Repubs keep the lies alive
GOP Altered History
health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
By David Neiwert
Seems that Sarah Palin isn't the only right-winger out there trying to
convince the world that the "death panels" actually exist. Indeed, as Media
Matters notes, there's a whole bandwidth of wingnuts out there trying to
revive the notion.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/countdown-sarah-palins-death-panels-are-ba
One of these is the Troll Who Lives Under the Bridge And Sucks Your Toes,
aka Dick Morris, who was on The O'Reilly Factor earlier this week with
fill-in host Monica Crowley:
Morris: Look, Monica, it's one thing to load a big bill with pork. That's
what the stimulus package was. But to load a health-care bill, where
Americans are seriously worried that this is gonna destroy the health care
their parents get, that this is gonna lead to government-imposed euthanasia,
where they'll say, 'No, you can't have this annual mammogram, because I know
it might save your life, but it costs too much.' 'No, you can't have this
drug for colon cancer, because the drug we're going to let you take isn't as
good as this one, but we can't afford it.' When we come to those kind of
euthanasia-like decisions, to learn that the reason the Senate approved this
was some little bitty payoff that went on to some insurance company that
gave you a campaign contribution -- that kind of tawdry stuff for this kind
of magnitude of deformity on the system is enough to drive people crazy --
me included.
I've always said that anyone who takes Dick Morris's advice deserves
everything they get, because the man is such a font of misinformation. That
includes a lot of intentional disinformation, promoting provably false
"facts" that unhinge the people who absorb this crap. As we can see.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912230036
I'm going to be very interested once there's a Bill in place just how
"correct" all these Republican fear-mongerers are, be it Sarah Palin or Dick
Morris.
On a more logical, rational level (for now): Since every industrialized
country has some form of government health care (all of them with a stronger
gvt role), we'd expect to see these death panels and euthanasia, etc,
operating there. Hmm....funny how you can't find them.
Palin's brain is in a jar, pickled next to Hitler's in a Munich Hofbrau.
bvallely
> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
from a lefty -
If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
costs down OTHER than denying care?
Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
that comes across their desks?
If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
printing money.
Seriously, I'd LOVE to hear what you guys tell yourselves....
GOP Altered History
"bvallely" <bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
========
One thing I tell myuself is I'm happy to see people like McConnell and Boner
have to pay for their own insurance and not me.
nobody
<al...@go.net> wrote:
>
>"bvallely" <bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:
>> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
>> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>.
>Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
>from a lefty -
>
>If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
>costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
>Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
>that comes across their desks?
>
>If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
>tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
>
>Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
>China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
>printing money.
>
>Seriously, I'd LOVE to hear what you guys tell yourselves....
>========
>
>One thing I tell myuself is I'm happy to see people like McConnell and Boner
>have to pay for their own insurance and not me.
Your inability to answer his questions is so noted.
>
>
Lars Eighner
and talented GOP Altered History broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
> "bvallely" <bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:
>> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
>> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
> .
> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> from a lefty -
> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> costs down OTHER than denying care?
A single payer is in a better position to detect fraud. There wouldn't be
40% off the top for multi-million dollar executives, corporate jets, and
greedy shareholders. Primary care is a hell of a lot cheaper than ER care
for things that could have been prevented or treated by primary care ---
somebody is paying for those case that present at ERs needlessly, and that
somebody is often patients who are billed $100 for a couple of Tylenol so a
hospital can cover ER expenses. A single-payer can better negotiate
advantageous terms with service providers and suppliers --- that is one of
the reasons that the same drug, made in the same plant, costs much less in
Canada than it does in the US.
> Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
> that comes across their desks?
Of course not.
> If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
> tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
Any system will ration health care so long as human wants are limitless and
resources are limited. Greed-based insurance rations health care. Yes,
there will gatekeepers in any system --- and your scenario of pent-up demand
bursting forth is an admission that gatekeepers exist now. The difference
is: under the present system, the gatekeeper at a greed-based insurance
company gets bonuses based on the claims he (she or they) deny. In a
single-payer system, the gatekeeper gets the same salary regardless of how
many claims he denies. Who is going to make the more rational decisions:
the guy who figures he can buy a boat if he denies enough claims or the guy
who has no financial incentive to deny claims?
> Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
Single payer would cost less.
> China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
> printing money.
All the more reason to realize the savings of a single-payer system.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 25
600.3 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
Daniel
> In our last episode, <hh6car$di...@news.eternal-september.org>, the lovely
> and talented GOP Altered History broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
> >news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:
> >> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> >> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
> > .
> > Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> > from a lefty -
> > If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> > costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> A single payer is in a better position to detect fraud.
Yeah, just look at Medicare.....LOL
Lars Eighner
<ef274728-f4cb-4d0d...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Daniel broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
Yeah. Look at it. It busts frauds and recovers tens of millions all the
time. But it is not single-payer because it is not universal. More could
be saved if it were universal.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 25
601.3 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
GOP Altered History
"nobody" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:a3gdj5hl5jp1i6vd8...@4ax.com...
Typical immature retard.
Daniel
> lovely and talented Daniel broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:19 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >> In our last episode, <hh6car$di...@news.eternal-september.org>, the lovely
> >> and talented GOP Altered History broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
> >> > "bvallely" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:
> >> >> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> >> >> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
> >> > .
> >> > Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> >> > from a lefty -
> >> > If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> >> > costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> >> A single payer is in a better position to detect fraud.
> > Yeah, just look at Medicare.....LOL
>
> Yeah. Look at it. It busts frauds and recovers tens of millions all the
> time. But it is not single-payer because it is not universal. More could
> be saved if it were universal.
Why don't you cite all theses fraud busts you claim are happening?
Face it, there is not a single Government program that runs the way
you libtards say nobamacare will run.
Lars Eighner
<ba681d59-3ee5-46ba...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Medicare fraud settlement gets thousands of hits.
> Face it, there is not a single Government program that runs the way
> you libtards say nobamacare will run.
There is nothing that the US government does that it does not more
efficiently, cheaply, effectively, and honesty than any compaarable
greed-based operation. Reagan is dead. Let go of his lies.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 25
613.8 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Kevin Cunningham
So why don't you show us the movements across the EU and Canada to get
rid of government run health care? Come on, show us one candidate who
wants to end that evil system.
And.......Valley Girl can't. There is no movement. There is no
political force.
Europeans live longer and better lives, one reason is government run
health care.
Kevin Cunningham
Social Security has a 10:1 cost advantage over privately run health
care.
If you're worried about costs, you should support a government run
system.
zzpat
> On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> > health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>
> .
> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> from a lefty -
>
> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
Costs would have been kept down with competition, the public plan. But
as you know, conservatives in the Democratic Party said no to that
idea.
It's worth noting and not forgetting that members of Congress have a
health care plan that costs $15,000 per person, per year but when it
came to writing a plan for the rest of us, it had to be deficit
neutral or create a surplus or conservative Democrats wouldn't go
along with it. In their world, the costs we pay for their care is of
no concern because they, like all the republicans in Congress are
taken care of for the rest of their lives. The rest of us have to eek
out what we can from what these pathetic senators were willing to give
us.
In time, the Democratic Party will have to rid itself of all
conservatives. The hold-outs on health care, the conservatives, the
ones who cared about the cost, didn't give a damn about the cost of
the pork put into the plan to get their votes. It's disgusting and
they should be called out on it by every American. They call
themselves conservatives, the media does the same, but behind our
backs, conservatives in both parties are spending us into bankruptcy
(while the media tells us how conservative they are).
Joe Irvin
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhjdge5....@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode, <hh6car$dib$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, the lovely
> and talented GOP Altered History broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
>
>> "bvallely" <bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:
>>> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
>>> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>> .
>> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
>> from a lefty -
>
>> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
>> costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> A single payer is in a better position to detect fraud. There wouldn't be
> 40% off the top for multi-million dollar executives, corporate jets, and
> greedy shareholders. Primary care is a hell of a lot cheaper than ER care
> for things that could have been prevented or treated by primary care ---
> somebody is paying for those case that present at ERs needlessly, and that
> somebody is often patients who are billed $100 for a couple of Tylenol so
> a
> hospital can cover ER expenses. A single-payer can better negotiate
> advantageous terms with service providers and suppliers --- that is one
> of
> the reasons that the same drug, made in the same plant, costs much less in
> Canada than it does in the US.
Annual Medicare Fraud: $60 Billion; Annual Profits of Top Ten Insurance
Companies: $8 billion
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/post_145.asp
>
>> Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
>> that comes across their desks?
>
> Of course not.
>
>> If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
>> tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
>
> Any system will ration health care so long as human wants are limitless
> and
> resources are limited. Greed-based insurance rations health care. Yes,
> there will gatekeepers in any system --- and your scenario of pent-up
> demand
> bursting forth is an admission that gatekeepers exist now. The difference
> is: under the present system, the gatekeeper at a greed-based insurance
> company gets bonuses based on the claims he (she or they) deny. In a
> single-payer system, the gatekeeper gets the same salary regardless of how
> many claims he denies. Who is going to make the more rational decisions:
> the guy who figures he can buy a boat if he denies enough claims or the
> guy
> who has no financial incentive to deny claims?
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%
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
Iarnrod
> On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> > health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>
> .
> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> from a lefty -
That's because you're a rightard who cannot listen to truth. You have
a filter to keep trruth out and believe only what the drug addicted
Rushbo tells you.
> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> costs down OTHER than denying care?
I'm sorry, but are you under the misapprehension that this isn't
occurring now with priavet insurers, who MUST deny care in order to
turn their obscene profits on the deaths of others? We already have
death panels and they are the private insurance company bean counters.
For you to pin this on government care is delusional.
> Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
> that comes across their desks?
Are you saying private insurers currently approve every claim?
> If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
> tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
Educate more. Sounds like economic stimulus.
Your question implies that you in fact are the one who believes in
rationed care... If you want to retain a system in which there are not
enough medical personnel for latent demand for health services, you
are ipso facto in favor of death panels.
If you are out of work, no health care for you! If you have a pre-
existing condition that requires health care, you are denied coverage.
On and on the rightards go down the delusional path of self-deception.
> Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
> China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
> printing money.
Where do all other industrialized nations find the wherewithal?
Seems you are firmly in favor of death panels.
> Seriously, I'd LOVE to hear what you guys tell yourselves....
We tell ourselves that all human beings have a right to decent health
care.
The rightards who fight for the status quo are the ones who've never
had to rely on their own health care coverage to find out how
inadequate it is. Wait until it hits your family and you discover
you've been had.
Iarnrod
> 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%http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
Medicare's highest rejected claim rate is simply for incomplete
paperwork; when the claim is resubmitted properly, it is paid. This is
not the case with private insurers.
Joe Irvin
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c8be537-2963-4e42...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
How about a cite. I'll change my mind then if its a credible cite. Whether
it is or not they are all very close. Now about the fraud and abuse ...
which suffers the greatest fraud?
Daniel
And you're ok with BILLIONS in medicare fraud. Interesting.
>
> > Face it, there is not a single Government program that runs the way
> > you libtards say nobamacare will run.
>
> There is nothing that the US government does that it does not more
> efficiently, cheaply, effectively, and honesty than any compaarable
> greed-based operation. Reagan is dead. Let go of his lies.
There is NOTHING that the Government does effectively or cheaply.
Daniel
It's also broke.
>
> If you're worried about costs, you should support a government run
> system.
Why?
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3c8be537-2963-4e42...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 1:49 pm, "Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
> > 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%http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
>
> Medicare's highest rejected claim rate is simply for incomplete
> paperwork; when the claim is resubmitted properly, it is paid. This is
> not the case with private insurers.
>
> How about a cite. I'll change my mind then if its a credible cite.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf
You have to look at the codes for denial reasons.
> Whether
> it is or not they are all very close.
Then what's the point?
> Now about the fraud and abuse ...
> which suffers the greatest fraud?
Which has the greatest recovery?
Joe Irvin
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a3fdc1e6-25ee-43fc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 7:35 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:> Dick
> Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> > health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>
> .
> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> from a lefty -
>
> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
> that comes across their desks?
>
> If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
> tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
>
> Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
> China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
> printing money.
>
> Seriously, I'd LOVE to hear what you guys tell yourselves....
So why don't you show us the movements across the EU and Canada to get
rid of government run health care? Come on, show us one candidate who
wants to end that evil system.
****************************************************
Just because of its popularity doesn't mean it is run efficiently and gives
good timely health care services.
And.......Valley Girl can't. There is no movement. There is no
political force.
Europeans live longer and better lives, one reason is government run
health care.
****************************************************
I'm not doubting you but could you cite where longevity is because of
universal health care. " Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in
Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United
Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and
457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer
among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. Americans spend
less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian
and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year -
to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to
get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting
for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million
people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]"
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Unviable Tissue Mass
---------------------
On Leadership
The Washington Post
Sunday, December 27, 2009
"Do we need more Joe Liebermans?"
By Alan Webber
Since this is a leadership feature, it's fair to assume that one of
its key functions is to draw a distinction between what is and what
isn't genuine leadership. In that spirit, it's hard to make the case
that anything Joe Lieberman has done in the course of the Senate
debate on health-care legislation constitutes real leadership.
Taking one position, then suddenly reversing it? Acting as a self-
important obstructionist? Let's be clear: Lieberman wasn't trying to
bring together a new centrist position around health-care legislation.
He wasn't putting out a compromise position that others could rally
around. Most of his conduct seemed to be less about health care for
Americans and more about Joe Lieberman for Joe Lieberman.
But that focus misses a more profound point: Lieberman's leverage in
this situation derived from the rather astonishing fact that not one
single Republican senator is willing to support health-care
legislation. None, zero, nada, zilch, zip. Are there no Republican
voters whose only health-care option at the moment is the nearest
emergency room? Are there no Republican voters who have applied for
health insurance only to find themselves dumped into a high-cost, low-
coverage, high-risk pool because they might actually have a condition
that needs insurance?
It's astonishing that there isn't one Republican who thinks that
engaging in this vitally important national debate is worth doing.
Apparently, "leadership" in this case is defined as party discipline:
hoping to wound the president and foment talk of a "failed
presidency," playing for time to wear down the public's interest in a
complicated measure and giving leverage to dissident Democrats who,
the Republicans cynically hope, will derail their own party's measure.
This is the kind of "leadership" that actually makes Joe Lieberman
look good; at least he was willing to deal.
[Alan Webber, a founding editor of Fast Company magazine, is an award-
winning editor, author and columnist. His most recent book is "Rules
of Thumb: 52 Truths for Winning at Business Without Losing Your
Self."]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122403350.html
bvallely
> In our last episode, <hh6car$di...@news.eternal-september.org>, the lovely
> and talented GOP Altered History broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
> >news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:
> >> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> >> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
> > .
> > Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> > from a lefty -
> > If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> > costs down OTHER than denying care?
> A single payer is in a better position to detect fraud.>
No, it's in a far worse position.
.
> There wouldn't be
> 40% off the top for multi-million dollar executives, corporate jets, and
> greedy shareholders.>
No, it would be government officials flying around the world, and
spreading governemnt funds to their friends and families.
.
> Primary care is a hell of a lot cheaper than ER care
> for things that could have been prevented or treated by primary care ---
> somebody is paying for those case that present at ERs needlessly, and that
> somebody is often patients who are billed $100 for a couple of Tylenol so a
> hospital can cover ER expenses. >
Because the goverment demands everyone be treated. Why would
expanding the number of people who use this service make things
cheaper?
.
A single-payer can better negotiate
> advantageous terms with service providers and suppliers --- that is one of
> the reasons that the same drug, made in the same plant, costs much less in
> Canada than it does in the US.
The reason Canada gets such a sweetheart deal is because they refuse
to pay for the development of drugs - and development is where the
expense lies. Yes, we can make drugs cheaper by banning research and
develpoment - but you'll never be able to count the number of people
who die because of drugs that were never developed.
> > Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
> > that comes across their desks?
.
> Of course not.
.
And why would it be out of line to suggest such actions constitute
"death panels?"
.
> > If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
> > tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
.
> Any system will ration health care so long as human wants are limitless and
> resources are limited. Greed-based insurance rations health care. Yes,
> there will gatekeepers in any system --- and your scenario of pent-up demand
> bursting forth is an admission that gatekeepers exist now. The difference
> is: under the present system, the gatekeeper at a greed-based insurance
> company gets bonuses based on the claims he (she or they) deny.
.
I suggest that you jump into a time machine, go back to 1996, and
campaign for The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act:
Just because an insurance company denies care, that doesn't mean it
ends there.
.
> In a single-payer system, the gatekeeper gets the same salary regardless of how
> many claims he denies. >
.
There are many ways to pressure to government employee to cut
services. The most obvious is to the limit the amount of money he can
spend in a month.
> Who is going to make the more rational decisions:
> the guy who figures he can buy a boat if he denies enough claims or the guy
> who has no financial incentive to deny claims?
.
The guy who doesn't want to drag his company into an ugly lawsuit.
.
> > Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
.
> Single payer would cost less.
.
Did you also believe that the Stimulus Bill would create 3.5 million
jobs?
.
> > China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
> > printing money.
.
> All the more reason to realize the savings of a single-payer system.
.
But it won't cost less - it will cost far more.
bvallely
> lovely and talented Daniel broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:19 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >> In our last episode, <hh6car$di...@news.eternal-september.org>, the lovely
> >> and talented GOP Altered History broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
> >> > "bvallely" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:
> >> >> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> >> >> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
> >> > .
> >> > Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> >> > from a lefty -
> >> > If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> >> > costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> >> A single payer is in a better position to detect fraud.
> > Yeah, just look at Medicare.....LOL
>
> Yeah. Look at it. It busts frauds and recovers tens of millions all the
> time. But it is not single-payer because it is not universal. More could
> be saved if it were universal.
If Medicare is so cost effective, why are they planning to slash its
budget by half?
Kevin Cunningham
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Look, idiot, there are articles written about social security and
Medicare on a daily basis, try learning to read.
The facts are that Social Security has a much, much lower cost than a
private retirement product. The reason is that Social Security
doesn't pay out a profit. It is far more efficient than a private
group. Now, since it only invests in government bonds it doesn't make
as much money, but it doesn't lose as much money. Check your 401
receipts for the last three years and get back to me.
Kevin Cunningham
And here we have the typical repug. The things that will help you
pick out this species is the fact that they lie. Just keep your ears
open and listen to their whistling and honking, you will hear about
one lie per honk.
The government runs the defense dept and this moron thinks the defense
dept doesn't work. Try telling that to al-qaida.
The government run Social Security costs much less to operate than a
private retirement plan.
But this is an example of the anti-Americanism of the right wing.
They hate the government so much they will hurt the defense dept. Do
they really want to privatize it? After Blackwater? Sure, as long as
it hurts the government.
And this is what the disloyal right wingers want to do, hurt us all.
Kevin Cunningham
So for all the bad, evil things that happen over in the hideous EU why
aren't they rebelling against their health system?
The answer is simple, it works. The health care system in this
country doesn't work, we have tens of millions of uninsured and under
insured. And you won't respond to the fact that thousands die each
year from a lack of health care.
This is typical of the repugs. In the above quote he loves to cite
disease onset and then not discuss disease treatment. Life span is
one way to observe treatment, well treated people tend to live
longer. Disease onset, like cancer, has more to do with diet and
genetics.
So don't answer the facts and the facts are the rest of the world gets
better health care than we do from the government, the government that
they elect.
Kevin Cunningham
Please cite the law that Canada uses to not pay for drugs. Then cite
the code that allows payments to companies to develop drugs here in
America.
See, that above paragraph is one filth ridden lie after another. Do
you have a surcharge on your prescription price for drug development?
Does the government give a direct payment to drug companies?
Nope.
Canada developed drugs for diabetes and other critical uses. The
Canadian medical schools are world famous. Oh, and most drug
companies are headquartered in Europe.
What Canada, our VA and the EU do is they negotiate every year. Then
they and the drug companies have the price set for a year.
Odd isn't it? Valley Girl has never said a bad thing about the commie
VA negotiating for price.
Joe Irvin
On Dec 27, 5:29 pm, "Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3c8be537-2963-4e42...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 1:49 pm, "Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
> > 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%http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
>
> Medicare's highest rejected claim rate is simply for incomplete
> paperwork; when the claim is resubmitted properly, it is paid. This is
> not the case with private insurers.
>
> How about a cite. I'll change my mind then if its a credible cite. Whether
> it is or not they are all very close. Now about the fraud and abuse ...
> which suffers the greatest fraud?
Look, idiot, there are articles written about social security and
Medicare on a daily basis, try learning to read.
***************************************************
I've never said anything about articles written about Soc Sec. every day ...
what is your point?
The facts are that Social Security has a much, much lower cost than a
private retirement product. The reason is that Social Security
doesn't pay out a profit. It is far more efficient than a private
group. Now, since it only invests in government bonds it doesn't make
as much money, but it doesn't lose as much money. Check your 401
receipts for the last three years and get back to me.
****************************************************
I did take a hit on my 401 plan, but it is recovering nicely. I also had
annuities that will take up any slack. A person being responsible for their
own retirement ... what a concept. <grin>
How about the Galveston County plan ... they bailed out of Soc Security when
it was legal to: "Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30
years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than
Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same
contribution as Social Security:
a.. Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent
more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036
instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
b.. Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social
Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
c.. Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
d.. Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security -
$4,540 instead of $1,645.
e.. Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's
annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social
Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits,
or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive
not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits,
too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an
individual's salary, better than Social Security's.
Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government
Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that
low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies
assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on
annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have
been substantially higher. "
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514/
There also are annuities that one could purchase that would pay more than
Social Security. Annuities have all kinds of options on them that one could
use; from inflation protection to lump sum payouts.
No matter how well you think Soc Sec is run it made faulty assumptions when
it was set up ... there would always be plenty of workers to pay in and the
burden would be light. It also assumed that people would plan for their own
retirement and Soc Sec would be just a part of their retirement plan.
Neither of the above assumptions were correct. There are now fewer workers
supporting the people retiring ... some people do not plan for retirement
and want to use Soc Sec as their retirement ... they cannot support
themselves. To keep Soc Sec from going bankrupt the govt has to either
raise the rate they take from worker/employer, raise the retirement age, cut
benefits, or do a combination of the three which are all unpopular. So no
matter how well the plan is run if its based on faulty assumptions it will
probably fail.
nobody
nobody
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 6:35�pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 4:26�pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
>> > health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>>
>> .
>> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
>> from a lefty -
>>
>> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
>> costs down OTHER than denying care?
>>
>
>Costs would have been kept down with competition, the public plan. But
>as you know, conservatives in the Democratic Party said no to that
>idea.
>
>It's worth noting and not forgetting that members of Congress have a
>health care plan that costs $15,000 per person, per year but when it
>came to writing a plan for the rest of us, it had to be deficit
>neutral or create a surplus or conservative Democrats wouldn't go
>along with it. In their world, the costs we pay for their care is of
>no concern because they, like all the republicans in Congress are
>taken care of for the rest of their lives.
Where was the Dem proposal to ensure the members of Congress are
covered under the same plan they approve for us?
Luke
> And this is what the disloyal right wingers want to do, hurt us all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow!
Daniel
I never said it doesn't work. The point of the conversation is that
there is NO Government program that runs efficiently. And if you think
the DOD does that, I have a bridge to sell you.
>
> The government run Social Security costs much less to operate than a
> private retirement plan.
Cite?
>
> But this is an example of the anti-Americanism of the right wing.
> They hate the government so much they will hurt the defense dept. Do
> they really want to privatize it? After Blackwater? Sure, as long as
> it hurts the government.
Another outright lie from a libtard. The only ones that suppport a
strong national defense are Republicans.
Joe Irvin
****************************************************
My guess would be that unless one really needs special or immediate
treatment their system is passable ... that is just a guess though.
The answer is simple, it works. The health care system in this
country doesn't work, we have tens of millions of uninsured and under
insured. And you won't respond to the fact that thousands die each
year from a lack of health care.
****************************************************
Hope the US doesn't get a panel like NICE in the UK ... National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence.
"In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration,
a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other,
Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the
disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug
was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it
would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of
NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to
use them where they give the most benefit to patients."
NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for
patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued
vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease
is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were
not "cost effective" in early stages."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html
And how about these patients in the UK that need emergency care. Supposedly
the emergency care wasn't given in the 4 hour window so the govt made a rule
that the emergency room had to see these patients with four hours ...
problem solved.
"Hospitals were last night accused of keeping thousands of seriously ill
patients in ambulance 'holding patterns' outside accident and emergency
units to meet a government pledge that all patients are treated within four
hours of admission.
Those affected by 'patient stacking' include people with broken limbs or
those suffering fits or breathing problems. An Observer investigation has
also found that some wait for up to five hours in ambulances because A&E
units have refused to admit them until they can guarantee to treat them
within the time limit. Apart from the danger posed to patients, the
detaining of ambulances means vehicles and trained crew are not available to
answer new 999 calls because they are being kept on hospital sites."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/17/health.nhs1
And:
Cleaners at an NHS hospital with a poor record on superbugs have been told
to turn over dirty sheets instead of using fresh ones between patients to
save money.
Housekeeping staff at Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, have been
asked to re-use sheets and pillowcases wherever possible to cut a �500,000
laundry bill.
This is typical of the repugs. In the above quote he loves to cite
disease onset and then not discuss disease treatment. Life span is
one way to observe treatment, well treated people tend to live
longer. Disease onset, like cancer, has more to do with diet and
genetics.
***************************************************
"The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's
a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature
death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal
transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care
problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight
times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is
actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
So don't answer the facts and the facts are the rest of the world gets
better health care than we do from the government, the government that
they elect.
****************************************************
Untrue ... see above examples and facts.
buzz
> So for all the bad, evil things that happen over in the hideous EU why
> aren't they rebelling against their health system?
Don't look now, Kevieboy, but they are.
SASKATOON � The incoming president of the Canadian Medical
Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors
need to develop a plan to cure it.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running
flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate
day-to-day demands."
The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a
presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA,
who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system
patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to
Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark,
Belgium, Netherlands and France.
His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been
saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us
by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining
universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."
In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private
health-care delivery within the public system.
He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus
on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received
funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum
budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide
more efficient care, he has said.
Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward
patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up
Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the
association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few
years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals
laid out.
"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of
getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said.
"That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."
A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each
other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.
Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30
years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the
health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an
American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.
"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian
system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other
people do."
"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is
delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying
'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in
the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "
Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's
health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories
about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.
"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right
now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.
"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will
be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are
trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're
getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do
we do that and of course how do we pay for it."
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and
she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in
Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes
must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are
more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an
interview with The Canadian Press.
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/blog/canada-considering-moving-away-socialized-health-care-fish-wrapper-will-ignore
>
> The answer is simple, it works.
Really?
Death By Socialized Medicine
By Philip Klein on 3.17.09 @ 5:55PM
The Telegraph highlights a new report by Britain's Healthcare Commission
finding that between 400 to 1,200 patients died in Mid-Staffordshire
hospitals in the past three years due to "failures at almost every stage
of care of emergency patients."
Specifically:
The investigation of the trust now called the Mid-Staffordshire NHS
Foundation Trust, found overstretched and poorly trained nurses who
turned off equipment because they did not know how to work it, newly
qualified doctors left to care for patients recovering from surgery at
night, patients left for hours in soiled bedclothes, reception staff
expected to judge how seriousness of patients arriving at A&E, patients
left without food or drink, others who received the wrong medication or
none at all, blood and faeces left on lavatories and floors, and doctors
diverted away from seriously ill patients in order to treat minor ones
who were in danger of breaching the four hour waiting time target.
If health care is soooo good in Canada, Europe and the UK, then why
don't you go there for your health care, Kevieboy? We certainly would
not miss you here.
Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Kevin Cunningham
And the same crap, under it's own power, goes on and on and on. And
the crap? Social security will fail, very soon. I've heard that from
every repug in every year. The fact is that Social Security covers
every one, all Americans while private plans pick and choose. The
fact is it is a good, solid basis for a retirement income.
And the fact is that it is produces more per dollar invested than
private pension funds by a huge margin.
The repugs love to extrapolate things that can't be extrapolated. Or
to make it simpler, repugs like to make things up. Most of the above
babbling about why Social Security is about to fail is more repug
fairy stories, and they should know about fairies.
Honestly, and this is from Clark Howard, annuities are so much crap.
Of no value at all. Please don't but any.
Kevin Cunningham
You support a strong national defense with a broken agency, according
to you. You said "The point of the conversation is that there is NO
Government program that runs efficiently." But then you say that a
strong national defense is only run by you repugs. So how's that Iraq
thing workin' out for ya?
As for no good government program there is the NIH, CDC, Peace Corp,
Social Security, FEMA (now), Defense Dept. Research and more. All of
these programs are very efficient. You owe your life to NIH and CDC.
You owe your life to the well run Defense Dept.
Want to look at some well run American corporations? How about GM?
Or all of Wall Street. Well run corporations, yeah, some one will
believe that one.....
Kevin Cunningham
>
> This is typical of the repugs. In the above quote he loves to cite
> disease onset and then not discuss disease treatment. Life span is
> one way to observe treatment, well treated people tend to live
> longer. Disease onset, like cancer, has more to do with diet and
> genetics.
>
> ***************************************************
>
> "The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's
> a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature
> death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal
> transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care
> problem.
>
> Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight
> times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
>
> When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is
> actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation."
>
>
> So don't answer the facts and the facts are the rest of the world gets
> better health care than we do from the government, the government that
> they elect.
>
> ****************************************************
>
> Untrue ... see above examples and facts.
Lets make this simple. We are no 27 in longevity. We are right in
front of Tanzania, but we beat those bastards. Go USA!
The European health plans by every measure are way, way in front of
us. Facts are facts and the facts say that Europeans live longer,
healthier lives because they have real health care paid for by taxes.
And now for the fun part. On a per patient basis European health care
is cheaper. We have the most expensive system in the world and it
delivers third world health care.
Kevin Cunningham
> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> > So for all the bad, evil things that happen over in the hideous EU why
> > aren't they rebelling against their health system?
>
> Don't look now, Kevieboy, but they are.
>
>
>
>
> > The answer is simple, it works.
>
> Really?
>
> Death By Socialized Medicine
>
> By Philip Klein on 3.17.09 @ 5:55PM
>
> The Telegraph highlights a new report by Britain's Healthcare Commission
> finding that between 400 to 1,200 patients died in Mid-Staffordshire
> hospitals in the past three years due to "failures at almost every stage
> of care of emergency patients."
>
> Specifically:
>
> The investigation of the trust now called the Mid-Staffordshire NHS
> Foundation Trust, found overstretched and poorly trained nurses who
> turned off equipment because they did not know how to work it, newly
> qualified doctors left to care for patients recovering from surgery at
> night, patients left for hours in soiled bedclothes, reception staff
> expected to judge how seriousness of patients arriving at A&E, patients
> left without food or drink, others who received the wrong medication or
> none at all, blood and faeces left on lavatories and floors, and doctors
> diverted away from seriously ill patients in order to treat minor ones
> who were in danger of breaching the four hour waiting time target.
>
> If health care is soooo good in Canada, Europe and the UK, then why
> don't you go there for your health care, Kevieboy? We certainly would
> not miss you here.
>
Sorry, pig boiu, were are the political movements? Were are the foot
soldiers slogging across Europe and Canada?
Now were. There is no political force in Europe and Canada to end
socialized medicine.
Why?
It works.
Have you ever read reports from US papers about patient abuse? You're
not looking very closely.
Plus with millions uninsured they just don't get any treatment at
all. None.
buzz
> On Dec 28, 6:21 pm, buzz <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>> So for all the bad, evil things that happen over in the hideous EU why
>>> aren't they rebelling against their health system?
>> Don't look now, Kevieboy, but they are.
>>
"were are? "now were?" Don't you mean "where are" and "no where"? Boy,
Kevieboy, you need to lay off the crack pipe and get back on your meds.
>
> Why?
>
> It works.
Then I suggest you go there for your health care needs. Like I say, you
won't be missed here.
>
> Have you ever read reports from US papers about patient abuse? You're
> not looking very closely.
Of course there is no abuse in those other systems either, right
Kevieboy? Like not getting a drug for treating cancer because it is too
expensive, or older women not getting treatment for breast cancer
because of their age. Yep, no abuse there, just good economics.
> Plus with millions uninsured they just don't get any treatment at
> all. None.
Yes they do, all they have to do is walk into any emergency clinic or
emergency room and they get treated, for free if they can't pay. Nice
try, but as usual you and your crack addled brain lose again.
buzz
> On Dec 26, 5:35 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
>>> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>> .
>> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
>> from a lefty -
>
> a filter to keep trruth out and believe only what the drug addicted
> Rushbo tells you.
>
>> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
>> costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> occurring now with priavet insurers, who MUST deny care in order to
> turn their obscene profits on the deaths of others?
You mean those obscene 2%-3% profits they make?
*us*
>Simple-minded lying ...
So, how many Americans do you want to see
lose their homes because they get sick?
Why do you hate Americans?
Daniel
Iraq was going along just fine until nobama declared surrender.
>
> As for no good government program there is the NIH, CDC, Peace Corp,
> Social Security, FEMA (now), Defense Dept. Research and more. All of
> these programs are very efficient. You owe your life to NIH and CDC.
> You owe your life to the well run Defense Dept.
None of those programs run efficiently.
>
> Want to look at some well run American corporations? How about GM?
How about GM? Republicans were screaming to let them go bankrupt
before democrats TWICE gave them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. What was the
result of the democrat bailouts? Oh yeah, GM went bankrupt anyway.
Why? Because unions have destroyed the American auto industry. BTW,
how is GM doing now that nobama is running it? LOSING BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
Daniel
I would have to imagine that lifestyle plays more of a part in
longevity than the ability to hope the Government will cover whatever
medical malady you may have.
> And now for the fun part. On a per patient basis European health care
> is cheaper. We have the most expensive system in the world and it
> delivers third world health care.
Of course you're lying. If we had a "third world" healthcare system,
people would not come from all over the world for it.
Lamont Cranston
news:8cac3263-aff6-4acf...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
Congressional Republicans were screaming to let them go bankrupt because
Congressional Republicans hate America. Fortunately, Ben Bernanke and
Congressional Democrats love America and knew that allowing GM to go
bankrupt could have plunged America into a full-scale deep depression.
liberal
> > health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>
> .
> Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> from a lefty -
>
> If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> that comes across their desks?
>
> If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
> tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
>
> Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
> China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
> printing money.
>
> Seriously, I'd LOVE to hear what you guys tell yourselves....
Answer: more efficiency as doctors, pharmacies, hospitals use
integrated documentation and systems. Employers no longer pay big
wages to executives who add nothing to America's health care system.
No more advertising expenditures. Ability to buy drugs at lowest
price. Better monitoring of physicans and results (to root out bad
doctors). Ability to track outbreaks of disease. Ability to shift
resources to medical specialities needed to best serve America's
health needs. Conversion of hospital space to non-emergency primary
care.
Less lost time to employers as even the poorest can get treatment for
an illness, rather than be an infectious carrier. Less total cost as
medical conditions are treated early.
Bet you're having an orgasm because the news of a better reality is so
go-o-o-o-od.....
bvallely
> So, how many Americans do you want to see
> lose their homes because they get sick?
How many people lost their homes because democrats forced Fanny Mae
and Freddy Mac into the sub-prime loan biz?
bvallely
> On Dec 26, 7:35 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 4:26 pm, "GOP Altered History" <al...@go.net> wrote:> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> > > health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
>
> > .
> > Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> > from a lefty -
>
> > If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> > costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
> > Are you saying that the government will green light every single claim
> > that comes across their desks?
>
> > If so, were are we going to find all the additional doctors, nurses,
> > tech people and hospitals for the avalanche of demand?
>
> > Where is the added money going to come from to pay for all this?
> > China's not in the mood to lend us much more - and we're already
> > printing money.
>
> > Seriously, I'd LOVE to hear what you guys tell yourselves....
.
> Answer: more efficiency as doctors, pharmacies, hospitals use
> integrated documentation and systems.>
And, as we all know, when one wants better efficiency, the go-to place
is the federal government. Remember a year ago when Obama's pledged
an administration that was "transparent and accountable?" the White
House has launched a site that promises to show taxpayers where their
stimulus-package dollars are being spent: Recovery.gov.
The price? Eighteen million dollars for a web page. That
$18,000,000.00 doesn't cover data imput - that's done by the guys who
are getting big fat stimulus checks from Uncle Sugar. No, we're
talking eighteen mil for a glorified spreadsheet.
This is something that could have been ground out in a few weeks, with
a dozen web designers armed with Dreamweaver.
But, for that kind of money, we're no doubt talking about the highest
tec, whistles and bells futuristic web page the world has ever seen,
right?
Nope.
Recovery.gov had a bad habit of reporting stimulus jobs created in
phantom congressional districts,
Jobs/awards were reported for the following Illinois “districts”: 0,
20th, 21st, 22nd, 28th, 33rd, 34th, 42nd, 44th, 53rd, and 59th. Or as
Stephen Colbert would say, “the fightin’ 59th.” Too bad Colbert
couldn’t “better know these districts,” because they don’t exist.
.
Remember last week when a terrorist almost blew up a plane over
Detriot, nearly killing 300 men, women and children on the plane and
God knows how many from the midtown crash. Seems the feds were warned
about this fellow, but never bothered to imput his name onto the "no-
fly" list.
And THESE are the people you want running America's medical records?
They can't do the simple things - what on EARTH makes you believe they
could run something difficult.
How about Martin Luther King Hospital - you know, the one run along
the same lines all hospitals will be in your brave, new world? They
had a woman who died because she was ignored for 24 hours? It was
filthy, and dangerous. And run by the county of Los Angeles.
.
> Employers no longer pay big
> wages to executives who add nothing to America's health care system.>
.
No, they'll just be paying ten times that amount to conform to
mindless government regulations and incompetence. Much better.
.
> No more advertising expenditures.>
.
No more choice.
.
> Ability to buy drugs at lowest
> price. >
.
By cutting funds for research and testing.
.
> Better monitoring of physicans and results (to root out bad doctors). >
.
This brought to you by the same people who promoted the Fort Hood
shooter to Major.
.
>Ability to track outbreaks of disease. Ability to shift resources to medical specialities needed to best serve America's health needs. Conversion of hospital space to non-emergency primary care.>
.
Don't forget the Five Year Plan. Planned economies - why don't they
ever work?
.
> Less lost time to employers as even the poorest can get treatment for
> an illness, rather than be an infectious carrier. Less total cost as
> medical conditions are treated early.
.
We already have that. There's not an emergency room in the country
that can turn away anyone.
.
> Bet you're having an orgasm because the news of a better reality is so
> go-o-o-o-od.....>
.
Medicare is such a fiasco that the Democrats are going to cut funding
in half. That means my parents are going to receive substantially
inferior treatment, as will I in the future. The make Obama's
FauxCare sound reasonable, Americans are going to spend the next four
years paying higher premiums and taxes to cover the cost overruns in
during the following six years. No word what happens after that.
If you believe healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free.
*us*
>How many people lost their homes ...
Since you support causing Americans to lose their homes
because of medical bills, you obviously hate Americans.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:03:59 -0700, butt <bu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Simple-minded lying ...
So, how many Americans do you want to see
lose their homes because they get sick?
Why do you hate Americans?
bvallely
> >How many people lost their homes ...
.
> Since you support causing Americans to lose their homes
> because of medical bills, you obviously hate Americans.
.
> >Simple-minded lying ...
.
> So, how many Americans do you want to see
> lose their homes because they get sick?
My wife lost her mother last June. A few months ago, we received a
Very Official Letter from MediCal, the Californian version of
MediCare. The document demanded we send a photocopy of the deed to my
mother-in-law's house, along with a copy of her death certificate, all
bank records and any other assets she left behind.
The problem is that Nevenka never used mediCal - for reasons that are
now self-evident. Instead, she bought her own insurance policy, one
that kept her alive for 25 years.
I sent the state of California a very polite letter which contained a
notarized copy of Nevenka's death certificate. I explained that we
could find no record that had ever used MediCal, and before we started
with a state run foreclosure of the home, perhaps they could send some
evidence that any money was actually owed in the first place.
State run health care is no guarantee that people will be able to keep
their homes.
bvallely
> > Yes they do, all they have to do is walk into any emergency clinic or
> > emergency room and they get treated, for free if they can't pay. Nice
> > try, but as usual you and your crack addled brain lose again.
> Not much longer. Now you're going to have to pay for your own healthcare.
.
Really? When did THAT law take effect? For that matter, what law are
you talking about.
.
> Anyway, something all the rednecks wouldn't know is when you actually have
> something worth grabbing, like a house, you lose that to pay for the medical
> bills. >
.
So, this is all about protecting people who own their own homes, but
don't want to buy health insurance?
.
> If you're rich, you got enough to pay; if you're pay, you got nothing to
> lose to pay; but if you're middle class, you lose everything you worked for.
.
Unless you buy insurance.
*us*
>State run health care is no guarantee that people will be able to keep
>their homes.
Cite one example of anyone in Canada or the EU
losing their home because of medical bills.
We'll wait.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:14:11 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>How many people lost their homes ...
Since you support causing Americans to lose their homes
because of medical bills, you obviously hate Americans.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:03:59 -0700, butt <bu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Simple-minded lying ...
So, how many Americans do you want to see
lose their homes because they get sick?
Why do you hate Americans?
bvallely
> >State run health care is no guarantee that people will be able to keep
> >their homes.
.
> Cite one example of anyone in Canada or the EU
> losing their home because of medical bills.
Hell, why bother with Canada or the EU - it's happening now in the US
of A....
ww.larcc.org/pamphlets/elderly/your_home_t19.htm
Want more?
znuybv
> On Dec 26, 9:19 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
> > In our last episode, <hh6car$di...@news.eternal-september.org>, the lovely
> > and talented GOP Altered History broadcast on alt.politics.liberalism:
>
> > > "bvallely" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:a0e9ba4c-7c43-4080...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > >> Dick Morris keeps the zombie lies alive: Americans 'correctly' fear
> > >> health-care reform will bring 'euthanasia'
> > > .
> > > Here's some obvious question I've never gotten a straight answer for
> > > from a lefty -
> > > If the government writes the checks for health care, how do they keep
> > > costs down OTHER than denying care?
>
>
> Yeah, just look at Medicare.....LOL
"Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime
A.G. Holder Tells 60 Minutes More Oversight Is Needed; Scammer
Explains How Easy It Is To Steal Millions"
http://snipurl.com/twrhr
*us*
admitting total failure as usual:
>...- it's happening now in the US
>of A...
That's what you were already told, dimwit.
You approve of that because you hate Americans.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:39:34 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>State run health care is no guarantee that people will be able to keep
>their homes.
Cite one example of anyone in Canada or the EU
losing their home because of medical bills.
We'll wait.
bvallely
> Why do (I) hate Americans?>
.
I don't know, nobody, why do you?
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <6933ed48-bb7d-4702-b5e4-0bf8e2290...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
.
> > > > Yes they do, all they have to do is walk into any emergency clinic or
> > > > emergency room and they get treated, for free if they can't pay. Nice
> > > > try, but as usual you and your crack addled brain lose again.
.
> > > Not much longer. Now you're going to have to pay for your own healthcare.
.
> > Really? When did THAT law take effect? For that matter, what law are
> > you talking about.
.
> > > Anyway, something all the rednecks wouldn't know is when you actually have
> > > something worth grabbing, like a house, you lose that to pay for the medical
> > > bills. >
.
> > So, this is all about protecting people who own their own homes, but
> > don't want to buy health insurance?
.
.
> > > If you're rich, you got enough to pay; if you're pay, you got nothing to
> > > lose to pay; but if you're middle class, you lose everything you worked for.
.
> > Unless you buy insurance.
> I'm not the one whining about being forced to insure oneself.
.
No, we're complaining about being forced to insure OTHER people.
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <b6643dcf-a78c-4119-8aaf-5b2b9346d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
.
So, in the end, the left defends Obama's FauxCare by simply denying
what's in the bill?
nobody
wrote:
It's worked for them thus far....
*us*
>I don't know ...
You sure don't.
You sure hate Americans, too.
Daniel
wrote:
> "Daniel" <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
You are an absolute dumbshit. You DO know that GM went bankrupt, yes?
You do know that even after being bailed out TWICE, for BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, after the Govenrment taking ownership of GM, and even after
coming out of bankruptcy, they are STILL losing BILLIONS of dollars,
yes?
bvallely
> >State run health care is no guarantee that people will be able to keep
> >their homes.
.
> Cite one example of anyone in Canada or the EU
> losing their home because of medical bills.
.
Hell, why bother with Canada or the EU - it's happening now in the US
of A....
ww.larcc.org/pamphlets/elderly/your_home_t19.htm
Now, go run away in terror of the truth, just like always, troll.
bvallely
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:44:43 -0800 (PST), bvallely <bvall...@aol.com>
> It's worked for them thus far....
We've never had a bill this odious before - higher taxes, higher
premiums, "benefits" delayed for years, services slashed, passed
strictly along party lines, open bribes to get Democrats to vote for
the rancid bill, 2700 page bill written behind closed doors, votes in
the middle of the night (on Christmas Eve), ....
If this bill passes, it will be the death of the Democrat Party - oh,
they'll hang on for another couple of decades - but the decline will
be inevitable and undeniable.
*us*
>... run away in terror of the truth, just like always, troll...
Nobody had asked about you.
You are, of course, running away from some
perfectly legitimate questions.
So, how many Americans do you want to see
lose their homes because they get sick?
Why do you hate Americans?
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:47:20 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>I don't know ...
You sure don't.
You sure hate Americans, too.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:36:44 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote
admitting total failure as usual:
>...- it's happening now in the US
>of A...
That's what you were already told, dimwit.
You approve of that because you hate Americans.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:39:34 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>State run health care is no guarantee that people will be able to keep
>their homes.
Cite one example of anyone in Canada or the EU
losing their home because of medical bills.
We'll wait.
bvallely
> >their homes.
.
> Cite one example of anyone in Canada or the EU
> losing their home because of medical bills.
.
Hell, why bother with Canada or the EU - it's happening now in the US
of A....
ww.larcc.org/pamphlets/elderly/your_home_t19.htm
Now, go run away in terror of the truth, just like always, troll.
*us*
>Hell, why bother with ...
You can't answer because you're a cowardly moron.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:05:44 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>... run away in terror of the truth, just like always, troll...
Nobody had asked about you.
You are, of course, running away from some
perfectly legitimate questions.
So, how many Americans do you want to see
lose their homes because they get sick?
Why do you hate Americans?
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:47:20 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>I don't know ...
You sure don't.
You sure hate Americans, too.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:36:44 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote
admitting total failure as usual:
>...- it's happening now in the US
>of A...
That's what you were already told, dimwit.
You approve of that because you hate Americans.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:39:34 -0800 (PST), valleygirl <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>State run health care is no guarantee that people will be able to keep
>their homes.
Cite one example of anyone in Canada or the EU
losing their home because of medical bills.
We'll wait.