#Six-Year-Old Girl ‘On Verge Of Never Hearing Again’ Due To Insurance Company Denial
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Six-Year-Old Girl ‘On Verge Of Never Hearing Again’ Due To Insurance
Company Denial
cigna_logoOne of the worst abuses of the private health insurance
industry is its practice of denying claims to pay for necessary care for
patients. This practice has become so rampant in the industry that a
recent study by the California Nurses Association found that a whopping
21 percent of all insurance claims filed in the first half of 2009 in the
state of California were denied by insurers.
As the story of six-year-old Madison Leuchtmann of Franklin County, MO,
demonstrates, even children are victims of this insurance company abuse.
Madison was born with bilateral atresia, which means she lacks ear canals
in both ears. In order to hear, she wears a special device on a headband
that allows her to make out sounds. Despite her disability, Madison is at
the top of her kindergarten class and is slowly learning to read.
Yet Madison, due to her growth, will soon require a new hearing implant
to be able to recognize sounds. Her hearing and speech therapist warns
that “if she doesn’t get her implants by age seven, she’s not going to be
able to blend her words. … She won’t be able to hear herself [talk].”
Madison’s pediatrician, Dr. Randall Clary, also insists that without the
implant, the girl may never be able to hear again.
Unfortunately, the Leuchtmann’s family insurer, Cigna, has issued “one
denial after another,” flatly refusing to cover the $20,000 bill for the
implant. In a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, Cigna
explained, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude
hearing assisted devices,” prompting Dr. Clary to angrily respond, “This
is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear
canals!” Dr. Clary also told Fox 2 that he sees these sort of denials “on
a weekly basis.” Watch Fox 2’s report:
The United States is the only developed country without a universal,
cradle-to-the-grave health care system. In no other developed country
would a girl be on “the verge of never hearing again” because a for-
profit insurance company decided that its bottom line was more important
than keeping a child from going deaf.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
edi...@netpath.net
his own "tribe" will say first black ghetto woman denied a mammogram -
then dies - because Medicaid won't pay under ChimpCare?
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Phlip
> See ChimpCare says no more routine mammograms for women? Wonder what
> his own "tribe" will say first black ghetto woman denied a mammogram -
> then dies - because Medicaid won't pay under ChimpCare?
and so, faced with incontrovertible evidence that the system is
corrupt to the point of crisis and needs reform yesterday...
...the racist wingnut loser retreats into a fantasy-land of epithets,
innuendos, and topic distractions.
Are you _really_ a lawyer? Sadly I think it's indeed possible
palin@tsniffsniff.net Chuckles McCheney
"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f27bdad-bfcd-4875...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
============================
I can smell the sulphur from here................
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/19/insurance-denies-little-girl/
>>
>>Six-Year-Old Girl ‘On Verge Of Never Hearing Again’ Due To Insurance
>>Company Denial
>
> To be replaced by "Six year-old girl on verge of never hearing again
> due to 'death panels' economy decision :-)
Still squeaking your same, sad, silly little Sarah Palin-inspired lie?
You used to have something to say. Now you're just pathetic.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> See ChimpCare says no more routine mammograms for women? Wonder what
> his own "tribe" will say first black ghetto woman denied a mammogram -
> then dies - because Medicaid won't pay under ChimpCare?
You sure do spout the horseshit, don't you?
nobody
I am unaware of any health insurance that covers hearing aids, are
you?
Phlip
wrote:
That's the thing. There is no sane argument to any of Obama's policies
- obvious exception is Afghanistan - so the people promoting the
Status Quo are left with only mud to fling. Typically their own mud,
hoping we will blame Obama for their own excesses.
Phlip
> I am unaware of any health insurance that covers hearing aids, are
> you?
Your callous disregard for a young girl's hearing is noted.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
You watch: he'll try to weasel out by saying he put a smiley face on it.
Like most of his kind, he wants to put the idea out there without having
to actually defend it.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Don't you KNOW? It is the PLACE of the American people to be told what
they may not have by their corporate masters.
liberal
> "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Six-Year-Old Girl ‘On Verge Of Never Hearing Again’ Due To Insurance
> >Company Denial
>
> hearing again due to 'death panels' economy decision :-)
Evidence? Oh, wait. Assholes like you never need evidence. Your
"beliefs" are sufficient. After all "evidence" has that awful liberal
bias attached.
However, it comes to mind that there may be a legitimate reason for
your belief in government death panels.....when rethugs take control
of the body politic again. And the rethug Supreme Court is just
waiting to rubberstamp the rethug deathpanel activism: "Over 65 and
not wealthy, you are to be executed..."
Dänk 1010011010
wrote:
> http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/19/insurance-denies-little-girl/
>
> Six-Year-Old Girl ‘On Verge Of Never Hearing Again’ Due To Insurance
> Company Denial
> Unfortunately, the Leuchtmann’s family insurer, Cigna, has issued “one
> denial after another,” flatly refusing to cover the $20,000 bill for the
> implant. In a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, Cigna
> explained, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude
> hearing assisted devices,” prompting Dr. Clary to angrily respond, “This
> is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear
> canals!” Dr. Clary also told Fox 2 that he sees these sort of denials “on
> a weekly basis.” Watch Fox 2’s report:
"Ah! I see you have the machine that goes 'Ping.' This is my
favorite. You see, we lease this back to the company we sold it to.
That way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital
account. [Applause.] Thank you, thank you. We try to do our best.
Well, do carry on."
-- Monty Python, "The Meaning of Life"
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:19:26 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>>> "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/19/insurance-denies-little-girl/
>>>>
>>>>Six-Year-Old Girl ?On Verge Of Never Hearing Again? Due To Insurance
>>>>Company Denial
>>>
>>> To be replaced by "Six year-old girl on verge of never hearing
>>> again due to 'death panels' economy decision :-)
>>
>>Still squeaking your same, sad, silly little Sarah Palin-inspired lie?
>>
>>You used to have something to say. Now you're just pathetic.
>
> The "death panels" are implicit ... unavoidable.
Ah, the final step. You've finally become a Stepford Palinist.
> Govt WILL act to contain costs ... meaning it will dump anyone who
> becomes "too expensive". No way around it.
Now, just for shits and giggles, explain to us why corporations would
NEVER do anything like THAT...
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
Awwwww, can't poor obese, alcoholic Jamieson find health insurance
because of his irresponsibility?
liberal
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:50:25 -0600, "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
>
>
> <d...@dead.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:24:09 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>
> >>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:19:26 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/19/insurance-denies-little-girl/
>
> >>>>>Six-Year-Old Girl ?On Verge Of Never Hearing Again? Due To Insurance
> >>>>>Company Denial
>
> >>>> To be replaced by "Six year-old girl on verge of never hearing
> >>>> again due to 'death panels' economy decision :-)
>
> >>>Still squeaking your same, sad, silly little Sarah Palin-inspired lie?
>
> >>>You used to have something to say. Now you're just pathetic.
>
> >> The "death panels" are implicit ... unavoidable.
>
> >Ah, the final step. You've finally become a Stepford Palinist.
>
> >> Govt WILL act to contain costs ... meaning it will dump anyone who
> >> becomes "too expensive". No way around it.
>
> >Now, just for shits and giggles, explain to us why corporations would
> >NEVER do anything like THAT...
>
> Awwwww, can't poor obese, alcoholic Jamieson find health insurance
> because of his irresponsibility?
Damn it, Zepp, let stevie suck your dick so he'll stop his psychotic
rants about your body. His lust fairly drips in these ravings. Put the
poor transsexual out of his misery. Give him/her the relief she needs.
Posters and lurkers all need to be spared his/her obsessional posts.
Steve
Why don't you and Zepp get a room to discuss your homo-erotic
fantasies in private? I doubt anybody else wants to know about
them...
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> Damn it, Zepp, let stevie suck your dick so he'll stop his psychotic
> rants about your body. His lust fairly drips in these ravings. Put the
> poor transsexual out of his misery. Give him/her the relief she needs.
Hell, no. I don't know where that mouth has been...
Steve
I'd bet good money that fatass Jamieson can't find his dick. After
all, he does all his peeing into depends...
Gandalf Grey
"Mr.B1ack" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:lt5jg5tjorg8ahqe1...@4ax.com...
> the corporations you *GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR*
No you don't. You get what they give you only until they don't want to give
it to you anymore. So corporations are all about rationing and all about
death panels.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> Corporations would ... BUT ... und dis ist a big but ... with the
> corporations you *GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR* - meaning that if you're
> worried about plug-pulling or treatment-denial you can pay a little
> extra. With Govt'Care' you're screwed - no more for hard workin' you
> than for Willie the crackhead. Oh, and the plethora of Willies mean
> there won't be much LEFT for you or anyone else.
Actually, the problem is that you DON'T get what you pay for in a
privatized health care system. That's why Americans pay at least half
again what any other population of a developed nation does, and the
health care they get is ranked near the bottom among developed nations.
Private insurance companies get to decide if you are eligible for a
treatment or not. They don't have to have a list in advance so you know
where you stand, and can cut you off for a variety of reasons. Public
option has the list up front of what is covered, and aside from that,
does not involve itself in individual patient/doctor decisions.
Thanks to "tort reform" legislation, nearly anyone with private health
insurance, whether directly or through employers, has signed a waiver
forbidding them from suing in the event of dispute of any kind, but must
instead submit to an arbitration board selected by the insurance
company. In the one state where we're even allowed to know which party
prevails at all, California, the insurance companies win 95% of the
time.
So tell what paranoid whack libertarian scenario involving fascist
regimes you can come up with that is WORSE than that?
>
> Even Medicare slaves are allowed to buy supplimentary private
> insurance to cover special needs. Some versions of GovtCare won't
> even allow that ... or actively seek to destroy all private health
> insurers, perhaps even 'charity' input, so Big Bro will have you by
> the nutsack.
Odd how they didn't have to do that until the GOP got it's hands on
Medicare, and came up with Schedule D, the "donut hole" and allowed Big
Pharm to unilaterally set prices Medicare would have to pay for drugs.
>
> GovtCare ain't gonna spend the whole GDP on curing one poor soul.
> SOME kind of rationing is implicit, and it will become ever more
> restrictive as blue-sky projections about the cost of care give way
> to the grim, hyper-expensive, realities. Geez ... they haven't even
> WAITED - what do you think the mammogram and 'prescription pain-med
> abuse' things are all about anyhow - rationing, 'death-panels',
> version 0.1.
We have rationing NOW, and far worse than any other developed country.
Forty five million are cut out just because their employers don't give a
shit (and why is the BOSS involved in your health care, anyway?).
Insurance companies have a long list of methods to weasel out on paying,
including pre-existing conditions, and it's widely suspected that a lot
of denials are based, not on any medical standards, but on an assessment
by the insurance company on how much they will save versus the likelihood
the vic...patient will put up a fight.
>
> Interesting how the 'liberals' plan for women is "Don't get sick ;
> and if you do, die quickly", isn't it hmmm ? :-)
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
I have a hunch that Jamieson has never had any health insurance.. That
would fit in with his irresponisble lifestyle... which is why he's
so ignorant about it....... and now he realizes that he needs it, he
irresponsively wants other to pay for it.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> Since we don't pay our doctors, nurses, pharmacists and such
> borderline slave wages AND want the right to SUE 'em for millions too
> ... yea, we pay a bit more.
Care to show a developed nation with single payer or national health that
pays medical personnel "borderline slave wages"? And I thought you
wanted to reduce medical malpractice suits. Of course, your answer is to
take away people's right to sue, but it's still a bit weird to see you
shedding crocadile tears over the poor malpractice victims all of a
sudden.
>
>>Private insurance companies get to decide if you are eligible for a
>>treatment or not. They don't have to have a list in advance so you know
>>where you stand, and can cut you off for a variety of reasons. Public
>>option has the list up front of what is covered, and aside from that,
>>does not involve itself in individual patient/doctor decisions.
>>
>>Thanks to "tort reform" legislation, nearly anyone with private health
>>insurance, whether directly or through employers, has signed a waiver
>>forbidding them from suing in the event of dispute of any kind, but must
>>instead submit to an arbitration board selected by the insurance
>>company. In the one state where we're even allowed to know which party
>>prevails at all, California, the insurance companies win 95% of the
>>time.
>
> Maybe because they're usually in the right ... ???
>
Then they wouldn't be trying to conceal the results of the arbitrations,
would they? They would WANT people to know that.
> Hate to break it to you, but people very regularly try to rip-off
> their insurers and/or expect the dollar-ninety-five plan to provide
> for *everything*.
>
And vice versa. Maybe we need an entirely different system based on
mutual trust. Private insurance health is clearly broken.
>>So tell what paranoid whack libertarian scenario involving fascist
>>regimes you can come up with that is WORSE than that?
>>>
>>> Even Medicare slaves are allowed to buy supplimentary private
>>> insurance to cover special needs. Some versions of GovtCare won't
>>> even allow that ... or actively seek to destroy all private health
>>> insurers, perhaps even 'charity' input, so Big Bro will have you by
>>> the nutsack.
>>
>>Odd how they didn't have to do that until the GOP got it's hands on
>>Medicare, and came up with Schedule D, the "donut hole" and allowed Big
>>Pharm to unilaterally set prices Medicare would have to pay for drugs.
>
> Medicare suppliment plans have been around almost as long as
> Medicare. Look it up.
>
But played minor roles until the GOP monstrosity "reform" five years back.
>>> GovtCare ain't gonna spend the whole GDP on curing one poor soul.
>>> SOME kind of rationing is implicit, and it will become ever more
>>> restrictive as blue-sky projections about the cost of care give way
>>> to the grim, hyper-expensive, realities. Geez ... they haven't even
>>> WAITED - what do you think the mammogram and 'prescription pain-med
>>> abuse' things are all about anyhow - rationing, 'death-panels',
>>> version 0.1.
>>
>>We have rationing NOW, and far worse than any other developed country.
>>Forty five million are cut out just because their employers don't give a
>>shit (and why is the BOSS involved in your health care, anyway?).
>
> In *theory* you can quit that job - and encourage everyone else to
> quit along with you.
>
Yeah, in theory. I'm always amazed at libertians who whine about how
taxes are coercive, but never recognize that employ is even more coercive.
>>Insurance companies have a long list of methods to weasel out on paying,
>>including pre-existing conditions,
>
> Hi there Mr. Insurerer ! I have a condition that costs $1000 a month
> to deal with ... but I expect you to sign me up for your insurance -
> at $100 a month. Seems fair to me ....................*
It does, especially when they factor in such items already--and then
cheat.
>
> Anyone who doesn't see a problem with that deserves to be
> bitch-slapped from now until next year (we'll give 'em xmas off).
>
Just the fact that insurance companies rake 20% off the top between what
comes in in the form of premiums and what gets paid out should tell you
something--and get you bitchslapped for 364 of the next 365 days if you
don't see a problem THERE.
>>and it's widely suspected that a lot
>>of denials are based, not on any medical standards, but on an assessment
>>by the insurance company on how much they will save versus the
>>likelihood the vic...patient will put up a fight.
>
> Good business logic ... to a point. After that, the politicians get
> prodded to enact reforms and enforce regs. In any case, don't buy
> insurance from a company with "Providing for Americanz Health Needs
> Since 2007" on the letterhead ......
>
Then why should customers bother with them? Do you usually spend money
on objects that will reliably fail when needed? What else do you
consider good investments? British Sports Cars? Windows Vista? Cleo's
psychic advice?
>>> Interesting how the 'liberals' plan for women is "Don't get sick ;
>>> and if you do, die quickly", isn't it hmmm ? :-)
>
> I note your lack of comment over THAT sentence ... :-)
It's a stupid comment. I was giving you a break.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, in theory. I'm always amazed at libertians who whine about how
>taxes are coercive, but never recognize that employ is even more coercive.
>
That's probably because employment is not coesrcive at all.. One can
always leave an employer.. one can even learn another skill and go
to a completely different field... of course Zepp doesn't do that..
he can't even learn one skill good enough to support himself...
Steve
> Possibly. However he's surely been brainwashed by
> those cherry-picked 'horror stories' the lefty
> media likes to broadcast about *some* poor soul
> who, seemingly, got cheated by the evil faceless
> greedy megacorp. The other 99.9% who did NOT get
> cheated, well, we never hear about them ......
>
> NO insurer, not even the Fed, can just hand out money
> to Doctor 'X' for treatment 'Y' without checking to
> see whether both are reputable. Many docs prescribe
> totally wacko treatments ... or haven't a clue that
> pill 'ABC' does the same thing as pill 'DEF' for one
> tenth the price under the theory that "Insurance will
> pay for it regardless, so who cares ?".
I'm sure that the vast bulk of those stories are made up in the
leftists feeble minds anyway.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> However he's surely been brainwashed by
> those cherry-picked 'horror stories' the lefty media likes to
> broadcast about *some* poor soul who, seemingly, got cheated by the
> evil faceless greedy megacorp. The other 99.9% who did NOT get
> cheated, well, we never hear about them ......
If it was 99.9%, I would have little cause for complaint. However, it's
closer to 75%. About one in four insurance cases are disputed by the
company, and thanks to tort reform, it's impossible to say for sure how
many are frivolous or dishonest disputes, and how many aren't.
>
> NO insurer, not even the Fed, can just hand out money to Doctor 'X'
> for treatment 'Y' without checking to see whether both are reputable.
> Many docs prescribe totally wacko treatments ... or haven't a clue
> that pill 'ABC' does the same thing as pill 'DEF' for one tenth the
> price under the theory that "Insurance will pay for it regardless, so
> who cares ?".
And the criteria for determining reputability for both doctors and
treatments are already in place. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
Then you go on to complain in the exact opposite direction, about how
some treatments aren't available because there ARE criteria for
reputability in place, and it takes time for a ad hoc treatment combining
two drugs to be tested and confirmed. It doesn't help any that the drug
manufacturers vociferously fight such a practice, especially if one or
both drugs are beyond or near their trademark protection period.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>> However he's surely been brainwashed by
>> those cherry-picked 'horror stories' the lefty media likes to
>> broadcast about *some* poor soul who, seemingly, got cheated by the
>> evil faceless greedy megacorp. The other 99.9% who did NOT get
>> cheated, well, we never hear about them ......
>
>If it was 99.9%, I would have little cause for complaint. However, it's
>closer to 75%.
Total bullshit... Fresh out of Zepp's fantasy world...
Milt
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:57:41 -0600, "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09"
> ><d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:09:46 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>
> >>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:24:09 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:19:26 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> those cherry-picked 'horror stories' the lefty
> media likes to broadcast about *some* poor soul
> who, seemingly, got cheated by the evil faceless
> greedy megacorp. The other 99.9% who did NOT get
> cheated, well, we never hear about them ......
99.9%? You must be shitting.
Here are some facts to chew on, Blackie.
1. nearly 50 million people do not have insurance. In most cases, that
means no health care, unless they have the cash to pay for it, or
their illness is so bad that doctors have no choice but to treat them.
That's 50 million people who are at least potentially screwed.
2. Insurance companies don't cover anyone they consider to be "high
risk." That means, if you have a chronic condition, you're not likely
to get coverage at all. Which means, you're screwed.
3. If you have insurance, and you actually have to make a claim, if
the claim is above a dollar amount the insurance company deems as "too
high," you'd better have the cash in the bank to pay for the procedure
or, you're screwed.
4. If you have had insurance for 30 years, and never even been to the
doctor, but have an accident or become ill, and the insurance company
drops you, you can kiss all those premiums goodbye... in other words,
you're screwed.
5. If your doctor and you come to a decision regarding treatment, and
a bureaucrat at the insurance company decides the doctor is wrong, or
the procedure is too expensive, you're screwed.
6. And because so many bills go unpaid, precisely because insurance
companies only cover the healthy and do their damnedest to not pay for
anything, hospitals and doctors have to constantly raise prices to
make up the shortfalls. And that gives insurance companies cover to
raise prices at will. Therefore, it's estimated that, simply by
covering everyone, premiums could (not that they will, because
insurance companies are heartless bastards) be reduced by one-third
almost immediately. That means, everyone who's paying for insurance is
screwed.
7. Because of the health care inflation, caused primarily by the
insurance companies themselves, Medicare and Medicaid costs keep
climbing, which costs future taxpayers more every year. So taxpayers
are screwed.
So, you would be more accurate to say that 99.9% of Americans are
screwed by the current system.
Having said that, as far as I'm concerned anyone who pays taxes and
hasn't committed a crime, who is denied necessary medical care for any
reason, constitutes system failure; I don't give a fuck if there are
only a few hundred every year. Although it's estimated that 45,000
people die every year from not having insurance. I personally think
that number's conservative, but hey; it's still pretty high.
> NO insurer, not even the Fed, can just hand out money
> to Doctor 'X' for treatment 'Y' without checking to
> see whether both are reputable.
You are so full of shit...
That's not the problem, you idiot. The problem is the bills that don't
get paid because people don't have insurance, because insurance
companies don't cover people who will cost them money, and because
premiums are so high, an increasing number of individuals and
employers are unable to keep providing coverage. That, and the fact
that insurance companies are under no mandate to pay claims, and in
fact avoid them at will.
But hey; if you have evidence that a bunch of non-doctors are trying
to make phony claims to private insurance, then by all means, present
them.
> Many docs prescribe
> totally wacko treatments ...
First you claim that "99.9%" of people don't get screwed, which is
just insane. Then you claim one big problem is phony docs trying to
screw insurance companies. Now, you're claiming a huge problem is
"wacko treatments"? You have to be joking, unless you're just really
stupid.
> or haven't a clue that
> pill 'ABC' does the same thing as pill 'DEF' for one
> tenth the price under the theory that "Insurance will
> pay for it regardless, so who cares ?".
Um... most of us in the real world KNOW insurance companies don't pay
for shit, if there's a way to get around paying for it. Therefore,
that simply couldn't be a major problem with the system.
By the way, clown, in most cases, doctors usually have to be in the
network, which means the insurance company already knows they're good
doctors. They also have to submit most treatment to insurance
companies for approval.
Therefore, not only are you ideologically stunted, you're ignorant as
shit. Now, go away and learn something, and stop making arguments
based solely on emotion.
Steve
wrote:
Blah, blah, blah... half of those are illegals and half of what's
left are people who can afford it but choose to buy something else
instead....
Milt has been without health insurance ever since he got fired from
his job....
>> � �NO insurer, not even the Fed, can just hand out money
Irony anyone? Milt makes all his arguments based on gyt feelings..
Here's some examples...
"You have $100,000.
You borrowed money to buy $10,000 worth of stock.
[now] you're worth $110,000."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/296d8d12c064282a?hl=en
"And Roth's don't pay shit in interest these days."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1434b188779dea12?hl=en
Well, a loss is negative equity."
--Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&
"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the necessary collateral, while not
decreasing the value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&
"I am incorporated. But MiltCo (not the actual name of the corporation)
is not me. The corporation is a wholly separate entity from me. The
corporation pays me a salary and I pay taxes on that salary. THE
CORPORATION pays the taxes on the corporation."
--Milt Shook Mar 18 2004,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH!
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"When you're (sic) margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset.
If you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
"The price of goods and services is based solely -- and I mean SOLELY
-- on how much people are willing to pay for the goods and services."
--Milt Shook Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:07:49 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5ad9f80a29911b0b?dmode=source
"Supply and demand determine price? Are you shitting me? Price DICTATES
demand, you ignorant fuck."
--Milt shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/c049eb138b04797b?hl=en