UAW forced to be paid as a Southern Foreign factory worker.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:36:19 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>No and yes
>
>Everything I posted is factual and can be verified if you do a proper
>search.

A proper search would include dates and locations - details you did
not provide. This is just your trademark "do your own research"
horse****. This story is just another Mike Hunter lie until you back
it up.

> I could not care less what you choose to believe or not

I choose not.

>
>"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:05:34 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>
>>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs are
>>>so
>>>high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>>
>>>The reason the government sets the rates high is to pay the doctors and
>>>hospital to provide the so called FREE care to the indigent under the US
>>>Hill Burton Act. The government IS the cause NOT the cure.
>>>
>>>Our local volunteer ambulance corps was shut down by the feds for Medicare
>>>fraud. The feds took all of their money and sold all of their equipment
>>>and were ready to put the VOLUNTEER leaders in jail, untill a US Senator
>>>stepped in and stopped the lunacy. The problem was the Medicare
>>>reimbursement rate to the hospital, three miles out of town, was $750 but
>>>the corps only charged the VOLUNTEER fireman's insurance company $250!
>>
>> Sounds like BS to me (so surprising coming from Mike.)
>>
>> Hospitals and doctors routinely charge much higher fees to uninsured
>> than to insured patients. So is the discount to the insurance company
>> Medicare fraud? Or are uninsured patients being charged much more
>> than the "very high" Medicare rates?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mark A" > wrote in message
t...
>>>>> "Jim Higgins" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:e0dd6d0d-bc54-4491-8bf5-
>>>>> He never bothered to look at links as to how other governments handle
>>>>> healthca
>>>>
>>>> I know how they do it, and I didn't even say I am against it.
>>>>
>>>> But the fact is that the quality of health care in the US is much higher
>>>> than other countries if one is willing to pay, and even for the average
>>>> corporate employee whose company foots 80-100% of the bill. But I don't
>>>> think we can afford that level of quality anymore.
>>>>
>>>> But considering the number of people who get rich in the US health care
>>>> business, it will hard to change it. Getting the government to pay is
>>>> not
>>>> going to help unless we drastically reduce the cost.
>>>>
>>>
>

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:36:38 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>
>
>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>:
>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs are so
>>high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>
>You could be correct if the year was still 1968, but Medicare has
>operated under cost controls since the mid-1970s, and currently no
>health payment system, public or private, sets lower reimbursements
>for hospitals and doctors than Medicare, except possibly some Medicaid
>programs or Tricare.

Good point. One proposal is to open Medicare to anyone willing to pay
the premium. This would drive the private insurance companies out of
business overnight.

BTW, Mike, how was your coronary bypass paid for? You didn't rely any
nasty government programs did you? Given your age and what little we
know about your medical history, I would guess that private health
insurance is costing you at least $5,000 per month if you can get it
at all.

That may be your opinion but you are not correct I was recently
hospitalized for six days. The Medicare set rate was over $13,000, my HMO
settled it for about one third that amount and I paid a $50 co-pay. The
doctor(s) bills were also settled for less than half the Medicare rate


> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>:
>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs are
>>so
>>high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>
> You could be correct if the year was still 1968, but Medicare has
> operated under cost controls since the mid-1970s, and currently no
> health payment system, public or private, sets lower reimbursements
> for hospitals and doctors than Medicare, except possibly some Medicaid
> programs or Tricare.

How would that run the insurance companies out of business, when it comes to
Medicare coverage? You need to do more research on HOW Medicare funds are
disbursed. Insurance companies get the funds that would normally go to
hospitals every quarter once a person chooses to go for private insurance.

When I turned 65 I did not apply for SS. I am wealthy and do not need
another $2,800. When my private insurance contract came up for renewal I
was informed by the company I could no longer BUY insurance. Since the
insurance companies, that provide for folks over 65, get the Medicare
funds that are paid to hospitals for those over 65 in a given area, I was
REQUIRED to buy and pay for part "B." The only way to pay for part "B" is
to have it deducted form one monthly SS check. So now I get a check for
SS every month that I have deposited into one of my chartable trusts.

As to my current healthcare coverage I am not covered by Medicare, it is
provide by a Blue Cross HMO for which the month premium is ZERO and provides
MORE than is offered by Medicare, like dental and eye care benefits wellness
and etc..

In addition I purchase a $2,000,000 umbrella policy that covers cancer,
nursing home and others things not covered by any healthcare system.
Again one can not BUY an umbrella policy useless you have full coverage

As to my bypass surgery, at the time I was still working and covered by the
partners policy that paid the hospital bill that was, if memory serves,
around $42,000 twenty thee years ago. One of my sons-in-law performed
the surgery pro bono, my insurance only paid the other members of the team
of surgeons

In any event SS and Medicare are CURRENTLY headed to insolvency as we speak.
President Bush tried to reform SS and Medicare but the Dims would not go
along.


"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:36:38 -0800 (PST), "
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>:
>>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs are
>>>so
>>>high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>>
>>You could be correct if the year was still 1968, but Medicare has
>>operated under cost controls since the mid-1970s, and currently no
>>health payment system, public or private, sets lower reimbursements
>>for hospitals and doctors than Medicare, except possibly some Medicaid
>>programs or Tricare.
>
> Good point. One proposal is to open Medicare to anyone willing to pay
> the premium. This would drive the private insurance companies out of
> business overnight.
>
> BTW, Mike, how was your coronary bypass paid for? You didn't rely any
> nasty government programs did you? Given your age and what little we
> know about your medical history, I would guess that private health
> insurance is costing you at least $5,000 per month if you can get it
> at all.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:05:34 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
>
>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs are so
>>high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>
>>The reason the government sets the rates high is to pay the doctors and
>>hospital to provide the so called FREE care to the indigent under the US
>>Hill Burton Act. The government IS the cause NOT the cure.
>>
>>Our local volunteer ambulance corps was shut down by the feds for Medicare
>>fraud. The feds took all of their money and sold all of their equipment
>>and were ready to put the VOLUNTEER leaders in jail, untill a US Senator
>>stepped in and stopped the lunacy. The problem was the Medicare
>>reimbursement rate to the hospital, three miles out of town, was $750 but
>>the corps only charged the VOLUNTEER fireman's insurance company $250!
>
>
> Sounds like BS to me (so surprising coming from Mike.)
>
> Hospitals and doctors routinely charge much higher fees to uninsured
> than to insured patients. So is the discount to the insurance company
> Medicare fraud? Or are uninsured patients being charged much more
> than the "very high" Medicare rates?
>
>


I recently went (for the first time) to a doctor under Medicare. What I
learned is:

a) Reimbursement rates are low to the point many providers do not accept
Medicare.

b) When a provider accepts Medicare, they jack up the rate/fee for
service in order to get what they normally would get for a cash transaction.

c) The big factor in healthcare costs for retired folks using Medicare
is the unacceptable level of administrative costs that factor in the
total sum picture. I've received more paperwork for two recent doctor
visits than I have in the last twenty-five years!

Believe me, when the guv'ment sez they're here to he'p you, whatch out!

JT

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:51:28 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>How would that run the insurance companies out of business, when it comes to
>Medicare coverage? You need to do more research on HOW Medicare funds are
>disbursed. Insurance companies get the funds that would normally go to
>hospitals every quarter once a person chooses to go for private insurance.

Medicare would drive the private companies out of business because the
cost is so much lower. They private companies are massive
bureaucracies in which at least 25% of your premium goes to
overhead/profit.

>When I turned 65 I did not apply for SS. I am wealthy and do not need
>another $2,800. When my private insurance contract came up for renewal I
>was informed by the company I could no longer BUY insurance. Since the
>insurance companies, that provide for folks over 65, get the Medicare
>funds that are paid to hospitals for those over 65 in a given area, I was
>REQUIRED to buy and pay for part "B." The only way to pay for part "B" is
>to have it deducted form one monthly SS check. So now I get a check for
>SS every month that I have deposited into one of my chartable trusts.

so presumably Medicare would pay for at least part of any future
medical expenses.

>As to my current healthcare coverage I am not covered by Medicare, it is
>provide by a Blue Cross HMO for which the month premium is ZERO

Magical free insurance! I guess there is a god. Wake up, Mike.
Someone is paying.

>and provides
>MORE than is offered by Medicare, like dental and eye care benefits wellness
>and etc..

No doubt, but most people can't get this deal. Plus I would be quite
surprised if your Blue Cross HMO doesn't collect some money from
Medicare. You paid in those premiums for years.

>In addition I purchase a $2,000,000 umbrella policy that covers cancer,
>nursing home and others things not covered by any healthcare system.
>Again one can not BUY an umbrella policy useless you have full coverage

How is this relevant to anything? (You can't buy the umbrella policy
w.o. full coverage because it is a supplemental policy, duh.)

>As to my bypass surgery, at the time I was still working and covered by the
>partners policy that paid the hospital bill that was, if memory serves,
>around $42,000 twenty thee years ago. One of my sons-in-law performed
>the surgery pro bono, my insurance only paid the other members of the team
>of surgeons

Great, will he do that for anyone who walks in the door? That surgery
would probably be $250,000 now.

>In any event SS and Medicare are CURRENTLY headed to insolvency as we speak.
>President Bush tried to reform SS and Medicare but the Dims would not go
>along.

Bush proposed nothing wrt. Medicare, even thought its financial
situation is much more critical than SS. His proposal for SS
effectively was to borrow a lot of money and invest it in the stock
market. What a shame the democrats shut that down.

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:51:28 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
>>How would that run the insurance companies out of business, when it comes
>>to
>>Medicare coverage? You need to do more research on HOW Medicare funds
>>are
>>disbursed. Insurance companies get the funds that would normally go to
>>hospitals every quarter once a person chooses to go for private insurance.
>
> Medicare would drive the private companies out of business because the
> cost is so much lower. They private companies are massive
> bureaucracies in which at least 25% of your premium goes to
> overhead/profit.
>
>>When I turned 65 I did not apply for SS. I am wealthy and do not need
>>another $2,800. When my private insurance contract came up for renewal I
>>was informed by the company I could no longer BUY insurance. Since the
>>insurance companies, that provide for folks over 65, get the Medicare
>>funds that are paid to hospitals for those over 65 in a given area, I was
>>REQUIRED to buy and pay for part "B." The only way to pay for part "B"
>>is
>>to have it deducted form one monthly SS check. So now I get a check for
>>SS every month that I have deposited into one of my chartable trusts.
>
> so presumably Medicare would pay for at least part of any future
> medical expenses.
>
>>As to my current healthcare coverage I am not covered by Medicare, it is
>>provide by a Blue Cross HMO for which the month premium is ZERO
>
> Magical free insurance! I guess there is a god. Wake up, Mike.
> Someone is paying.
>
>>and provides
>>MORE than is offered by Medicare, like dental and eye care benefits
>>wellness
>>and etc..
>
> No doubt, but most people can't get this deal. Plus I would be quite
> surprised if your Blue Cross HMO doesn't collect some money from
> Medicare. You paid in those premiums for years.
>
>>In addition I purchase a $2,000,000 umbrella policy that covers cancer,
>>nursing home and others things not covered by any healthcare system.
>>Again one can not BUY an umbrella policy useless you have full coverage
>
> How is this relevant to anything? (You can't buy the umbrella policy
> w.o. full coverage because it is a supplemental policy, duh.)
>
>>As to my bypass surgery, at the time I was still working and covered by
>>the
>>partners policy that paid the hospital bill that was, if memory serves,
>>around $42,000 twenty thee years ago. One of my sons-in-law performed
>>the surgery pro bono, my insurance only paid the other members of the team
>>of surgeons
>
> Great, will he do that for anyone who walks in the door? That surgery
> would probably be $250,000 now.
>
>>In any event SS and Medicare are CURRENTLY headed to insolvency as we
>>speak.
>>President Bush tried to reform SS and Medicare but the Dims would not go
>>along.
>
> Bush proposed nothing wrt. Medicare, even thought its financial
> situation is much more critical than SS. His proposal for SS
> effectively was to borrow a lot of money and invest it in the stock
> market. What a shame the democrats shut that down.

This is one instance in which the Canadian medicare system is superior. ONLY
one
payer in each of the Canadian provinces.


>

"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:58:35 -0500, Rock Hardson cast forth these pearls
> of
> wisdom...:
>
>> "Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:22:08 -0500, Rock Hardson cast forth these pearls
>>> of
>>> wisdom...:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Wow...and what do you think the union was developed for? Why were
>>>> people
>>>> dying and getting there heads cracked open in the 20 and 30's? Maybe so
>>>> people like you or your father could actually do a job no matter how
>>>> menial
>>>> or mind numbing with dignity and respect without being walked over and
>>>> disrepected by corporate and for that matter people like you.
>>>
>>> Actually, my father who was in the workforce through those formative
>>> years,
>>> did not need a union to protect him any more than his son did throughout
>>> his career. Maybe you have a romantic notion about what the unions are.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Mike-
>>>
>>
>> I personally don't care what type of work daddy did, but the fact is the
>> unions were formed by workers who needed protection in certain
>> industries.
>> If you were not part of that industry then you obviously did not need a
>> union. I personally never worked in industry so I have no use for a
>> union,
>> but again the facts remain that some industries needed to be unionized.
>
> ... and to go full circle - those days are long gone. Nice to see you
> catch up, even if it is by circling around the rabbit trail a little bit.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
>

They might be long gone but the contracts are still in place.

"Mark A" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Rock Hardson" > wrote in message
> .com...
>> The UAW is living proof that one does not need to invest in oneself in
>> terms of high skills and knowledge. That, in and of itself, is
>> anathema to capitalism.
>>
>> No thats a matter of choice. Since when have you become concerned with
>> someone elses education??
>
> The UAW is organized crime syndicate that has bilked the American people
> out of billions of dollars.
>
You can say the same thing about congress.

"Mark A" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Rock Hardson" > wrote in message
> .com...
>> Again your Glee in American job loss is showing. I just wonder what type
>> of work you do and long you could sustain a job loss.
>
> Here is a question for you:
>
> Suppose you were offered choice between these two:
>
> 1. Agree to only use gasoline made from crude oil produced in the US,
> which would result in a price of $2.50 per gallon.
>
> 2. Willing to purchase gasoline made from imported or US crude oil so that
> you only have to pay $1.50 per gallon and hundreds of thousands of US oil
> industry jobs would be lost.
>
> That's what I thought. Your buy American only counts when it applies to
> you.
>

Thats a silly question, its like asking me if I will buy regular vegatables
for $3 a bag or buy organic vegatables for $6 a bag. I go for organic
mostly. If I want to support my own for whatever reason I will pay a little
bit more. Some people just sell out at any cost.