Obamacare Saved Americans $2.1 Billion in 2012

[John Manning]

Insurers Aren’t Just Giving Out Rebate Checks
Because Of Obamacare — They’re Lowering Premiums, Too


- Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1 billion
thanks to Obamacare consumer protections that limit how much insurers can
profit off of Americans’ premiums, according to a new study by the Kaiser
Family Foundation (KFF).

The vast majority of those savings stem from individual health plan
providers
lowering the premiums they charge Americans in an effort to comply with
the reform law.

The Kaiser study comes shortly after several major California insurers
announced that they would have to pay back $36 million to small businesses
and their employees after charging them too much.

Obamacare mandates that insurers on the individual market spend
at least 80 percent of the premiums they charge on actual medical services,
or reimburse the amount they overspent to their customers.

But insurers can avoid writing those checks after-the-fact if they just
lower
their premiums to begin with — and KFF’s study concludes that’s what many
individual plan providers have been doing. KFF estimates that individual
market
insurers lowered their premiums by $856 million in 2011 and by $1.9
billion in
2012 to comply with the so-called “80/20 rule”.

SEE GRAPH of savings because of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare):
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/individual_market_mlr_savings-e1370622377752.png

The combination of these premium savings and rebate checks
meant that Americans who bought their own insurance spent 7.5 percent less
on their coverage in 2012 than they would have without Obamacare’s
consumer protections.

That’s an important victory for consumers since individual insurance plans
tend to offer meager benefits at high prices, especially to sick Americans.

Obamacare will also change that status quo soon enough.

Once the law’s main provisions go live in 2014, individual and
small group health plans sold on its statewide insurance marketplaces
must offer ten “essential health benefits” to consumers, including for
mental health care, prescription drug, and maternity services.

Initial insurer bids for the marketplaces in several states
have indicated that premiums will be affordable, and even lower
than what many plans currently charge for far worse coverage.

~~ Links included here:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/individual_market_mlr_savings-e1370622377752.png

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 8, 9:04 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

And it cost them about $2,000 loss in their income

[Truth and honesty]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:

> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1 billion

Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
stupid.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <10aioetjc7tyc.7...@40tude.net>,

Not to the people with that money added to their bank accounts.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 9, 8:01 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <10aioetjc7tyc.7iuqgiqjnimr....@40tude.net>,

>  Truth and honesty <Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>
> > > - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1 billion
>
> > Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
> > stupid.
>
> Not to the people with that money added to their bank accounts.

Do you understand accounting?

[Tom McDonald]

Do you understand the economics of health care?

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 9, 8:36 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Do you understand the economics of health care?

I know the middle class went into recession after it passed and was
implemented.

[Tom McDonald]

It's not been fully implemented yet, but has already shown savings.

[A Really Really Large Number]

You don't know accounting either I see.
Are you sure you two nyms are not the same person, showing the same
cognitive defect of comprehension lacking?

[Tom McDonald]

Show me how your (I presume) knowledge of accounting gives you insight
into the economics of health care sufficient to make a causative
connection between your notional recession and the passage and
implementation of Obamacare.

[A Really Really Large Number]

People's income's, their balance declined, after obamacare implemented.

[plainolamerican]

> SEE GRAPH of savings because of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare):http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/individual_market...

>
> The combination of these premium savings and rebate checks
> meant that Americans who bought their own insurance spent 7.5 percent less
> on their coverage in 2012 than they would have without Obamacare’s
> consumer protections.
>
> That’s an important victory for consumers since individual insurance plans
> tend to offer meager benefits at high prices, especially to sick Americans.
>
> Obamacare will also change that status quo soon enough.
>
> Once the law’s main provisions go live in 2014, individual and
> small group health plans sold on its statewide insurance marketplaces
> must offer ten “essential health benefits” to consumers, including for
> mental health care, prescription drug, and maternity services.
>
> Initial insurer bids for the marketplaces in several states
> have indicated that premiums will be affordable, and even lower
> than what many plans currently charge for far worse coverage.
>

> ~~ Links included here:http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/individual_market...

Obamacare
---
another healthcare program that the poor and mindless will complain
about soon enough.

your healthcare is your responsibility ... not mine.

[John Manning]

The recession started in December of 2007 and the economy crashed in
September of 2008 under G.W. Bush - long before Obama was sworn into
office January 20th of 2009.

[A Really Really Large Number]

I was not talking about real estate being unaffordable.

I was talking about the last 2 years the middle class income going
down.

[Tom McDonald]

Post hoc fallacy noted.

[Tom McDonald]

As opposed to the last 10-20 years of middle class income going down?

[Good Morning]

In article <8e67935f-413c-4bbc...@n5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, A
Really Really Large Number says...

The erosion of middle class income has been
going on for over 30 years. Obviously, there are
causes other than recent healthcare legislation.

You're a religious kook and religious kooks favor
overly-simplistic "explanations" for complex questions.
And, favor dishonest discourse, too.

So snip my answer to suit the next dishonest
thing you will type.

[A Really Really Large Number]

Care to back your claim with some evidence?

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 10, 2:03 pm, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <8e67935f-413c-4bbc-a978-2b70d9eaf...@n5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, A

> Really Really Large Number says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 10, 11:26=A0am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >> On 6/9/2013 10:07 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> >> > On 6/9/2013 7:48 PM, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
> >> >> On Jun 9, 8:36 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Do you understand the economics of health care?
>
> >> >> I know the middle class went into recession after it passed and was
> >> >> implemented.
>
> >> > It's not been fully implemented yet, but has already shown savings.
>
> >> The recession started in December of 2007 and the economy crashed in
> >> September of 2008 under G.W. Bush - long before Obama was sworn into
> >> office January 20th of 2009.
>
> >I was not talking about real estate being unaffordable.
>
> >I was talking about the last 2 years the middle class income going
> >down.
>
> The erosion of middle class income has been
> going on for over 30 years.

No, the last two years moron!

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 10, 3:31 pm, A Really Really Large Number

Here is mine:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/cfcc905b3e9dc16e?hl=en&dmode=source

Median household income, after adjusting for inflation, fell 1.5
percent last year to $50,054, according to the Census Bureau's annual
report on income and poverty issued released Wednesday. The poverty
rate, at 15 percent, remained stuck at the highest level since 1993.

[Tom McDonald]

Care to back up that claim with evidence?

[Tom McDonald]

http://www.currydemocrats.org/american_pie.html

"Income for the top 20 percent has increased since the 1970s while
income for the bottom 80 percent declined. In the 1970s the top 1
percent received 8 percent of total income while today they receive 18
percent. During the same period income for the bottom 20 percent had
decreased 30 percent."

[Tom McDonald]

Show the trend. Show that it started two years ago.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 10, 4:17 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/10/2013 2:38 PM, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 3:31 pm, A Really Really Large Number
> > <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 10, 2:00 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 6/10/2013 10:30 AM, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jun 10, 11:26 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/9/2013 10:07 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 6/9/2013 7:48 PM, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 9, 8:36 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Do you understand the economics of health care?
>
> >>>>>>> I know the middle class went into recession after it passed and was
> >>>>>>> implemented.
>
> >>>>>> It's not been fully implemented yet, but has already shown savings.
>
> >>>>> The recession started in December of 2007 and the economy crashed in
> >>>>> September of 2008 under G.W. Bush - long before Obama was sworn into
> >>>>> office January 20th of 2009.
>
> >>>> I was not talking about real estate being unaffordable.
>
> >>>> I was talking about the last 2 years the middle class income going
> >>>> down.
>
> >>> As opposed to the last 10-20 years of middle class income going down?
>
> >> Care to back your claim with some evidence?
>
> > Here is mine:
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/cfcc905b3e9dc1...

>
> > Median household income, after adjusting for inflation, fell 1.5
> > percent last year to $50,054, according to the Census Bureau's annual
> > report on income and poverty issued released Wednesday. The poverty
> > rate, at 15 percent, remained stuck at the highest level since 1993.
>
> Show the trend.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/median-household-income-down-7-3-since-start-of-recession/

[A Really Really Large Number]

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-02.pdf

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Real median household income in the United States fell between the
2010 ACS and the 2011 ACS, decreasing by 1.3 percent from $51,144 to
$50,502 (see Appendix Table 1)

In the 2011 ACS, information on income was collected between January
and December 2011 and people were asked about income for the previous
12 months (the income reference period). This yielded a total income
time span covering 23 months (January 2010 to November 2011).
Therefore, adjacent ACS years have income reference months in common
and comparisons of 2011 economic conditions with those in 2010 will
not be precise

[Jim Burns]

Here is a stunning graph:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//10-21-10inc-f3.jpg
Chart 3: Uneven Distribution of Gains Contrasts with
Earlier Era, When Growth Was Widely Shared
Average income between 1946 and 2008,
as a percentage of 1979 level
(Bottom 90 percent, Top 1 percent)

From here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3309
Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008,
But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top
Recent Gains of Bottom 90 Percent Wiped Out

For a couple generations after WWII, the growth in income for
the top 1% and the bottom 90% tracked each other remarkably
well. And then, starting in 1980, the bottom 90% flattened out
and the 1% sky-rocketed.

The idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats" was actually true
in this country, for a couple of generations. But that was then.

This is a different country now, one in which the pie still
grows, but only those at the top get any more pie.

What changed? Hint: Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

The top 1% getting essentially all of the gains that the whole
country worked for is not the result of some sort of economic
law. It is the result of specific policy decisions and,
looking at this graph, it is pretty clear when those policy
decisions were made -- and clear that they have been continued
ever since through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 10, 8:53 pm, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:


> This is a different country now, one in which the pie still
> grows, but only those at the top get any more pie.
>
> What changed? Hint: Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Ronald Reagan is president?

[Tom McDonald]

Yup. It's now government of, by and for the corporations.

We need to change that, primarily by getting a Constitutional amendment
to repeal Citizens' United and getting money out of politics.

[Tom McDonald]

You snipped the context. The change began in 1980--when Ronnie Ray-Gun
was elected.

Why not be an honest person?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:11:39 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Because the craven fools who worship riches hope one day that the rich
will reward them for their craven behavior.

[Jim Burns]

Yes, Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980.
You really need to get out more. I'm pretty sure it was
in the papers.

What has changed since the Reagan Revolution? Not much
that I can see. The Wall Street elites crash the world
economy while making trainloads of money. We fix the
economy by pouring rivers of cash over their heads.
Of course, they took a hit with the crash, didn't they?
Didn't they?

Nah.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/in-2010-93-percent-of-income-gains-went-to-the-top-1-percent/2011/08/25/gIQA0qxhsR_blog.html
In 2010, 93 percent of income gains went to the top 1 percent

[A Really Really Large Number]

You be an honest person.
Reagan is not president now nor has he been in a long time.
You cannot honestly blame Reagan for today's debacle and troubles.
Not if you are honest anyway ...

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 6:18 am, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
> On 6/10/2013 8:57 PM, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 8:53 pm, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
> >> This is a different country now, one in which the pie still
> >> grows, but only those at the top get any more pie.
>
> >> What changed? Hint: Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.
>
> > Ronald Reagan is president?
>
> Yes, Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980.

This isn't 1980.

[Tom McDonald]

Ha! You snipped the context, then asked a stupid, misleading question
based on your mendacity, and now ignore the fact that the decline in
American middle-class income started under Ronnie Ray-Gun.

There are many authors of 'today's debacle and troubles'. If you are
honest, you have to include Ray-Gun in that list of authors.

Do you?

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 11:03 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 9:40 AM, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 9:11 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/10/2013 7:57 PM, A Really Really Large Number wrote:> On Jun 10, 8:53 pm, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>> This is a different country now, one in which the pie still
> >>>> grows, but only those at the top get any more pie.
>
> >>>> What changed? Hint: Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.
>
> >>> Ronald Reagan is president?
>
> >> You snipped the context. The change began in 1980--when Ronnie Ray-Gun
> >> was elected.
>
> >> Why not be an honest person?
>
> > You be an honest person.
> > Reagan is not president now nor has he been in a long time.
> > You cannot honestly blame Reagan for today's debacle and troubles.
> > Not if you are honest anyway ...
>
> Ha! You snipped the context

The posts are there for anyone reading usenet to see.

[MarkA]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>
>> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
>> billion
>

> Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
> stupid.

The system ALREADY costs trillions. If Obamacare didn't exist,
costs would still be in the trillions. "Stupid" is not trying to find
ways to control those costs.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 11:08 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>
> >> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
> >> billion
>
> > Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
> > stupid.
>
> The system ALREADY costs trillions.  If Obamacare didn't exist,
> costs would still be in the trillions.  "Stupid" is not trying to find
> ways to control those costs.

Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.

[John Manning]

Excellent analysis and summary. Reagan was a puppet of Big Money
Wall Street and corporate interests. He was a good actor after all. They
gave him a script and he played the part very well while he waged
illegal wars,
fucked unions, the middle class and all the American people who ended up
paying billions for his Savings & Loan debacle *caused by deregulation*
in which
747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in
taxpayer dollars.

[A Really Really Large Number]

Switching when confronted with the bad economy under Obama does not
make it go away, IDIOT.

[Tom McDonald]

Agreed. Your dishonesty is thus evident to anyone who cares to check.

[Tom McDonald]

It's a good thing, then, that we're not doing that.

[plainolamerican]

---
turning it into a social program is worse.

fund your own healthcare.

[Tom McDonald]

Yes, we did need to switch Ray-Gun. Hard and repeatedly with a hazel
switch. That we did not do so is to our eternal shame.

[Tom McDonald]

Do you fund yours?

[plainolamerican]

yes ...100%.
unlike the socialists who need a nanny state.
next they'll want the producers in America to pre-chew their food.

[Tom McDonald]

I'm pleased that you have the money to pay for $50-100,000 operations
out of your own pocket. You do realize, though, don't you, that most
people can't, and thus need insurance?

[MarkA]

You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered, costs way
more than it should, and delivers inadequate care to many? If you tried
to make it worse, I'm not sure you would be able.

[plainolamerican]

need insurance
---
your choice ... your welfare ... your expense.

[A Really Really Large Number]

You mean yours.

[A Really Really Large Number]

Ruining the health care system is not good.

[A Really Really Large Number]

Thanks for admitting your switched the topic from the current
situation to babble about something else.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 1:34 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 11:08 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>
> >> >> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
> >> >> billion
>
> >> > Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
> >> > stupid.
>
> >> The system ALREADY costs trillions.  If Obamacare didn't exist, costs
> >> would still be in the trillions.  "Stupid" is not trying to find ways
> >> to control those costs.
>
> > Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.
>
> You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered

Those claim to be uncovered have access to medical through free and
low income clinics across the country.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.needymeds.org/free_clinics.taf

The 12559 clinics in this database are free, low cost, low cost with a
sliding scale based on income, or offer some type of financial
assistance

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 3:06 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>

http://www.massresources.org/free-clinics.html

What are free clinics and low cost clinics?

Free and low cost clinics are community-based health care programs
that provide medical, dental, vision, mental health, and other health-
related services to uninsured or underinsured low income residents.
Depending on the clinic, services may be free or low cost using a
sliding fee scale based on income.

Many free and low cost clinics are federally funded Community Health
Centers that offer a wide range of health services to anyone in need,
regardless of ability to pay

Other free and low cost clinics are run by local non-profit
organizations and are funded by grants, donations, and volunteer
staffing.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 3:08 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>

http://www.freemedicalsearch.org/det/fl_Community_Health_Ctrs_@_Clearw

Permanent Clinic.
This is a health care center funded by the federal government. This
means even if you have no insurance you can be covered. The center is
also income based for those making an income. This health center can
cover services such as checkups, treatment, pregnancy care (where
applicable), immunizations and child care (where applicable),
prescription medicine and mental and substance abuse where applicable.
Contact them at the number provided for full details

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 3:13 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>

http://www.freemedicalsearch.org/det/fl_Helen_B_Bentley_Family_Health_

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 3:15 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>

http://health.costhelper.com/teeth-cleaning.html

Medicaid sucks and so did the doctor I went to
Amount: $0.00

Posted by: record geek 101 in Amarillo, TX. Posted: October 3rd, 2012
08:10PM
Type: Basic exam cleaning and xrays


Well my medicaid paid for all of it but they didnt clean my teeth i
waited for 3 hours the doctor barely spoke english and basically all
they did was tell me i need a very deep cleaning that costs alot of
money that i dont have and medicaid will only pay for preventative
care not for anything else what a crock of shit Obama sucks

Quarterly Teeth Cleaning
Amount: $95.00

Posted by: Elizabeth Patt in Pittsburgh, PA. Posted: October 22nd,
2012 11:10AM
Type: Tooth/Gum Cleaning


I go to a reputable dentist with a professional office/staff. Same
hygenist for past 5+ years and occasionally a sub if she is out. The
cleaning was very thorough as usual. Since I currently do not have
dental insurance and go every four months, I opted to not have dentist
exam or x-rays. I thought $95 was high, but maybe not - you get what
you pay for (usually).

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 3:27 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>

Would you give me a discount?
Amount: $95.00

Posted by: no teeth in plymouth, MA. Posted: November 19th, 2012
04:11PM


I am over 65, and have had problems with my teeth m whole life. If
there is a dental procedure, I've had it. Quarterly cleaning, deep
scaling, and on and on. Right now, I have only FOUR teeth left. I was
charged for a full adult cleaning, that took about 10 minutes. rnIn
the past, I was only charged for children's cleaning. Love thei
dentist, but not crazy about the hygenist or the front office staff.

routine cleaning
Amount: $99.00

Posted by: nice teeth in glendale, CA. Posted: January 24th, 2013
09:01AM


I had my upper quandrants done yesterday, which took less than 30
minutes. they said that the paperworks and the x-ray had took all the
appoinment time so they asked me to get the lower quandrants done
during the next visit. I never thought about how much they would
charge and finally found out on the planning sheet, they wanted to
charge twice just for one service. Is it normal to do that? teeth
cleaning is $99, $145 for x-ray, $75 new checking.

Pregnant and trying to get a checkup
Amount: $80.00

Posted by: Liz10 in Valdez, AK. Posted: January 30th, 2013 02:01PM
Type: Exam


I live in Valdez Alaska and since I'm unmarried I qualify for Denali
Kid Care which will usually cover the cost of an exam, cleaning and a
few other procedures. Yet the only dentist in town does not accept
Denali Kid Care for pregnant women so I had to pay out of pocket. I
already had x-rays earlier in the year ($60 for a full set and a brief
exam) so when I called to make an appointment paying out of pocket I
was told it will be $80 for the exam, and I can make an appointment
for a cleaning in August (3 months after I have my baby) which will
cost about $105, and a deep cleaning will cost about $200. I'm pretty
sure I have advanced periodontist issues so I'm going to need a root
scaling and planing eventually. My teeth only seem to have issues when
I'm pregnant!

Routine cleaning, exam and 2 film bitewings
Amount: $195.00

Posted by: Lindsey Lee in York, ME. Posted: February 22nd, 2013
06:02PM
Type: Routine cleaning, exam and 2 bitewings


Adult cleaning $98rnDental exam $48rnBitewings (2 films) $49rnrnDid I
get overcharged?

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 3:30 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>

No Regular Cleanings
Amount: $146.00

Posted by: Gina2 in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Posted: April 4th, 2013
04:04AM
Type: Regular dental cleanings


I want to confirm what another posting observed on 2/21/12. My dental
plan with HumanaOne includes to free cleanings and I paid $146 for the
year, but I have been to four different dental offices looking for a
regular cleaning and the dentists refuse to provide a regular
cleaning. It is unbelievable. Instead they want you to have deep
cleanings with the additional cost, hundreds of dollars more

Cleaning
Amount: $89.00

Posted by: Molly Marionet in Spokane, WA. Posted: May 9th, 2013
07:05PM
Type: basic every 6 months


I hadn't been to the dentist in about 4 years, I now get a basic
cleaning every 6 months. Its not that expensive compared to what some
of you are paying.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <pan.2013.06.11....@nowhere.invalid>,

Sure you could.

Repeal the law requiring hospitals to treat people with medical
emergencies whether they can pay or not. Then we'd have the people dying
in the streets, just as the Republicans want.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Dakota]

"If living were a thing that money could buy
Then the rich would live and the poor would die"

All My Trials - protest song popular in the '50s and '60s.

[Don Kresch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:34:24 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
scrawled in blood:

Sure we can: make it completely run by the federal government.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:27:35 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:

The countries that do that have better health care for a lower cost.

Try again.

[Jason]

In article <gicfr8hf00ffng324...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today.

An example, a little 12 year girl that needed a lung transplant in order
to stay alive. A federal government employee told her that she would not
be allowed to get a lung transplant since it was a violation of a
governemnt rule. Thank goodness, a kind judge over ruled that stupid woman
and ordered the young girl's doctors to add her name to the official
waiting list for any available lung.

[Jason]

In article <02dfr8p9qfcjpcoj6...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

If a person in some of those countries is over 70 years old and needs a
heart transplant--the sad news--he will not be getting a heart transplant.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:56:14 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

>In article <02dfr8p9qfcjpcoj6...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
><lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:27:35 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:34:24 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>> >scrawled in blood:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Jun 11, 11:08!m, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
>> >>>> > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
>> >>>> >> billion
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
>> >>>> > stupid.
>> >>>>

>> >>>> The system ALREADY costs trillions. f Obamacare didn't exist, costs

>> >>>> would still be in the trillions. "Stupid" is not trying to find ways
>> >>>> to control those costs.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.
>> >>
>> >>You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered, costs way
>> >>more than it should, and delivers inadequate care to many? If you tried
>> >>to make it worse, I'm not sure you would be able.
>> >
>> > Sure we can: make it completely run by the federal government.
>>
>> The countries that do that have better health care for a lower cost.
>>
>> Try again.
>
>If a person in some of those countries is over 70 years old and needs a
>heart transplant--the sad news--he will not be getting a heart transplant.
>

Show me.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:54:31 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

>In article <gicfr8hf00ffng324...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:34:24 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Jun 11, 11:08!m, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
>> >>> > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
>> >>> >> billion
>> >>>
>> >>> > Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
>> >>> > stupid.
>> >>>

>> >>> The system ALREADY costs trillions. f Obamacare didn't exist, costs

>> >>> would still be in the trillions. "Stupid" is not trying to find ways
>> >>> to control those costs.
>> >>
>> >> Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.
>> >
>> >You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered, costs way
>> >more than it should, and delivers inadequate care to many? If you tried
>> >to make it worse, I'm not sure you would be able.
>>
>> Sure we can: make it completely run by the federal government.
>>
>>
>> Don
>> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>> Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>
>Thanks for the best post that I have seen today.
>
>An example, a little 12 year girl that needed a lung transplant in order
>to stay alive. A federal government employee told her that she would not
>be allowed to get a lung transplant since it was a violation of a
>governemnt rule.

Nope.

>Thank goodness, a kind judge over ruled that stupid woman
>and ordered the young girl's doctors to add her name to the official
>waiting list for any available lung.

And someone else on the waiting list, who was a better match for that
lung, lost their chance because of whiny parents and an ignorant judge.
There is a shortage of lungs so someone lost out. Why do you not care
about that other person who was more likely to have a successful
transplant?

[Tom McDonald]

Prove it was a government official who denied the kid. In the US, it's a
private agency that runs the transplant program.

"United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is the private, non-profit
organization that manages the nation's organ transplant system under
contract with the federal government."

http://www.unos.org/about/index.php

[Tom McDonald]

Prove it.

[Jason]

In article <LuPtt.5257$f_1...@newsfe05.iad>, Tom McDonald

<http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/06/05/death_panel_secretary_sebelius_denies_lung_transplant_for_10_year_old_girl>

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 8:11 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:54:31 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >In article <gicfr8hf00ffng32472pllkdhipb7du...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

Prove someone got bumped from the list when she was added.

[Jason]

In article <mvPtt.5258$f_1....@newsfe05.iad>, Tom McDonald

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-11061...@66-53-212-231.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Liar.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-11061...@66-53-212-231.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

I don't believe a word of this. Provide a reputable source.

[Tom McDonald]

Fuck Limpballs. Give me a real citation.

[Tom McDonald]

That's how the list works. There are not enough for everyone who needs a
transplant.

[Tom McDonald]

Your very citation shows that it isn't British law that's the problem.
Try again.

[A Really Really Large Number]

No it does not, you moron!

> There are not enough for everyone who needs a
> transplant.

That is why there is a list, not how the list works.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 9:10 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 7:57 PM, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <mvPtt.5258$f_1.4...@newsfe05.iad>, Tom McDonald

> > <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 6/11/2013 6:56 PM, Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <02dfr8p9qfcjpcoj6adsncsaa51c5l0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> >>> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:27:35 -0500, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org>

> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:34:24 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> >>>>> scrawled in blood:
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jun 11, 11:08 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
> >>>>>>>>>> billion
>
> >>>>>>>>> Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
> >>>>>>>>> stupid.
>
> >>>>>>>> The system ALREADY costs trillions.  If Obamacare didn't exist, costs
> >>>>>>>> would still be in the trillions.  "Stupid" is not trying to find ways
> >>>>>>>> to control those costs.
>
> >>>>>>> Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.
>
> >>>>>> You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered, costs way
> >>>>>> more than it should, and delivers inadequate care to many?  If you tried
> >>>>>> to make it worse, I'm not sure you would be able.
>
> >>>>>         Sure we can: make it completely run by the federal government.
>
> >>>> The countries that do that have better health care for a lower cost.
>
> >>>> Try again.
>
> >>> If a person in some of those countries is over 70 years old and needs a
> >>> heart transplant--the sad news--he will not be getting a heart transplant.
>
> >> Prove it.
>

> > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old...>

>
> Your very citation shows that it isn't British law that's the problem.

Thanks for admitting he backed his claim.

[%]

what did he lie about

[%]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/sarah-murnaghan-lung-transplant-_n_3392862.html

[%]

how does it work

[A Really Really Large Number]

it does not remove people to add them.

[%]

i saw that too

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:53:54 -0700 (PDT), A Really Really Large Number
<t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57588642/committee-allows-special-review-for-childrens-lung-transplants/>

The waiting list exists. If someone jumps the queue someone else has to
wait longer.

Do you think a judge or medical experts are best at deciding who should
get any specific lung?

Sarah still doesn't have a suitable lung.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 9:20 pm, A Really Really Large Number

http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/unos/

Contrary to popular belief, waiting on the list for a transplant is
not like taking a number at the deli counter and waiting for your turn
to order. In some respects, even the word "list" is misleading; the
list is really a giant pool of patients. There is no ranking or
patient order until there is a donor, because each donor's blood type,
size and genetic characteristics are different. Therefore, when a
donor is entered into the national computer system, the patients that
match that donor, and therefore the "list," is different each time.

The other major guiding principal in organ allocation is: local
patients first. The country is divided into 11 geographic regions,
each served by a federally-designated organ procurement organization
(OPO), which is responsible for coordinating all organ donations. With
the exception of perfectly matched kidneys and the most urgent liver
patients, first priority goes to patients at transplant hospitals
located in the region served by the OPO. Next in priority are patients
in areas served by nearby OPOs; and finally, only if no patients in
these communities can use the organ, it is offered to patients
elsewhere in the U.S

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:53:54 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

Only fools care what Rush Limbaugh claims.

As usual, he is not telling the truth.

It's a shame that you listen to that evil man.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:53:54 -0700 (PDT), A Really Really Large Number

> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

> <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57588642/committee-allows-special...>

>
> The waiting list exists. If someone jumps the queue

It is not jumping ahead, merely being added to the list.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:04:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>In article
><Jason-11061...@66-53-212-231.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>> In article <gicfr8hf00ffng324...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch
>> <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:34:24 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>> > scrawled in blood:
>> >
>> > >On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Jun 11, 11:08!m, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> > >>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
>> > >>> > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> >> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
>> > >>> >> billion
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
>> > >>> > stupid.
>> > >>>

>> > >>> The system ALREADY costs trillions. f Obamacare didn't exist, costs

>> > >>> would still be in the trillions. "Stupid" is not trying to find ways
>> > >>> to control those costs.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.
>> > >
>> > >You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered, costs way
>> > >more than it should, and delivers inadequate care to many? If you tried
>> > >to make it worse, I'm not sure you would be able.
>> >
>> > Sure we can: make it completely run by the federal government.
>> >
>> >
>> > Don
>> > aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>> > Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>>
>> Thanks for the best post that I have seen today.
>>
>> An example, a little 12 year girl that needed a lung transplant in order
>> to stay alive. A federal government employee told her that she would not
>> be allowed to get a lung transplant since it was a violation of a
>> governemnt rule. Thank goodness, a kind judge over ruled that stupid woman
>> and ordered the young girl's doctors to add her name to the official
>> waiting list for any available lung.
>
>I don't believe a word of this. Provide a reputable source.

The federal government has nothing to do with it, but Jason is so
obsessed with Rush Limbaugh that he believes every vile, disgusting,
racist, sexist, bigoted claim Limbaugh makes.

Jason is proving that he intends to go to hell.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 11, 9:24 pm, A Really Really Large Number

http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/about/transplantation/matchingProcess.asp

Donor Matching System

When transplant hospitals accept patients onto the waiting list, the
patients are registered in a centralized, national computer network
that links all donors and transplant candidates. The UNOS Organ Center
is staffed 24 hours a day throughout the year, and it assists with the
matching, sharing and transportation of organs via this computer
network.

Transplant centers, tissue typing laboratories, and OPOs are involved
in the organ sharing process. When donor organs are identified, the
procuring organization typically accesses the computerized organ
matching system, enters information about the donor organs, and runs
the match program. At times, when requested or when there is a need to
identify perfectly matched kidney donor/recipients, the matching
process is handled by Organ Center personnel at UNOS headquarters in
Richmond, Virginia.

For each organ that becomes available, the computer program generates
a list of potential recipients ranked according to objective criteria
(i.e. blood type, tissue type, size of the organ, medical urgency of
the patient, time on the waiting list, and distance between donor and
recipient). Each organ has its own specific criteria

After printing the list of potential recipients, the procurement
coordinator contacts the transplant surgeon caring for the top-ranked
patient (i.e. patient whose organ characteristics best match the donor
organ and whose time on the waiting list, urgency status, and distance
from the donor organ adhere to allocation policy) to offer the organ.
Depending on various factors, such as the donor's medical history and
the current health of the potential recipient, the transplant surgeon
determines if the organ is suitable for the patient. If the organ is
turned down, the next listed individual's transplant center is
contacted, and so on, until the organ is placed.

Once the organ is accepted for a potential recipient, transportation
arrangements are made for the surgical teams to come to the donor
hospital and surgery is scheduled. For heart, lung, or liver
transplantation, the recipient of the organ is identified prior to the
organ recovery and called into the hospital where the transplant will
occur to prepare for the surgery.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:25:39 -0700 (PDT), A Really Really Large Number
<t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

The court decision seems to have implied more than merely adding to the
list.

[Tom McDonald]

So someone was denied that organ because it went to the little girl.
Just as we said.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-11061...@66-53-212-231.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

rushlimbaugh.com????? Seriously????

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:41:11 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

She hasn't gotten one, yet.

Groupings of donors and recipients are divided into child, adolescent,
and adult. Children have first preference for donations from children,
they have second preference from donations from adolescents. They are
generally not considered for adult, both because there are plenty of
adults waiting and the size difference causes problems.

[%]

he's good he knows lots of current events

[Dakota]

On 6/11/2013 7:09 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:56:14 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>

>> In article <02dfr8p9qfcjpcoj6...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:27:35 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:34:24 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 11, 11:08!m, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
>>>>>>>>> billion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The system ALREADY costs trillions. f Obamacare didn't exist, costs

>>>>>>> would still be in the trillions. "Stupid" is not trying to find ways
>>>>>>> to control those costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered, costs way
>>>>> more than it should, and delivers inadequate care to many? If you tried
>>>>> to make it worse, I'm not sure you would be able.
>>>>
>>>> Sure we can: make it completely run by the federal government.
>>>

>>> The countries that do that have better health care for a lower cost.
>>>
>>> Try again.
>>
>> If a person in some of those countries is over 70 years old and needs a
>> heart transplant--the sad news--he will not be getting a heart transplant.
>>

> Show me.
>
In the USA, if a person is 70 and needs a heart transplant, they'd
better be rich. Once the ACA is fully implemented, need will be the
determining factor - not wealth.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kp8neu$o9r$3...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

Liar.

And don't bother to deny it unless you provide the exact words from the
ACA that state this.

[Dakota]

On 6/11/2013 7:11 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:54:31 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>

>> In article <gicfr8hf00ffng324...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

>> <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:34:24 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700, A Really Really Large Number wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 11, 11:08!m, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:03:42 +1000, Truth and honesty wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 22:04:11 -0300, John Manning wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Americans who bought individual health plans in 2012 saved $2.1
>>>>>>>> billion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talking of two billions saved when we are talking trillions in cost is
>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The system ALREADY costs trillions. f Obamacare didn't exist, costs
>>>>>> would still be in the trillions. "Stupid" is not trying to find ways
>>>>>> to control those costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ruining the health care system we have is stupid.
>>>>
>>>> You mean the health care system that leaves millions uncovered, costs way
>>>> more than it should, and delivers inadequate care to many? If you tried
>>>> to make it worse, I'm not sure you would be able.
>>>
>>> Sure we can: make it completely run by the federal government.
>>>
>>>

>>> Don
>>> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>>> Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>>
>> Thanks for the best post that I have seen today.
>>
>> An example, a little 12 year girl that needed a lung transplant in order
>> to stay alive. A federal government employee told her that she would not
>> be allowed to get a lung transplant since it was a violation of a
>> governemnt rule.
>

> Nope.

>
>> Thank goodness, a kind judge over ruled that stupid woman
>> and ordered the young girl's doctors to add her name to the official
>> waiting list for any available lung.
>

> And someone else on the waiting list, who was a better match for that

> lung, lost their chance because of whiny parents and an ignorant judge.
> There is a shortage of lungs so someone lost out. Why do you not care
> about that other person who was more likely to have a successful
> transplant?
>
Among the primary reasons that there's an organ shortage is that many
religious people believe that their "omniscient" god would be confused
at rapture time if some organs were missing.

Until we make organ donation an 'opt out' program rather than an 'opt
in' program for those applying for a driver's license or other form of
ID, we'll continue to bury perfectly good organs while those whose
live could have been saved by those organs die unnecessarily.

[Dakota]

I'm not getting that from the excerpt. The little girl will still be
assessed by the other criteria. The best match will get the organ.

The real tragedy is the unconscionable shortage of donor organs in a
country where we routinely bury healthy organs.

[%]

i deny it the way i want to not the way you order it