts for 75% of medical costs and is responsible for 70% of deaths.

4.?Prevent relatives, neighbors and friends?making hospitals' ER the first line of care?- a very expensive way to access healthcare.

5. Doctors and Hospitals have to end the 40% of over-treatment, under-treatment and in-appropriate treatment .... without further?excuses of why it occurs.

We have to stop blaming the govt. and take-over at the grass-roots by doing the right thing, even if it is inconvenient.

Regards, GL
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-31 00:45:21 UTC
Permalink
J. Colaco? wrote:
> 1: That having been noted, would you say that the level of taxation in
> Canada is significantly higher than that in the USA.



jc,
Every year, I file a tax return in both Canada and the US.
Every year, regardless of my income, I get a refund of a few dollars from
the US tax authority. In other words, the US tax rates are marginally
lower than that of Canada.



> 4: I am surprised that in Canada, one can be fined for missing an
> annual check up. Is this true in the country of 'Malette v Shulman'?
> Does this mean that an individual is forced to provide consent to a
> doctor for an annual physical exam (or risk a fine)?


To make this clear, the doctor is allowed to charge his patient
for missing the annual exam. The reasoning is that doctor was deprived of
his income and?thus s/he is?now allowed to charge the patient?in lieu of
the fee?the doctor?would have got from the govt. If the patient does not
want to pay, the patient is free to change doctors.

?
?
venantius j pinto wrote:
> Seriously---did you really not know the cost of insurance in the U.S., and
> the basic permutations of what one gets in the US for what one puts out in
> the US? Perhaps you were attempting to draw a composite picture, and
> hopefully did not really find what you Jim said---too funny. Its not funny
> and not a joke bro. Its very real. People we know are in trouble in various
> ways.

?
?
v,
When I was working in the US, 20 years ago, my health insurance premiums
were $150 per month. When I got laid off, the insurance company was kind
enough to inform me that they would now provide the same insurance for
$300.00 a month. My health?situation had not changed. All that had changed
was that I?had become?jobless.?The insurance company?felt that it?was a good
moment to er, capitalize on the situation.?
?

I understand that the US population has got bigger since I left and since there
are?more people buying health insurance, the premiums must go higher, but I
was totally?totally astounded when Jim F. pointed out that it now cost him ?
$15,000 annually to insure?his family.?
??

Another way?to view?this?scenario, since the province?provides?our health services,
I have an extra $15,000 a year to save or spend, just because I live in Canada and
not the US.
?

> I have a faint feeling that if all this info has just come to your notice,
> then you must be relieved that the cards life dealt you placed your being in
> Canada, or perhaps for good reason you made a decision not to come to the
> U.S.

?
I actually earned two degrees in the US before I moved to Canada.?The reason?I
moved here is?because there is a social life in Toronto. The?additional bonus?for
me is that the people I grew up with in Tanzania,?all live within?45 minutes?from
where I do.

?
??
> Jim F and Dr. J Colaco to his superb credit as a doctor---both put it well.
?

Just in case you are not aware of it, Dr. J. Colaco is both a doctor and a lawyer.
?
Obama is only a lawyer but he gets the fact that you reduce medical?expenses
by prevention of diseases, rather than by treatment. Those who do not understand
this are the very people who are?bitching about the new health bill.
?

Mervyn1108Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Oscar Lobo
2010-03-22 06:07:20 UTC
Permalink
During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
for President Obama and what

encouragement does to bring out the best in people.



Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
Bill which was brought about by

President Barrack Obama!



Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
Insurance and kudos to President Obama

and his administration.



Oscar C. Lobo

Melbourne.







--- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:


From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noble Peace Award for President Obama.

People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
Committee
(NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.

While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
overlooked the
fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
America. This
in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
community and
he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead of
putting
spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
greater
work being at the helm of his career.

Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the worst.
How
many of us fall in each category!

We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
identity
alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and what
encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
e-mails and
washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
non-Goans in
India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.

Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are not
progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
your
community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani) and
Jealousy
(Nosai).

Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if necessary

apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people because
of ego
or perhaps miss judgement.

The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
loved you"
This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
our
community the quicker we will stand to gain.

Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.

Oscar C. Lobo
Melbourne.
floriano
2010-03-22 14:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear Oscar,

Thank you for saying what you have said.

And Yes, encouragement does wonders but severe non-constructive criticism
dries out the enthusiasm and often works on rebound.

I have said many a times that Goans need to get behind just one agenda and
push it through. The Agenda that is needed to be pushed in Goa is the
'political sanity' agenda. All else must go to sleep comparatably to this
agenda since 'political madness' as it exists in Goa today is like a huge
deadweight tied to one's feet and thrown into the sea. If Goans will see
better reason to get behind the PPS movement which is underway, Goa's
political scenario is bound to change for the better and usher in kudoses to
Goans rather than the shame that is howering over their heads. And to ignore
this cover of shame that will engulf Goa's posterity, will be criminal
negligence on the part of the peers.

I must congratulate you for bringing Barrack Obama in the line of vision of
Goans. And I will never forget Obama's words as spoken at his Victory Speech
Quote $5 and $10 from the multitude of Americans given in good faith towards
my election is the result you see today Unquote [not in exact words]. To
that effect, my party has the slogan which runs like this: "Small money from
a lot of people makes better sense that a lot of money from one person"

Citizens' Initiative - 'People for Political Sanity - People's Power System'
must take over as a Maha Pressure Group if Goa will see a sea change in the
2012 elections, which elections are very very very precarious for the health
of Goa and Goans.

Cheers
floriano
PPS to PPS
9890470896
www.goasu-raj.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Lobo" <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>
Cc: <bosco at goanet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:37 AM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.


> During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
> for President Obama and what
>
> encouragement does to bring out the best in people.
>
>
>
> Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
> Bill which was brought about by
>
> President Barrack Obama!
>
>
>
> Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
> Insurance and kudos to President Obama
>
> and his administration.
>
>
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
>
> Melbourne.
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
> To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
> Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Noble Peace Award for President Obama.
>
> People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
> Committee
> (NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.
Joe Lobo
2010-03-22 14:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Oscar,

While you and , perhaps many like you in their charitable way of
thinking, will laud this first step to bringing medical assurance to
the poorer and " caught -in -the present economic times"
folk...............a lot of the fat-cat medical insurance companies who
have spent perhaps thousands of dollars on their lobbyists to stymie Mr.
Obama`s efforts, will find a way to get around the eventual growing of
this scheme of things in the future.
The spirit of free enterprise and growth of corporate control of vital
systems from defence to energy makes richer USA folk nervous of any
project that has odour of a socialistic approach that may lead to
the rich having to indirectly support the poor............... and
there is still a lot of that in America.
I could be horribly wrong in my thinking and I hope some
other netters will offer their opinions on the subject.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Lobo" <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>
Cc: <bosco at goanet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:07 AM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.


> During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
> for President Obama and what
>
> encouragement does to bring out the best in people.
>
>
>
> Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
> Bill which was brought about by
>
> President Barrack Obama!
>
>
>
> Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
> Insurance and kudos to President Obama
>
> and his administration.
>
>
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
>
> Melbourne.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
> To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
> Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Noble Peace Award for President Obama.
>
> People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
> Committee
> (NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.
>
> While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
> overlooked the
> fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
> America. This
> in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
> community and
> he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead
> of
> putting
> spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
> greater
> work being at the helm of his career.
>
> Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the
> worst.
> How
> many of us fall in each category!
>
> We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
> contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
> identity
> alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and
> what
> encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
> e-mails and
> washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
> non-Goans in
> India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.
>
> Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are
> not
> progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
> your
> community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani)
> and
> Jealousy
> (Nosai).
>
> Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if
> necessary
>
> apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people
> because
> of ego
> or perhaps miss judgement.
>
> The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
> loved you"
> This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
> our
> community the quicker we will stand to gain.
>
> Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.
>
> Oscar C. Lobo
> Melbourne.
>
viviana
2010-03-22 15:24:32 UTC
Permalink
One small note - everyone with their feet in the USA has free access to health CARE, which is different from health INSURANCE. If you don't believe this I'll send you the name/email of my nephew in Texas who, on his FIRST day in the USA collapsed in church (exhaustion from the trip from Goa) - you can ask him what medical response was provided FOR FREE; he never even received a bill.

This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest levels EVER. Politicians will get rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care for the average American will change only for the worse.

Viviana




________________________________
From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
To: goanet at goanet.org
Cc: bosco at goanet.org
Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 11:07:20 PM
Subject: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.

During the last quarter of 2009 I posted my views on the Noble Peace Award
for President Obama and what

encouragement does to bring out the best in people.



Well, we have all heard today the great achievement i.e. America's Health
Bill which was brought about by

President Barrack Obama!



Great news to the 32 odd million people in America who were without Health
Insurance and kudos to President Obama

and his administration.



Oscar C. Lobo

Melbourne.







--- On Mon, 12/10/09, Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:


From: Oscar Lobo <oscarlobo1 at optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
To: "Goanet" <goanet at goanet.org>
Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 7:09 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noble Peace Award for President Obama.

People are divided on the decision taken by the Norwegian Noble Prize
Committee
(NNPC) to award President Obama with a Noble Prize.

While it may seem to be premature for some people many of us may have
overlooked the
fact that he is the first Black American President in the history of
America. This
in itself is an achievement as he has risen up from the down trodden
community and
he has commenced some good initiatives for the people of America. Instead of
putting
spanner in his good works it is better to put an Award to make him do some
greater
work being at the helm of his career.

Encouragement brings out the best in people. Criticism brings out the worst.
How
many of us fall in each category!

We Goans need to learn from all this. How many of our genuine Goans have
contributed and continuing a great job in keeping our Goan culture and
identity
alive? We know a few Goans in Goa, Middle East, Canada, Spain etc; and what
encouragement have we given to our Goans other than cheap shooting of
e-mails and
washing dirty linen in public? Do we know that Goanet is also read by
non-Goans in
India and elsewhere as there is no restriction to be a member of Goanet.

Recently a south Indian said to me - Do you know Mr. Lobo why Goans are not
progressing? I was curious and asked him why to which he replied "Because
your
community is suffering from Tall Poppy syndrome (Aum shanoh in Konkani) and
Jealousy
(Nosai).

Let us therefore wake up to these observations by non-Goans and if necessary

apologise to our fellow Goenkars if you believe we have hurt people because
of ego
or perhaps miss judgement.

The most important commandment from Jesus was "Love one another as I have
loved you"
This is precisely what is missing in us Goans and quicker we start loving
our
community the quicker we will stand to gain.

Zeal without knowledge is like fire without light.

Oscar C. Lobo
Melbourne.
Venantius J Pinto
2010-03-22 21:13:29 UTC
Permalink
A few minutes ago I had decided that I would really not get into a non Goan
issue anymore, and after this post will adhere with my decision.

Now, what Ms Coelho says below is correct, and there is more to this which
is not worth getting into. Many things happened right from the first week of
the presidency. The Pres Obama is a player---a big one. The Nobel prize did
not enlighten Obama at all. I doubt whether the NP is a koan to bring about
satori. Not one bit. In addition, if this bill had not passed his Presidency
was finished. His Presidency would not have recovered. It practically
appears to be shredded and more so on account a few things currently in
play.

I personally do not feel he believed in bipartisanship and that it would
work. All this crap about socialism etc., is also nonsense. This does not
mean it will not be viewed as socialism; just that work are thrown to elicit
responses. The language used in America is very, very complex. Much better
to observe from afar, and not get too excited. Much better to read something
on Goa and post that.

Perhaps he and his advisers simply could not envisage what he was against.
Basically, people will get helped on account of the Bill, and many will get
screwed, But the players across both parties have done well, and have served
the insurance companies admirably so.

We like to believe in goodness and should but with eyes wide open. If we did
not, things would get really weird. So keep those senses open, and even if
someone seems to be doing good by you, do not necessarily accept it at face
value unless you are very strong underneath.

venantius j pinto


Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama.
>
> (DEL)

> This is Obama's gift to the health insurance industry and has nothing to do
> with providing health care here in America. Check the stats - on the day the
> Senate signed this bill health insurance stocks skyrocketed to their highest
> levels EVER. Politicians will get rich(er) as a result of this boondoggle
> which, hopefully, will be repealed, and health care for the average American
> will change only for the worse.
>
> Viviana
>
Mervyn Lobo
2010-03-24 02:31:24 UTC
Permalink
marlon menezes wrote:
> As my late advisor in Grad school used to say, if something is being offered to you for "free",?
> you better watch out.? The fact is nothing is or was ever free - unless you believe in the
> proverbial statement that money grows on trees.



Marlon,
Money does grow on trees.
Money is made from paper which is made from trees.

The last time I tried to explain this to you here, I even gave you the name of the Canadian
company to buy that makes paper for money. The share price of Fortress Paper has gone
up 400% in the last 52 weeks.?


>?The whole point of insurance, whether for one's home, or one's vehicle or for health should
> be to take care of the unforeseen disasters - and not for day to day/routine issues.?


I think you hit the nail on the head here.
If you take this line of thought a step further, when you are hit with a catastrophe such as
Hurricane Katrina,?it is the responsibility of the?unaffected members of society that you?live
in to help out the weaker?members of the same society. The strong have to support the?elderly
and the weak. Anything less would be to return to?the law of the jungle.
?



viviana wrote:
?
> Thank you for your response.? I just can't figure out what it has to do with what I wrote??
> The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate health care,
> regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one example, I know many people who
> have the benefit of the best medical care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO
> ZILCH NADA NIENTE RIEN.?

?
Viv,
The US is the only nation in the?Western world that does not offer its people basic,
universal health care. What Obama has accomplished is a political masterpiece. Sadly
enough, the people who will benefit the most from this?are those who do not vote.



Earlier this evening, someone sent me a news clip which?claims that the attorneys
general of 13 states are now suing the US govt.?I love this. Essentially, US residents
are suing themselves.?However, I do understand the pain involved since the state govts
are broke and have no money to pay for the medical bills that will be coming their way.
Wait a minute!
If the state govts find it difficult pay medical bills without going bankrupt, how?can?you
expect the average US?resident to pay for catastrophic?sickness without going bankrupt
too???Again, I will point out that most bankruptcies in the US?are by people who HAD
health insurance.
?
?

> So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their physicians if not
> to get rich from it?? Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he
> want to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS
> ARE GOING TO GET RICHER.

?
?
Yep, there are staggering amounts of money involved. I can still show you how to profit
from all these changes.?
?
?
Mervyn1102Lobo


__________________________________________________________________
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
MD
2010-03-24 23:27:32 UTC
Permalink
'Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want
to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?' True? - NO.

Quite the contrary. For the insurance companies, even being a woman
could be a 'pre-existing' condition to deny coverage. Under the new
law, 'every employee should subscribe to health insurance coverage
(the premium is less than 2% of gross pay), increased subscription
will increase the revenue of the insurance companies and 'exclusion
or denial of coverage on the basis of 'pre-existing conditions' is
'kaput'. (NAA - not applicable anymore!!!).

Why the republicans voted against? I do not know, pressure from the
lobby? perhaps.

As for your nephew and his 'immediate (I think in some countries it is
called EMR (emergency medical response?) free medical (health)
care...but as Marlon said, ultimately the cost is passed
on the the rest of the subscribers by way of increased premium, so in
real sense of the term 'free immediate' could be 'rob peter to pay
paul?'

MD.

From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to
do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical
care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE
RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their
physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the
insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the
country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET
RICHER.

Viv
Yahoo
2010-03-25 05:21:08 UTC
Permalink
I stand by my contention that anyone in the US has access to healthcare that they don't have to pay for. No one who lives here will deny this.

I also stand by my contention that SOMEONE is going to get rich by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance.

If Obama wants to provide free health care more efficiently to people who are uninsured, by all means do so, but why insert another bureaucracy between patient and doctor if not to get rich from it?

I don't know anyone who is against providing free health CARE to those who can't afford it, it's the FORCED INSURANCE that is the problem.

V

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:27 PM, MD <mmdmello at gmail.com> wrote:

'Obama is in the pocket of the insurance industry or why would he want
to force everyone in the country to buy insurance?' True? - NO.

Quite the contrary. For the insurance companies, even being a woman
could be a 'pre-existing' condition to deny coverage. Under the new
law, 'every employee should subscribe to health insurance coverage
(the premium is less than 2% of gross pay), increased subscription
will increase the revenue of the insurance companies and 'exclusion
or denial of coverage on the basis of 'pre-existing conditions' is
'kaput'. (NAA - not applicable anymore!!!).

Why the republicans voted against? I do not know, pressure from the
lobby? perhaps.

As for your nephew and his 'immediate (I think in some countries it is
called EMR (emergency medical response?) free medical (health)
care...but as Marlon said, ultimately the cost is passed
on the the rest of the subscribers by way of increased premium, so in
real sense of the term 'free immediate' could be 'rob peter to pay
paul?'

MD.

From: viviana <viviana_coelho at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] win 'humbles' Obama.

Mervyn -

Thank you for your response. I just can't figure out what it has to
do with what I wrote?

The fact remains that EVERYONE in the States has access to immediate
health care, regardless of ability to pay; my nephew is only one
example, I know many people who have the benefit of the best medical
care in the world and they pay ZERO for it. ZERO ZILCH NADA NIENTE
RIEN.

So what's the point of putting a bureacracy between people and their
physicians if not to get rich from it? Obama is in the pocket of the
insurance industry or why would he want to force everyone in the
country to buy insurance? Simple, HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE GOING TO GET
RICHER.

Viv
Loading...