What You Need To Know About The Proposed Healthcare Reform - NY Times Editorial

[NJ Stinks]

March 7, 2010
Editorial
If Reform Fails

As the fierce debate on President Obama’s plan for health care reform comes to a head, Americans should be thinking carefully about what happens if Congress fails to enact legislation.

Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?

Here are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive reform or continue with what we have:


More at the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[HUSKER55]

tHE problem is the reform does not solve the problem. It is whitewash at best.

stop illegals from medical care, and don't let anyone have benefits who has not paid into the system will solve the problem. That means no services and no soc sec. nothing.

where in BO program is that addressed? And I mean with a method in the plan to enforce it.

Do I think every worker should pay,..yes I do. I had to


no free lunch

Next problem is the drug companies and doctors who gouge the crap out of patients and insurance companies. Some of them bastard haven't repaid their student loans. (heard that on the local news awhile back)

Insurance comanies are not innocent but if our nation is to make sweeping reform then do it right or not at all.


I don't see it. If you do then obviously we will cancel each other out at the polls.

[johnhannibalsmith]

According to Kathleen Sebelius this morning all you need to know about health care is:

-Joe's little baby was born with a heart condition. Poor Joe, poor baby.

-Maria Vasquez policy keeps going up. Poor Maria.

-Bob & Dave's Hardware has to choose between hiring two new employees and health insurance for his hourly workers. Poor Bob, poor Dave, poor workers.

Apparently Bill Maher isn't the only one that thinks that Americans are brain dead noodles... this storytelling nonsense as an answer to pointed questions is getting VERY old.

[delayjf]

this storytelling nonsense as an answer to pointed questions is getting VERY old.

The Progs have to appeal to ones emotions to hide the fact that their solutions have been tried and have failed.

[jognlope]

Yeah let's just let 100,000 die next year from no insurance and let the rich be healthy

[boxcar]

March 7, 2010
Editorial
If Reform Fails

As the fierce debate on President Obama’s plan for health care reform comes to a head, Americans should be thinking carefully about what happens if Congress fails to enact legislation.

Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?

Here are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive reform or continue with what we have:


More at the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html?pagewanted=1&hp

NJ you're seriously out of touch as is the NY Slimes. Now...try to get that brain of yours into gear and understand this: About 55% of Americans don't want the Democrat Plan. This is NOT the same as saying that 55% of Americans don't want health care reform. Only about 20 to 25% of Americans want to stick with the "status quo".

I think what both groups want is for health care to remain privatized. At least 70% of Americans want their personal health issues to be under their control and their doctors', not government control. Have it now? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Yeah let's just let 100,000 die next year from no insurance and let the rich be healthy

Let those 100,000 get Medicaid. Hasn't Medicaid worked all these years? Surely you're not suggesting that Medicaid was a huge government failure, are you?

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Tort reform.

Remove the barriers to allow pools across state lines.

No service for illegals.

Try those then come back in a few years.

[boxcar]

Tort reform.

Remove the barriers to allow pools across state lines.

No service for illegals.

Try those then come back in a few years.

Those and even others are all viable free market solutions. And this is what the vast majority of Americans want. The vast majority of Americans are not buying into BO's lie that Democrat plan would give the people greater control over their health care. People realize that is an outright lie. The state would ultimately calling the shots.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Yeah let's just let 100,000 die next year from no insurance and let the rich be healthy

Mrs. Sebelius?

[Tom]

Yeah let's just let 100,000 die next year from no insurance and let the rich be healthy

Now that is just a stupid post. Sorry, but it's just plain stupid.
This is how the dems get crap passed that does nothing - they rely on ignorance.

[Tom]

Tort reform.

Remove the barriers to allow pools across state lines.

No service for illegals.

Try those then come back in a few years.

Require proof of citizenship at the emergency room.
Deport all who cannot produce.

[NJ Stinks]

NJ you're seriously out of touch as is the NY Slimes. Now...try to get that brain of yours into gear and understand this: About 55% of Americans don't want the Democrat Plan. This is NOT the same as saying that 55% of Americans don't want health care reform. Only about 20 to 25% of Americans want to stick with the "status quo".

I think what both groups want is for health care to remain privatized. At least 70% of Americans want their personal health issues to be under their control and their doctors', not government control. Have it now? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Take seniors, who are already have government-run Medicare as their primary healthcare provider, out of these poll results and then tell me 55% of Americans don't want the Dem health plan.

If we are going to keep the healthcare industry completely in the private sector for Americans under 65 - and it looks like we are - regulating the healthcare industry like public utilities are regulated doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

[jballscalls]

Take seniors, who are already have government-run Medicare as their primary healthcare provider, out of these poll results and then tell me 55% of Americans don't want the Dem health plan.

If we are going to keep the healthcare industry completely in the private sector for Americans under 65 - and it looks like we are - regulating the healthcare industry like public utilities are regulated doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

i talked to some folks on medicare the other day and they loved it and said they haven't had any problems

[NJ Stinks]

i talked to some folks on medicare the other day and they loved it and said they haven't had any problems

I agree that seniors do like Medicare a lot. I'm not sure you understand why I said to take seniors out of the poll results, Jballs. (Although you may, of course.) My point is that seniors are concerned that Medicare may be affected negatively by the Dem healthcare plan. So seniors are vote against it for that reason alone.

[ArlJim78]

i talked to some folks on medicare the other day and they loved it and said they haven't had any problems
only one problem though, the program is bankrupt and teeming with fraud.

[boxcar]

Take seniors, who are already have government-run Medicare as their primary healthcare provider, out of these poll results and then tell me 55% of Americans don't want the Dem health plan.

If we are going to keep the healthcare industry completely in the private sector for Americans under 65 - and it looks like we are - regulating the healthcare industry like public utilities are regulated doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

Another lousy analogy! When are you ever going to learn!? :rolleyes:

At least right now, the government isn't dictating to the utilities how much energy they can supply to businesses and homeowners. There are no quality issues involved as there certainly would be with a government takeover of the health care industry. In one case, the government regulates an industry in a very limited sense, whereas in the other the government would fully control an entire industry.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

so the Times asks, "Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?"

I'm so sick of this lame argument. Answering YES to the above question does not mean one has to support Obamacare.

It's the kind of argument used when you don't have any facts that prove that the proposed change will actually improve anything. Yes the status quo is not sustainable but my solution is to get government out of healthcare, not to take it over.

any bad idea can be justified in such a way, because "surely we must do something". It was the argument used for the stimulus and we learned that it was a lie. we could have done nothing and have been better off.
If the "we" you're talking about is government then almost certainly doing nothing is better, and the right thing won't be done. that's why it's best to limit the scope of the federal government, because it does so many things bad.

[NJ Stinks]

I agree that seniors do like Medicare a lot.

I know Marshall Bennett is elgible for Medicare and does not like it. Marshall, if you read this post, could you explain again what it is you don't like about Medicare? (I have forgotten why you said you didn't like it.)

[mostpost]

Tort reform.

Remove the barriers to allow pools across state lines.

No service for illegals.

Try those then come back in a few years.
Tort reform:
The United States spends $2.3 trillion annually on Health care. Jury awards annually on malpractice suits amount to $3.6 billion. That is one tenth of one percent of the costs. If we totally eliminated malpractice awards, we would still be spending $2.296 trillion annually on health care.

Selling across state lines:
There is no evidence that selling across state lines would reduce premiums. Just because a company offers lower premiums in Kansas or Idaho, doesn't mean they will offer the same premiums in New York City. The competion will be based on costs and history in the particular state.

No service for illegals:
The American Hospital Associaltion reported that its members provided $23 Billion in uncompensated services in 2002. It is estimated that 43% of
that was for illegals. $9.3 billion. That is four tenths of one per cent.

These are issues that need to be looked into and reforms are needed. But to say that this would come even close to solving the problems is just WRONG.

[boxcar]

Tort reform:
The United States spends $2.3 trillion annually on Health care. Jury awards annually on malpractice suits amount to $3.6 billion. That is one tenth of one percent of the costs. If we totally eliminated malpractice awards, we would still be spending $2.296 trillion annually on health care.

Selling across state lines:
There is no evidence that selling across state lines would reduce premiums. Just because a company offers lower premiums in Kansas or Idaho, doesn't mean they will offer the same premiums in New York City. The competion will be based on costs and history in the particular state.

No service for illegals:
The American Hospital Associaltion reported that its members provided $23 Billion in uncompensated services in 2002. It is estimated that 43% of
that was for illegals. $9.3 billion. That is four tenths of one per cent.

These are issues that need to be looked into and reforms are needed. But to say that this would come even close to solving the problems is just WRONG.

So, a government monopoly on health care would lower costs but increased competition in the private sector wouldn't? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

The Progs have to appeal to ones emotions to hide the fact that their solutions have been tried and have failed.
Really???? Where????? When???? To say nothing of how.

[mostpost]

So, a government monopoly on health care would lower costs but increased competition in the private sector wouldn't? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar
Even a full fledged Public Option (which isn't in any of the current bills) is not a government monopoly. All of the proposed Public Options (none of which are in the current bills) was designed to undersell private insurance.
:bang: :bang: yourself.

[mostpost]

NJ you're seriously out of touch as is the NY Slimes. Now...try to get that brain of yours into gear and understand this: About 55% of Americans don't want the Democrat Plan. This is NOT the same as saying that 55% of Americans don't want health care reform. Only about 20 to 25% of Americans want to stick with the "status quo".

I think what both groups want is for health care to remain privatized. At least 70% of Americans want their personal health issues to be under their control and their doctors', not government control. Have it now? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
I question that 55%, but if it's correct the problem is not the Democrats are doing too much, it is that they are doing too little. The are acquiessing to the Republicans plan to fix a compound fracture with a band aid. Most Americans want the end to preexisting conditions. Most Americans want portability in their Health Care Insurance. Most Americans want protection against unreasonable increases in premiums. Most Americans do not want to be dropped by their insurance company if they incur a large claim. Most Americans do not want to forced to jump through hoops every time they have a claim.
Tort reform and selling across state lines solve none of these problems.

[boxcar]

And for those of you wingnuts who now find it fashionable to demonize a class of citizens known as "seniors", you might want to expand your horizons a bit to include other classes of people as well. As most of you probably know Medicare Part A is "free". This is so because the federal government routinely withholds a portion of everyone paychecks to pay for it. So, when it comes time to retire, seniors don't pay anything additional for Part A. Only the optional parts of Medicare require monthly deductions from seniors' SS checks, if they so choose to have any of those options. Therefore, there are far more people than just seniors concerned about Medicare going extinct because people of all ages have for years, as taxpaying, productive citizens contributed toward Part A for all their working lives. Now, what is going to happen to all that money which the government confiscated for a product that it no longer wants to deliver because they really want to replace it with "ObamaCare"? Do those 30, 40, 50-year old, etc. taxpayers get a refund on all that money they have paid into Part A? After all, if ObamaCare passes, they're going to be taxed even more money -- a lot more!

Remember liberals: This is the ponzi nightmare the Federal Government has created! So, go easy on those poor seniors and all other classes who want no part of ObamaCare, will ya? ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I question that 55%, but if it's correct the problem is not the Democrats are doing too much, it is that they are doing too little. The are acquiessing to the Republicans plan to fix a compound fracture with a band aid. Most Americans want the end to preexisting conditions. Most Americans want portability in their Health Care Insurance. Most Americans want protection against unreasonable increases in premiums. Most Americans do not want to be dropped by their insurance company if they incur a large claim. Most Americans do not want to forced to jump through hoops every time they have a claim.
Tort reform and selling across state lines solve none of these problems.

And you forgot one: Most Americans don't want a government takeover of the insurance or health care industries either. Yes, most Americans want reform -- just not ObamaCare style, and it's not because it doesn't go far enough; it's because it goes too far! Most Americans rightly don't trust either Obama or the Federal government?

Boxcar

[fast4522]

The fact is the administration provides data that is skewed with respect to actual costs, reductions and cuts to Medicaid. The CBO does a good job with the data it gets, but like in racing (garbage in = garbage out). Even those who did not attend a university can calculate that the administration is using fuzzy math. Why does this president feel he is smarter than the people, and result in a repeal and his party getting beat in the next election?

[DRIVEWAY]

The fact is the administration provides data that is skewed with respect to actual costs, reductions and cuts to Medicaid. The CBO does a good job with the data it gets, but like in racing (garbage in = garbage out). Even those who did not attend a university can calculate that the administration is using fuzzy math. Why does this president feel he is smarter than the people, and result in a repeal and his party getting beat in the next election?

I'm sure you meant Medicare. Medicaid is state run health care for people below the poverty line. Every state is different and the quality of medicaid offered varies from terrible to barely tolerable.

The CBO can't acurately score these plans with a high degree of certainty. The garbage in = garbage out is an fair analogy.

The cuts in Medicare that are derived from limiting fraud, waste and abuse and are then used to fund this new Obamacare are unfair. Out of one side of their mouth thay say Medicare is going broke in 7 years and out of the other they can save Medicare 50 Billion a year in fraud, waste and abuse. If true then please use the 50 Billion a year to extend the solvency of Medicare instead of funding another heathcare program.

Currently health insurance premiums are rising between 20 and 40 percent a year. This percentage increase is also accelerating year over year. In 3-4 years insurance premiums could and probably will double. Obamacare will probably not pass.

So the question is: Will the government do anything to solve this runaway cost spiral?

[boxcar]

I'm sure you meant Medicare. Medicaid is state run health care for people below the poverty line. Every state is different and the quality of medicaid offered varies from terrible to barely tolerable.

The CBO can't acurately score these plans with a high degree of certainty. The garbage in = garbage out is an fair analogy.

The cuts in Medicare that are derived from limiting fraud, waste and abuse and are then used to fund this new Obamacare are unfair. Out of one side of their mouth thay say Medicare is going broke in 7 years and out of the other they can save Medicare 50 Billion a year in fraud, waste and abuse. If true then please use the 50 Billion a year to extend the solvency of Medicare instead of funding another heathcare program.

Currently health insurance premiums are rising between 20 and 40 percent a year. This percentage increase is also accelerating year over year. In 3-4 years insurance premiums could and probably will double. Obamacare will probably not pass.

So the question is: Will the government do anything to solve this runaway cost spiral?

Driveby, :) sometimes you actually make sense! :ThmbUp:

It's funny how the Dems have discovered all this wasted money in Medicare, yet we don't see a mad rush at them doing anything about it, do we? Know why? They eventually want to terminate the program. They could give two flips about Medicare. They're getting all set to pull the rug from out from under all the people who have been paying into Medicare all their working lives. Can you imagine the outcries that would go up if any corporation stiffed their customers that way?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Driveby, :) sometimes you actually make sense! :ThmbUp:

It's funny how the Dems have discovered all this wasted money in Medicare, yet we don't see a mad rush at them doing anything about it, do we? Know why? They eventually want to terminate the program. They could give two flips about Medicare. They're getting all set to pull the rug from out from under all the people who have been paying into Medicare all their working lives. Can you imagine the outcries that would go up if any corporation stiffed their customers that way?

Boxcar

Does anyone know what Boxcar is talking about?

Was there an article in the Globe I missed? :bang:

[boxcar]

Does anyone know what Boxcar is talking about?

Was there an article in the Globe I missed? :bang:

First, try really hard to look past the end of your nose: If ObamaCare passes, how many taxpayer-funded health care programs do you think they'll be in 4 or 5 years? Answer this and then we'll proceed to the next question, provided you have extricated your head from your globe-shaped fishbowl. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

so the Times asks, "Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?"

I'm so sick of this lame argument. Answering YES to the above question does not mean one has to support Obamacare.

This is typical spin dems put on stuff. Somehow, a worse health care scenario, which Obamcare certainly is, is supposed to be the only other choice.

Everyday, we get closer and closer to the dem Armageddon - the next election.

They have to pass this bill to get their anti-American agenda financed or they lose the chance for the next 30 years.

The Axis of Evil knows their days are numbered. Like the Japs , in WWII, when they knew they were losing the war, they are now asking their troops
to become kamakazis for party. Had Obama and the other tow devils really wnat ed to help people, they could have passed bills to do must that a year ago.

[horses4courses]

This is typical spin dems put on stuff. Somehow, a worse health care scenario, which Obamcare certainly is, is supposed to be the only other choice.

Everyday, we get closer and closer to the dem Armageddon - the next election.

They have to pass this bill to get their anti-American agenda financed or they lose the chance for the next 30 years.

The Axis of Evil knows their days are numbered. Like the Japs , in WWII, when they knew they were losing the war, they are now asking their troops
to become kamakazis for party. Had Obama and the other tow devils really wnat ed to help people, they could have passed bills to do must that a year ago.

Tom,

I was hoping you might define anti-American for us?

[Tom]

Sure.
Something that goes against the American way of life, that goes against the will of the American people. Someone that knowingly is lies to the people.

Like the Axis of Evil - Barry, Nancy, and Harry.
You remember them, the three that called our troops murders, criminals, that said the was in Iraq was lost, those who openly dissed our troops while they were on the battlefield?

Never forget, Never forgive.
Those three are the enemies of America.

[newtothegame]

Tom...you forgot to mention those are the same people who said and first used the terms like "un-american"....terrorist....etc etc to describe those (about 70% of the U.S) who was against this bill.

[newtothegame]

Tort reform:
The United States spends $2.3 trillion annually on Health care. Jury awards annually on malpractice suits amount to $3.6 billion. That is one tenth of one percent of the costs. If we totally eliminated malpractice awards, we would still be spending $2.296 trillion annually on health care.

Selling across state lines:
There is no evidence that selling across state lines would reduce premiums. Just because a company offers lower premiums in Kansas or Idaho, doesn't mean they will offer the same premiums in New York City. The competion will be based on costs and history in the particular state.

No service for illegals:
The American Hospital Associaltion reported that its members provided $23 Billion in uncompensated services in 2002. It is estimated that 43% of
that was for illegals. $9.3 billion. That is four tenths of one per cent.

These are issues that need to be looked into and reforms are needed. But to say that this would come even close to solving the problems is just WRONG.

So you would suggest not to tackle it since its only 1/10th???

Again...cause its a "small" amount in your eyes...lets not worry about it???

The problem is the Dems want to pass this massive over haul which NO ONE knows much about .....even the CBO can't get a true handle on what it will cost cause there are too many gray areas.

And it may not solve the totality of the problem...but you dont cut a water mellon with a hammer.....

[mostpost]

So you would suggest not to tackle it since its only 1/10th???

Again...cause its a "small" amount in your eyes...lets not worry about it???

The problem is the Dems want to pass this massive over haul which NO ONE knows much about .....even the CBO can't get a true handle on what it will cost cause there are too many gray areas.

And it may not solve the totality of the problem...but you dont cut a water mellon with a hammer.....
It's not 1/10th. It's 1/10th of one percent. The problem is those three things; tort reform, selling across state lines and refusing service to illegal aliens are the only three ideas Republicans have put forth.

Look again at the second last sentence in my post.

[mostpost]

only one problem though, the program is bankrupt and teeming with fraud.
I think "Teeming with fraud" is a bit strong. Nevertheless, the way to deal with fraud is to eliminate the fraud, not to eliminate the program which the fraud is being perpetrated against. We don't close the banks because people rob them.

[Tom]

Those three ideas are FAR superior to all the ems have come with.
Do you know why that is?
I will let you look it up.
Get back to me.
It's easy.

btw.....my Simulcast Weekly came chewed up again.
Someone is getting a pension for doing that?:rolleyes:

[mostpost]

First, try really hard to look past the end of your nose: If ObamaCare passes, how many taxpayer-funded health care programs do you think they'll be in 4 or 5 years? Answer this and then we'll proceed to the next question, provided you have extricated your head from your globe-shaped fishbowl. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
Boxcar, DEFENDER OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Never thought I'd see the day.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, DEFENDER OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Never thought I'd see the day.

The only way anyone could draw that conclusion is if they were in a train wreck and denied medical attention because they had no way of tellingl which end of you was up. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Another lousy analogy! When are you ever going to learn!? :rolleyes:

At least right now, the government isn't dictating to the utilities how much energy they can supply to businesses and homeowners. There are no quality issues involved as there certainly would be with a government takeover of the health care industry. In one case, the government regulates an industry in a very limited sense, whereas in the other the government would fully control an entire industry.

Boxcar
Wow!!!! You have exceeded even your lack of knowledge on a subject.
Rates for electicity must be approved by a government agency. The operation of power plants is under government scrutiny.
There are no quality issues involved as there certainly would be with a government takeover of the health care industry.

During the summer months, electrical power goes out in my neighborhood, on average once a month. Outages last from a few hours to days. Some of them are caused by trees falling on lines in storms and lightening. Many are caused because outdated and inadequte equipment is unable to meet demand.

And there is no planned government take over of health care. That exists only in your fevered imagination.

[Tom]

And there is no planned government take over of health care. That exists only in your fevered imagination.

Even Governor Patterson sees it coming.

[mostpost]

Those three ideas are FAR superior to all the ems have come with.
Do you know why that is?
I will let you look it up.
Get back to me.
It's easy.

btw.....my Simulcast Weekly came chewed up again.
Someone is getting a pension for doing that?:rolleyes:
I know why you think they are "FAR superior." Because they are free market based reforms, rather than government mandated reforms. The problem is they don't solve the problem.

btw.....my Simulcast Weekly came chewed up again.
Someone is getting a pension for doing that?:rolleyes
You've found me out. Every week your SW comes to me first. I chew on it. (It would be easier if I had a dog. :bang: ) Then I send it on. Supplements my income nicely. :lol:

[mostpost]

btw.....my Simulcast Weekly came chewed up again.
This bothers me. Unless you are exagerating, mail should not be delivered in a damaged condition as often as happens here. I have never seen a Simulcast Weekly in person. Is it printed on flimsy stock like a newspaper or more like a magazine? Do you receive it loose or in a wrapper? The question is where is it being damaged. Have you aggravated your carrier? (Of Course you have!!!!)

If you haven't already done so, you should bring the problem to the attention of your local Post Office. Don't complain to the window clerk. He has no authority to solve the problem and will probably forget your problem before he has finished waiting on the next customer.
Ask to speak to the carrier supervisor. Tell him/her the problem and ask if he will put a watch on the publication. The supervisor will notify the carrier and the distribution clerks to watch for your SW. They will make note if it comes in damaged or whole.
If it comes into the PO undamaged, but is damaged when you take it out of the mailbox, we need to know how. Is your mailbox large enough? Are there mice in your mailbox?
Most likely it is being damaged before it arrives at the local office by sorting machines somewhere along the line. If this is so, then many others should be having the same problem. Perhaps DRF needs to reconsider how it packages the SW.

Does anyone else have this problem?

[boxcar]

Wow!!!! You have exceeded even your lack of knowledge on a subject.
Rates for electicity must be approved by a government agency. The operation of power plants is under government scrutiny.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the federal government runs the energy industry.


During the summer months, electrical power goes out in my neighborhood, on average once a month. Outages last from a few hours to days. Some of them are caused by trees falling on lines in storms and lightening. Many are caused because outdated and inadequte equipment is unable to meet demand.

Well, there you go. You should move to a better 'hood. (Either that or trying to paying your bills on time. :D ) Where I live, there are very few outages -- save for those "acts of God", of course. :rolleyes:

And there is no planned government take over of health care. That exists only in your fevered imagination.

Yeah...right. That's why the bills are over 5,000 pages long. :rolleyes: You're deep in denial. Whenever the government mandates coverage for all and how that coverage is going to be administered down to the minutest details, I'd say that constitutes a take over. If ObamaCare passes, the state will have a monopoly on the entire industry.

Boxcar
P.S. According to your first hand experience with poor electrical service due only to government regulation of rates and scrutiny of power plants, what makes you think that the government will do any better in a far more complex industry wherein virtually every detail of people's health care will be scrutinized and require approval before service is approved and supplied? If the government can't get your home juiced up, what in the world makes you think you'll be able to receive timely and required care? Oh wait...I nearly forgot. Government employees and unionized workers get to keep their "cadillac" plans, don't they? So, why would you give two hoots about the quality of deliverance? :rolleyes:

[Indulto]

It's been awhile since I visited off-topic, but the Washington Generals seem even more ineffective than I remembered in this thread. ;)

[HUSKER55]

just curious,

has anyone ever seen a survey with any type of reliable numbers about how much graft there is in the system.

last I heard, (been a while) insurance companies that used to pay out 95% no only pay out about 80% and pocket the rest.

Doctors that used to charged $10K for a surgury now charge $100K

then there are the pharmcuticals. my inhalers that were $6 are now $35 and I don't think other prescriptions are any different. (that is in the last 5 years btw)


Does anyone have an idea of how much graft there is?

I can think of several ways to cut costs (who can't) that would be far more effective than being offered.

But if the graft isn't stopped then this is just another screwing for the people.

[delayjf]

Really???? Where????? When???? To say nothing of how.

Check out how well it's doing in the State of Mass and Tenn. Ask yourself, are the predictions and estimates for those States coming to fruition? What makes you think it will work better nationally.

[46zilzal]

From the past editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/profile2.html

The U.S. ranks highest in total cost of care, but according to a recent report by the Commonwealth Fund, it also ranks last among industrialized countries "in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care." In a recent FRONTLINE report comparing the health care systems of five other capitalist democracies, "Sick Around the World," WASHINGTON POST reporter T.R. Reid notes that, "The World Health Organization says the U.S. health care system rates 37th in the world in terms of quality and fairness. All the other rich countries do better than we do, and yet they spend a heck of a lot less."

[boxcar]

From the past editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/profile2.html

The U.S. ranks highest in total cost of care, but according to a recent report by the Commonwealth Fund, it also ranks last among industrialized countries "in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care." In a recent FRONTLINE report comparing the health care systems of five other capitalist democracies, "Sick Around the World," WASHINGTON POST reporter T.R. Reid notes that, "The World Health Organization says the U.S. health care system rates 37th in the world in terms of quality and fairness. All the other rich countries do better than we do, and yet they spend a heck of a lot less."

WHO? Don't make me laugh. Yes, we ranked last because of the way they rated everyone. This is very old news and has been discussed previously on this forum. Get up to speed already and quit regurgitating socialist propaganda from WHO.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

Boxcar, those people who are dying DON'T QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID. Under the bill Medicaid would be available to those making $40,000 or less.

[jognlope]

It's the end of life costs in Medicare that drain it. Recipients need to be required to name a health care proxy as a condition of receiving benefits, who will speak for them when they are too ill at the end of their life to say "I don't want these tubes down my throat, just let me die with morphine PCA."

[46zilzal]

It's the end of life costs in Medicare that drain it. Recipients need to be required to name a health care proxy as a condition of receiving benefits, who will speak for them when they are too ill at the end of their life to say "I don't want these tubes down my throat, just let me die with morphine PCA."
that is standard operating procedure here.

[mostpost]

Check out how well it's doing in the State of Mass and Tenn. Ask yourself, are the predictions and estimates for those States coming to fruition? What makes you think it will work better nationally.
In Massachusetts Chapter 58 is credited with increasing the number of insured by about 460,000. The US Census Bureau estimated Massachusetts UNINSURANCE rate in 2000 at 9.4%. In 2006 it was up to 9.6%. After implementation of Universal Health Care in Massachusetts the rate is down to 4.1%.
These are hardly numbers that back up your assertion.

[mostpost]

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

Originally Posted by 46zilzal
From the past editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/0...0/profile2.html

The U.S. ranks highest in total cost of care, but according to a recent report by the Commonwealth Fund, it also ranks last among industrialized countries "in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care." In a recent FRONTLINE report comparing the health care systems of five other capitalist democracies, "Sick Around the World," WASHINGTON POST reporter T.R. Reid notes that, "The World Health Organization says the U.S. health care system rates 37th in the world in terms of quality and fairness. All the other rich countries do better than we do, and yet they spend a heck of a lot less."

Reply by Boxcar

WHO? Don't make me laugh. Yes, we ranked last because of the way they rated everyone. This is very old news and has been discussed previously on this forum. Get up to speed already and quit regurgitating socialist propaganda from WHO.

Boxcar

The above is a typical exchange in Off Topic. 46 presents documented evidence from multiple sources. Boxcar says, "Is NOT, anyway you're a socialist" and holds his breath until he turns blue.

[fast4522]

In housing section 8 makes it possible for landlords to charge $1200 per month for a apartment that is not worth $600, in health care what doctors try to charge $100K for operations that by every measure could be done for $50K, its because government has its fingers in the till. Cut off the fingers in the till and costs come way down. More to the point is government screws everything it touches, to the point the world bank is in the mix and getting its cut. Make no mistake the filth in this health care bill will do just that. World Bank, World court and similar filth is not good for our country. When you let the bean counters into our health care system they will begin to tell your doctor what to do and how much and not you!

[46zilzal]

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



The above is a typical exchange in Off Topic. 46 presents documented evidence from multiple sources. Boxcar says, "Is NOT, anyway you're a socialist" and holds his breath until he turns blue.
Ploy is outlined for you in Chris Mooney's great book The Republican War on Science

[delayjf]

"The World Health Organization says the U.S. health care system rates 37th in the world in terms of quality and fairness. All the other rich countries do better than we do, and yet they spend a heck of a lot less."
That's because one of the major attributes the WHO grade a country's healtcare is it's excessability - thus ANY universal healtcare system will have an advantage in their grading system compared to the US.

In Massachusetts Chapter 58 is credited with increasing the number of insured by about 460,000.
No doubt mandating coverage will increase the number of insured, but what about the COSTS estimates??

[46zilzal]

That's because one of the major attributes the WHO grade a country's healtcare is it's excessability - thus ANY universal healtcare system will have an advantage in their grading system compared to the US.


No doubt mandating coverage will increase the number of insured, but what about the COSTS estimates??
excessability like in too much?

or accessibility as in being able to get at it?

[ArlJim78]

I have to laugh at the feeble attempts people make. Yes we spend too much on healthcare, and we'll spend more under Obamacare. Rationing will increase and choices decrease. a debacle if it passes.


What a two-faced president we have. at his healthcare summit last week he chastised McCain saying, "John, the campaign is over". Now this week Obama is going around the country in campaign mode trying to sell it to people.

Also at the summit, he chastised Paul Ryan for using a prop when he showed up with all 2000 pages of the bill. Soon after Obama was seen in the White House announcing his latest healthcare plan, and behind him were many doctors in white coats, lined up as props for his speech.

the man is a disgrace to the office and the country.

[mostpost]

No doubt mandating coverage will increase the number of insured, but what about the COSTS estimates??
No doubt costs were underestimated,but what is the cause of that? Undoutedly it is the rapid escalation in the cost of medical procedures and the increases in premium rates.
For example, in California, Anthem is raising rates 39%. In Illinois rates are going up 3% to 60%. In Maine rates are going up, on average, 18%. Since 2000, rates in Texas have risen 91%.
I don't have statistics but I know the cost of medical procedures has skyrocketed in recent years.
The problem that Mass. has is centered not in its program but in its inability to control insurance companies and health care providers.

[mostpost]

I have to laugh at the feeble attempts people make.
You really shouldn't be so hard on Husker55, delayjf, DJofSD, boxcar, Tom and yourself. They have so little to work with. :D

[46zilzal]

No doubt costs were underestimated,but what is the cause of that? Undoutedly it is the rapid escalation in the cost of medical procedures and the increases in premium rates.
For example, in California, Anthem is raising rates 39%. In Illinois rates are going up 3% to 60%. In Maine rates are going up, on average, 18%. Since 2000, rates in Texas have risen 91%.
I don't have statistics but I know the cost of medical procedures has skyrocketed in recent years.
The problem that Mass. has is centered not in its program but in its inability to control insurance companies and health care providers.
SOMEONE has to pay for all their propaganda and lobbyists now don't they?

[bigmack]

Bring on the vote. Let's get this idiocy over with.

Like a runner gassed, this thing will die just before the finish. All for naught, just a pile of steaming dung for anyone supporting or voting yes on to stew in.

[Tom]

My litmus test has always been if mostpost is for it, it must be a bad idea.
So far, I am batting .1000

[46zilzal]

My litmus test has always been if mostpost is for it, it must be a bad idea.

so what is it acid or base?

[witchdoctor]

The problem that Mass. has is centered not in its program but in its inability to control insurance companies and health care providers.


That sounds like a good idea. We can get the govrnment to decide on who gets to be admitted and which procedures are necessary. That should cut cost and improve efficiency. :bang:

[witchdoctor]

so what is it acid or base?

Mostpost is pretty acidic.

[boxcar]

Mostpost is pretty acidic.

Makes sense. His brain cells have been eaten away by acid.

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

My litmus test has always been if mostpost is for it, it must be a bad idea.
So far, I am batting .1000

Tom, you just admitted you are 1 for 10 :eek:

Sorry, I had to point that out before Mostie or Zilly did !!

Then again, I may be given them way too much credit :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Tom, you just admitted you are 1 for 10 :eek:

Sorry, I had to point that out before Mostie or Zilly did !!

Then again, I may be given them way too much credit :lol:

Once again you make a great point, CJ's dad! :ThmbUp: :D

[delayjf]

I don't have statistics but I know the cost of medical procedures has skyrocketed in recent years.
The problem that Mass. has is centered not in its program but in its inability to control insurance companies and health care providers.

Well, if the costs of medical procedures has sky rocketed then can we blame insurance companies for raising their premiums to cover the rising costs?

The excuss given in CA is that because of the economy, less people have coverage and are depending on Medical. Doctors are then passing on their losses they incur treating Medical patience on to covered patients - which means insurance companies are getting hit harder for the people they cover.

[Tom]

Mostpost is pretty acidic.

And 46 is baseless. ;)

[boxcar]

Once again you make a great point, CJ's dad! :ThmbUp: :D

You mean the one about giving you too much credit, right?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Boxcar says, "Is NOT, anyway you're a socialist" and holds his breath until he turns blue.That can't be. Boxcar is way too prolific a typist to hold his breath that long, or to be that concise with his words.

You're way off base there...:lol:

[newtothegame]

If you can't sell it to the american people for what the bill really is...you can always lie about it :)


Obama Confuses Decades, Inflates Estimated Health Care Savings by $868B



FOXNews.com



Obama boasted Monday that Democrats' health care proposals would cut deficits by $1 trillion "over the next decade," a flub that inflated the actual estimate by $868 billion

President Obama, making his final push for health care reform, pitched his proposal Monday to a crowd in Pennsylvania with a deficit-reduction figure that the White House later admitted missed the mark.

"Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion dollars over the next decade because we're spending our health care dollars more wisely," Obama told an audience at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pa., a suburb north of Philadelphia.

Obama was so proud of these cost-saving numbers in the latest version of health care reform, he delved into a bit of Washington-speak to back them up.

"Those aren't my numbers," Obama said to the rising applause of the estimated 1,300 in attendance. "They are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost."

But the budget office did not say the Senate health care bill would save $1 trillion over the next decade -- or even close to that figure.

It estimated the bill would save $132 billion from 2010 to 2019, leaving Obama's "next decade" estimate $868 billion short.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/obama-confuses-decades-inflates-estimated-health-care-savings-b/

[bigmack]

Denny bringin' it home. Aww yeah.

5hsBYKft5kU

[jognlope]

So Arljim, what's your solution to the health care crisis? The president was making an offhand remark about that little pretty boy from Virginia propping up the health care bill in front of him, because he was too petty and ignorant to make any concrete suggestions. He didn't make one suggestion.

[lsbets]

So Arljim, what's your solution to the health care crisis? The president was making an offhand remark about that little pretty boy from Virginia propping up the health care bill in front of him, because he was too petty and ignorant to make any concrete suggestions. He didn't make one suggestion.

Are you talking about Paul Ryan? He's from Wisconsin and he's made some very good proposals, none of which involve confiscating wealth from some to give it to others as a handout.

[ArlJim78]

So Arljim, what's your solution to the health care crisis? The president was making an offhand remark about that little pretty boy from Virginia propping up the health care bill in front of him, because he was too petty and ignorant to make any concrete suggestions. He didn't make one suggestion.
first point, there is no healthcare crisis. if there was a crisis then the changes mandated by Obama would take place immediately. all that happens in the near term is that all the new taxes are implemented. the rest of it comes somewhere down the road after Obama is out of the white house.

second point, the first hurdle for any fix should be that just like a doctor it should do no harm. Obamacare ruins many of the good features of out current system while not addressing the cost issue. Republicans have offered several sensible reform plans for healthcare. the problem is that democrats aren't interested in reform, they stated goal is to take control of the system, so there is no common ground. Obama's plan only makes sense for someone at war with the country, because nobody else would insist on such destructive behavior.

you obviously did not listen to what Paul Ryan said. he made NUMEROUS concrete suggestions, he ripped Obama's plan to shreds, and NOBODY, not even Obama disputed anything he said. He knows the plan better than Obama. You cannot criticize Ryan for not offering a plan. He has the most detailed plans of anyone on capital hill for healthcare and the deficit.

[boxcar]

first point, there is no healthcare crisis. if there was a crisis then the changes mandated by Obama would take place immediately. all that happens in the near term is that all the new taxes are implemented. the rest of it comes somewhere down the road after Obama is out of the white house.

second point, the first hurdle for any fix should be that just like a doctor it should do no harm. Obamacare ruins many of the good features of out current system while not addressing the cost issue. Republicans have offered several sensible reform plans for healthcare. the problem is that democrats aren't interested in reform, they stated goal is to take control of the system, so there is no common ground. Obama's plan only makes sense for someone at war with the country, because nobody else would insist on such destructive behavior.

you obviously did not listen to what Paul Ryan said. he made NUMEROUS concrete suggestions, he ripped Obama's plan to shreds, and NOBODY, not even Obama disputed anything he said. He knows the plan better than Obama. You cannot criticize Ryan for not offering a plan. He has the most detailed plans of anyone on capital hill for healthcare and the deficit.

You're absolutely right! Ryan tore BO a new one with facts and figures and you could tell just from BO's face that he was furious with him because he was unable to refute anything Ryan said.

Don't pay any mind to the Jogs of the world. To deny the reality of the great content of Ryan's little dissertation one had to have been doped up or they didn't even listen to what was being said.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

isbets, how is offering pooling mechanism and exchanges taking health care away from anybody. And raising income limits in Medicaid, will that take health care away from anybody. And why are you for an insurance industry running laughing to the bank?

[Tom]

Why are you so against paying your own way?

[jognlope]

No I wasn't talking about Ryan, he's great. The one who sat with the bill in front of him in the summit, maybe not from VA, could have him mixed up with someone else. He's the one who stood up at a town hall or something and Obama said he had read his bill carefully, good stuff.

[LottaKash]

.

the problem is that democrats aren't interested in reform, they stated goal is to take control of the system, so there is no common ground. Obama's plan only makes sense for someone at war with the country, because nobody else would insist on such destructive behavior.



Now who would be at war with BO ?...Us ?, Perhaps, we, the ones who don't want to be that controlled ?.. You ?....

[jognlope]

The public option is out anyway and according to chart on wikipedia, key in health care reform bill, it's a republican approach version that's going to pass. So there's no public option so even with the exchanges, since they are state based and there are some states with 1 or 2 carriers and they won't both lowering premiums, how are premiums going to be lowered at all...

[lsbets]

isbets, how is offering pooling mechanism and exchanges taking health care away from anybody. And raising income limits in Medicaid, will that take health care away from anybody. And why are you for an insurance industry running laughing to the bank?

Because I am pro freedom I am somehow pro insurance companies? You couldn't be further off base. What I am against is taking earned wealth away from one individual to provide health insurance to other individuals who are not willing to cut out the luxuries in life while expecting everyone else to provide them with heat and health care.

[jognlope]

I don't know right now, no one says anything about how premiums are going to go down. They never explain anything, just talk about the political aspect.

[newtothegame]

I don't know right now, no one says anything about how premiums are going to go down. They never explain anything, just talk about the political aspect.

Want to know why "no one says anything about how premiums are going to go down"?
Here's a clue...they wont go down!!!! If you do nothing more then look at what the CBO says....you will see that the deficits rise. Now of course you can easily say thats the deficit...but alot of it is due to healthcare and its projections. So either way....as a tax payer (if you fall into that category) you WILL PAY MORE!

[Tom]

Will pre-existing conditions spread to other forms of insurance, too?
If I could not buy car insurance until I have an accident, that would be nice.

[boxcar]

Will pre-existing conditions spread to other forms of insurance, too?
If I could not buy car insurance until I have an accident, that would be nice.

This requirement will kill the insurers because congress will have now turned the insurance industry on its head the same way they did with mortgages! They will literally destroy the industry, which means this takeover will eventually evolve into a one-payer system.

Let's frame this perverse, unnatural requirement within the framework of car insurance. As we all know, car insurance is required for drivers in most states. However, who in their right mind would buy insurance if coverage can be had for pre-existing accidents? Why pay for insurance when you may never need it!? Why not wait and pay for "insurance" until you need it -- until you've had an accident!?

Likewise with health coverage, would it not be cheaper to pay the government fine (read: TAX) rather than pay for insurance since all pre-existing health conditions would be covered!? For example, with my hernia operation, I could have waited to buy insurance or into the government plan just prior to me getting the operation. Look at all the numerous months premiums I could have saved? (Geesh...where was BO when I needed him the most :rolleyes: ).

Therefore, any dumbo with an IQ above his shoe size should be able to figure out that it's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to pay for coverage because coverage could always be had at a later date once a person gets sick. Under the new law, insurance companies would be required to cover the illness immediately. And this requirement, in turn, would drive the cost of premiums sky high because healthy people who are stupid enough to buy insurance would have to pick up the tab for their not-so-healthy counterparts. Someone has to pay the freight! Therefore, premiums would soar through the stratosphere.

You thought the government turned the banking industry inside out with the Community Reinvestment Act by forcing banks to issue mortgages to unqualified people -- who never had a prayer of paying them off? You have seen nothing, if this health care debacle is passed. Nothing!

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

Will pre-existing conditions spread to other forms of insurance, too?
If I could not buy car insurance until I have an accident, that would be nice.

Currently five states require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. I can only speak to the rules in NJ. If you have had continuous coverage prior to applying for insurance pre-existing conditions are covered.

This is fair to both parties. The policyholder has had continuous coverage and now needs a new carrier. The carrier is aquiring a policyholder that has had continuous coverage and the appropriate treatments for any and all health issues.

Think about it. If your unemployed at 55+ and you enroll in cobra and the 18 months come and go, then you apply for individual coverage. You shouldn't be treated like someone who has not had coverage or is just gaming the system. Unfortunately, only 5 states even address this situation. The current rules almost completely favor the insurance companies.

Remember, the insurance companies are completely against allowing individuals the opportunity to enroll in Medicare between the ages of 55 and 64. Good ole Joe Lieberman was in favor of this when running for VP in 2000. Then in 2009 Cigna got to him and suddenly he's against it.

The real irony is that allowing all 55-64 year olds to enroll and pay for Medicare would shore up Medicare. It's a money maker for Medicare.

Ultimately, the insurance companies want Medicare to fail. Can you imagine how much money they could make. Claim denied would be all they ever said. Ok maybe they'll approve the morphine drip. You can't be too draconian.

[Tom]

I believe the dems also want the insurance companies to fail. What better way to ensure the public option with them controlling it all. That is the Master plan, IMHO

The villanizing of the insurance industry, and doctors, by Obama is childish and manipulative, let alone incorrect. This is not the way to solve problems.
But then again, Obama and the dems have no intention of solving problems.
Health Care reform is not thier goal.

Does anyone really believe the pillow talk of whores?

[DRIVEWAY]

I believe the dems also want the insurance companies to fail. What better way to ensure the public option with them controlling it all. That is the Master plan, IMHO

The villanizing of the insurance industry, and doctors, by Obama is childish and manipulative, let alone incorrect. This is not the way to solve problems.
But then again, Obama and the dems have no intention of solving problems.
Health Care reform is not thier goal.

Does anyone really believe the pillow talk of whores?

What Master Plan are you talking about? The dems are in a chaotic state. On paper they should be able to do just about anything. If there was a Master Plan or Contract with America(GOP) things would happen.

The government, both parties, must define and solve this healthcare fiasco.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the GOP leadership are all acting irresponsibly. There will be no healthcare reform this year. It's not a question of villanizing the insurance industry, it's a question of the Feds, the 50 states and the military regulating the insurance industry. Right now they are all failing at their responsibility and their constituents are all victims of this mismanagement.

[Show Me the Wire]

Currently five states require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. I can only speak to the rules in NJ. If you have had continuous coverage prior to applying for insurance pre-existing conditions are covered.

This is fair to both parties. The policyholder has had continuous coverage and now needs a new carrier. The carrier is aquiring a policyholder that has had continuous coverage and the appropriate treatments for any and all health issues.

Think about it. If your unemployed at 55+ and you enroll in cobra and the 18 months come and go, then you apply for individual coverage. You shouldn't be treated like someone who has not had coverage or is just gaming the system. Unfortunately, only 5 states even address this situation. The current rules almost completely favor the insurance companies.


Remember, the insurance companies are completely against allowing individuals the opportunity to enroll in Medicare between the ages of 55 and 64. Good ole Joe Lieberman was in favor of this when running for VP in 2000. Then in 2009 Cigna got to him and suddenly he's against it.

The real irony is that allowing all 55-64 year olds to enroll and pay for Medicare would shore up Medicare. It's a money maker for Medicare.

Ultimately, the insurance companies want Medicare to fail. Can you imagine how much money they could make. Claim denied would be all they ever said. Ok maybe they'll approve the morphine drip. You can't be too draconian.

I agree people shouldn't be excluded from new coverage, because they have a pre-existing condition.

So why is this solely a problem for the federal government? State's have legislatures that are responsive to their citizen's wants and needs. campaigns should be organized on the State level to pass legislation regarding State regulated insurance companies.

It is simpler and easier to address this one specific problem, than to invent the wheel all over again.

[Tom]

Of course there is a Master Plan. Even morons can have a plan - they are just not bright enough to implement it. The MP is to grab as much power an control as they can while they can.

I used to think these guys - Reid, Obama, Plasti-Puss - were complete idiots, but it is apparent now that they area far more complete evil than anything.

[DRIVEWAY]

Of course there is a Master Plan. Even morons can have a plan - they are just not bright enough to implement it. The MP is to grab as much power an control as they can while they can.

I used to think these guys - Reid, Obama, Plasti-Puss - were complete idiots, but it is apparent now that they area far more complete evil than anything.

If that's the Master Plan then they are a complete failure with their major initiative.

[Tom]

How do you spell Obama?

F-a-i-l-u-r-e.


:D

[jognlope]

There's no public option I thought in Senate bill.

[boxcar]

I agree people shouldn't be excluded from new coverage, because they have a pre-existing condition.

I don't have a problem with this either, provided such people pay the exorbitant premiums on their own coverages. If you owned an insurance company who is business to make a profit, would you cover a 20-year old male who had been assigned blame in 3 car wrecks and has a slew of traffic tickets for various offenses? Would you not consider such a person to be a high risk driver?

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

I believe the dems also want the insurance companies to fail. What better way to ensure the public option with them controlling it all. That is the Master plan, IMHO

The villanizing of the insurance industry, and doctors, by Obama is childish and manipulative, let alone incorrect. This is not the way to solve problems.
But then again, Obama and the dems have no intention of solving problems.
Health Care reform is not thier goal.

Does anyone really believe the pillow talk of whores?

Before replying to Tom's inaccuate assessment, I must also concur that I am against the current plan without a strong and robust public option. This plan currently was an attempt to maintain the current inefficent market we already have and yet still cover more people. It is extremely flawed. A Medicare for All or Single Payer system was what actual liberals wanted. This thing is not even remotely close.

A lot of the dropped support for Obama is from progressives who see him accomodating the insurance lobbyists with this plan. The notion that Obama is villainizing the insurance industry while at the same time providing them with a huge windfall stimulus just infuriates the base of the party.

btw..Obama isn't villainizing "doctors" at all. He's attempting to do something that Republicans have essentially ignored for the last eight years. Actually doing something about escalating insurance premiums while at the same time trying to cover more uninsured people. The Republican solution while they had the majority was typically to do nothing with it's blaise "the market will work it all out" approach. Well, the market hasn't worked it all out. Instead, we have insurance companies who have reaped huge profits, while denying more coverage and giving us escalating premiums. The insuranace companies administrative costs are obscenly higher than a program like Medicare, and in truth, if it weren't for Medicare we'd have seniors that wouldn't even be covered by private insurance at all without huge premiums. In other words, the government has stepped in where private industry has failed. One only has to look at the coverage of seniors prior to Medicare to realize most could not have afforded coverage at all in times of greatest need. Because fundamentally, insurance companies are interested in profit, not covering sick people. Sick people intrude on making profits hence sick people are bad bets. Ergo, it is in their best interests NOT to cover the people most in need in our society.

This is the dilemma, and the basic problem. Insurance companies want profits, and those who intrude on those profits are not people they want to cover. Pre-existing conditions, and rescission are two practices already prevalent in the industry. The problem emerging is that as more and more people cannot afford the premiums, premiums escalate, causing a cascade of people dropping insurance and more rising premiums, and more rescission by insurance companies.

So what does this bill do? Provide a windfall for insurance companies by mandating that people must buy insurance from an insurance company or face a fine. It has no public option that would at least attempt to contain costs. It doesn't cap rates either, and the regulatory aspects of the bill are minimal. Insurance companies are licking their chops as they'll simply raise rates on those with pre-existing conditions or across the board. Either way it's a win-win for them. They'll have tremendous revenue coming in from 50 million new mandated clients.

The best recommendation I could make if this bill passes is buy, buy buy companies like Aetna up. They'll clean up on the market with this atrocity of a bill (and I'm a Dem).

This bill is so beneficial to insurance companies that I'd have to think a Republican wrote it.

I cannot in any way support it and I hope the bill is defeated. It would be a political defeat for Obama, but I'd rather see that than a bad bill. If defeated, as I hope, premiums will be at such exorbitant levels in a few years, people will be begging the government to do something about insurance. So, I am hoping the bill is defeated so down the road a bill that actually helps people and contains a strong public option is actually passed.

So, Rethugs, I'm with you on this one. Defeat this bill.

[46zilzal]

The same fight, the same ridiculous fear mongering went on in this country when Tommy MacDonald was the boogey man

[NJ Stinks]

Secretariet, I agree with you about single payor or at least a public option being badly needed. But I don't see Republicans doing anything later on. So lets at least get the ball rolling on healthcare reform now.

Paul Krugman discussed the bill as it is yesterday in the NY Times and made some good points about why this current bill should be passed:
__________________________________________________ ___

Health Reform Myths
By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?

But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.

The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.

more at the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html

[boxcar]

Secretariet, I agree with you about single payor or at least a public option being badly needed. But I don't see Republicans doing anything later on. So lets at least get the ball rolling on healthcare reform now.

Paul Krugman discussed the bill as it is yesterday in the NY Times and made some good points about why this current bill should be passed:
__________________________________________________ ___

Health Reform Myths
By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?

But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.

The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.

more at the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html


This little gem from NJ's latest brainiac is a real gem:

Furthermore, there’s good reason to believe that all such estimates are too pessimistic. There are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform, but nobody knows how well any one of these efforts will work. And as a result, official estimates don’t give the plan much credit for any of them.

Everyone but a liberal mindset would catch this neat little doublespeak! Out of one side of his yap, he says there's "good reason" to believe the estimates are "too pessimistic" because after all there are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform. (Conveniently, he doesn't mention that the biggest one is severe rationing!). But then in the very same sentence he concedes that no one knows how these efforts will work! Well, if know one knows, isn't his aforementioned pessimism justified!? And even more so, since history proves that Congress has gotten these budgetary figures wrong only 100% of the time! :bang: :bang: That's right! Congress, always, always, always lowballs this stuff for marketing and public relations reasons.

But there is one thing that the guy got right: The U.S. government is the biggest Insurance Provider already -- with S-Chip, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. (And we see how this has worked out, haven't we? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: But what he doesn't tell us is that the Government already denies a far greater percentage of claims that the largest private sector providers. So, since this is the case already with Medicare, for example, what can we expect when they do take over the entire industry!?

NJ, you sure know how to pick out the most brain-dead op-ed writers. This newest yo-yo might even surpass Cohen's stupidity!

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Before replying to Tom's inaccuate assessment...
Defeat this bill.

I throughly enjoyed this post. I can probably agree and disagree and agree and then disagree on particulars, but the general theme is well conveyed and the tone is just right. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

But what he doesn't tell us is that the Government already denies a far greater percentage of claims that the largest private sector providers. So, since this is the case already with Medicare, for example, what can we expect when they do take over the entire industry!?

Boxcar

Are you saying Medicare denies more claims than private providers? If so, do you have a source for this statement?

[fast4522]

What I do not like about this health care plan. The wife's father spent 23 years in the US Navy, this guy has no co pays, no matter what pill he needs he gets a 90 day supply for $3. He has had the knife 5 time in recent years and is now 85, and loony as they come and healthy. All 5 times the knife were big $, he is like the bionic man now just not with it God bless him. Under this filthy health care plan first they take your age and say maybe 68, life expectancy 2.5 years and limit how much can be spent on you. Bullshit, what if you spent 23 years on a nuclear submarine and spent another 25 years in the private sector getting another pension and then have come cart load of assholes (hacks) limit what can be spent on you when you have more than paid into the system? Why all the flower story's, say the real deal. Use the words filth and disgusting in reference to this at your town hall meeting, and maybe it might catchy.

[boxcar]

Are you saying Medicare denies more claims than private providers? If so, do you have a source for this statement?

Read and weep:

http://biggovernment.com/ptuohe/2009/10/05/ama-endorses-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Read and weep:

http://biggovernment.com/ptuohe/2009/10/05/ama-endorses-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/

Boxcar

Boxcar. what is a 'claim edit"? I assume one must know what that is to understand this chart.

My 85 year old mother had claims denied by Medicare. But in every case but one the medical provider re-submitted claims and they were accepted. I have no idea what was in the re-submitted claims that got them approved but I do know Medicare has denied only one 'medical' service that was not accepted later to date. And the claim that was denied forever was not a medical necessary.

Has anybody else here had a Medicare claim denied? If so, was it unjust?

[boxcar]

Boxcar. what is a 'claim edit"? I assume one must know what that is to understand this chart.

My 85 year old mother had claims denied by Medicare. But in every case but one the medical provider re-submitted claims and they were accepted. I have no idea what was in the re-submitted claims that got them approved but I do know Medicare has denied only one 'medical' service that was not accepted later to date. And the claim that was denied forever was not a medical necessary.

Has anybody else here had a Medicare claim denied? If so, was it unjust?

You should ask that question about all the denied claims by the private insurers too!

I can tell you one thing, though: I know two people who were scheduled to have medical procedures performed but when it came time to have it done, they were notified that the doctors wouldn't perform them in each case because of severe cuts in Medicare -- about 20% or so, according to what the doctors told them.

So, since Medicare is already in dire straits, what would make any reasonable person believe that the U.S. Government would run any public option or one payer system more efficiently? Turing over more responsibility into the government's hands and putting more of our tax dollars into the government coffers would be analogous to some inexperienced or inept person getting a promotion and large pay raise in the private sector. When this happens, it's referred to as the Peter Principle whereby that person rises to his er level of incompetency. To state this in simpler terms, Mr. NJ: Such a person shouldn't be where he is because he doesn't deserve it! He's in over his head! Likewise the U.S. government should not be rising to higher power levels to exercise more control over our personal health issues and be given more taxpayer dollars to waste, squander, abuse and subject to fraudulent uses since its track record clearly indicates that it is already incompetent at its current level of responsibilities --the Peter Principle at work in the U.S. government. And this is what our tax dollars are supporting! :bang: :bang:

Boxcar
I think your incredulity at this new revelation is hilarious. You must be thinking: How did my god screw up so badly!? It's just not possible for god Nanny to do this to people. My god is far more efficient, not to mention benevolent and caring and responsible. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

Has anybody else here had a Medicare claim denied? If so, was it unjust?
If X is the likelood of someone having a claim personally rejected by MediCare and we have 13,095 members @ PA...

If you discount inactives, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, Methodists & Zilly, you're down to 525.

Let's assume we have 340 million people in the US.

There were 475,566 denied claims from Medicare in one year

Solve for x over two years.

:cool:

[boxcar]

If X is the likelood of someone having a claim personally rejected by MediCare and we have 13,095 members @ PA...

If you discount inactives, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, Methodists & Zilly, you're down to 525.

Let's assume we have 340 million people in the US.

There were 475,566 denied claims from Medicare in one year

Solve for x over two years.

:cool:
You forgot terrorists, communists and socialists. :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

btw..Obama isn't villainizing "doctors" at all. He's attempting to do something that Republicans have essentially ignored for the last eight years

Horse Hockey.
You don't think him using an example of a doctor yanking out tonsils just to make money, or lopping off feet to pad a bill is not villanizing?

Her is is what is going to happen under "this" bill:

Premiums will go up.
Taxes will sore.
Actual HC services will not improve.
Millions will still not be covered.
Millions of the 80% who are now happy with their HC will be negatively impacted.

In other words, your typical government results - utter failure.

[boxcar]

Horse Hockey.
You don't think him using an example of a doctor yanking out tonsils just to make money, or lopping off feet to pad a bill is not villanizing?

Her is is what is going to happen under "this" bill:

Premiums will go up.
Taxes will sore.
Actual HC services will not improve.
Millions will still not be covered.
Millions of the 80% who are now happy with their HC will be negatively impacted.

In other words, your typical government results - utter failure.

I think you're wrong on item 3. HC services will probably deteriorate significantly.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Boxcar. what is a 'claim edit"? I assume one must know what that is to understand this chart.

My 85 year old mother had claims denied by Medicare. But in every case but one the medical provider re-submitted claims and they were accepted. I have no idea what was in the re-submitted claims that got them approved but I do know Medicare has denied only one 'medical' service that was not accepted later to date. And the claim that was denied forever was not a medical necessary.

Has anybody else here had a Medicare claim denied? If so, was it unjust?
Boxcar did not answer your question because he is totally clueless as to what a claim edit is. I, on the other hand am only mostly clueless. Googling "claim edit" I came up with this;
http://www.nhxs.com/docs/files/File/nhxs_payor_report_for_AMA.pdf
You can read it yourself, but here is what I come up with. When a health care provider submits a claim to Medicare or to a private insurer, that claim is subjected to a process which adjusts the claim according to a series of edits some of which are universal and some of which are proprietary to the individual insurer. In essence a claim edit is made on a claim which the insurer is going to pay.

The Link that boxcar provided links to a study by AMA. The AMA study is what it is. The interpretation by biggovernment.com is a misrepresentaion.

The table that Boxcar references is not a denial of service. It is a denial of payment. Here is the line above the table:
Denials (Payer allows the physician’s billed charge, but payment is $0)
If you look at the AMA study you will see that reason codes are given for
each denial. In most cases, including those by the private insurers the reasons involve the provider failing to provide needed information. Or because the patient is not a client of the insurer. Or because another agency is the responsible insurer.
An example of this last is my own case. I have Medicare part A. I don't have part B. If I have an office visit with my doctor and they submit the claim to Medicare it will be dienied. My private insurance will pay it. I have a feeling that many of the denials by Medicare are of this nature. I would think that doctor's office would routinely submit claims to all insurers, to make sure the proper entity receives the claim.

[mostpost]

In case my #116 was unclear. There is denial of a claim. This is based on lack of proper information, (this can be reversed if proper information is provided) duplication of claim, (someone will pay the claim), a particular service was part of a bundle of services (the claim will be paid as part of the bundle, the service ocurred before the policy started or after it was terminated. (you are out of luck)
Then there is denial of service. The insurance company refuses to pay for a service either because the insured had a preexisting condition, or because it deems a procedure to be experimental or unproven. The cited study did not address this.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ooooohhhh I can't wait until I get to be a part of this wonderful service where it takes two pages and multiple interpretations just understand one bit of terminology found on the stack of paperwork to get the simplest thing accomplished. YEEaahhHHH Health Care!!!!! WE ALL NEED SOME OF THIS!!!!

The next MoFo that goes on TV or somewhere telling me that I need to be a part of this bullshit because you're afraid that I might trip over a noodle, land on my ear, fall down a flight of stairs, poke out my eye on a fork and end up in the emergency room on your nickel is going to incur the wrath of a 46Zilzal greatest hits of useless medical terminology pure filibuster style without reconciliation.

You can have your insurance companies and I'll keep paying cash and if I get testicular cancer, I'll saw my own gonads off with an X-acto knife.

I want no part of being forced into battling a system where I need to google "claim edit" and then get 166134 different interpretations of its meaning. I want to make an appointment, see a doctor, fork over the cash, and go home.

You want to worry about what *might* happen to me, go for it. I don't. I go to the doctor when I have the money and knock off each problem as I can afford it. If I die before they're all cured and fixed up... I'LL STILL BE DEAD... I'll sign a waiver tomorrow relieving all of you any financial obligation for some bizarro situation that might leave me in shambles.

You want to propose a solution that works, do it. You want to make my square pegged ass fight into this round hole disaster of a system, good luck.

They laughed at me when I closed all of my bank accounts and told the douchebags that call themselves "teller" that I call "cashiers" and the "bankers" that are "clerks" that I was done with banks. I haven't had a bank account since the day that day, the day they charged someone $5 to cash a check that I wrote on my account in good standing because they lacked an account at the same bank. Screw them. I don't need them. I'm inconvenienced everyday because I refuse to have a bank account, but I love it. I love being inconvenienced by not being a part of something that has become a sham.

Take your banks and your insurance and cram them. Also, please have a delightful evening. :) :) :) :)

[ArlJim78]

that's good stuff there johnhannibalsmith. i feel much the same way except i still enjoy the convenience of using a bankcard.:D

[boxcar]

In case my #116 was unclear. There is denial of a claim. This is based on lack of proper information, (this can be reversed if proper information is provided) duplication of claim, (someone will pay the claim), a particular service was part of a bundle of services (the claim will be paid as part of the bundle, the service ocurred before the policy started or after it was terminated. (you are out of luck)
Then there is denial of service. The insurance company refuses to pay for a service either because the insured had a preexisting condition, or because it deems a procedure to be experimental or unproven. The cited study did not address this.

According to your interpretation, then, the private insurers do quite well when stacked up against the insurance company Big Gov, don't they? After all, you have to apply the same standards to them that you do for Big Gov, right?

And you also forgot to mention the code that denies claims because an insurance provider (including Big Gov) deems a service or procedure unnecessary. This code represents a large percentage of the denials (without going back to check the numbers, I think this category ranked number 2 with respect to Medicare).

Anyway you want to spin this, the irrefutable fact is that Big Gov denies the largest percentage of claims of all the insurance providers, which means private providers are not nearly as eeeeeevil and greeeeedy as the thugs in DC and their props make them out to be.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Then there is denial of service. The insurance company refuses to pay for a service either because the insured had a preexisting condition, or because it deems a procedure to be experimental or unproven. The cited study did not address this.

There is no denial of service, only denial of payment. With government, it will be of service.

[boxcar]

There is no denial of service, only denial of payment. With government, it will be of service.

As it has to be when you give away "freebies" because costs will have to be tightly contained. If you're deemed too old, service will be denied because you're not worth it. If you have a serious illness and you're young, it could be deemed that the resulting quality of life still wouldn't be at high enough level to justify the costs. Big Gov will be the boss. They essentially will get the last word on who lives and who dies. There is very good reason why the bill (BO's "prop") is over 2,000 pages in length. The state wants to cover as many bases as possible to give it as much control as possible.

I just hope and pray that no Republican puts his or her fingerprints on this rubbish (if it passes); for when this unnecessary monstrosity comes crashing to the earth, all fingers can point to the Democrats.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

There is no denial of service, only denial of payment. With government, it will be of service.
Wrong again. There is plenty of denial of service by private insurers. The study which Boxcar linked to does not address this issue. That does not mean that it doesn't occur.

[boxcar]

Wrong again. There is plenty of denial of service by private insurers. The study which Boxcar linked to does not address this issue. That does not mean that it doesn't occur.

Are you saying that Big Gov doesn't deny service?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Are you saying that Big Gov doesn't deny service?

Boxcar
No, but that is not addressed in the survey you cited.

[wes]

They are all learning how to talk to one another. They can all say a half word now (mother).

wes

[boxcar]

No, but that is not addressed in the survey you cited.

And I'd bet that Big Gov leads the pack in this area too!

Boxcar

[Tom]

Wrong again. There is plenty of denial of service by private insurers. The study which Boxcar linked to does not address this issue. That does not mean that it doesn't occur.

Wrong to you. They CANNOT deny service.
YOU have the right to pay for it yourself.
OMG! Pay your own bills? What am I thinking?

[boxcar]

Wrong to you. They CANNOT deny service.
YOU have the right to pay for it yourself.
OMG! Pay your own bills? What am I thinking?

Thank you, Tom.

Which now brings me to this point, Mr. Mosty: When Medicare denies a big claim (even after appeal) and some downtrodden, poor, underprivileged, beaten down Average Joe gets stuck with a bill larger than the great outdoors, what does Big Gov do for this guy to save his home?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Thank you, Tom.

Which now brings me to this point, Mr. Mosty: When Medicare denies a big claim (even after appeal) and some downtrodden, poor, underprivileged, beaten down Average Joe gets stuck with a bill larger than the great outdoors, what does Big Gov do for this guy to save his home?

Boxcar

When you find somebody who got screwed by Medicare, post the link.

[boxcar]

When you find somebody who got screwed by Medicare, post the link.

6.85% of people's claims were denied, which is the highest of all insurers. Are you saying that out of all those tens of thousands of people, no one got screwed by the government? That's an awful lot of unpaid claims. Therefore, who got stuck with the bills for those claims Medicare refused to honor?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

6.85% of people's claims were denied, which is the highest of all insurers. Are you saying that out of all those tens of thousands of people, no one got screwed by the government? That's an awful lot of unpaid claims. Therefore, who got stuck with the bills for those claims Medicare refused to honor?

Boxcar

No. I said find somebody who was screwed by Medicare. Previously, I asked if anybody who posts here was screwed by Medicare and nobody replied.

You can cry about Medicare's cost but you can't cry about the coverage. It's excellent by any standard.

[boxcar]

No. I said find somebody who was screwed by Medicare. Previously, I asked if anybody who posts here was screwed by Medicare and nobody replied.

You can cry about Medicare's cost but you can't cry about the coverage. It's excellent by any standard.

And my answer is that tens of thousands who have had their claims denied got screwed to some extent! I ask you again: WHO pays the bills that are refused by Medicare? The Tooth Fairy? :rolleyes:

And if Medicare is go great, why do so many seniors have to supplement it at extra expense to themselves!? And why do so many, who go this route, supplement it with the more expensive "advantage" plans, which now you libs begrudge?

As stated previously I know semi-retired people who have kept their private insurance (through their employers) because the cost of the coverage was literally a bargain compared to what Medicare wants now just for Part B. Medicare is hardly comprehensive in scope -- unless you want to pay through the nose for the various OPTIONS. Kinda like buying an automobile -- you can buy the standard factory, base model at a very low price. Or you can get one with virtually all the bells and whistles -- providing you want to pay for that. At the end of the day, Medicare is no bargain compared to what can be had in the private sector.

Someone told me recently that just Part B now cost about $110. per month. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) And that doesn't even include prescriptions!

Boxcar

[wes]

http://www.kff.org/medicare/7912.cfm


Not all Medicare beneficiaries will be affected. About three in four Medicare beneficiaries are protected by a “hold-harmless” provision in the law that ensures that their Medicare premiums do not increase more than any increase in Social Security premiums. Thus, the higher premiums would fall on the remaining one quarter of beneficiaries *— *with monthly premiums expected to rise from $96.40 this year to $110.50 in 2010 and $120.20 in 2011.

wes

[boxcar]

Anyone here BO's speech today in Ohio? He claimed that workers who have coverage through their employers "could" see their employers' premiums drop by up to.....(drum roll, please) 3,000%!!!.

I heard this over the radio and from the reaction he received from his hand-picked, screened, filtered audience, even they seemed incredulous at that remark. Then he went on to say that this would mean they would get raises from their employers! Really? Is this a BO decree? Has he signed this mandate into law yet? :bang: :bang:

What an utter fool we have for a president. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

I said about a year ago that whenever he opens his mouth it's a lie. I've heard very little that would prove me wrong. He's a hustler, a charlatan, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e5883401310fa2b369970c-800wi

[boxcar]

Don't blame me. I didn't vote for this reprobate. :faint: :faint:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

I said about a year ago that whenever he opens his mouth it's a lie. I've heard very little that would prove me wrong. He's a hustler, a charlatan, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e5883401310fa2b369970c-800wi

The smells like Chicago part is hilarious! :D

[boxcar]

The smells like Chicago part is hilarious! :D

It's as hilarious as his stupidity is sad.

Boxcar

[Tom]

What a rutabaga this moron is!

[Warren Henry]

Wrong to you. They CANNOT deny service.
YOU have the right to pay for it yourself.
OMG! Pay your own bills? What am I thinking?

Way back when Hillary C tried to orchestrate the power grab called healthcare reform, they had passages in the bill stating that one could NOT pay privately for healthcare and any doctor that took private pay would be barred from the government system. Since we haven't actually seen the final bill, how do you know that they can't/won't actually deny service.

[boxcar]

Way back when Hillary C tried to orchestrate the power grab called healthcare reform, they had passages in the bill stating that one could NOT pay privately for healthcare and any doctor that took private pay would be barred from the government system. Since we haven't actually seen the final bill, how do you know that they can't/won't actually deny service.

If this is the case with this bill, then the state would be dictating to us what we must buy and to the doctors what they can't sell. But look at the "bright" side to this: Life will be so much easier when we don't have to make those kinds of decisions any longer. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Way back when Hillary C tried to orchestrate the power grab called healthcare reform, they had passages in the bill stating that one could NOT pay privately for healthcare and any doctor that took private pay would be barred from the government system. Since we haven't actually seen the final bill, how do you know that they can't/won't actually deny service.

No, not he govt - the insurance companies cannot deny service, only payment for it. Talking abut now.