CPAPtalk.com

rooster wrote:

apnez wrote:Just for those Americans who believe that the Canadian health system is a nightmare and that Canadians are not happy with it. The latest poll on that subject (yesterday) shows that Quebec population has a 88% level of satisfaction and the global score for Canada is 86% (Nanos Research)...

Any chance that 86% is the ones who are healthy and the 14% is the ones who have health problems?

-SWS wrote:Well, I already miss reading Jan's posts. No two ways about it...{/quote]

[color=#004080 I missed posting. I had an empty spot in my life without the forum][/color]

Most importantly, if Jan refrains from posting then she can't help with my upcoming thread:
"Should the U.S. Pick an Official Religion and Formally Impose It?]

(My lead-in comment: Oh!! What a REALLY good idea! )

What . . . and miss out on being at the epi-center when the Worlds collide over this one

And you thought this thread was controversial...

Religion, controversial? SWS since when?

Please come back to help with my upcoming thread, Jan! Thanks in advance!

Muffy wrote:

The only reason people use words like "egregious" is to look cool! Otherwise, instead of saying "egregious to the forum and its members", they would simply say, "Boy, was that FS!"

Muffy, since you have visited Eutah, I thought you might know "egregious" is a $10.00 word, used in important situations

I believe the penalty for saying something FS (and what is "FS" is relative) is not "not posting", it's "more posting". Since this is clearly the mature thing to do, I am not only going to "not post" till you return. I'm going to hold my breath until you do.

In our household, we have a difference of opinion about the meaning of FS. While I was "not posting" DH suggested since I wasn't spending hours checking out the forum, I could start cooking wonderful dinners for him again. He kindly offered to introduce me to the Stove & the Frig. Dah! I had to explain that FS meant I was doing my usual thing --- finding an interesting topic, studying it. If I decide it has value, I speak out 'bout it in the free way we have in the USA..

OK, wait on the breath thing, just so you know, I've got a great post ready, it's really going to help somebody, so you better post soon.OK, starting now.OK, one more thing, it has to do with algorithm stuff, so it's going to be really exciting! OK, starting now for sure.mmfffl

robertmarilyn wrote:
JAN'S BACK!!!!!!!

WearyOne wrote:I don't even have to look at any other country's government-run healthcare system, just looking at our bill and our government's past poor performance with social programs is enough because none of them work RIGHT.

PST wrote:

WearyOne wrote:I don't even have to look at any other country's government-run healthcare system, just looking at our bill and our government's past poor performance with social programs is enough because none of them work RIGHT.

Medicare works well. My friends and relatives over 65 like it. I look forward to becoming eligible. Even those of us with good employer-provided insurance may be a job loss or business failure away from being uninsured and effectively uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition. That suspense will end at age 65. WearyOne, can you honestly say you would abolish Medicare because it doesn't work RIGHT? If so, you are the only person I know who would.

Before you math wizards try to make sense out of the formula and the splits, remember Congress wrote the rules. making it virtually impossible for most mere mortals to figure how it works

KSMike wrote:I think you'd have a very hard time finding anyone who doesn't believe serious reforms aren't needed or desirable. But there's a big difference between the kinds of reforms that would fix the major problems without infringing on the basic liberties we enjoy in America, and the direction the current U.S. administration would like us to follow. Being against Obamacare (in any of it's current forms) does not necessarily mean that one is for the continuation of the current system.

Putting the government in charge of every aspect of my life - and make no mistake, that IS what we're talking about here - has to be stopped at any and all cost.

SaltLakeJan wrote:Our Senators and Representatives are in the news constantly, and they are mostly talking about proposed Health Care Reform plans. Some are in favor of reform, some are against it. We all hear comments that if Congress is proposing a reform of our Health Care, that it is only fair if our Senators and Representatives get the same plan they want us to have. It is a part of their closely guarded benefit package And, since the Federal Government employees around 2,700,000 people, (all with the option of having H.I.), it seems reasonable to include them, as well as other special interest groups and unions.

The Fed. pays slightly more than 70% of the total health insurance premium for 1.6 million Federal Civilian Employees.(CPSC Human Resources page 6) A couple of Federal Agencies pay even less for their H.I. The Post Office has approximately 800,000 employees; Federal Deposit Ins. Co has 6,000 people working for them. These two agencies only pay 15% of their total premium. A regular Federal worker in GEHA fee-for-service pays $580.00 for self only coverage. However the P.O. and FDIC pay only $260.00 for the same coverage. (Federalnewsradio.com.Health Premium Discounts 12-6-2006)

The Fed obtains the funds for wages and operations from the taxes we pay. Does this mean the tax-paying citizens are paying for their Public Servants Health Insurance ?

Government Employees may be the hardest working people in the nation, but if Health Ins. changes are proposed, is there a reason why we shouldn't include everyone? Do they deserve the perks - maybe, but life has changed for all of us. Perhaps it will for them too.

Before you math wizards try to make sense out of the formula and the splits, remember Congress wrote the rules. making it virtually impossible for most mere mortals to figure how it works

Jan