Lie of the Year
Cliff
"Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
[
Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has announced
their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job Betsy
McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61% of
the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a household
fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook page in
the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
....
From PolitiFact.com, here are the runners-up:
� With 12.3 percent of the vote, a claim by conservative talk show host Glenn
Beck that John Holdren, President Barack Obama's top science adviser, "has
proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to
control population."
� With 8.7 percent of the vote, a claim by Orly Taitz that a birth certificate
showed that President Obama was born in Kenya.
� With 7.1 percent of the vote, President Obama's statement that "preventive
care saves money." Rounding out the rest of the finalists:
� 5.8 percent: The shout of "You lie!" by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., in response
to President Obama saying health reform would not insure illegal immigrants. �
3.2 percent: The claim that Page 92 of the House health care bill "says
specifically that people can�t purchase private health insurance after a date
certain," said by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
� 1.7 percent: The claim that "When one person sneezes, it goes all the way
through the aircraft," said by Vice President Joe Biden, when fears of swine flu
were prevalent.
� 0.5 percent: The claim that an amendment to the House health reform bill "puts
new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health
insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money," said
by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.
]
John Q Public
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> said:
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH]FAct checking lies my ass, talking points and
misdirection.
Paid for with her own premiums (Heavily subsidized by taxpayers though,
no mention of them!)
Funny how the panel Ezekiel Emmanuelle (Rahm's brother) funded by the
stimulus bill with
the task of restricting and directing medical reserarch, rationing of
care based on your
possible contribution to society (Death panels) isn't mentioned.
more packs of lies by the left
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
> [
> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
> announced
> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
> Betsy
> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61% of
> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
> household
> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook page
> in
> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
opinion, which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd, it
decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
of course.
Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
it.
Heh.
--
Neolibertarian
"Nobody inherits civilisation.
� You inherit the /ruins/ of civilisation.
� Beginning with yourself.
� And you can't even afford its heating bill."
---Dennnis M. Hammes
Altered History
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com...
> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
> [
> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
> announced
> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
> Betsy
> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61%
> of
> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
> household
> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook
> page in
> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
> ....
> From PolitiFact.com, here are the runners-up:
>
> Glenn
> Beck that John Holdren, President Barack Obama's top science adviser, "has
> proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to
> control population."
>
> certificate
> showed that President Obama was born in Kenya.
>
> "preventive
> care saves money." Rounding out the rest of the finalists:
>
> response
> to President Obama saying health reform would not insure illegal
> 3.2 percent: The claim that Page 92 of the House health care bill "says
> specifically that people can't purchase private health insurance after a
> date
> certain," said by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
>
> way
> through the aircraft," said by Vice President Joe Biden, when fears of
> swine flu
> were prevalent.
>
> "puts
> new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private
> health
> insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money,"
> said
> by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.
> ]
I'm certainly all for birth control in the drinking water - in Red States.
Conan the Barabarian
september.org:
And I favor poison, in the Blue states of course. No sense dicking around
waiting for demographics to fix things when a simple slaughter will do.
--
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the
lamentation of their women.
Cliff
Pretty poor continued winger lies.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>> [
>> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>> announced
>> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
>> Betsy
>> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61% of
>> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>> household
>> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook page
>> in
>> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>
>The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
Nope. By liars.
>Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
>
>http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
>Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
>written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
>articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
>of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
Feel free to point it out.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
"At it again: McCaughey distorts Ezekiel Emanuel's writings to smear him as
"Rationer-in-Chief""
"NY Times: McCaughey has "largely quot[ed]" Emanuel's "past writings out of
context this summer"
IOW Winger lies, as usual.
>What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
>Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
Like health insurance does now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html
"CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
Or more like gummer's free health care?
>What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
>an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
"Lie of the Year" ?
>And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
>opinion,
"Lie of the Year" ?
> which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
"Lie of the Year" ?
>it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
"Lie of the Year" ?
>Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
>of course.
"Lie of the Year" ?
>Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
>universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
>time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
>it.
And YOU think you can get that now?
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releases/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-since-bush-took-office.html
"Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush Took
Office"
That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
>Heh.
LMAO ....
--
Cliff
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:53:52 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
> >> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
> >> [
> >> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
> >> announced
> >> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
> >> Betsy
> >> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61%
> >> of
> >> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
> >> household
> >> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook
> >> page
> >> in
> >> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
> >
> >The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>
> Nope. By liars.
It's what happens in other socialized systems.
It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment. Everyone else will
call them health care allocation commissions.
>
> >Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
> >
> >http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
Wikipedia?
>
> How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
In Britain, it's too much for their economy to sustain. In Italy, their
cadillac socialized health care system has helped propel public debt
into the rest of this century.
But it will be different for the United States because:
1) The populist-bureaucrats in Washington have proved over the years how
prudent and responsible they are when spending public money.
2) The Democrats and Republicans can be expected not to turn health care
issues into political demagoguery every damn election.
3) Government officers have no self-focused agenda; their only concern
is the health and well-being of all Americans.
4) Elected officials know more about what patients need than rich,
selfish doctors.
> >Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
> >written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
> >articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
> >of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
>
> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
> Feel free to point it out.
You have to take the excerpts if you don't have an account.
>
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
> "At it again: McCaughey distorts Ezekiel Emanuel's writings to smear him as
> "Rationer-in-Chief""
> "NY Times: McCaughey has "largely quot[ed]" Emanuel's "past writings out of
> context this summer"
>
> IOW Winger lies, as usual.
"Well, /he/ said..."
Okay, how about this complete article, "Principles for Allocation of
Scarce Medical Interventions," written by Emanuel (et al) this year:
"The complete lives system.
"Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all the ethical
requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the
complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles:
youngest first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and
instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not
yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.
Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of
distributive justice."
This is a special advisor to the President of the United States
advocating a bureaucratic instrument for the allocation of medical
resources.
This doesn't scare you, mostly because you've forgotten (it's been over
a year since the last elections, after all) that at some point in the
future, the nasty, evil Republicans are bound to be at the reigns of all
this power you're gleefully signing over to Congress and the Executive.
Me? I'm scared anytime anyone with control of the instrumentalities of
government begins speaking of "distributive justice," or even "economic
justice."
==begin quote==
I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of
health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another
$200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate
proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not
only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different
costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing
health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated
tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.
To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas
about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a
Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on
cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of
the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used
effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and
could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a
fiscally responsible way.
==end quote==
---President Barack Obama, Letter to Senators Kennedy and Baucus
June 2, 2009
> >What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
> >Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
>
> Like health insurance does now?
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html
Huffington Post?
The difference between freedom and tyranny, is under freedom you can
seek alternatives.
Or am I addressing one of those children who believe you can legislate
away bad outcomes?
> "CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
>
> Or more like gummer's free health care?
>
> >What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
> >an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> >And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
> >opinion,
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> > which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> >it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> >Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
> >of course.
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
Words mean things.
If something is your opinion, it may be incorrect but it's not a lie.
How many ex-governors' facebook blogs do you obsess over?
>
> >Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
> >universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
> >time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
> >it.
>
> And YOU think you can get that now?
>
> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releas
> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-si
> nce-bush-took-office.html
> "Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush
> Took
> Office"
>
> That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
A) You can't show that 50 million American citizens were "uninsured."
Even the President has reduced the number to 30 million. While the
number of uninsured has risen recently, this is because insurance is
tied to jobs--and unemployment is still rising. The reason insurance is
tied to your employment is entirely because of legislation that makes it
so.
B) You can't show 7.5 million people were denied vital medical care,
because none were.
If you wanted a breast implant, you may have been denied "medical care."
If you wanted your insurer to pay for your visits to the psychiatrist
and the scripts for Paxil, you may have been denied "medical care."
C) Medicare is set to implode in less than seven years. Hospitalization
ceased to pay for itself in 07, and the rest has ceased to pay for
itself now. It's only surviving because the general fund is being raided
to pay for it. Medicaid never did pay for itself. Between CHIP,
Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment, you're talking about over half of
the unsustainable Federal Budget.
But a "National Healthcare System" is going to be "deficit neutral!"
Why, I've even heard the President claim it will reduce the deficit!
Hehe.
If you don't have Constitutional limits, you don't have limits.
You, my friend, have a government without limits.
Mitchell Holman
news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>
> It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
acne condition they had decades earlier?
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
alternatives available to you. There could certainly be far more
alternatives available, but nationalizing health insurance would not
yield any--in fact, it would close the door forever on any alternatives
at all.
As it is, you've taken away reasonable free-market competition through
government regulation in all the fifty states. Additionally, you've bent
the income tax code so far that only group employee plans are affordable
to individuals.
Now you're stuck using one of a dozen or fewer insurance companies in
your state (you can't legally purchase a plan outside of your state),
and you can only afford to purchase it through whatever plan your
employer offers.
For instance, only a few insurance companies in a few states offer
catastrophic-only plans. A catastrophic-only plan is taylor made for
people with lower incomes--but because of your regulations poor people
can't purchase it if they live in the vast majority of states that don't
allow it. This means that their premiums may cover psychologist visits,
chiropractors, breast implants, and Amoxicillin for that occasional
sniffle.
So, if you're poor, you can't afford the premiums. Even though the
industry-wide average for health insurance companies is a mere 3.3%
profit margin.
If you lose your job, you can continue to purchase your heath insurance
for a limited time through COBRA. When that runs out, you're screwed,
chum. All because Ted Kennedy, et al, decided a long time ago that tying
your health insurance to your employment was "good for you."
In other words, your regulations have caused every problem you care to
claim is extant with today's insurance companies. Even so, about 80% of
Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage plans as they
exist.
If you think that more government regulation and intervention is the
answer to any dilemma you perceive is being caused by insurance
companies...well, you may be insane. If so, you may need to check your
policy to see if trips to the psychiatrist are covered. And hopefully
you have a plan that covers an ongoing prescription for Depakote.
However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
undisciplined thinker. If so, the cure may not cost anything at
all--except for some effort on your part.
Sometimes diagnosis is the real challenge.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>
>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>>
>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>
>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>>
>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>
> If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
> alternatives available to you. There could certainly be far more
> alternatives available, but nationalizing health insurance would not
> yield any--in fact, it would close the door forever on any alternatives
> at all.
True as far as you go however your didn't mention the overriding problem,
monopolies created by a conspiracy of bureaucrats, special interests,
corporate-run healthcare, pharma, the fda, ama and aba who have colluded
to create the *requirement* of health insurance rather than allow
consumers to purchase what they need when they need it.
This is my objection with both the Democratic single-payer plan, which
barely mitigates the fundamental problem and the Republican do-nothing,
let'm continue to extort America plan.
Two unacceptable choices. Do we continue to allow special interests to
plunder the economy and extort by withholding reasonable priced health
care or do we create a bureaucracy? Sharp stick in the eye or a kick to
the groin?
I vote for neither but the sheeple are dead set on one or the other
allowing their "representatives" to continue selling them down the river.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff
>In article <6c7si512v8q50bfnk...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:53:52 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com>,
>> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> >> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>> >> [
>> >> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>> >> announced
>> >> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
>> >> Betsy
>> >> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61%
>> >> of
>> >> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>> >> household
>> >> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook
>> >> page
>> >> in
>> >> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>> >
>> >The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>>
>> Nope. By liars.
>
>It's what happens in other socialized systems.
Places where people live years longer at 1/3 the cost
for medical care.
>
>It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
The original idea of *counseling by doctors* came from
a hospital system in WI or MN IIRC -- where it is in use with happy
people. The doctors get paid for it.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/August/14/end-of-life-care.aspx
"Medicare doesn't explicitly pay for the service, discouraging doctors from
taking the time to talk with patients about the issues. Private insurance
companies often base their own payment policies on Medicare's."
"Under the current payment system, Epperly notes, doctors could see five
patients or complete a more lucrative procedure in the time it would take them
to have an in-depth end-of-life consultation."
Beware your packs of winger lies.
>Everyone else will
>call them health care allocation commissions.
I call it winger lies.
So do the doctors.
>>
>> >Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
>> >
>> >http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
>
>Wikipedia?
You bet.
Guess you did not look.
>>
>> How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
>
>In Britain, it's too much for their economy to sustain. In Italy, their
>cadillac socialized health care system has helped propel public debt
>into the rest of this century.
Gee, and both spend less per person .... and the people live
longer ...
>But it will be different for the United States because:
>
>1) The populist-bureaucrats in Washington have proved over the years how
>prudent and responsible they are when spending public money.
>
>2) The Democrats and Republicans can be expected not to turn health care
>issues into political demagoguery every damn election.
>
>3) Government officers have no self-focused agenda; their only concern
>is the health and well-being of all Americans.
>
>4) Elected officials know more about what patients need than rich,
>selfish doctors.
And the CEO of United Health Care gets $124.8 Million a Year ....
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/denied-claims-c130957.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/denied-claims-placed-at-h_n_253160.html
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Medicare-Medicaid-Insurance-992/claim-paid.htm
http://attorneypages.com/hot/united-health-care-huge-fines-scandals.htm
Death for the uninsured & underinsured ...
>> >Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
>> >written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
>> >articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
>> >of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
>>
>> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
>> Feel free to point it out.
>
>You have to take the excerpts if you don't have an account.
IOW You had nothing but winger BS..
"are readily available on the internet".
>>
>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
>> "At it again: McCaughey distorts Ezekiel Emanuel's writings to smear him as
>> "Rationer-in-Chief""
>> "NY Times: McCaughey has "largely quot[ed]" Emanuel's "past writings out of
>> context this summer"
>>
>> IOW Winger lies, as usual.
>
>"Well, /he/ said..."
>
>Okay, how about this complete article, "Principles for Allocation of
>Scarce Medical Interventions," written by Emanuel (et al) this year:
>
>"The complete lives system.
>
>"Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all the ethical
>requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the
>complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles:
>youngest first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and
>instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not
>yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.
>Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of
>distributive justice."
>
>http://tiny.cc/9fibb
>
>This is a special advisor to the President of the United States
>advocating a bureaucratic instrument for the allocation of medical
>resources.
Umm ..... how do they decide who gets a transplant NOW?
>This doesn't scare you, mostly because you've forgotten (it's been over
>a year since the last elections, after all) that at some point in the
>future, the nasty, evil Republicans are bound to be at the reigns of all
>this power you're gleefully signing over to Congress and the Executive.
More rethug horrors no doubt.
Except for themselves, naturally.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Abortion_coverage_at_the_RNC.html
"Abortion coverage at the RNC"
[
The Republican National Committee�s health insurance plan covers elective
abortion � a procedure the party�s own platform calls �a fundamental assault on
innocent human life.�
Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from
Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC�s policy covers
elective abortion.
]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html
[
According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the
opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage � and the RNC did not choose to opt
out.
]
>Me? I'm scared anytime anyone with control of the instrumentalities of
>government begins speaking of "distributive justice," or even "economic
>justice."
>
>==begin quote==
>
>I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of
>health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another
>$200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate
>proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not
>only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different
>costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing
>health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated
>tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.
The rethugs had just increased the costs a few years ago IIRC.
>To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas
>about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the
>Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a
>Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on
>cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of
>the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used
>effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and
>could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a
>fiscally responsible way.
>
>==end quote==
>
> ---President Barack Obama, Letter to Senators Kennedy and Baucus
> June 2, 2009
>
>http://tiny.cc/w2hgK
>
>> >What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
>> >Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
>>
>> Like health insurance does now?
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html
>
>Huffington Post?
Good source for lots of truth.
>The difference between freedom and tyranny, is under freedom you can
>seek alternatives.
You could go to the UK, Canada, Australia, China etc for care.
>Or am I addressing one of those children who believe you can legislate
>away bad outcomes?
We already have lots & lots of bad outcomes. For millions & millions.
At huge expense to us all.
>
>> "CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
>>
>> Or more like gummer's free health care?
>>
>> >What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
>> >an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> >And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
>> >opinion,
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> > which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> >it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> >Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
>> >of course.
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
>Words mean things.
>
>If something is your opinion, it may be incorrect but it's not a lie.
>
>How many ex-governors' facebook blogs do you obsess over?
I don't see many blogs.
Have you met crazy banquer?
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
>>
>> >Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
>> >universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
>> >time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
>> >it.
>>
>> And YOU think you can get that now?
>>
>> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releas
>> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-si
>> nce-bush-took-office.html
>> "Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush
>> Took
>> Office"
>>
>> That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
>
>A) You can't show that 50 million American citizens were "uninsured."
I said "50 million uninsured".
If you were in Canada, Australia, the UK, the EU .... and got sick ...
you would get care I'd wager. Or even needed a doctor for anything.
>Even the President has reduced the number to 30 million. While the
>number of uninsured has risen recently, this is because insurance is
>tied to jobs--and unemployment is still rising. The reason insurance is
>tied to your employment is entirely because of legislation that makes it
>so.
I pay for my own insurance & have for decades.
>B) You can't show 7.5 million people were denied vital medical care,
>because none were.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releases/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-since-bush-took-office.html
http://www.medical-care.eu/web/35/denied_medical_care.html
>If you wanted a breast implant, you may have been denied "medical care."
>If you wanted your insurer to pay for your visits to the psychiatrist
>and the scripts for Paxil, you may have been denied "medical care."
>
>C) Medicare is set to implode in less than seven years. Hospitalization
>ceased to pay for itself in 07, and the rest has ceased to pay for
>itself now. It's only surviving because the general fund is being raided
>to pay for it. Medicaid never did pay for itself. Between CHIP,
>Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment, you're talking about over half of
>the unsustainable Federal Budget.
Medicaid is mostly a matter of State plans IIRC.
ALL plans of all sorts should be rolled into one with a common
(small) set of financing mechanisms.
>But a "National Healthcare System" is going to be "deficit neutral!"
>Why, I've even heard the President claim it will reduce the deficit!
>
>Hehe.
>
>If you don't have Constitutional limits, you don't have limits.
>
>You, my friend, have a government without limits.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble
Show where "promote the general welfare" is violated.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>
>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>>
>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>
>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>>
>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>
>If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
>alternatives available to you.
Peach pits if you can afford them & can get to Mexico?
Rush & Faux will lie you well?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Additionally, you've bent
>the income tax code so far that only group employee plans are affordable
>to individuals.
By making medical expenses deductable?
I'm an individual & have been paying for my own for decades.
I want to pay LESS and cover everyone.
I dont care if I pay via premium or by a tax.
And I want gummer to pay what he can too.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Even so, about 80% of
>Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage plans as they
>exist.
That is great news for the 30% or so that are uninsured.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>If you think that more government regulation and intervention is the
>answer to any dilemma you perceive is being caused by insurance
>companies...well, you may be insane.
The teabaggers know this.
"Don't let the government socialize my medicare!!"
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
>bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
>undisciplined thinker.
Ban ALL regulation like the rethugs want.
BTW, How did we get in this mess?
--
Cliff
Mitchell Holman
$32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>
>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>>
>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>
>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>>
>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>
> If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
> alternatives available to you.
If your insurance company drops you after you
are diagnosed with cancer - as in the above cases -
you have the alternative of just dying, because no
company is going to cover you.
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223
> $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
> >
> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
> >>
> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
> >
> >> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
> >> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
> >>
> >> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
> >
> > If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
> > alternatives available to you.
>
>
> If your insurance company drops you after you
> are diagnosed with cancer
Insurance companies, believe it or not, are highly regulated. They not
only don't "drop you after you are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T.
They're legally obligated to pay for your medical care in such cases.
In your showcase testimony, what becomes clear is the patient wasn't
"dropped," but a treatment drug that isn't "FDA-approved" was not
covered by the policy--this is because the insurance company uses
guidelines provided by the AMA, referred to as "evidence-based medicine."
If you want experimental drugs, you may have to pay for them, yourself.
There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch, chum.
> as in the above cases -
> you have the alternative of just dying, because no
> company is going to cover you.
The alternative isn't "just dying," you hysterical loon.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Usenet etiquette is your friend. One post shouldn't require 5 posts in
response.
Just a tip from your Friendly Neighborhood Neolibertarian.
As to alternatives: they fairly abound in these not so United States.
Why do you want to eliminate all those just because you're weary of
managing your own affairs?
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
The Government, in this case, is me, boy. Actually "We." As in We the
People.
You may not care whether you steal from me or not.
The problem for all thieves, of course, is surviving the larcenous act.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Through your regulations, of course.
Mitchell Holman
news:999a5$4b30d845$18f55223$31...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >>
>> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton
>> >> .pdf
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> >> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>> >
>> > If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
>> > alternatives available to you.
>>
>>
>> If your insurance company drops you after you
>> are diagnosed with cancer
>
> Insurance companies, believe it or not, are highly regulated. They not
> only don't "drop you after you are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T.
> They're legally obligated to pay for your medical care in such cases.
>
Cancer patient tells of rips in health insurance safety net
June 16 2009
CNN
Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form
of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately.
Robin Beaton, 59, found out just days before her mastectomy
that her insurance provider would not cover the procedure.
Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy
and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the
insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her
chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.
The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist
for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean
precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an
investigation into her medical history.
Beaton's dermatologist begged her insurance provider to go
ahead with the surgery.
"He said, 'This is a misunderstanding. This is not precancerous.
All she has is acne.' ... He said ,'Please don't hold up her
cancer surgery for this,' " Beaton, 59, said as she testified
at a House subcommittee hearing on the terminations of individual
health policies by insurance companies.
Still, the insurance carrier decided to rescind her coverage.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/health.care.hearing/index.html
Neolibertarian
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
> >
> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
> >>
> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
> >
> >> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
> >> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
> >>
> >> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
> >
> > If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
> > alternatives available to you. There could certainly be far more
> > alternatives available, but nationalizing health insurance would not
> > yield any--in fact, it would close the door forever on any alternatives
> > at all.
>
> True as far as you go however your didn't mention the overriding problem,
> monopolies created by a conspiracy of bureaucrats, special interests,
> corporate-run healthcare, pharma, the fda, ama and aba who have colluded
> to create the *requirement* of health insurance rather than allow
> consumers to purchase what they need when they need it.
Yabut, your fears led to this corporatist state to begin with.
Let's not forget Big Business (like big pharma, for instance) was behind
the Sherman Antitrust Act. Big Business was behind the Big Trust-Buster,
Teddy Roosevelt. Big Business partners with government whenever it can
see a market share advantage; when it can use the instrumentalities of
government to push aside its competition--which is what Trust-Busting is
all about.
This doesn't make Big Business anyone's enemy, btw. It's just humans and
how they operate. Which is why there needs to be definite limits to the
relationship between government and business.
In the case of the insurance companies, they were under enormous
pressures by people demanding more, bigger, better coverages. It was the
miracle age of medicine, after all--we all wanted as much of these new
miracles as we could get (just like ANY "special interest").
The states had begun to step in, threatening to run the smaller
companies out of business with regulations that cramped the bottom line.
The insurance industry came to the states and said, "okay, if you're
gonna regulate us to where we can barely turn a profit, we need
something in return--give us monopoly status in your states. Reduce our
competition--regulate our competition--and we can follow your coverage
regulations and demands for increased benefits."
The industry-wide average profit for health insurance companies is 3.3%.
There are very few businesses that could long survive with a meager 3.3%
profit margin. Many insurance companies don't even turn a profit on
premiums at all. Their profit is derived solely from investments. Others
are non-profit organizations.
>
> This is my objection with both the Democratic single-payer plan, which
> barely mitigates the fundamental problem and the Republican do-nothing,
> let'm continue to extort America plan.
>
> Two unacceptable choices. Do we continue to allow special interests to
> plunder the economy and extort by withholding reasonable priced health
> care or do we create a bureaucracy? Sharp stick in the eye or a kick to
> the groin?
1) When you write "we" in the above paragraph, I read "special
interests." So to me the sentence reads: "Do Special Interests A
continue to allow Special Interests B to plunder the economy...?"
In other words, for you it seems it isn't a matter of stopping the
plundering, it's a matter of who plunders whom.
2) You shouldn't take plundering as a given. If you don't mind my
pointing it out so bluntly, that's sophomoric and childish.
>
> I vote for neither but the sheeple are dead set on one or the other
> allowing their "representatives" to continue selling them down the river.
Chum, if you think your responsibilities begin and end at the ballot
box, you deserve everything you've gotten.
Mitchell Holman
news:99b87$4b30e2e5$18f55223$34...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>
>
> The industry-wide average profit for health insurance companies is
> 3.3%. There are very few businesses that could long survive with a
> meager 3.3% profit margin. Many insurance companies don't even turn a
> profit on premiums at all. Their profit is derived solely from
> investments.
"Profits at 10 of the country�s largest publicly
traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose 428
percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to
$12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings. In 2007 alone the chief
executive officers at these companies collected
combined total compensation of $118.6 million � an
average of $11.9 million each. That is 468 times
more than the $25,434 an average American worker
made that year."
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
The point is, you can't change the universe with legislation.
No one can provide you with all the medical care you want, any time and
place and manner you deem necessary.
There are limits to this system you had nothing to do with creating.
Giving the government the power to prioritize is a grave mistake. Mostly
because the government first takes away all of your other alternatives.
> Beware your packs of winger lies.
>
> >Everyone else will
> >call them health care allocation commissions.
>
> I call it winger lies.
> So do the doctors.
There are health care allocations commissions, dummy.
> >> >Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
> >> >
> >> >http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
> >
> >Wikipedia?
>
> You bet.
> Guess you did not look.
I never go to Wikipedia unless there's a good reason to waste my time
there.
>
> >>
> >> How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
> >
> >In Britain, it's too much for their economy to sustain. In Italy, their
> >cadillac socialized health care system has helped propel public debt
> >into the rest of this century.
>
> Gee, and both spend less per person .... and the people live
> longer ...
"Living longer" in that case is a statistical expression. Americans lead
dangerous lives.
>
> >But it will be different for the United States because:
> >
> >1) The populist-bureaucrats in Washington have proved over the years how
> >prudent and responsible they are when spending public money.
> >
> >2) The Democrats and Republicans can be expected not to turn health care
> >issues into political demagoguery every damn election.
> >
> >3) Government officers have no self-focused agenda; their only concern
> >is the health and well-being of all Americans.
> >
> >4) Elected officials know more about what patients need than rich,
> >selfish doctors.
>
> And the CEO of United Health Care gets $124.8 Million a Year ....
>
> http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/denied-claims-c130957.html
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/denied-claims-placed-at-h_n_253160.ht
> ml
> http://en.allexperts.com/q/Medicare-Medicaid-Insurance-992/claim-paid.htm
> http://attorneypages.com/hot/united-health-care-huge-fines-scandals.htm
I don't fall for class warfare demagoguery, Karl.
3.3% profit margins are unsustainable, except through a government
regulated marketplace.
>
> Death for the uninsured & underinsured ...
>
> >> >Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
> >> >written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
> >> >articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
> >> >of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
> >>
> >> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
> >> Feel free to point it out.
> >
> >You have to take the excerpts if you don't have an account.
>
> IOW You had nothing but winger BS..
> "are readily available on the internet".
I had the excerpts, but opted to provide another example in its entirety.
Those who manage their own affairs get the transplant. Those who don't
also get the transplant.
Hell, you can even get fertility drugs from the government health care
services, give birth to 8 kids, and then have the state support yours
and all their subsequent medical bills and expenses into perpetuity.
Is America a great place or what?
Of the "30 million uninsured in the US," something like 10 million of
these earn over $75,000 a year. They can afford to purchase their own
insurance, but chose not to. Many are young and healthy, others have
other priorities. Another 8 million or so were only without insurance
for part of the year--temporarily unemployed, or otherwise in
transition. This is all in the census report that originally created the
"46 million uninsured" number that has been thrown about so freely--and
which has morphed into both "50 million" and the President's new figure
"30 million."
This leaves something like 10-12 million who fall through the
cracks--not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or
state programs.
Rather than extend the safety net, you want to destroy an industry,
uproot its millions of employees, erase it's place in supporting the
stocks and bond markets that are so important to sectors of the economy,
and make the entire US populace dependent upon the Federal Government
for all their health care needs for the rest of their lives.
Why is that?
>
> >This doesn't scare you, mostly because you've forgotten (it's been over
> >a year since the last elections, after all) that at some point in the
> >future, the nasty, evil Republicans are bound to be at the reigns of all
> >this power you're gleefully signing over to Congress and the Executive.
>
> More rethug horrors no doubt.
> Except for themselves, naturally.
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Abortion_coverage_at_the_RNC.htm
> l
> "Abortion coverage at the RNC"
> [
> The Republican National Committee�s health insurance plan covers elective
> abortion � a procedure the party�s own platform calls �a fundamental assault
> on
> innocent human life.�
>
> Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from
> Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC�s policy covers
> elective abortion.
> ]
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html
> [
> According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the
> opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage � and the RNC did not choose to
> opt
> out.
> ]
And this is relevant to the discussion...how?
Logical fallacy is a mighty poor path to the truth, Cochise.
>
> >The difference between freedom and tyranny, is under freedom you can
> >seek alternatives.
>
> You could go to the UK, Canada, Australia, China etc for care.
There are many great alternatives right here in these not so United
States. For instance, Catholic and Jewish hospitals have programs for
poor and destitute patients, which can include forgiving debts entirely.
Many superb Children's Hospitals are famous in this regard.
The fact of the matter is, no Hospital in the US can refuse treatment
merely because of inability to pay. In many states, this includes
illegal aliens.
In the case of catastrophic illness or injury, you'll get treated no
matter if you've bothered to manage your personal affairs or not.
>
> >Or am I addressing one of those children who believe you can legislate
> >away bad outcomes?
>
> We already have lots & lots of bad outcomes. For millions & millions.
> At huge expense to us all.
There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch.
If you think you've got a way to have one just by passing a law---well,
this is Usenet, and for all I know, you may not even be old enough to be
posting to Usenet on your parent's computer...
> >> "CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
> >>
> >> Or more like gummer's free health care?
> >>
> >> >What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
> >> >an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> >And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
> >> >opinion,
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> > which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> >it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> >Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
> >> >of course.
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >
> >Words mean things.
> >
> >If something is your opinion, it may be incorrect but it's not a lie.
> >
> >How many ex-governors' facebook blogs do you obsess over?
>
> I don't see many blogs.
> Have you met crazy banquer?
> http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
No, I've not met your crazy blogger.
This hardly explains why you're obsessing over an ex-Governor's Facebook
page.
She may be hot, but she's married. Get over it.
> >> >Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
> >> >universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
> >> >time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> And YOU think you can get that now?
> >>
> >> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-rel
> >> eas
> >> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans
> >> -si
> >> nce-bush-took-office.html
> >> "Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush
> >> Took
> >> Office"
> >>
> >> That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
> >
> >A) You can't show that 50 million American citizens were "uninsured."
>
> I said "50 million uninsured".
You could have said 50 billion. It would all mean the same without
evidence to back it up.
Like your blogger friend "jonbanquer" says, you need to "cut though the
bullshit."
> If you were in Canada, Australia, the UK, the EU .... and got sick ...
> you would get care I'd wager. Or even needed a doctor for anything.
Same here in the US.
You don't even need a penny in your pocket. You don't even need to be a
legal US resident.
If you have a job, however, you may get stuck with the bill, but the
Hospital will undoubtedly be willing to put you on a reasonable payment
plan.
>
> >Even the President has reduced the number to 30 million. While the
> >number of uninsured has risen recently, this is because insurance is
> >tied to jobs--and unemployment is still rising. The reason insurance is
> >tied to your employment is entirely because of legislation that makes it
> >so.
>
> I pay for my own insurance & have for decades.
It's extremely likely you're getting socked on taxes.
>
> >B) You can't show 7.5 million people were denied vital medical care,
> >because none were.
>
>
> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releas
> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-si
> nce-bush-took-office.html
> http://www.medical-care.eu/web/35/denied_medical_care.html
It doesn't mention, list, or itemize the kind of treatments denied.
Breast implants are a medical procedure, believe it or not. Some people
like to mask the symptoms of their unbalanced life by taking Depakote
and Paxil. These are often denied.
Experimental drugs and treatments are often denied. My own insurance
company has a sliding scale for medications. Pre-approved are covered,
some experimental drugs are only partially covered, some are not covered
at all.
It seems completely reasonable to me.
>
> >If you wanted a breast implant, you may have been denied "medical care."
> >If you wanted your insurer to pay for your visits to the psychiatrist
> >and the scripts for Paxil, you may have been denied "medical care."
> >
> >C) Medicare is set to implode in less than seven years. Hospitalization
> >ceased to pay for itself in 07, and the rest has ceased to pay for
> >itself now. It's only surviving because the general fund is being raided
> >to pay for it. Medicaid never did pay for itself. Between CHIP,
> >Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment, you're talking about over half of
> >the unsustainable Federal Budget.
>
> Medicaid is mostly a matter of State plans IIRC.
Medicaid is overloading most states' broken budgets, yes. They only pay
part, We the People pay the rest through the broken Federal Budget.
>
> ALL plans of all sorts should be rolled into one with a common
> (small) set of financing mechanisms.
>
> >But a "National Healthcare System" is going to be "deficit neutral!"
> >Why, I've even heard the President claim it will reduce the deficit!
> >
> >Hehe.
> >
> >If you don't have Constitutional limits, you don't have limits.
> >
> >You, my friend, have a government without limits.
>
> http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble
> Show where "promote the general welfare" is violated.
That clause does not stand alone, dummy:
"..Promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity."
What you're proposing is as ludicrously self-defeating as "I've
abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."
1) You're shoving enormous debt onto your "posterity." You've already
created a $12 trillion debt, and you're planning on adding at least $1
trillion a year for the next decade. Between the unfunded obligations of
Social Security and Medicare, you're demanding upwards of a $100
trillion for the next generation to pay.
2) Taking away choices, forcing citizens to pay for a product they may
not want or need, has nothing to do with "the Blessings of Liberty."
3) The "General Welfare" does not mean "the welfare of some at the
expense of others."
You're advocating the destruction of the private insurance industry in
the United States. These companies' demise will mean that millions of
employees (secretaries, data entry, sales, accounting jobs) will be put
out of work. It also will mean that a huge factor in the bond and stack
markets will suddenly disappear--causing a painful adjustment on Wall
Street. Since pension plans are dependent on a healthy Wall Street
marketplace, this means that Widows and Orphans, the primary
beneficiaries to all pension plans, will be hurt most.
All this so that you needn't manage your own affairs any more.
"It really is difficult to imagine how a people who have entirely given
up managing their own affairs could make a wise choice of those who are
to do that for them. One should never expect a liberal, energetic, and
wise government to originate in the votes of people of servants."
--Alexis de Tocqueville
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
Once more a leftist demonstrates how well they do at math....
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
One of the reasons your class warfare demagoguery doesn't work on me,
Karl, is that you understand almost nothing about the industries you so
virulently hate.
You're not aware of the large cash reserves insurance companies are
required by law to maintain. (Too bad the US can't regulate itself into
maintaining a similar surplus for Medicare and Social Security)
While the $ billions you read about dazzle you, your shock only reflects
your own ignorance and naivete.
"But the companies' profits still represent a miniscule percentage of
the $2.5 trillion Americans spend every year on health care.
"Insurance company profits in the large picture have very little to do
with the overall rising cost of health care," said health care expert
Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"Carroll and others pointed out that the profit margins the health
insurance companies report -- often below 5 percent -- pace some
industries and lag behind many others."
---Alice Gomstyn
ABC News (Nov. 10, 2009)
http://tiny.cc/wX50b
Current list of Top US Health Care Insurance Companies, including Net
Profit Margin expressed in %:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html
Listing of profit margin percentage, by industry, showing Health Care
Plans (at 3.3%) rank 86th:
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove what you think it proves.
UK papers are filled with similar stories from their NHS. Their lone
recourse is coming to the United States.
Why do you want to take that option away from them?
Joe Irvin
"Mitchell Holman" <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130...
"According to the American Medical Association's National Health Insurer
Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, denied medical
claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied
6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%,
followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical
claims by private insurers of 3.88%
In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that
Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better
still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier, Aetna,
reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar declines
by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers
satisfied in order to make that profit after all."
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
>
>
>
Mitchell Holman
$18f55223$45...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE968380E66E...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:99b87$4b30e2e5$18f55223$34...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > The industry-wide average profit for health insurance companies is
>> > 3.3%. There are very few businesses that could long survive with a
>> > meager 3.3% profit margin. Many insurance companies don't even turn
a
>> > profit on premiums at all. Their profit is derived solely from
>> > investments.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Profits at 10 of the country�s largest publicly
>> traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose 428
>> percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to
>> $12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and
>> Exchange Commission filings. In 2007 alone the chief
>> executive officers at these companies collected
>> combined total compensation of $118.6 million � an
>> average of $11.9 million each. That is 468 times
>> more than the $25,434 an average American worker
>> made that year."
>>
>> http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf
>
> One of the reasons your class warfare demagoguery doesn't work on me,
> Karl, is that you understand almost nothing about the industries you so
> virulently hate.
>
Name any other industry - except for oil companies - whose
profits rose 428% over seven years.
> You're not aware of the large cash reserves insurance companies are
> required by law to maintain. (Too bad the US can't regulate itself into
> maintaining a similar surplus for Medicare and Social Security)
>
Cash reserves are easy to maintain when you making
record profits.
>
> "But the companies' profits still represent a miniscule percentage of
> the $2.5 trillion Americans spend every year on health care.
>
> "Insurance company profits in the large picture have very little to do
> with the overall rising cost of health care," said health care expert
> Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
>
> "Carroll and others pointed out that the profit margins the health
> insurance companies report -- often below 5 percent -- pace some
> industries and lag behind many others."
>
> ---Alice Gomstyn
> ABC News (Nov. 10, 2009)
>
Gee, maybe we should throw fundraiser for the big
health insurance companies, and even give their CEO's
yet another bonus. Would that make it better, do you
think?
Mitchell Holman
news:MPG.259a9cf...@news.bytemine.net:
Fox News math, at work:
"Did scientists falsify research to support their
own theories on global warming?"
59% Somewhat likely
35% Very likely
26% Not very likely
________________________
= 120%
http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2009/12/08/a/544362922-fox-fudges-poll-
numbers-to/
http://reporter.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451d69069e2012876340026970c-800wi
http://intoxination.net/files/pictures/2009/12/fnc-20091204-raspoll_2.jpg
Mitchell Holman
news:617f8$4b310624$18f55223$45...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE95C0AD68FE...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:999a5$4b30d845$18f55223$31...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> >> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_bea
>> >> >> ton .pdf
Your claim: "They not only don't "drop you after you
are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T."
The posted proof proves you wrong, they can and DO
drop you if you develop cancer.
> UK papers
What do "UK papers" have to do with your disproven claim
that American insurance companies cannot drop cancer patients
like a hot rock?
>are filled with similar stories from their NHS. Their lone
> recourse is coming to the United States.
>
> Why do you want to take that option away from them?
Are you unaware that British subjects are free to
buy health insurance on the private market if they
wish to?
http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/health-life-cover/health-insurance
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/healthinsurance/insurancecompanies/british
-insurance/
http://www.medindia.net/patients/insurance/health-insurance/British-
Insurance-Limited-122.htm
Joe Irvin
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in news:33fa3$4b3105a3
> $18f55223$45...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>
>> In article <Xns9CE968380E66E...@216.196.97.130>,
>> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:99b87$4b30e2e5$18f55223$34...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The industry-wide average profit for health insurance companies is
>>> > 3.3%. There are very few businesses that could long survive with a
>>> > meager 3.3% profit margin. Many insurance companies don't even turn
> a
>>> > profit on premiums at all. Their profit is derived solely from
>>> > investments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Profits at 10 of the country's largest publicly
>>> traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose 428
>>> percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to
>>> $12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and
>>> Exchange Commission filings. In 2007 alone the chief
>>> executive officers at these companies collected
>>> average of $11.9 million each. That is 468 times
>>> more than the $25,434 an average American worker
>>> made that year."
>>>
>>> http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf
>>
>> One of the reasons your class warfare demagoguery doesn't work on me,
>> Karl, is that you understand almost nothing about the industries you so
>> virulently hate.
>>
>
>
> Name any other industry - except for oil companies - whose
> profits rose 428% over seven years.
Profits are not a very good judge since the price of oil has risen so. A
better measure is profit margin. Its a ratio and displayed as a percentage
... a 10% profit margin means a company has a net income of .20 cents for
each dollar of sales. BP's profit margin 8.06, Cheveron Corp 8.48, Conoco
Phillips 4.10, Exxon Mobil Corp 6.41. The major intergrated Oil and Gas
industry had average profit margin of 3.80.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/120conameu.html#xom
You might want to look at industries like Application Software, Drug
manufactures, and beverages/brewers who have a lot higher profit margins.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
Also lets not forget the taxes they pay to the federal govt, I think its
about 18 cents a gallon, plus any state taxes.
>> You're not aware of the large cash reserves insurance companies are
>> required by law to maintain. (Too bad the US can't regulate itself into
>> maintaining a similar surplus for Medicare and Social Security)
>>
>
> Cash reserves are easy to maintain when you making
> record profits.
Maybe record profits but Health Care Plans have a 3.40 profit margin.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
>>
>> "But the companies' profits still represent a miniscule percentage of
>> the $2.5 trillion Americans spend every year on health care.
>>
>> "Insurance company profits in the large picture have very little to do
>> with the overall rising cost of health care," said health care expert
>> Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
>>
>> "Carroll and others pointed out that the profit margins the health
>> insurance companies report -- often below 5 percent -- pace some
>> industries and lag behind many others."
>>
>> ---Alice Gomstyn
>> ABC News (Nov. 10, 2009)
>>
>
>
> Gee, maybe we should throw fundraiser for the big
> health insurance companies, and even give their CEO's
> yet another bonus. Would that make it better, do you
> think?
Its a business ... let the market decide ... no bail outs.
>
>
>
>
RD (The Sandman)
Actually, a couple of these aren't real bright either. The categories
for likely to think research is falsified add up to 94%. 59 + 35. They
also added the next group which *didn't* think so to that number to get
to that 120%. It is amusing when someone correcting someone else steps on
their own dick....figuratively speaking.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
You posted two examples. I'm only awake a certain number of hours a day.
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
The local Quickie Mart. Bungie software. Google. Tiger Woods, Inc. (but
that last seems set to be -428% profit in the coming years).
So what? Unless you're a share holder or a company officer, it's really
none of your affair who makes what profit. If you don't like the
services or products a company provides, you keep your money in your
pocket and just walk on down the street.
In a free society, if a company increases profits, it's a demonstrable
fact that it must be doing something right.
If you insist on maintaining your corporatist economy, then maybe you
CAN blame the nefarious partnership between government and business.
But that would hardly be an indictment against the free market. Nor can
you really blame a company that takes advantage of instrumentalities of
government since they're so readily available to use. And easily used
against them if they don't take up the reigns first.
tankfixer
noemai...@comcast.net says...
>
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.259a9cf...@news.bytemine.net:
>
> > In article <l8c1j550878co8c8a...@4ax.com>,
> > Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Even so, about 80% of
> >> >Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage plans as they
> >> >exist.
> >>
> >> That is great news for the 30% or so that are uninsured.
> >
> > Once more a leftist demonstrates how well they do at math....
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Fox News math, at work:
Were we discussing Fox news and their polls ?
No, but you knew that...
Mitchell Holman
news:8ebf9$4b316536$18f55223$75...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE99EA7529B5...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:617f8$4b310624$18f55223$45...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9CE95C0AD68FE...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:999a5$4b30d845$18f55223$31...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130>,
>> >> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> >> >> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> >> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_
>> >> >> >> bea ton .pdf
Both of which prove you wrong.
Do you need another?
Health Net Ordered To Pay After Canceling Cancer Patient's Policy
Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2008
One of California's largest for-profit insurers stopped a
controversial practice of canceling sick policyholders Friday
after a judge ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million
to a breast cancer patient it dropped in the middle of chemotherapy.
The ruling by a private arbitration judge was the first of its kind
and the most powerful rebuke to the state's major insurers whose
cancellation practices are under fire from the courts, state
regulators and elected officials.
Calling Woodland Hills-based Health Net's actions "egregious,"
Judge Sam Cianchetti, a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court
judge, ruled that the company broke state laws and acted in bad
faith.
"Health Net was primarily concerned with and considered its own
financial interests and gave little, if any, consideration and
concern for the interests of the insured," Cianchetti wrote in a
21-page ruling. Patsy Bates, a 52-year-old grandmother, was at
work at the Gardena hair salon she owns when her lawyer William
Shernoff called with the news. Bates said she screamed and thanked
the lawyer. When Health Net dropped her in January 2004, Bates was
stuck with more than $129,000 in medical bills and was forced to
stop chemotherapy for several months until she found a charity to
pay for it.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,5039339.story
Still standing by your claim that insurance companies
"can't" drop cancer patients?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Yeah, fuck you very much too. If you're going to begin by
mischaracterizing me the go piss up a rope.
> Let's not forget Big Business (like big pharma, for instance) was behind
> the Sherman Antitrust Act. Big Business was behind the Big Trust-Buster,
> Teddy Roosevelt. Big Business partners with government whenever it can
> see a market share advantage; when it can use the instrumentalities of
> government to push aside its competition--which is what Trust-Busting is
> all about.
Taht's a very warped view. Standard Oil and AT&T show it to be false.
> This doesn't make Big Business anyone's enemy, btw. It's just humans and
> how they operate. Which is why there needs to be definite limits to the
> relationship between government and business.
Your segue, irrelevant to the topic.
> In the case of the insurance companies, they were under enormous
> pressures by people demanding more, bigger, better coverages. It was the
> miracle age of medicine, after all--we all wanted as much of these new
> miracles as we could get (just like ANY "special interest").
No doubt. You're ignoring corporate health providers who have
monopolized health care to the extreme detriment of consumers, that polar
opposite of a free market. If you consider yourself a libertarian then
you're on the wrong side of the philosophy.
> The states had begun to step in, threatening to run the smaller
> companies out of business with regulations that cramped the bottom line.
> The insurance industry came to the states and said, "okay, if you're
> gonna regulate us to where we can barely turn a profit, we need
> something in return--give us monopoly status in your states. Reduce our
> competition--regulate our competition--and we can follow your coverage
> regulations and demands for increased benefits."
Even if true it does not justify today's health care monopoly where
patients are denied for arbitrary reasons when diagnosed for serious
conditions which might prove costly, ie: canceled for being a rape
victim years prior to discovering a cancerous uterus.
> The industry-wide average profit for health insurance companies is 3.3%.
> There are very few businesses that could long survive with a meager 3.3%
> profit margin. Many insurance companies don't even turn a profit on
> premiums at all. Their profit is derived solely from investments. Others
> are non-profit organizations.
I don't believe those figures, provide cites. Nor does it touch the
greed and cost of Corporate Health Care Providers.
>> This is my objection with both the Democratic single-payer plan, which
>> barely mitigates the fundamental problem and the Republican do-nothing,
>> let'm continue to extort America plan.
>>
>> Two unacceptable choices. Do we continue to allow special interests to
>> plunder the economy and extort by withholding reasonable priced health
>> care or do we create a bureaucracy? Sharp stick in the eye or a kick
>> to the groin?
>
> 1) When you write "we" in the above paragraph, I read "special
> interests." So to me the sentence reads: "Do Special Interests A
> continue to allow Special Interests B to plunder the economy...?"
I don't care what you think, just cease misrepresenting my position.
> In other words, for you it seems it isn't a matter of stopping the
> plundering, it's a matter of who plunders whom.
There you go again. Fuck you very much.
> 2) You shouldn't take plundering as a given. If you don't mind my
> pointing it out so bluntly, that's sophomoric and childish.
There you go again, fuck you very much.
>> I vote for neither but the sheeple are dead set on one or the other
>> allowing their "representatives" to continue selling them down the
>> river.
>
> Chum, if you think your responsibilities begin and end at the ballot
> box, you deserve everything you've gotten.
There you go again, fuck you very much.
Instead of debating the issue you've engaged in ad hominums and argument
absurdum ignoring the five members of the cadre of monopolists, Pharma,
Corporate Health Care providers, the AMA, FDA and ABA.
I'm finished with you and your inability to debate. Now go fuck yourself.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
And grocery chains operate at a profit margin of 1%.
That's only possible in a free market. Health care is anything but a
free market, it's a monopoly. And extortion.
Bret Cahill
Dumbya proposed death panels when he was governor of Texas.
Bret Cahill
Mitchell Holman
afcd-f8d...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>> The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>
> Dumbya proposed death panels when he was governor of Texas.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
True.
Google up "Sun Hudson", an infant who was taken off of
life support because no private insurance company would
pay for the treatment he needed to live.
Shrikeback
> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in news:65711c08-6aba-47f3-
> afcd-f8da9943b...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>
> > Dumbya proposed death panels when he was governor of Texas.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> True.
>
> Google up "Sun Hudson", an infant who was taken off of
> life support because no private insurance company would
> pay for the treatment he needed to live.
Then there's the guy who needed an incredibly expensive
operation to survive who was told by the Oregon Health
Plan, "We won't cover that, but we will cover your assisted
suicide."
So you expect Medicare will keep every Karen Ann and
Terry Schiavo alive for all eternity until there's 100,000,000
of us on feeding tubes? Nation of the living dead? Fat
chance. Expect the life line to be cut sooner, not later.
Sarah Palin sucks for making the issue sound like it's
about the right to die.
Bret Cahill
> about the right to die.
critically important birther and AGW conspiracy theory voters as well
as the more traditional winger dinger factions in the GOP.
Either you support her or start your own wackodoodle party.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> > Sarah Palin sucks for making the issue sound like it's
> > about the right to die.
>
> Palin is the front runner for the 2012 GOP nomination.
No she isn't. A losing VP candidate is a nobody. It's
an ironclad rule. What was the name of that guy who
said something about, "I knew Geraldine Ferraro, I snorted
coke with Geraldine Ferraro, you're no Geraldine Ferraro?" I
can't remember his name.
Shrikeback
She can't be a politician because she's a quitter.
Why did she quit? To make it big in showbiz, before
she started looking like Nancy Pelosi. I think she
might be able to take over where Oprah left off, but
political office is beyond her, and I doubt she'd choose
it anyway, because there's more money in Oprah's
empty throne anyway.
Bret Cahill
> > > > about the right to die.
>
> > > Palin is the front runner for the 2012 GOP nomination.
>
> > No she isn't. A losing VP candidate is a nobody. It's
> > an ironclad rule. What was the name of that guy who
> > said something about, "I knew Geraldine Ferraro, I snorted
> > coke with Geraldine Ferraro, you're no Geraldine Ferraro?" I
> > can't remember his name.
>
> She can't be a politician because she's a quitter.
> Why did she quit? To make it big in showbiz, before
> she started looking like Nancy Pelosi. I think she
> might be able to take over where Oprah left off, but
> political office is beyond her, and I doubt she'd choose
> it anyway, because there's more money in Oprah's
> empty throne anyway.
"You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
-- Nietzsche
Shrikeback
"You are crazy, therefore you are crazy."
--Me
I was told by a friend of mine who lived and breathed
Nietzsche for about a decade, even unto reading
biographies, that Nietzsche, in his later insanity,
would squirrel his feces away in his sock drawer.
TMI, really. But maybe you should check _your_
sock drawer.
In other words: who's vexed, buddy? You are
very strange. That's one point in your favor anyway.
And Merry Christmas, slacker. May Santa bring
you a tax cut. See how altruistic and unvexed I
am?
Cliff
>In article <6sb1j552ibpr2uukk...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >>
>> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> >> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>> >
>> >If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
>> >alternatives available to you.
>>
>> Peach pits if you can afford them & can get to Mexico?
>> Rush & Faux will lie you well?
>
>Usenet etiquette is your friend. One post shouldn't require 5 posts in
>response.
I expect you will find about 5 possible subthreads & topics
and now have about 5 much shorter reply posts.
>Just a tip from your Friendly Neighborhood Neolibertarian.
>
>As to alternatives: they fairly abound in these not so United States.
The rethug plan seems to be for you to die.
I've heard others advised to raise the needed funds
with a bake sale.
>Why do you want to eliminate all those just because you're weary of
>managing your own affairs?
OTOH You have welfare queens like gummer ....who
promised to pay .. but bought guns & ammo.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <d0c1j55qvegr7h4uc...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Additionally, you've bent
>> >the income tax code so far that only group employee plans are affordable
>> >to individuals.
>>
>> By making medical expenses deductable?
>>
>> I'm an individual & have been paying for my own for decades.
>> I want to pay LESS and cover everyone.
>> I dont care if I pay via premium or by a tax.
>> And I want gummer to pay what he can too.
>
>The Government, in this case, is me, boy. Actually "We." As in We the
>People.
>
>You may not care whether you steal from me or not.
>
>The problem for all thieves, of course, is surviving the larcenous act.
Naturally, you don't wish to pay less either OR get better
health care OR live longer ...
What of gummer?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <eic1j5hdd4a06715d...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
>> >bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
>> >undisciplined thinker.
>>
>> Ban ALL regulation like the rethugs want.
>>
>> BTW, How did we get in this mess?
>
>Through your regulations, of course.
Such as the ones removed or not enforced by the
rethugs ...
Which had been put in place after the Great Depression to
try to prevent it happening again?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." - Albert Einstein
--
Cliff
Cliff
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
>the AMA reports that
>Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better
>still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier, Aetna,
>reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar declines
>by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
>
>Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers
>satisfied in order to make that profit after all."
>
>http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
IF you look at the Medicare data again you may note that it was usually
a case of improper billing that needed to be corrected, such as
something left off the bill (like the patient's name) and just
needed to be properly rebilled.
Plus perhaps some attempted fraud, which they can
probably do better at reducing now that the dems (I assume) will
again allow them to do (the rethugs had defunded the fraud checkers
it seemed).
Unlike the stuff you copied you need to check
the codes at
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
to see what is really going on.
--
Cliff
Joe Irvin
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hgrvdh$gbu$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes and Application Software operate at a profit margin of 22.5%. Big Oil
is somewhere between the two extremes.
Health care is anything but a free market. Many people have health
insurance, some thru their jobs and some directly with the insurance
company. The consumer doesn't deal directly with the doctor, the insurance,
a third party does. The consumer knows all he has to pay is usually a copay
and has no idea what the costs are. It cannot be a free market if the buyer
and seller of goods and services never deal directly with each other. The
insurance companies are not allowed to compete between states a distortion
in the health insurance market. Health care is anything but a monopoly.
Also insurance is something usually used to protect one from unforeseen
happening. Going to a doctor for a check-up/common cold/ ear ache etc is
not something unforseen. They are every day occurances. We have insurance
on our cars but we don't call the insurance company whenever we need a lube
job or get new windshield wipers.
Joe Irvin
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:v694j5hh84dv0k3au...@4ax.com...
I think the people that put this report together are well aware of how
screwed up the Medicare/Medicaid systems are.
>
> Unlike the stuff you copied you need to check
> the codes at
> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
> to see what is really going on.
As I said above the people that put this report together are aware of the
short falls of the Medicare/Medicaid systems.
> --
> Cliff
>
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
I know this might be a little hard for you to understand, and I refuse
to speculate here about your level of literacy, but this article only
serves to prove my assertion.
A health insurance company cannot capriciously refuse treatment.
The way things are, Ms. Bates can seek a resolution through the US court
system.
When the health insurance provider is the State of California, or the
United States government, she can only sue if the state first allows her
to sue (no citizen has an inherent right to sue the government).
What would be her recourse in that case?
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:41:57 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <eic1j5hdd4a06715d...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
> >> >bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
> >> >undisciplined thinker.
> >>
> >> Ban ALL regulation like the rethugs want.
> >>
> >> BTW, How did we get in this mess?
> >
> >Through your regulations, of course.
>
> Such as the ones removed or not enforced by the
> rethugs ...
Please elaborate, and provide cites.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
I know that you believe you're...
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
sure it's easier to split your reply into
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
shorter posts, but the fact of the matter is
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
most newsreaders organize replies so that
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
you can respond in an organized fashion to
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
all of the several points in one post.
Bret Cahill
> > > > > > about the right to die.
>
> > > > > Palin is the front runner for the 2012 GOP nomination.
>
> > > > No she isn't. A losing VP candidate is a nobody. It's
> > > > an ironclad rule. What was the name of that guy who
> > > > said something about, "I knew Geraldine Ferraro, I snorted
> > > > coke with Geraldine Ferraro, you're no Geraldine Ferraro?" I
> > > > can't remember his name.
>
> > > She can't be a politician because she's a quitter.
> > > Why did she quit? To make it big in showbiz, before
> > > she started looking like Nancy Pelosi. I think she
> > > might be able to take over where Oprah left off, but
> > > political office is beyond her, and I doubt she'd choose
> > > it anyway, because there's more money in Oprah's
> > > empty throne anyway.
>
> > "You are vexed therefore I am right about you."
>
> > -- Nietzsche
. . .
> In other words: who's vexed, buddy?
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Just
shoot up yer trailer park.
Mitchell Holman
news:a8fbf$4b324f49$18f55223$13...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >> >> >> ny_ bea ton .pdf
>> >> >> .ht ml
Are you a victim of home schooling or something?
I have just cited you three cases where cancer patients
had their coverage cancelled by private insurance companies -
something you just told us cannot happen.
>
> The way things are, Ms. Bates can seek a resolution through the US
> court system.
Cancer patients don't want protracted legal battles,
they want the treatment they contracted and paid for.
>
> When the health insurance provider is the State of California, or the
> United States government, she can only sue if the state first allows
> her to sue (no citizen has an inherent right to sue the government).
>
> What would be her recourse in that case?
Your claim that private insurance companies "can't"
drop cancer patients has been disproven, deal with it.
RD (The Sandman)
@news.eternal-september.org:
And make it up through turns.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Morton Davis
That's Obama's plan.
Mitchell Holman
news:xeSdnavaIac...@comporium.net:
>
>
>
> Also insurance is something usually used to protect one from
> unforeseen happening. Going to a doctor for a check-up/common cold/
> ear ache etc is not something unforseen. They are every day
> occurances. We have insurance on our cars but we don't call the
> insurance company whenever we need a lube job or get new windshield
> wipers.
But then, auto insurance companies don't deny converage
for a wreck because your car had a "pre-existing" condition
like a missing headlight rim or a bald spare tire.
Only health insurance companies get away with sort of
sleazy behavior.........
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
I said, and I quote:
"Insurance companies, believe it or not, are highly regulated. They not
only don't "drop you after you are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T.
They're legally obligated to pay for your medical care in such cases."
Obviously, I meant "they are legally bound."
It is in the same sense I would say "you can't shoot someone down in the
middle of the street just because you don't like them."
Obviously you can, but the likelihood that you'll get away with it are
pretty low.
> >
> > The way things are, Ms. Bates can seek a resolution through the US
> > court system.
>
>
> Cancer patients don't want protracted legal battles,
> they want the treatment they contracted and paid for.
I guess that makes a government health care resource allocation
commission superior.
No legal battles there--you can't even sue them in the first place. If
you're dropped then, that's it. Down the Hospice shoot with you!
tankfixer
noemai...@comcast.net says...
http://miami.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/insurance-company-
denies-claims-until-pigs-fly.aspx?googleid=201564
"A Denver jury awarded a University of Colorado professor $3 million
against American Insurance Co. Professor Nick Peressini was severely
injured in an auto accident in 2002. The insurance company refused
payment. Peressini's lawyer uncovered the unethical practices and
company culture promoted by supervisors which included reference to a
small toy pink pig with wings, that the company would approve claims
"when pink pigs fly." See the following excerpt:
A former American Family Insurance employee described the company
culture promoted by a supervisor.
"It was pink pig ... She said it was meant to be that she would approve
something when pink pigs fly," said the former employee...."They were
happy about and would celebrate, in effect, when they would deny
claims," said Livingston. "They'd push the button and make it flap its
wings."
Mitchell Holman
news:a5d59$4b32f250$18f55223$17...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >> >> >> >> imo ny_ bea ton .pdf
>> >> >> >> dex .ht ml
You said they CAN'T drop cancer patients.
They in fact DO drop cancer patients.
You are wrong, get used to it.
>> >
>> > The way things are, Ms. Bates can seek a resolution through the US
>> > court system.
>>
>>
>> Cancer patients don't want protracted legal battles,
>> they want the treatment they contracted and paid for.
>
> I guess that makes a government health care resource allocation
> commission superior.
>
In that aspect, yes.
> No legal battles there--you can't even sue them in the first place. If
> you're dropped then, that's it. Down the Hospice shoot with you!
How many government health care plans drop cancer
patients because of "pre-existing conditions"?
Strabo
Read your insurance contract for negligence, fraud and
non-disclosure.
Insurance companies take into account the applicant's age, sex,
residence, driving history AND the type and model of vehicle(s)
to be insured. Some of the applicant information is checked
and rest accepted as truth.
If there is an accident and the claims adjuster finds that
the "A" frame collapsed due to major rust or that lack of
maintenance cause the wheel bearings to seize or that the driver
was disabled, chronically ill or unlicensed, the claim may be called
into question.
The proposed 'universal health care' will be much more intrusive and
far-reaching.
1. You will be required to sign-up for a patient ID card. This
card number will be indexed to your SSN.
2. Periodic examinations will be required.
3. Behavioral, psychological and dietary rules will be imposed along
with medical prescriptions. A follow up assessment will be required.
Failure to comply or meet the above criteria will result in penalties.
What kind of penalties?
Anything from arrest and imprisonment to points. For example,
you go to jail if you don't pay and qualification for elective
procedures will be based on points.
Since the new centralized medical database will be connected to the
IRS, law enforcement, and the banking system, employment, loans and tax
matters will be considered in any medical decision. Similarly,
individual medical status will be reviewed when applying for a loan, a
job, marriage, passport, etc.
Your value to society will be partially based on your medical
status. Valuable people will get the best treatment.
So, unlike the "sleazy behavior" of car insurance companies, socialized
medicine American style will effect every aspect of your life.
BTW, this system will be followed by the cashless society.
Welcome to Global Governance.
Cliff
>> I expect you will find about 5 possible subthreads & topics
>> and now have about 5 much shorter reply posts.
>
>all of the several points in one post.
No thinking needed, eh?
What if different people have interests in
different things?
Why repeat all of what has gone before endessly?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> > A health insurance company cannot capriciously refuse treatment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you a victim of home schooling or something?
>>
>> I have just cited you three cases where cancer patients
>> had their coverage cancelled by private insurance companies -
>> something you just told us cannot happen.
>
>I said, and I quote:
>
>"Insurance companies, believe it or not, are highly regulated. They not
>only don't "drop you after you are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T.
>They're legally obligated to pay for your medical care in such cases."
>
>Obviously, I meant "they are legally bound."
In what State?
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
[
Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal
lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical
coverage for some sick policyholders
....
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc.
canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to
avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than
1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were
praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with
expensive illnesses.
]
Mitchell Holman
news:u8q6j5lva95n1tl62...@4ax.com:
If there were any justice at least some of these patients
would be the teabaggers blocking any change in the current
health care system.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
==being quote==
A rescission is serious. Most of us don't live in an insurance world so
it is important to consider the reasons behind rescission that may give
you a right to challenge the insurer's action. Normally, if you have
done one of the following, your insurer can rescind:
1. Misrepresentation: You lied or concealed information on the
application submitted; for example, failing to disclose information
about a liver disorder, cancer treatment or smoking history when
directly asked.
2. Materiality: If what is hidden or concealed on your application
would have affected the insurer's decision to issue a policy or issue
one under more restrictive terms, the insurer can rescind. Leaving off
the details, such as asthma, in an otherwise clean bill of health, is
material. If the information given by the applicant is false, but the
insurance company would have issued the same policy anyway, then it is
not material. For example, if you lie about visiting a doctor, but the
visit was to obtain free sample medications for a mild seasonal allergy,
the insurer cannot rescind even though you lied in response to a
question inquiring at to whether you have seen a doctor in the last 12
months.
3. Reliance: At the time the policy was issued the insurance company
must have reasonably relied on the information based in the application.
An insurance company cannot avoid liability if it did not actually rely
on the applicant's misrepresentation in making its decision to issue the
policy. For example, if there are sufficient indications in your answers
to the application questions (such as an incomplete answer that clearly
suggests an unmentioned extensive prior treatment history for a serious
health condition) ) that reasonably suggest that further investigation
by the insurer is warranted, and if that investigation would reasonably
be expected to have provided the insurer with a true picture, many
courts will not allow the insurer to rescind if the insurer did not
follow through with that investigation.
4. Other Requirements: Some states require the insurance company to
prove fraud in order to rescind. This is a difficult burden for the
insurer since it is required to prove intent. Some states require that
the insured not only intend to deceive but also know that the deception
is material to the risk. This is even more difficult for the insurer to
prove: it must establish that you knew that your misrepresentation would
affect the insurer's decision to issue; in other words, that you know
the insurer's underwriting guidelines that tell them when to issue and
when to not issue or to issue with limitations on coverage. In these
states, it is very difficult for an insurer to rescind a policy. Some
states require that the facts misrepresented must contribute to the
claimed loss. The insurer cannot properly rescind unless, for example,
there is a claim for cancer and the misrepresentation discovered by the
insurer is for treatment of cancer.
5. Clear Questions: The burden is on the insurance company to ask
clear, unambiguous questions. You win on this issue if the carrier asks
vague and confusing questions. Questions that assume medical knowledge
on your part (by using medical terminology) and questions that ask for
your opinion of your health (like, Are you in good health? or Are you in
sound physical condition?) are common examples. Ambiguity is always
construed by the courts against the insurer and in favor of the insured.
6. Contestable Period: This is the time period within which an
insurance provider can retroactively cancel (rescind) your policy. In
most states the contestable period is two years from the date of
application.
==end quote==
http://attorneypages.com/hot/trigger-health-insurance-rescission.htm
Joe Irvin
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.259caf8...@news.bytemine.net...
Sure there are unethical people in the insurance business just like all
other businesses. Does this mean we should depend on the govt for all our
insurance needs?
tankfixer
noemai...@comcast.net says...
The bills currently under condsideration are so fraught with fraud and
payoffs as to be useless..
Mitchell Holman
@news.bytemine.net:
And the Republican alternatives are........?
RD (The Sandman)
IOW, you have no problem with fraud and payoffs as long as it is
Democrats doing it?
RD (The Sandman)
news:ill7j5tp4lkfvh694...@4ax.com:
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>>
>>Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>>announced their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html
> "If you come into this hospital, we�re not going to let you die," said
> Dr. David T. Feinberg, the hospital system�s chief executive.
>
> Yet that ethos has made the medical center a prime target for critics
> in the Obama administration
>
Politifact also simply made a list without ranking of what were the lies
of the year. There were samples from both sides.
Mitchell Holman
news:Xns9CEB8DD9F...@216.196.97.130:
IOW you have no problem with sick people being denied
treatment they paid for as long as it makes a profit for
insurance companies?
Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers
told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they
would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick
policyholders
....
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint
Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the
coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies
to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over
a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma
and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission
and that employees were praised in performance reviews for
terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
Cliff
Like gummer & the winger klan?
I presume YOU have read them, right?
How much does dead cost?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> And the Republican alternatives are........?
>
>IOW, you have no problem with fraud and payoffs as long as it is
>Democrats doing it?
IOW none.
Except to undo medicare.....
But dont worry. The RNC gets full abortion coverage.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>>> And the Republican alternatives are........?
>>
>> IOW, you have no problem with fraud and payoffs as long as it is
>> Democrats doing it?
>
>
> IOW you have no problem with sick people being denied
>treatment they paid for as long as it makes a profit for
>insurance companies?
It's not just that.
The sick often cannot work or caannot work enough hours and thus
lose their coverage (if they even had any).
Others go into debt so far they can never get out --- it's a trap.
Even if they are cured they can be ruined for life as a result.
I know working people that linger on paying half their
income on co-pays, deductables & meds. And they may be lucky.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Snicker>
A libertarian wanting lawyers ....
--
Cliff
Mitchell Holman
news:2b28j59bqc7q79862...@4ax.com:
And the ones that aren't are driven into bankruptcy even
if they DO have health coverage.
Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies
June 5, 2009
Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent
in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in
2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-
class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will
be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.
"Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness
away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie
Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge,
Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private
insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and
that's the major finding in our study."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>news:v694j5hh84dv0k3au...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:02:15 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mitchell Holman" <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223
>>>> $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>>>>>> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>>>>>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>>>>>
>>>>> If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
>>>>> alternatives available to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If your insurance company drops you after you
>>>> are diagnosed with cancer - as in the above cases -
>>>> you have the alternative of just dying, because no
>>>> company is going to cover you.
>>>
>>>"According to the American Medical Association's National Health Insurer
>>>Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, denied
>>>medical
>>>claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied
>>>6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%,
>>>followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of
>>>medical
>>>claims by private insurers of 3.88%
>>>
>>>In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card,
>>
>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
>>
>>>the AMA reports that
>>>Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better
>>>still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier,
>>>Aetna,
>>>reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar
>>>declines
>>>by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
>>>
>>>Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers
>>>satisfied in order to make that profit after all."
>>>
>>>http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
>>
>> IF you look at the Medicare data again you may note that it was usually
>> a case of improper billing that needed to be corrected, such as
>> something left off the bill (like the patient's name) and just
>> needed to be properly rebilled.
>> Plus perhaps some attempted fraud, which they can
>> probably do better at reducing now that the dems (I assume) will
>> again allow them to do (the rethugs had defunded the fraud checkers
>> it seemed).
>
>I think the people that put this report together are well aware of how
>screwed up the Medicare/Medicaid systems are.
>>
>> Unlike the stuff you copied you need to check
>> the codes at
>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
>> to see what is really going on.
>
>As I said above the people that put this report together are aware of the
>short falls of the Medicare/Medicaid systems.
I think you clearly failed to check the actual report & the codes
as well as grasp my post.
What you copied from somewhere was clearly intentionally misleading.
--
Cliff
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
A) That's Neolibertarian to you, son.
B) Libertarianism, in general, is primarily reliant on contract law for
maintaining social order and individual rights.
C) The most objectionable lawyers are the nearly 100 of them in the
Senate, almost 435 in the House, the lawyer in the White House, the
lawyer that lives at Number One Observatory Circle, and the nine lawyers
in black robes who meet too many times a year to destroy the last
remnants of my Constitution.
Joe Irvin
I did check the report and the codes. Maybe I didn't grasp you post, but I
wasn't trying to be misleading. What I was trying to get across was that
Medicare is in trouble ... it rife with inefficiencies and fraud. Countries
that have govt run universal care insure everyones healthcare but fall down
when it comes to actual delivering health care. Annual Medicare fraud is
estimated at $60 billion. Annual profits for the top ten insurance
companies are $8 billion. The $60 billion could pay the premiums for lots
of people who are uninsured. In countries like Canada and the UK who have
universal healthcare there is rationing, shortage and poor service.
"As 60 Minutes reported last week, Medicare fraud is rampant and has now
replaced the cocaine (ahem) business as the major criminal activity in South
Florida. Both 60 Minutes and the Washington Post report that Medicare fraud
now costs American taxpayers roughly $60 billion a year. That may sound like
a lot of money, but surely it pales next to the extraordinary profits of
private insurance companies, right?
Well, let's see.... Last year, the profits of the ten largest insurance
companies in America were just over $8 billion -- combined. No single
insurance company made even five percent of what Medicare reportedly loses
in fraud."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/post_145.asp
> --
> Cliff
RD (The Sandman)
You didn't answer my question so why would you expect me to answer yours?
Besides your question is a different subject than the comment I replied
to. Are you trying to move the goalposts?
RD (The Sandman)
news:q728j554k36mo16ha...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:56:44 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> And the Republican alternatives are........?
>>
>>IOW, you have no problem with fraud and payoffs as long as it is
>>Democrats doing it?
>
> IOW none.
In your case there was no doubt about that answer.....but I was willing
to give Holman a chance to answer on his own.
Scout
Particularly when we consider the 'ethical' nature of the government.
Need I say more?
tankfixer
noemai...@comcast.net says...
Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool
together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way
large corporations and labor unions do.
Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower
health care costs.
End junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by
increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes
order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are
afraid of being sued.
But insteadp you'd rather let Pelosie and Reid punk you out while
whispering sweet nothings in your ear.
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
That's ok. I'm sure detox is in the bill too..
> I presume YOU have read them, right?
I've read bits and pieces. But isnce your leadership is making backroom
deals and giving away bribes I don't think you nor I or anyone else will
know what the final bill contains until well after Der Leader lays down
his pen and proclaims the country healed by his hand..
> How much does dead cost?
I thought the whole idea was to contain costs and spread coverage out to
more people ?
Isn't that what your leaders keep spouting ?
Are you saying it should be costs be damned ?
Cliff
What you originally copied/quoted very clearly was.
>What I was trying to get across was that
>Medicare is in trouble ...
The rethugs loaded it up with no-bid give-aways to their sponsors
a few years ago.
>it rife with inefficiencies and fraud.
The rethugs had defunded the fraud checkers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml
"Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime"
"Medicare has just three field inspectors in all of South Florida to check up
on thousands of questionable medical equipment companies."
It sounds like the new clean broom in the WH & his staff are
after the fraudsters.
>Countries
>that have govt run universal care insure everyones healthcare
For perhaps 1/3 the cost of what it is in the US.
>but fall down
>when it comes to actual delivering health care.
Which explains why so many in the US have none and so many
in other nations live longer & are happier.
>Annual Medicare fraud is
>estimated at $60 billion. Annual profits for the top ten insurance
>companies are $8 billion.
"From the Weekly Standard"? LOL ....
Is that after the bonuses?
Closer to 13+ billion --- profits are up at least 428% since
2000 (as of 2007).
http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
[
.....
Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to
do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments
as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must
maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined,
this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans�
health dollars.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The
potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year,
.....
]
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <5241j55mfgr8lt57g...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:06:17 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6c7si512v8q50bfnk...@4ax.com>,
>> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:53:52 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> >> >> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>> >> >> [
>> >> >> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>> >> >> announced
>> >> >> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut
>> >> >> job
>> >> >> Betsy
>> >> >> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with
>> >> >> 61%
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>> >> >> household
>> >> >> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's
>> >> >> Facebook
>> >> >> page
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>> >> >
>> >> >The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. By liars.
>> >
>> >It's what happens in other socialized systems.
>>
>> Places where people live years longer at 1/3 the cost
>> for medical care.
>>
>> >
>> >It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>>
>> The original idea of *counseling by doctors* came from
>> a hospital system in WI or MN IIRC -- where it is in use with happy
>> people. The doctors get paid for it.
>>
>> http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/August/14/end-of-life-care.aspx
>> "Medicare doesn't explicitly pay for the service, discouraging doctors from
>> taking the time to talk with patients about the issues. Private insurance
>> companies often base their own payment policies on Medicare's."
>> "Under the current payment system, Epperly notes, doctors could see five
>> patients or complete a more lucrative procedure in the time it would take
>> them
>> to have an in-depth end-of-life consultation."
>
>The point is, you can't change the universe with legislation.
IOW you are yammering about winger lies.
>No one can provide you with all the medical care you want, any time and
>place and manner you deem necessary.
>
>There are limits to this system you had nothing to do with creating.
>
>Giving the government the power to prioritize is a grave mistake. Mostly
>because the government first takes away all of your other alternatives.
Hence Social Security does not work & there are no wars based
on winger lies.
>
>> Beware your packs of winger lies.
>>
>> >Everyone else will
>> >call them health care allocation commissions.
>>
>> I call it winger lies.
>> So do the doctors.
>
>There are health care allocations commissions, dummy.
Like for organ transsplants?
So you are complaining about the current system.
>
>> >> >Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
>> >
>> >Wikipedia?
>>
>> You bet.
>> Guess you did not look.
>
>I never go to Wikipedia unless there's a good reason to waste my time
>there.
Hence ignorance is your goal.
Typical of wingers.
>>
>> >>
>> >> How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
>> >
>> >In Britain, it's too much for their economy to sustain. In Italy, their
>> >cadillac socialized health care system has helped propel public debt
>> >into the rest of this century.
>>
>> Gee, and both spend less per person .... and the people live
>> longer ...
>
>"Living longer" in that case is a statistical expression. Americans lead
>dangerous lives.
Too many guns or just too much winger stupidity?
>>
>> >But it will be different for the United States because:
>> >
>> >1) The populist-bureaucrats in Washington have proved over the years how
>> >prudent and responsible they are when spending public money.
>> >
>> >2) The Democrats and Republicans can be expected not to turn health care
>> >issues into political demagoguery every damn election.
>> >
>> >3) Government officers have no self-focused agenda; their only concern
>> >is the health and well-being of all Americans.
>> >
>> >4) Elected officials know more about what patients need than rich,
>> >selfish doctors.
>>
>> And the CEO of United Health Care gets $124.8 Million a Year ....
>>
>> http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/denied-claims-c130957.html
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/denied-claims-placed-at-h_n_253160.ht
>> ml
>> http://en.allexperts.com/q/Medicare-Medicaid-Insurance-992/claim-paid.htm
>> http://attorneypages.com/hot/united-health-care-huge-fines-scandals.htm
>
>
>I don't fall for class warfare demagoguery, Karl.
>
>3.3% profit margins are unsustainable, except through a government
>regulated marketplace.
I could live on $124.8 Million a Year.
>>
>> Death for the uninsured & underinsured ...
>>
>> >> >Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
>> >> >written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
>> >> >articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
>> >> >of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
>> >>
>> >> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
>> >> Feel free to point it out.
>> >
>> >You have to take the excerpts if you don't have an account.
>>
>> IOW You had nothing but winger BS..
>> "are readily available on the internet".
>
>I had the excerpts, but opted to provide another example in its entirety.
IOW You had nothing but winger BS.
*I* actually looked. You had BS.
>>
>> >>
>> >> http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
>> >> "At it again: McCaughey distorts Ezekiel Emanuel's writings to smear him
>> >> as
>> >> "Rationer-in-Chief""
>> >> "NY Times: McCaughey has "largely quot[ed]" Emanuel's "past writings out
>> >> of
>> >> context this summer"
>> >>
>> >> IOW Winger lies, as usual.
>> >
>> >"Well, /he/ said..."
>> >
>> >Okay, how about this complete article, "Principles for Allocation of
>> >Scarce Medical Interventions," written by Emanuel (et al) this year:
>> >
>> >"The complete lives system.
>> >
>> >"Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all the ethical
>> >requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the
>> >complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles:
>> >youngest first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and
>> >instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not
>> >yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.
>> >Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of
>> >distributive justice."
>> >
>> >http://tiny.cc/9fibb
>> >
>> >This is a special advisor to the President of the United States
>> >advocating a bureaucratic instrument for the allocation of medical
>> >resources.
>>
>> Umm ..... how do they decide who gets a transplant NOW?
>
>Those who manage their own affairs get the transplant. Those who don't
>also get the transplant.
BS.
>
>Hell, you can even get fertility drugs from the government health care
>services, give birth to 8 kids, and then have the state support yours
>and all their subsequent medical bills and expenses into perpetuity.
The rethugs need more followers.
But the RNC is covered for abortions.
http://prorev.com/2009/02/stupid-texas-sex-education-tricks.html
[
A whopping 94 percent of school districts in the lone star state teach only
abstinence, according to a new report. Worse yet, the review by two professors
at Texas State University found that "sexuality education materials" used in the
state "regularly contain factual errors and perpetuate lies and distortions
about condoms and STDs." . .
]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94332508
[
Gov. Sarah Palin is among that group. In response to a questionnaire during
Alaska's gubernatorial race, Palin said, "I am opposed to explicit sex
education."
.....
Three out of 10 U.S. girls get pregnant at least once before their 20th
birthday.
]
>Is America a great place or what?
Alaska leads the nation in rape & incest rates.
>Of the "30 million uninsured in the US," something like 10 million of
>these earn over $75,000 a year. They can afford to purchase their own
>insurance, but chose not to.
So like gummer they will stick it to the rest of us, right?
>Many are young and healthy, others have
>other priorities. Another 8 million or so were only without insurance
>for part of the year--temporarily unemployed, or otherwise in
>transition. This is all in the census report that originally created the
>"46 million uninsured" number that has been thrown about so freely--and
>which has morphed into both "50 million" and the President's new figure
>"30 million."
You forget the adjectives & are therby telling winger lies again.
>This leaves something like 10-12 million who fall through the
>cracks--not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or
>state programs.
So " Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or state programs"
are now just fine with you, right?
>Rather than extend the safety net, you want to destroy an industry,
>uproot its millions of employees, erase it's place in supporting the
>stocks and bond markets that are so important to sectors of the economy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group
>and make the entire US populace dependent upon the Federal Government
>for all their health care needs for the rest of their lives.
So " Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or state programs"
are now just fine with you, right?
>
>Why is that?
So " Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or state programs"
are now just fine with you, right?
Why is that?
>>
>> >This doesn't scare you, mostly because you've forgotten (it's been over
>> >a year since the last elections, after all) that at some point in the
>> >future, the nasty, evil Republicans are bound to be at the reigns of all
>> >this power you're gleefully signing over to Congress and the Executive.
>>
>> More rethug horrors no doubt.
>> Except for themselves, naturally.
>> http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Abortion_coverage_at_the_RNC.htm
>> l
>> "Abortion coverage at the RNC"
>> [
>> The Republican National Committee�s health insurance plan covers elective
>> abortion � a procedure the party�s own platform calls �a fundamental assault
>> on
>> innocent human life.�
>>
>> Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from
>> Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC�s policy covers
>> elective abortion.
>> ]
>>
>> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html
>> [
>> According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the
>> opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage � and the RNC did not choose to
>> opt
>> out.
>> ]
>
>And this is relevant to the discussion...how?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm
Party Platform
"Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment"
Rethug party rulz !!!
>>
>> >Me? I'm scared anytime anyone with control of the instrumentalities of
>> >government begins speaking of "distributive justice," or even "economic
>> >justice."
>> >
>> >==begin quote==
>> >
>> >I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of
>> >health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another
>> >$200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate
>> >proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not
>> >only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different
>> >costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing
>> >health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated
>> >tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.
>>
>> The rethugs had just increased the costs a few years ago IIRC.
>>
>> >To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas
>> >about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the
>> >Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a
>> >Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on
>> >cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of
>> >the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used
>> >effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and
>> >could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a
>> >fiscally responsible way.
>> >
>> >==end quote==
>> >
>> > ---President Barack Obama, Letter to Senators Kennedy and Baucus
>> > June 2, 2009
>> >
>> >http://tiny.cc/w2hgK
>> >
>> >> >What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
>> >> >Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
>> >>
>> >> Like health insurance does now?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.
>> >> html
>> >
>> >Huffington Post?
>>
>> Good source for lots of truth.
>
>Logical fallacy is a mighty poor path to the truth, Cochise.
IOW You don't think either.
>>
>> >The difference between freedom and tyranny, is under freedom you can
>> >seek alternatives.
>>
>> You could go to the UK, Canada, Australia, China etc for care.
>
>There are many great alternatives right here in these not so United
>States. For instance, Catholic and Jewish hospitals have programs for
>poor and destitute patients, which can include forgiving debts entirely.
>
>Many superb Children's Hospitals are famous in this regard.
>
>The fact of the matter is, no Hospital in the US can refuse treatment
>merely because of inability to pay. In many states, this includes
>illegal aliens.
>
>In the case of catastrophic illness or injury, you'll get treated no
>matter if you've bothered to manage your personal affairs or not.
Then tossed on the street without continued care (you may not
die that day).
And the problem did not get prevention in the first place.
>>
>> >Or am I addressing one of those children who believe you can legislate
>> >away bad outcomes?
>>
>> We already have lots & lots of bad outcomes. For millions & millions.
>> At huge expense to us all.
>
>There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch.
>
>If you think you've got a way to have one just by passing a law---well,
>this is Usenet, and for all I know, you may not even be old enough to be
>posting to Usenet on your parent's computer...
IOW Out of winger lies?
>
>> >> "CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
>> >>
>> >> Or more like gummer's free health care?
>> >>
>> >> >What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
>> >> >an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
>> >>
>> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
>> >>
>> >> >And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
>> >> >opinion,
>> >>
>> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
>> >>
>> >> > which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
>> >>
>> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
>> >>
>> >> >it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
>> >>
>> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
>> >>
>> >> >Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
>> >> >of course.
>> >>
>> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
>> >
>> >Words mean things.
>> >
>> >If something is your opinion, it may be incorrect but it's not a lie.
>> >
>> >How many ex-governors' facebook blogs do you obsess over?
>>
>> I don't see many blogs.
>> Have you met crazy banquer?
>> http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
>
>No, I've not met your crazy blogger.
>
>This hardly explains why you're obsessing over an ex-Governor's Facebook
>page.
Actually, I've never looked at it.
But you must hang out there to know so much about it.
>
>She may be hot, but she's married. Get over it.
Must have been a bimbo.
>
>> >> >Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
>> >> >universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
>> >> >time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
>> >> >it.
>> >>
>> >> And YOU think you can get that now?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-rel
>> >> eas
>> >> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans
>> >> -si
>> >> nce-bush-took-office.html
>> >> "Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush
>> >> Took
>> >> Office"
>> >>
>> >> That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
>> >
>> >A) You can't show that 50 million American citizens were "uninsured."
>>
>> I said "50 million uninsured".
>
>You could have said 50 billion. It would all mean the same without
>evidence to back it up.
Which you lack.
>Like your blogger friend "jonbanquer" says, you need to "cut though the
>bullshit."
He's FAMOUS !!
http://joncluelessbanquer.blogspot.com/
(Scroll down)
>
>> If you were in Canada, Australia, the UK, the EU .... and got sick ...
>> you would get care I'd wager. Or even needed a doctor for anything.
>
>Same here in the US.
So why does anybody buy insurance?
gummer did not.
>
>You don't even need a penny in your pocket. You don't even need to be a
>legal US resident.
>
>If you have a job, however, you may get stuck with the bill, but the
>Hospital will undoubtedly be willing to put you on a reasonable payment
>plan.
I trust you have tried this.
And for needed drugs as well.
>>
>> >Even the President has reduced the number to 30 million. While the
>> >number of uninsured has risen recently, this is because insurance is
>> >tied to jobs--and unemployment is still rising. The reason insurance is
>> >tied to your employment is entirely because of legislation that makes it
>> >so.
>>
>> I pay for my own insurance & have for decades.
>
>It's extremely likely you're getting socked on taxes.
>>
>> >B) You can't show 7.5 million people were denied vital medical care,
>> >because none were.
>>
>>
>> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releas
>> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-si
>> nce-bush-took-office.html
>> http://www.medical-care.eu/web/35/denied_medical_care.html
>
>It doesn't mention, list, or itemize the kind of treatments denied.
>
>Breast implants are a medical procedure, believe it or not. Some people
>like to mask the symptoms of their unbalanced life by taking Depakote
>and Paxil. These are often denied.
>
>Experimental drugs and treatments are often denied. My own insurance
>company has a sliding scale for medications. Pre-approved are covered,
>some experimental drugs are only partially covered, some are not covered
>at all.
>
>It seems completely reasonable to me.
>>
>> >If you wanted a breast implant, you may have been denied "medical care."
>> >If you wanted your insurer to pay for your visits to the psychiatrist
>> >and the scripts for Paxil, you may have been denied "medical care."
>> >
>> >C) Medicare is set to implode in less than seven years. Hospitalization
>> >ceased to pay for itself in 07, and the rest has ceased to pay for
>> >itself now. It's only surviving because the general fund is being raided
>> >to pay for it. Medicaid never did pay for itself. Between CHIP,
>> >Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment, you're talking about over half of
>> >the unsustainable Federal Budget.
>>
>> Medicaid is mostly a matter of State plans IIRC.
>
>Medicaid is overloading most states' broken budgets, yes. They only pay
>part, We the People pay the rest through the broken Federal Budget.
The rethugs & wingers broke it.
"Free money !"
>>
>> ALL plans of all sorts should be rolled into one with a common
>> (small) set of financing mechanisms.
>>
>> >But a "National Healthcare System" is going to be "deficit neutral!"
>> >Why, I've even heard the President claim it will reduce the deficit!
>> >
>> >Hehe.
>> >
>> >If you don't have Constitutional limits, you don't have limits.
>> >
>> >You, my friend, have a government without limits.
>>
>> http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble
>> Show where "promote the general welfare" is violated.
>
>That clause does not stand alone, dummy:
>
>"..Promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
>ourselves and our Posterity."
>
>What you're proposing is as ludicrously self-defeating as "I've
>abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."
Cite the constitution on "free market principles" & "free market system".
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/POSFAI.html
"A Failure of Capitalism
The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression "
>
>1) You're shoving enormous debt onto your "posterity." You've already
>created a $12 trillion debt,
At least 11 trilllion is the "free market" "trickle down" rethug's.
The rest is an attempt at salvage.
>and you're planning on adding at least $1
>trillion a year for the next decade. Between the unfunded obligations of
>Social Security and Medicare, you're demanding upwards of a $100
>trillion for the next generation to pay.
For the bennies they get?
Where did you get that stuff? Rush? Faux?
>
>2) Taking away choices, forcing citizens to pay for a product they may
>not want or need, has nothing to do with "the Blessings of Liberty."
>
>3) The "General Welfare" does not mean "the welfare of some at the
>expense of others."
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
"The commitment to promote the general welfare of all persons, as opposed to
protecting the interests of a narrow section or class of the population,
encapsulates what is most unique about the United States of America--that it is
the only modern nation-state republic founded on this principle."
>
>You're advocating the destruction of the private insurance industry in
>the United States. These companies' demise will mean that millions of
>employees (secretaries, data entry, sales, accounting jobs) will be put
>out of work.
Tough.
Or they could apply for the new jobs.
YOU are promoting corporate welfare.
>It also will mean that a huge factor in the bond and stack
>markets will suddenly disappear--causing a painful adjustment on Wall
>Street. Since pension plans are dependent on a healthy Wall Street
>marketplace, this means that Widows and Orphans,
That owned GM stock?
>the primary
>beneficiaries to all pension plans, will be hurt most.
Like the UAW pension & health plans & retirees?
>All this so that you needn't manage your own affairs any more.
I manage. But I want such as gummer covered AND want to
pay less for better.
Got a 30% hike in premiums already this year.
Do you know how to compound things?
"Health spending in 2009 is projected to account for 17.6% of GDP"
"$8160 per U.S. resident"
In what year would it be 100% of the GDP?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <l8c1j550878co8c8a...@4ax.com>,
>Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Even so, about 80% of
>> >Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage plans as they
>> >exist.
>>
>> That is great news for the 30% or so that are uninsured.
>
>Once more a leftist demonstrates how well they do at math....
>
50/305 = 16% + but I expect it's many more.
--
Cliff