Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

In article VLIIb.707319$Tr4.1787059@attbi_s03,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
I don't mean to be cynical (that's Martin's job), but something doesn't add
up here...

Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker on the
mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty much
rolling in money.

Yet he can't borrow/raise $250K to save his daughter's life?


First of all, do we know that Capt. Haynes and not some other person is
behind the public fundraising for his daughter?

Secondly, do we know how much Capt. Haynes is making these days, or what
his expenses have been through his misfortune?

And thirdly, do we know what Capt. Haynes' relationship is with his
daughter? One of the articles that I read seemed to suggest that he
didn't view his daughter's life as any more important than someone
else's, which I thought was a little strange. Maybe I misinterpreted
what he said, or perhaps he was misquoted, but even if he was trying to
be objective about this sort of thing, it is human nature to value
family and friends more than others.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

be objective about this sort of thing, it is human nature to value
family and friends more than others.



Hope that never changes.

I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

--
-Elliott Drucker

Well said and the reminder is a good one!

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:39:20 GMT, wrote:

I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

Stu Gotts wrote:
Well said and the reminder is a good one!

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:39:20 GMT, wrote:


I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.


If it was some low life in prison they would sue and we, (the taxpayers)
would have to pay for it.

writes:

I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations.

Indeed. I knew an AA line Capt. He had a seizure in flight. They
opened up his head and said "nothing to do.."

But it took him almost another 10 years to die. His wife went
broke trying to pay for his care.....
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Well said.


wrote in message
...
I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it
is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved)
fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the
insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote in message .. .
I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definately a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.

My $0.02
Sydney

On 4-Jan-2004, (Snowbird) wrote:

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definitely a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.


Yes, that's it exactly. If EVERYONE had health insurance total health care
spending would go DOWN! When an uninsured is treated in an emergency room
(the most expensive kind of care, and usually the only place that will treat
the uninsured) who pays the bills? WE ALL DO. In some cases costs are
borne by taxes, in others they are passed along to other users of the
hospital, which are reflected in higher costs for health insurance.

There are really only two "solutions". We can let the uninsured die of
treatable conditions (morally unacceptable) or we can find a way to insure
EVERYONE, like every other industrialized country has long since been doing.

-Elliott Drucker

Like England and Canada, or Italy and France? No thanks.

Why can't the uninsured pay? You don't have to let them die, treat them,
then make sure you collect for the services.

wrote in message
...

On 4-Jan-2004, (Snowbird) wrote:

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definitely a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.


Yes, that's it exactly. If EVERYONE had health insurance total health
care
spending would go DOWN! When an uninsured is treated in an emergency room
(the most expensive kind of care, and usually the only place that will
treat
the uninsured) who pays the bills? WE ALL DO. In some cases costs are
borne by taxes, in others they are passed along to other users of the
hospital, which are reflected in higher costs for health insurance.

There are really only two "solutions". We can let the uninsured die of
treatable conditions (morally unacceptable) or we can find a way to insure
EVERYONE, like every other industrialized country has long since been
doing.

-Elliott Drucker