America Home of the Brave and Land of ...

[Thunder Road]

NOT so Free!

Read what S. Palin says about Obama's healthcare reform

http://governorpalin4president.blogspot.com/2009/08/page-by-page-governor-palin-is-correct.html

[2002_1800C]

I don't think Sarah Palin said anything on that link did she? Looks like some anonymous person's interpretation of the bill to me.

Not that I disagree with any of it, but you have to take these sites with a grain of salt I think.

[Duug]

THUNDER ROAD,......Xcellent post !!!!

[cmgoldstein]

This is a reprint of an earlier post I made in the Hotbox, please read the material for yourself!!!!!!!! You won't look quite so bad when you bring these items up infront of someone who has!

"Okay, first off, I'm in no way a supporter of the rush to Health Insurance reform. I am not a liberal loon, I am a self-admitted fiscal conservative. I also don't know where this list you posted came from.
That being said, did you read the actual text of HR3200? I started at the top of your list and went to the references and I have to say, this list simply proves out what the Liberals are saying about Conservatives sensationalizing the issues. The following is how I read these things....

Pg 22 - MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pretty close to true. This section is referencing the need for a study to ensure that employers that choose to self-insure have the finances available to pay for the care necessary. Really, if an employer chooses to self-insure, they should have to prove they have the money on hand to pay the expenses associated with that choice.

Pg 50 Section 152 - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

The actual text reads as follows and doesn't in any way shape or form say anything about non-US citizens. I will admit it leaves the door wide open, but....
SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.


Pg 58 - Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued!
This section reads "shall enable real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;".
This is being misrepresentated in your list as access to a persons finances when it actually says "financial responsibility" or what they might be responsibile for paying and whether they are eligible for a particular service. The "National ID Health care card" above really looks like an insurance card, not some sort of National ID.

Pg 59 lines 21-24- Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer.
Come on, all it's saying about electronic funds transfer is that they'll accept payment just like anyone does right now!

Pg 65 Sec 164- A payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
This is a long section but the topic is that "the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referredto as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees."
Note that a) it states it's temporary and b) there's no mention of "Unions and Community organizers".

At this point I just got bored cross referencing these claims, but you get the idea. Here is the link to the text if you'd like to do more.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...0714/aahca.pdf (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf)

Again, I'm not for the rush to reform, but at the same time, I really dislike the sensationalism (from both sides) that has become part and parcle of politics today. Unfortunatly, there are a great number of people who will read something that lands in their inbox and simply take it as fact (It's on the internet, it must be true!). I feel it's our responsibility to stay factually informed and make our descisions base on what we've learned instead of what we simply heard someone say. This goes for the media as well. My wife has a rule about the tabloids at the checkout stand. If they all are reporting the same story, it might be true. I apply that to the news media as well.

Enjoy doing the research, you'll be a better citizen for it!"

[Biodude]

here's the same list as the blog claims Palin said

http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf



here is HR3200

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

read what they are telling you it says and, then go read the actual document, keep in mind that in order to get a specific passage you may need to read to the beginning of the section it relates to as well as continuing through to the end. then reread what they say the pages mean and decide for yourself. The few I have looked at so far, do not support the statement associated with it.

[wasn't ME!]

The guy in the middle prtty much nailed it...:lol:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/zippy890/nhprotest.jpg

[crew]

NOT so Free!

Read what S. Palin says about Obama's healthcare reform

http://governorpalin4president.blogspot.com/2009/08/page-by-page-governor-palin-is-correct.html

Sarah Palin ...

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/galleries/bestquotes/090525/robin_williams.jpg

:crew:

[g1nomad]

This is a reprint of an earlier post I made in the Hotbox,
Oh heck, you got one here too? I just went to "User CP" and signed up. I'll bet it is 95% political, just like on the Goldwing board. Off to new lands :lol:

Herb

[RoadDawg]

Go ahead there libs... lampoon Palin all you want. You can't sh1t at home now that your azzhole is in Washington DC. soooo funny Ha Ha... I have never seen the amount of negative attention given to ANY prior candidate for the Office of the President or Vice President of the United States of America before. Just exactly what are you guys afraid of... Must be nice to be where you are with your King in power... That is, until it is YOUR mother/father or (insert name of favorite friend/relative here) that is denied health care by his gubbamint panel of bean counters who determine that at her age a operation is too costly for them to afford.

I guess you Palinphobes will not rest until we are the U.S.S.A...nojoke
Wake up folks it is NOT a Health Care Bill... It IS a power grab...

God Bless America, The land of the free BECAUSE of the BRAVE.

8)

[eperk]

Palin must have really struck a nerve with the libs. They are scared to death of her. I love it!!!

[Thunder Road]

David Letterman-

Palin's daughter- Half-arse apology, no action taken for his comments.
Obama's daughter- He is fired !!!

What a coward , when you attack someone who can't defend him/herself.

Sorry you don't go after someone family, if you do not like their political belief's.

[HondaPartsGuy]

When will folks realize the true problem with this entire proposal isn't so much in the details of this bill ? The problem most folks have with the entire idea is the the Government involvement and the idea of the Government running it. Republicans,Democrats,Libertarians and Independents alike all have the same concern about our own Government running our Healthcare System.

Check out this interview of Peter Schiff i posted in the Hotbox. This gentlemen has accurately predicted what has transpired over the last couple years and I believe he has a pretty good handle on what will happen if this plan is passed. This is not some "half cocked radical right winger" , he is an intelligent educated man who I believe has a pretty clear view of what is going on.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b0_1249853108

[eperk]

365-173

Buyer's remorse.

[Highway 61 Revisited]

More cr*p.

Medicare, S-Chip for kids are great gov run health care that folks have now. I can't imagine you'd prefer we do without either.

The FDA, FAA, Mint and Post Office also seem to run okay. Who's really behind the socialism scare on health reform? Hospitals, large MD groups and the pharmaceuticals.

Get the facts, not the rhetoric ;)

[JP Huss]

.Too Funny. The conservatives are now quoting Sarah Palin.
:popcorn:

[slacks]

Dan Quail

[slacks]

This is a reprint of an earlier post I made in the Hotbox, please read the material for yourself!!!!!!!! You won't look quite so bad when you bring these items up infront of someone who has!

"Okay, first off, I'm in no way a supporter of the rush to Health Insurance reform. I am not a liberal loon, I am a self-admitted fiscal conservative. I also don't know where this list you posted came from.
That being said, did you read the actual text of HR3200? I started at the top of your list and went to the references and I have to say, this list simply proves out what the Liberals are saying about Conservatives sensationalizing the issues. The following is how I read these things....

.....
..........
...........
At this point I just got bored cross referencing these claims, but you get the idea. Here is the link to the text if you'd like to do more.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...0714/aahca.pdf (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf)

Again, I'm not for the rush to reform, but at the same time, I really dislike the sensationalism (from both sides) that has become part and parcle of politics today. Unfortunatly, there are a great number of people who will read something that lands in their inbox and simply take it as fact (It's on the internet, it must be true!). I feel it's our responsibility to stay factually informed and make our descisions base on what we've learned instead of what we simply heard someone say. This goes for the media as well. My wife has a rule about the tabloids at the checkout stand. If they all are reporting the same story, it might be true. I apply that to the news media as well.

Enjoy doing the research, you'll be a better citizen for it!"


Well said!

[slacks]

The guy in the middle prtty much nailed it...:lol:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/zippy890/nhprotest.jpg
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!! SOOO friggin true. (I'm copying this picture for future reference!)

[HondaPartsGuy]

More cr*p.

Medicare, S-Chip for kids are great gov run health care that folks have now. I can't imagine you'd prefer we do without either.

The FDA, FAA, Mint and Post Office also seem to run okay. Who's really behind the socialism scare on health reform? Hospitals, large MD groups and the pharmaceuticals.

Get the facts, not the rhetoric ;)

Are you kidding me ? On what information do you base this statement on ?

Medicare

The United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist:
Over the next weeks and months the Congress faces a decision that will ultimately be ranked not by the short-term political benefits but rather by the judgment of history. After years of debate, political posturing, and gridlock, both the House and Senate have passed legislation to add a new prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The conference committee on this legislation is the last opportunity – most likely for years to come – to fix the broken Medicare system.
The system faces two fundamental and related problems. First, the one-size-fits-all healthcare delivery system run by the government has developed into an incredibly inefficient and inflexible way for seniors to receive and doctors and hospital to deliver needed care. The senior population in America is the most diverse in the world. The diversity begins with age. While Medicare coverage begins at age 65, the fastest growing segment of the population is the over-80 segment. The healthcare needs of a 65 year old and 85 year old differ dramatically. American seniors, however, differ not only by age but also race, ethnicity, culture, and geographic region (with different healthcare systems). The current Medicare system attempts to cram all seniors into a centrally planned system. As our senior population becomes more diverse and medical care changes and advances, the more outdated and unfair to seniors the system becomes.
The second crisis of course is financial. The un-funded liabilities of the Medicare system in its current form are staggering and must be dealt with. As the baby boom population begins to reach Medicare eligible age (2010) the costs to both Part A and Part B will begin to sky-rocket and force the Congress to attempt to impose cost-controls on a system already beginning to deliver inadequate care to our diverse senior population.
The Congress must address both of these problems in any Medicare legislation. With the baby boomers retiring in less than a decade, the upcoming conference committee on Medicare reform represents the last opportunity to address the fundamental problems of the Medicare system.
The legislation passed by the United States Senate does not address either of the two fundamental problems facing Medicare. In fact, the legislation makes both problems worse by greatly adding to the financial burdens of Medicare without offering seniors any alternatives. Therefore, while conference committees often involve compromises between legislative differences, given the historical importance of this particular legislation, the Medicare conference committee should reject the Senate approach.
The legislation passed by the House of Representatives in dramatic fashion contains some elements of reform and can be the basis for the conference committee to begin its work. The fundamental flaw in the House approach is the delayed timetable for Medicare reform. The timetable for new prescription drug benefits must be tied to the timetable for reforms. If new benefits are scheduled to go into effect before serious reforms, the probability is that those reforms will never be implemented. Additionally, the House legislation does not contain long-term cost containment that ensures the financial stability of the Medicare program. Given the added new financial burden of the prescription drug benefit, the necessity of long-term cost containment becomes that much more important to include in any Medicare reform legislation.
Citizens for a Sound Economy opposed both the House and Senate versions of the Medicare prescription drug legislation. Our organization’s mission is to fight for less government, lower taxes and more freedom. We do not believe either version of the legislation was compatible with our mission and principles. We do, however, hope the conference committee produces legislation that adequately addresses Medicare’s two major problems and that our organization can support. This is an important and unique moment and any legislation that fails to address Medicare’s major problems should not become law.
You face the complicated challenge of not only getting the policy right, but also of gathering the votes to pass the legislation. But given the importance of Medicare, the enormity of the fiscal problem, the aging of the baby boom generation and rapid advances in medical care, only history will be the judge of whether this Congress met the challenge. If it takes more time to get the policy right to get the needed votes, it is worth the wait. CSE stands ready to help in any way we can to enact good policy.

S-Chip


This year's expected reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) has sparked congressional interest in expanding the program. On this issue, Members of Congress should follow some simple advice: When in a hole, put down the shovel and stop digging.
The federal government already spends one-fifth of all tax revenues on healthcare entitlements, namely Medicare and Medicaid. Spending on these programs will consume more than half of revenues by 2050, according to the baseline projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Also by that year, total federal revenues will have risen to 23.7 percent of GDP, nearly 3 percentage points higher than the record set in 2000.[1] (http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1540.cfm#_ftn1) As taxes rise to the highest level in the nation's history, fewer and fewer dollars will be available for spending on other national priorities.
In fiscal year 2007, SCHIP will cost taxpayers more than $11.5 billion; those costs could increase fivefold if the program is expanded as some have suggested.[2] (http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1540.cfm#_ftn2) Although SCHIP is not yet a full-fledged healthcare entitlement, expanding the program would move it significantly in that direction. Congress ought to focus on addressing the entitlement spending problem it has already created. Expanding yet another federal healthcare program would be reckless, risky, and irresponsible.

And our beloved post office ?
http://blog.rebeltraders.net/2009/07/31/postal-service-problems-mounting/


Now.................... you were saying ?

[Glennok]

The Dept. of Education. Another example of the Feds running something and turning it into crud.

[speedfrk]

Don't get me started. If Washington can't even half a$$ run the VA why would anyone believe they could effectively run a national healthcare system?

[dzuber76]

I just don't understand why, after decades of waste, graft, and mismanagement, why any sensible person would trust the government to run anything! :dontknow:

[Wolfen]

NOT so Free!

Read what S. Palin says about Obama's healthcare reform

http://governorpalin4president.blogspot.com/2009/08/page-by-page-governor-palin-is-correct.html

Go ahead there libs... lampoon Palin all you want. You can't sh1t at home now that your azzhole is in Washington DC. soooo funny Ha Ha... I have never seen the amount of negative attention given to ANY prior candidate for the Office of the President or Vice President of the United States of America before. Just exactly what are you guys afraid of... Must be nice to be where you are with your King in power... That is, until it is YOUR mother/father or (insert name of favorite friend/relative here) that is denied health care by his gubbamint panel of bean counters who determine that at her age a operation is too costly for them to afford.

I guess you Palinphobes will not rest until we are the U.S.S.A...nojoke
Wake up folks it is NOT a Health Care Bill... It IS a power grab...

God Bless America, The land of the free BECAUSE of the BRAVE.

8)

Hate to say it RD, but the only ones lampooning Palin are the Conservatives that are attributing crap like this to her....

[Wolfen]

I'm just curious.... How many of all the people here that are so opposed to Health Care reform will be declining "Socialist" Medicare when you are of age, and on your way pass by the Social Security Administration and decline those benefits also....after all that is another "SOCIALIZED" government program.. How many of you were yourselves or had your children educated in our "Socialist" Public education system.

I am not for government run anything, but if you are so flipping against "Socialized" programs, stop being hypocrites take your children out of our public schools, out of our colleges and decline medicare and all other so called "socialized" government programs.

Do I believe the government should run the healthcare system, NO...but if any of you were to for one moment be honest, you would have to admit that the current system does not work and needs to be reformed.

But go ahead instead of finding alternatives to what is being proposed, just piss, moan and b**ch about the current proposals as you count your days waiting to received your government programs.

[Cody450]

I'm just curious.... How many of all the people here that are so opposed to Health Care reform will be declining "Socialist" Medicare when you are of age, and on your way pass by the Social Security Administration and decline those benefits also....after all that is another "SOCIALIZED" government program.. How many of you were yourselves or had your children educated in our "Socialist" Public education system.

I am not for government run anything, but if you are so flipping against "Socialized" programs, stop being hypocrites take your children out of our public schools, out of our colleges and decline medicare and all other so called "socialized" government programs.

Do I believe the government should run the healthcare system, NO...but if any of you were to for one moment be honest, you would have to admit that the current system does not work and needs to be reformed.

But go ahead instead of finding alternatives to what is being proposed, just piss, moan and b**ch about the current proposals as you count your days waiting to received your government programs.

Interesting. What part of the current system doesn't work?

[Wolfen]

Interesting. What part of the current system doesn't work?

You dont see a problem with people who have been paying into health insurance for most of their lives, only to get an illness and have so much in deductibles that they are forced into bankruptcy, or the insurance company decides that the treatment they require is not covered? Lets not even get into the insurance company being able to deny you coverage simply because your great grandmother died of cancer 50 years go... Yeah I think the current system is seriously flawed.

[dzuber76]

I'm just curious.... How many of all the people here that are so opposed to Health Care reform will be declining "Socialist" Medicare when you are of age, and on your way pass by the Social Security Administration and decline those benefits also....after all that is another "SOCIALIZED" government program.. How many of you were yourselves or had your children educated in our "Socialist" Public education system.

I am not for government run anything, but if you are so flipping against "Socialized" programs, stop being hypocrites take your children out of our public schools, out of our colleges and decline medicare and all other so called "socialized" government programs.

Do I believe the government should run the healthcare system, NO...but if any of you were to for one moment be honest, you would have to admit that the current system does not work and needs to be reformed.

But go ahead instead of finding alternatives to what is being proposed, just piss, moan and b**ch about the current proposals as you count your days waiting to received your government programs.

At my age, I'm counting on the fact that I won't have the option of collecting Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare benefits. I'm planning on and taking steps to support my own retirement and health care.

Public school is a very bad example because it can vary greatly state by state and parish by parish (county by county). I would absolutely NOT put my kid in public school in my state, but I would in other states (and yes, when that day comes, I will be considering a move).

I'm reading some bitching, but within that bitching posters are suggesting what they would support as solutions.

You know what's really dumb? Relying on the government for anything. Remember Katrina?

[Cody450]

You dont see a problem with people who have been paying into health insurance for most of their lives, only to get an illness and have so much in deductibles that they are forced into bankruptcy, or the insurance company decides that the treatment they require is not covered? Yeah I think the current system is seriously flawed.

Time to change insurance companies, there's plenty to choose from. That's the beauty of it, Choice. Same with Doctors, find another.

[Wolfen]

At my age, I'm counting on the fact that I won't have the option of collecting Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare benefits. I'm planning on and taking steps to support my own retirement and health care.

Public school is a very bad example because it can vary greatly state by state and parish by parish (county by county). I would absolutely NOT put my kid in public school in my state, but I would in other states (and yes, when that day comes, I will be considering a move).

I'm reading some bitching, but within that bitching posters are suggesting what they would support as solutions.

You know what's really dumb? Relying on the government for anything. Remember Katrina?

As I said in my post... I am not for relying on government for a thing. But you know what I am honest enough to admit that the system we have now needs to change. The government doesnt have to run the system, but you know what treating healthcare as a business that is only out for profit, isnt working either. So how about a hybrid system where private companies can offer insurance, but with some type of regulations that actually makes them cover the people that they have been making money off of for years.

[Wolfen]

Time to change insurance companies, there's plenty to choose from. That's the beauty of it, Choice. Same with Doctors, find another.

REALLY??? please go out to any insurance agent and tell them you want to change insurance because you were diagnosed with cancer and your insurance doesnt want to pay for your treatment.... I would love to see how much insurance you are able to purchase.

[dzuber76]

You dont see a problem with people who have been paying into health insurance for most of their lives, only to get an illness and have so much in deductibles that they are forced into bankruptcy, or the insurance company decides that the treatment they require is not covered?
People don't read the fine print. Not saying this in every case, but still...
Lets not even get into the insurance company being able to deny you coverage simply because your great grandmother died of cancer 50 years go...
As someone who has a brother who is a leukemia survivor and who has been self insured through two different insurers, the above is B.S. Sorry.
Yeah I think the current system is seriously flawed.
Not saying it's not, by the way.


:dontknow:

[Cody450]

REALLY??? please go out to any insurance agent and tell them you want to change insurance because you were diagnosed with cancer and your insurance doesnt want to pay for your treatment.... I would love to see how much insurance you are able to purchase.

Who uses agents anymore??

[dzuber76]

REALLY??? please go out to any insurance agent and tell them you want to change insurance because you were diagnosed with cancer and your insurance doesnt want to pay for your treatment.... I would love to see how much insurance you are able to purchase.

An individual has the right to sue the insurer if the insurer breaks the policy contract. But you have to know what's in your contract. It's a pretty awful scenario you're describing, but do you know how often this happens?

[iuhoosier1992]

You dont see a problem with people who have been paying into health insurance for most of their lives, only to get an illness and have so much in deductibles that they are forced into bankruptcy, or the insurance company decides that the treatment they require is not covered? Lets not even get into the insurance company being able to deny you coverage simply because your great grandmother died of cancer 50 years go... Yeah I think the current system is seriously flawed.

What you don't think there will be deductibles in the gubment program? Heck yeah there will be. This isn't a free insurance program. People will still have to pay premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and who are going to set those amounts, the gubment. "Hey, look this program doesn't cost us that much money, because we set the deductibles and co-pays so high that we(the gubment) don't really have to pay anything out for any coverage." Remember this isn't universal health care yet, just health insurance. At least that is what they want you to believe.

[iuhoosier1992]

Dan Quail


Jimmy Carter

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by Wolfen http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.vtxoa.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2478399#post2478399)
You dont see a problem with people who have been paying into health insurance for most of their lives, only to get an illness and have so much in deductibles that they are forced into bankruptcy, or the insurance company decides that the treatment they require is not covered?
People don't read the fine print. Not saying this in every case, but still...

Thats right its the people's fault because they dont know what possible illness they could get and didnt read the fine print to see that it wasnt covered under that specific policy.

Lets not even get into the insurance company being able to deny you coverage simply because your great grandmother died of cancer 50 years go...
As someone who has a brother who is a leukemia survivor and who has been self insured through two different insurers, the above is B.S. Sorry.

Did you ever stop to think that its not BS as you call it but in fact the people that are turned down and declined coverage due to family history is a very high percentage and your brother is simply one of the lucky ones? But I guess its easier to believe that EVERYONE is as lucky.

Yeah I think the current system is seriously flawed.
Not saying it's not, by the way.


:dontknow:

Just because your personal experience has been a descent if not at the very least acceptable to you, please do not generalize and assume that everyone's experiences are the same.

[Wolfen]

An individual has the right to sue the insurer if the insurer breaks the policy contract. But you have to know what's in your contract. It's a pretty awful scenario you're describing, but do you know how often this happens?

As someone who has a very good knowledge of it because of a family member who is an actuary at a major insurance company.... A hell of a lot more often that you would imagine.

[dzuber76]

As someone who has a very good knowledge of it because of a family member who is an actuary at a major insurance company.... A hell of a lot more often that you would imagine.

1-4%. And not all were denied coverage. Some had premiums go up.

Well, I'm glad you are able to judge what you know more often than me, seeing as you don't even know me. But your cousin has probably taught you enough for you to be a certifiable expert on all insurance matters, so I should just buy into every thing you type.

[Wolfen]

1-4%. And not all were denied coverage. Some had premiums go up.

Well, I'm glad you are able to judge what you know more often than me, seeing as you don't even know me. But your cousin has probably taught you enough for you to be a certifiable expert on all insurance matters, so I should just buy into every thing you type.

considering that I never questioned your knowledge on the matter or even give a damn what it is you know or dont... you asked me if I had an idea on how often it happens...and I answered you. I neither clamed to be an expert nor did I say I was able to judge more often than you ... but since you are taking exception to what I have said I can only imagine that you make your living in the industry which in itself makes your claims not only suspect but self serving.

But thats right whats 1 - 4% getting screwed by the insurance company they have been paying premiums to matter. How many could that possibly be.

[dzuber76]

considering that I never questioned your knowledge on the matter or even give a damn what it is you know or dont... you asked me if I had an idea on how often it happens...and I answered you. I neither clamed to be an expert nor did I say I was able to judge more often than you ... but since you are taking exception to what I have said I can only imagine that you make your living in the industry which in itself makes your claims not only suspect but self serving.

Nope. I hear that argument a lot. Just wondering if you had any facts or figures on it. Genuinely. No worries, I looked it up. Don't worry, I used a few different sources.

Denial of coverage is worrisome, but there are ways to protect oneself against it. Knowing that does not make me complicit.

[Wolfen]

Nope. I hear that argument a lot. Just wondering if you had any facts or figures on it. Genuinely. No worries, I looked it up. Don't worry, I used a few different sources.

Denial of coverage is worrisome, but there are ways to protect oneself against it. Knowing that does not make me complicit.


Honestly Dzuber, one thing you need to keep in mind is that the figure you are referring to is based on 1 to 4% the number of policies underwritten.vs.claims denied. The actual percentage if based on Claims files.vs.claims denied is much higher and much harder to compute because there are a host of different reasons given for denial in order to maintain the numbers shown to the public "acceptable" which is also computed by the insurance companies actuaries.

[Highway 61 Revisited]

The problem with Medicare and S-Chip is not the idea nor that it is government run. Contrary to myth, government operations are reasonable efficient. (read below on privatization).
The cost-overruns come from the ever spiraling cost of medicine and medical procedures all ratched up by managed care corporations. Losses have come from the same failed businesses that every sector has invested in while their senior players continue to become multi-millionaires and billionaires by the age of 50.

Yeah, it may be sloppier but I would rather trust a not-for-profit government to run essential services than the privates.



Myth: The government's services should be privatized.

Fact: Privatizing public goods like defense and natural monopolies like utilities is extremely difficult.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Summary

People buy goods and services from both the private and public sectors. In the private sector, they vote with their dollars; in the public sector, they vote with their ballots. Both sectors have different advantages over each other; the public sector is better at handling natural monopolies (where circumstances prevent competitors on a free market), because voters can control prices through their ballots. Nations that have tried to privatize their natural monopolies have failed disastrously.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Argument

The success of privatization depends on several factors. Unfortunately, most governments have found that they cannot successfully privatize their services.

Even to the most casual observer, however, it should be obvious there is something economically similar between government and the market, even if one can't immediately say why. For example, we know that many services are offered in both the public and private sectors -- such as schools, libraries and hospitals. We know that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher tried to privatize government services -- and the fact that this could be done at all speaks to a fundamental similarity between the sectors. And even entire economies have been run by governments -- although how well depends on what type of socialism is practiced. The social democracies of Northern Europe have some of the highest standards of living in the world. The socialist dictatorships of the Soviet Union went down in flames.

The fundamental similarities between the public and private sectors can be illustrated by the following example. Let's suppose that Organization A is a group of professionals which provides a service to the greater economy. People outside Organization A pay money in exchange for its goods and services. In theory, the group is forced to keep quality high and prices low, because it must satisfy the majority of the people. The fewer people it satisfies, the more likely Organization A will be driven from existence and replaced by its competitors in Organization B. This competition keeps it honest, and allows the self-interest of its professionals to be used for the greater good of society. In practice, however, Organization A can find ways of subverting the will of the people, acting in self-interested ways that are more harmful than helpful to the community. However, this represents a perversion of the original ideal, and can be corrected by enforcing better laws.

Which entity are we talking about here? Business? Or government? The fact is that Organization A could be either! They may use different methods, but the basic principles are the same. For example, both must obey the will of the people, because the people vote with their ballots in one case and with their dollars in the other. Competition is also similar. In the private sector, companies compete on the free market; in the public sector, candidates and parties compete in elections. Businesses which fail to attract dollar votes are driven into bankruptcy and replaced by their business rivals. Politicians who fail to attract ballot votes are driven out of office and replaced by their political rivals.

The invisible hand works the same way in both sectors as well. A businessman can pursue his self-interest successfully only if he markets a product that pleases the greatest number of customers. Likewise, a politician can pursue his self-interest successfully only by governing in a way that pleases the greatest number of voters. But the invisible hand often gets corrupted in either case. The businessman may decide that it's cheaper to dump toxic waste than to treat it. The politician may decide to the let the businessman dump it, because the businessman has lobbyists who bribe him with campaign donations. The solution in both cases is to enforce better laws.

These, then, are the similarities; are there any differences?

Yes. Under the current (and imperfect) system, markets have a number of advantages over governments. First, elections take place only once every two or four years, so "market" mechanisms are considerably weaker in government. (This could be resolved by holding elections or referendums more frequently). Also, markets allow people to vote on very specific things -- like Ben & Jerry's ice cream over Haagen Daz, for example. In an election, however, people vote on generalities -- like a politician's overall record, which may include disagreeable as well as agreeable policies. (This, too, could be resolved by allowing the public to vote on more specific issues.)

Furthermore, democracy only works when the people are educated. Voters would be overwhelmed trying to educate themselves on the best prices for bicycle parts, the best safety features for microwave ovens or the optimum number of yogurt flavors. It is easy to see that a lot of ignorant votes would be cast in a system where voters attempted to run every aspect of the economy. In a free market, customers can become experts only on the things they want to buy, and can then vote with their dollars.

Although this is an excellent rationale for the free market, going too far in this direction also produces problems. A lot of ignorant votes get cast even in the marketplace. For example, published research revealed that silicon breast implants had a problem with leaking, long before millions of women even bought them. However, the manufacturers and doctors had no incentive to hurt their own sales by adequately informing the public. Nor did most customers have the scientific understanding and expertise to police the industry themselves. Just where, for example, could one have found the obscure medical journals and studies that sounded the alarm? Government therefore plays an important role in collecting this research, bringing these complex issues to light, and regulating these products for safety.

So, as far as everyday sales and purchases go, the market offers the consumer more advantages than the government does. However, this situation reverses itself as the commodities become more national in scope. Defense is a perfect example. The market is excellent for supplying individuals with the means for personal defense, like fences, locks, guard dogs, mace, intruder alert systems, etc. But only government can prepare a national defense, one including nuclear missiles, tanks, battleships, etc. Another example: the economy itself. Government built the national infrastructure of roads, telephone lines, power cables and more, while millions of businesses branched off from that infrastructure to create the free market.

There is another fundamental difference between the public and private sector, and that is how they deal with the problem of monopolies. Due to inherent limitations of technology or circumstance, some industries form what economists call natural monopolies. For example, only one local company can usually provide service for telephone, or cable, or water, or electricity. It would be enormously wasteful, not to mention foolish, to wire the nation with competing telephone lines, or dig up the neighborhood for competing sewer pipes. At the national level, natural monopolies include defense, disaster relief and highway construction.

In these situations, government has proven much better at meeting the needs of the people because the people can control these programs with their votes, and candidates compete to win them. But when these natural monopolies have been turned over to private enterprise, the result has been complete failure. The lack of competition leads private companies to raise prices through the roof, and consumers have nowhere else to turn. If the utility were publicly owned, consumers could easily replace the reigning political party with its rival.

The abuse of natural monopolies is what happened to Great Britain after Margaret Thatcher sought to privatize public utilities. The experience was a disaster. The British government first privatized telecommunications, then gas, then electricity and then water with little thought about how these monopolies would act on the free market. By 1987, public outcry over the skyrocketing rates and dropping quality of British Telecom forced the Thatcher government to reluctantly impose regulations. The same thing happened to Gas. But what was truly disastrous was the way Britain privatized electricity; it allowed a ludicrous arrangement where power providers could compete with each other. Even though there were adequate power sources in Britain, the industry rushed to build more power generators to compete with each other, to the point that there was 70 percent overproduction by 1995. What's worse, this competition nearly killed Britain's coal industry. Coal generators are expensive to build but cheap to run; gas generators are the opposite. Gas is also much quicker to install. As the power companies rushed to build new power generators, they chose gas over coal. By 1992, the British government closed half its coal mines and laid off 70 percent of its miners.

Unlike most other nations, who use government to run their natural monopolies, the U.S. has a hybrid system. It allows private ownership of natural monopolies, but with federal price controls and regulation. Deregulation of natural monopolies therefore creates instant problems. When Congress deregulated the cable industry, they essentially created 11,000 local monopolies that wasted no time hiking cable rates and lowering quality of service.

The subject of monopolies also reveals an inconsistency in conservative thinking. Consider Microsoft, the computer giant who dominates over 80 percent of the market for operating systems software. They criticize liberals for wanting to enforce the nation's anti-trust laws against Microsoft, arguing that this would punish success, interfere with the free market, etc. But when the government runs a natural monopoly, conservatives evoke the problems of centralized government and dictatorships, lack of competition on the free market, etc. Liberals find this discrepancy in broad daylight to be amazing.

In conclusion, privatization only works when competition can be assured on the market. If no competition is possible, then privatization only works with government regulation to prevent monopolistic abuses. Even so, the public sector of the economy could be dramatically improved by holding more frequent elections on more specific issues.

[dzuber76]

Honestly Dzuber, one thing you need to keep in mind is that the figure you are referring to is based on 1 to 4% the number of policies underwritten.vs.claims denied. The actual percentage if based on Claims files.vs.claims denied is much higher and much harder to compute because there are a host of different reasons given for denial in order to maintain the numbers shown to the public "acceptable" which is also computed by the insurance companies actuaries.

I understand that and it's an interesting point. But what you're saying is that there's no way to objectively quantify the facts behind the debate.

My main point, without getting bogged down in stats, is that an individual can take appropriate steps to protect his or her self from getting shafted by the insurance company.

[Wolfen]

I understand that and it's an interesting point. But what you're saying is that there's no way to objectively quantify the facts behind the debate.

Yeah unfortunately for anyone outside the insurance companies number crunchers there is really no way to come up with the actual numbers. Which is one of the reasons they continue to get away with it. No one has the right to audit their numbers, short of a criminal investigation. Since most suits brought against them are civil, they only have to provide documentation on the particular case or cases in the suit. Which again keeps the true numbers hidden.

My main point, without getting bogged down in stats, is that an individual can take appropriate steps to protect his or her self from getting shafted by the insurance company.

I agree that there are certain steps that can be taken to minimize your own risk, but to simply dismiss the need for reform based on that cannot be done. Because unfortunately the ones that are targetted are those that are poorly educated, elderly, young, or those of limited finacial means. All done with one specific intention, those are the ones most likely to take a settlement and therefore not push the issue.

[KD3NE]

I don't care how good or bad anyones health insurance is, or even if they have none at all.

EVERYONE has one thing in common and that would be the final destination ---> DEATH !!!

Some people think Health Care is a right, I bet they also think they have the right to live forever and let others pay for the care to try and do so !!!

Everyone wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die!!!


The problem with government mandating health care insurance and taxing people to pay for it is now the non-smoker, non-drinker, healthy person in Iowa will be subsidizing through Fed taxation the health care of a beer guzzling, pack a day smoking fat ass in California !!!! ;) :) :lol:


.

[Wolfen]

I don't care how good or bad anyones health insurance is, or even if they have none at all.

EVERYONE has one thing in common and that would be the final destination ---> DEATH !!!

Some people think Health Care is a right, I bet they also think they have the right to live forever and let others pay for the care to try and do so !!!

Everyone wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die!!!


The problem with government mandating health care insurance and taxing people to pay for it is now the non-smoker, non-drinker, healthy person in Iowa will be subsidizing through Fed taxation the health care of a beer guzzling, pack a day smoking fat ass in California !!!! ;) :) :lol:


.


Hmmm does that mean that the fat, beer drinking, smoking non stressed out guy that enjoys life will be subsidizing the obsessed health nut who has a heart attack because he exercised too much while trying to live on a seaweed diet ??

[Thunder Road]

What is your take on free dental work ? We all need our teeth!

[Highway 61 Revisited]

The best measure of a civilized culture is the extent to which it cares for its members.

There is no question that individuals abuse that; they should get their asrses kicked.

That's the solution, not doing without the very things that have greater value to our future as a species. unfortunately, no one has the b*lls to call folks on it and instead we argue whether we should be supporting education, healthcare and art.

It amazes me that we argue about investing in one another but not about the myth that we call Heaven.

[slacks]

Time to change insurance companies, there's plenty to choose from. That's the beauty of it, Choice. Same with Doctors, find another.

Exactly, and with the reform you will still have those choices.

[XRiderChuck]

all those peeps who think healthcare is a right, as well as those who excercise and eat "right" are gonna feel mighty stupid being just as dead as me someday...:roll: I tell you what, ALL Obamma has to do to get his healthcare reform passed with a mandate of the people is allow an opt out clause... those who have healthcare they like and afford now, and those like myself who want nothing to do with healthcare from the government... let us opt out of his system, then allow hospitals and doctors, clinics, whathaveyou, refuse to treat anyone without insurance or a cash bond of whatever value and I'll be for it 1000%:dontknow:

[Wolfen]

While I dont believe healthcare is a right, I do believe that its a moral obligation for a society to care for its weakest member, no matter what weakness. It still does amaze me that those that are so against taking care of the weakest members of our society are the very same ones who proclaim to be such Christians. I dont know or intend to tell anyone that the bills currently being considered are the answer, but REFORM is necessary, the current system built on greed and profits for HMO's and Insurance carriers is completely flawed.

Those that are uninsured or under insured in our society are in need of help, but I guess charity, for the so called god fearing conservatives only matters when the words "church" or ".org" are in the names.

Do I agree with the current proposals on a fiscal basis... Not for a moment. But something does need to be done.

[Glennok]

Do I agree with the current proposals on a fiscal basis... Not for a moment. But something does need to be done.
That's the problem. No one but the libs like the current proposal.

Saying that religious folks don't want to insure those who need it is going way beyond what's being discussed.

Anyone who wants the Fed to run our healthcare, is a fool. There are other ways to reform the system.

[Wolfen]

That's the problem. No one but the libs like the current proposal.

Saying that religious folks don't want to insure those who need it is going way beyond what's being discussed.

Anyone who wants the Fed to run our healthcare, is a fool. There are other ways to reform the system.

You may feel that saying that religious folks dont want to support this is going out of line...but I can only go by what I see some of them saying on the topic. And frankly, its amazing for me to see the same people that are willing to send money to some charity that may or may not help a child in some third world country, quickly assume and judge those that are in need in this country as lazy and shiftless, So why should they help provide healthcare for them... I can only judge from what I see, maybe if those that feel its a moral obligation to actually help the less fortunate would take a stand and actually say something on the matter, I could have a different take.

[iuhoosier1992]

Looks like the public plan may be getting pulled off the table to get this to pass. It looks like there is some in fighting between conservative Dems and the left Dems.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125043830465934883.html

[Duug]

While I dont believe healthcare is a right, I do believe that its a moral obligation for a society to care for its weakest member, no matter what weakness.

We agree on both points,..tho',..I believe the responsibility falls on the family first and foremost,..beyond that,..I have no problem with hospitals writing off any loss due to indigent care.

Taking your argument a bit further,...
Do you agree that abortion is wrong?,..afterall,...who is weakest among us than a child that still lives within a mothers womb?

[Glennok]

You may feel that saying that religious folks dont want to support this is going out of line...but I can only go by what I see some of them saying on the topic. And frankly, its amazing for me to see the same people that are willing to send money to some charity that may or may not help a child in some third world country, quickly assume and judge those that are in need in this country as lazy and shiftless, So why should they help provide healthcare for them... I can only judge from what I see, maybe if those that feel its a moral obligation to actually help the less fortunate would take a stand and actually say something on the matter, I could have a different take.
I don't know if I'd categorize some people as less fortunate. I doubt if drug dealers have health insurance, and I'm sure most of them actually "make" more money than I do, and I'd hardly put them into the "can't afford healthcare" category.

Not every uninsured person can't afford it as the libs would like you to believe, and no, I don't want to pay for theirs. Do you? How about the low lifes that will tell you to your face that they will never work? Do they deserve it? How 'bout the rich folks who pay as they go? Wanna pay for theirs? Hmmmm.

[Wolfen]

We agree on both points,..tho',..I believe the responsibility falls on the family first and foremost,..beyond that,..I have no problem with hospitals writing off any loss due to indigent care.

Taking your argument a bit further,...
Do you agree that abortion is wrong?,..afterall,...who is weakest among us than a child that still lives within a mothers womb?

I completely agree that it is wrong Duug, where we differ is that I dont believe its the governments job to legislate morality or conscience. So I don't believe that making them illegal is the way to curb them.

[Wolfen]

I don't know if I'd categorize some people as less fortunate. I doubt if drug dealers have health insurance, and I'm sure most of them actually "make" more money than I do, and I'd hardly put them into the "can't afford healthcare" category.

Not every uninsured person can't afford it as the libs would like you to believe, and no, I don't want to pay for theirs. Do you? How about the low lifes that will tell you to your face that they will never work? Do they deserve it? How 'bout the rich folks who pay as they go? Wanna pay for theirs? Hmmmm.

Yes you are right NOT everyone without insurance, cannot afford it, but again everyone goes nuts about placing mandates for those that can afford it to have to have it. Yes there are those that dont deserve it because they arent willing to work for it..... But then we are already subsidizing most of those in the form of medicaid and medicare as well as welfare. And all the current proposals make it possible for the rich to continue with whatever method they currently have, they woudl not be forced to use any option the government may come up with.

[DuelXer]

I think most of you guys dead set agianst any health reform get your info from the ones who stand to lose the most if there is and you don't even relize it...Have a read. It's written by someone who worked for them for over 20 years

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html

[Glennok]

And all the current proposals make it possible for the rich to continue with whatever method they currently have, they woudl not be forced to use any option the government may come up with.
I'm not sure that's true. The last time I checked, everybody would have to participate or be fined.

[Glennok]

I think most of you guys dead set agianst any health reform get your info from the ones who stand to lose the most if there is and you don't even relize it...Have a read. It's written by someone who worked for them for over 20 years


I don't listen to CNN because of crap like this. It's insane to think that insurance companies are at the heart of the protests. Absurdly stupid in fact. I haven't met ONE protester who wasn't there on their own because of their concerns over the obamama's planned government takeover. Maybe you could lead me to a couple?

[Wolfen]

I'm not sure that's true. The last time I checked, everybody would have to participate or be fined.

I will have to check on that..because I have seen no proposal which mandates that you participate or be fined.

[Wolfen]

I don't listen to CNN because of crap like this. It's insane to think that insurance companies are at the heart of the protests. Absurdly stupid in fact. I haven't met ONE protester who wasn't there on their own because of their concerns over the obamama's planned government takeover. Maybe you could lead me to a couple?

Glen they may be there of their own free will, but the information they are basing their opinions is being spoonfed to them by the very insurance company spokesmen that get on TV with the talking heads who do not have the balls to ask the real questions. This is a fact, find just about any of the so called .org groups that have popped up with commercials and you will see who is funding this campaign against health reform. Doesnt it strike you funny that most medical professionals are in support of this, but the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies are fighting it tooth and nail. Why do you think that is?

[Glennok]

Glen they may be there of their own free will, but the information they are basing their opinions is being spoonfed to them by the very insurance company spokesmen that get on TV with the talking heads who do not have the balls to ask the real questions. This is a fact, find just about any of the so called .org groups that have popped up with commercials and you will see who is funding this campaign against health reform.

I don't get my info from infomercials, but the obamama sure likes to give out "his" info that way. Scripted infomercials is the only way he communicates, and HE never allows the tough questions to be asked. Probably a good thing, since he's never even read the bill. Your comment sounds more like it's directed at the libs.

Doesnt it strike you funny that most medical professionals are in support of this, but the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies are fighting it tooth and nail. Why do you think that is?

From what I've seen and heard, "most" medical professionals are AGAINST the plan. Are you getting your info from CNN, or the POTUS?

Comments in red.

[Wolfen]

Comments in red.

I guess it was too much to expect that you would even consider what was said without assuming that it is my information that is faulty and not yours.... well Glen I can only say it must be a wonderful thing to always be as right as you and as convinced of everything you believe. I guess its a great way to be, it saves you from actually doing any investigation on your own.

As for the president communicating in infomercials....Does this actually shock you or surprise you??? I havent seen a politician yet that communicated any other way..

[Glennok]

I guess it was too much to expect that you would even consider what was said without assuming that it is my information that is faulty and not yours.... well Glen I can only say it must be a wonderful thing to always be as right as you and as convinced of everything you believe. I guess its a great way to be, it saves you from actually doing any investigation on your own.

As for the president communicating in infomercials....Does this actually shock you or surprise you??? I havent seen a politician yet that communicated any other way..
I considered what you said, but I don't believe it. Actually, I've gotten my information FROM doing research. I read both sides of the story. I might be a little tainted though since I don't want the Feds running ANYTHING, because it always turns into a cluster puck with US as the losers.

[DuelXer]

I don't listen to CNN because of crap like this. It's insane to think that insurance companies are at the heart of the protests. Absurdly stupid in fact. I haven't met ONE protester who wasn't there on their own because of their concerns over the obamama's planned government takeover. Maybe you could lead me to a couple?


The common protestor has his views tainted by the PR job done by the insurance industry. I guess you really didn't read the article... Let me show you the points that where made by someone who used to do it....

If the radio report had carried more of my remarks, he might have a better understanding of how the health insurance and its army of PR people are influencing his opinions and actions without his even knowing it.

the industry funnels millions of its policyholders' premiums to big public relations firms that provide talking points to conservative talk show hosts, business groups and politicians. I also described how the PR firms set up front groups, again using your premium dollars and mine, to scare people away from reform.

The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits

So the next time you hear someone warning against a "government takeover" of our health care system, or that the creation of a public health insurance option would send us down the "slippery slope toward socialism," know that someone like I used to be wrote those terms, knowing it might turn many of the very people who would benefit most from meaningful reform into unwitting spokespeople for the industry.

[Glennok]

The common protestor has his views tainted by the PR job done by the insurance industry. I guess you really didn't read the article... Let me show you the points that where made by someone who used to do it....


So because one guy writes an article about what HE used to do, we're to believe that everyone got their info from that misinformation scheme?

How about the dims misinformation scheme? Is that one okay, or don't you believe that's happening.

In my research, I've tried to throw out both and come to my own conclusions, which I have. I DON'T WANT THE FEDS TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY HEALTHCARE. It's a train wreck waiting to happen.

[iuhoosier1992]

My mom in law works for a surgeon and is a member of the AMA. The AMA has shoved this down the physicians throats according to this partiuclar Dr. Most of the members of his local AMA don't want any of this. You also need to understand that if certain things don't get into the bill that the AMA negotiated or wanted into the bill to give the endorsement, then that endorsement goes bye bye. You really don't think these groups gave their "endorsement" without some strings attached that may or may not be in our best interest. These groups have a big lobby and will get what they want in the bill and all it costs them is an endorsement. Believe me, if they don't get what they want or are squeezed out, then that endorsement goes away and their money starts getting spent to fight this legislation to the death.

[YellowFx4]

What is your take on free dental work ? We all need our teeth!

Nope. In 20 years of being a dentist I see multiple folks each year that are/have done fine eating without any teeth. Not corn on the cob but you would be really surprised.

Just call me Doug.

[Thunder Road]

If they do not have any teeth and are doing fine, why would they need to come see you ?

[YellowFx4]

If they do not have any teeth and are doing fine, why would they need to come see you ?
Good question. Most of the time they are accompanying someone else. Occasionally their spouse is tired of looking at them and says, "go get some teeth." One time it was an MD who referred a patient with severe Huntington's disease and REALLY BAD teeth and gum disease. She was unable to take care of them or keep any removable anything in her mouth due to her tongue movements. We took out what remained of her teeth and replaced them with nothing. Her health actually improved and she was able to put on some weight b/c she could eat better.

[Duug]

I completely agree that it is wrong Duug, where we differ is that I dont believe its the governments job to legislate morality or conscience. So I don't believe that making them illegal is the way to curb them.

You HAVE to be kidding !!!

Might as well legalize murder.
Fact is most law is based on moral principle whether you know it or not.

Roe V Wade was a mistake EVEN the plaintiff finally admitted.

[Duug]

Honestly Dzuber, one thing you need to keep in mind is that the figure you are referring to is based on 1 to 4% the number of policies underwritten.vs.claims denied. The actual percentage if based on Claims files.vs.claims denied is much higher and much harder to compute because there are a host of different reasons given for denial in order to maintain the numbers shown to the public "acceptable" which is also computed by the insurance companies actuaries.

....and when Uncle Sam does it to you,...with no other recouse than seek treatment out of country,..where YOU gonna go?

Mexico ?
Cuba ?
Haiti ?

[Wolfen]

You HAVE to be kidding !!!

Might as well legalize murder.
Fact is most law is based on moral principle whether you know it or not.

Roe V Wade was a mistake EVEN the plaintiff finally admitted.

You asked about abortion, since there is a very clear disagreement between when science says a cell is a viable being and when religious belief says life begins, using murder as an example is not the best way to make your point. We KNOW for a fact the person that is murdered was alive. There is no gray area there in whether the person was alive or not.

Fact is that most that believe that life begins at conception are basing that belief on taught behavior 99.9% of the time simply based on religious teachings not on scientific fact. So yes I disagree that the government has the right to tell me that the bible is right as to when life begins and that science is wrong.

[Wolfen]

....and when Uncle Sam does it to you,...with no other recouse than seek treatment out of country,..where YOU gonna go?

Mexico ?
Cuba ?
Haiti ?


Again your argument is downright flawed. Your mentality in this is that since you believe that government MAY deny you treatment.... We should just keep the system that is in place now since they are already doing it??? IS THAT REALLY YOUR ARGUMENT??