Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Or more accurately, you're pretending we haven't said it was broken.

---

Hello again, Steve:

There are a FEW wingers, such as yourself who aren't out of touch... I shouldn't have lumped you in. But, your fellow rightwinger, the Wolverine thinks our health care system is the BEST in the world. He sees NO problem. An awful lot of rightwingers agree with HIM - not you.

Anyway, I've always said you were a closet liberal. You make too much sense for them (some of the time).

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Or more accurately, you're pretending we haven't said it was broken.

---

Hello again, steve:

And, what was your fix again?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

If an insurance adjuster tells you that he will not pay for a life saving operation for you, and you have NO OTHER method of obtaining that treatment, you're going to DIE.

---

Yes... that would be true... IF YOU HAD NO OTHER WAY OF OBTAINING THAT TREATMENT.

Luckily, that is not the system we currently live in.

Quote:

---

That's the way it IS today. The health insurance industry RATIONS health care so they can make a PROFIT off your cold stiff dead body... Frankly, THAT'S pretty scary, and that's what the Wolverine thinks is great.

Excon

---

Actually, it is NOT the way it is today. Today, there are plenty of other methods of obtaining treatments even if your insurance company doesn't pay for them. I've listed them before, but since Excon's memory is faulty, I'll list some of them again.

There's the good old emergency room. In this country, if you need a treatment, you cannot be turned away, even if you cannot afford that treatment.

There's free clinics.

There's out of pocket payments. Lots of medical practitioners allow for payment plans these days. I've been seeing it more and more often, especially from practitioners who don't accept insurance in the first place.

There's free and reduced cost meds given out to those in need by pharmaceutical companies. Just about every pharma company has a community service program for those in financial difficulty that need their meds.

There are charitable organizations that will defray some medical costs for those in need. Some are funded with government money, some are privately funded. But they are out there.

There are even research programs that will cover medical treatments for volunteers in the studies of new treatments. You hear about them all the time on TV and the radio... "join our study and we'll cover your medical treatments during the course of the study".

Clearly there are quite a few ways of getting treatment EVEN IF YOUR INSURANCE WON'T COVER THE TREATMENT.

Excon's blithe statement that if an insurance company denies coverage you have no options is simply NOT TRUE. It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

However, if you are living in a single payer system, then there truly are no options. If the government is the only source for drugs and medical treatments and if they say no, the answer is no and there are no other options because nobody besides the government is ALLOWED to pay for it.

I know that excon would like us all to believe that our system is "unfair, unjust, and broken". (The cry of every lib... "It's not fair". Boo friggin' hoo.) But it isn't unfair, unjust or broken. There are some things that need improvement, sure. I've posted some options for fixing them that are WAY cheaper than creating nationalized health care. I've even challenged those on this board to dispute those ideas, and so far, nobody has.

There are better ways to fix what's broke about our system than to just toss the whole system. And what excon would like you to believe is broke really isn't.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No, the facts do.

---

Irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Irrelevant.

---

Of course. For you, the facts are ALWAYS irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Irrelevant.

---

LOL, I'm glad I don't live in your alternative reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Anyway, I've always said you were a closet liberal. You make too much sense for them (some of the time).

---

You didn't have to insult me before the compliment. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

LOL, I'm glad I don't live in your alternative reality.

---

Like all the times you have deemed something irrelevant:
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Has anyone seen the org chart for Obama's health plan?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1877742
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1843291
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1841761
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1786757

I just doing satire. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, steve:

And, what was your fix again?

excon

---

Good question. I don't pretend to have the answers unlike the politicians that think it's pointless to even read the bill because it would take two lawyers to understand it anyway. I can tell you I believe the place to start is tort reform... it's just a shame that John Edwards isn't in the Senate for that discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I just doing satire. :)

---

No, you just stirring up crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

...it's just a shame that John Edwards isn't in the Senate for that discussion.

---

He's too busy having extra-marital affairs and children out of wedlock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, steve:

And, what was your fix again?

excon

---

This is, as Steve pointed out, a good question.

Here are a list of some good fixes for the health care system.

1) Medical Savings Accounts
2) Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care
3) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not
4) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60%, especially in "high risk" specialties.
5) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people.
6) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.
7) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.
8) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.
9) I like Tom's idea of a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.
10) Keep the government out of running health care!! Government is the least productive and most wasteful organization in existence. It should not be used to try to bring efficiency to any part of the economy, much less the health care industry.

THESE are my ideas of how to fix the health care system. Each of them (except #3) is a free-market solution. Even in cases where the government is chipping in the money, the individual is being allowed to choose their own coverage.

You asked. These are some of the answers.

Elliot

11. States mandate what insurance companies must cover. This adds onto the cost of coverage and reduces options. Eliminate or deregulate mandatory coverage and open up the competition intra-state . If the plan the company in Nebraska offers suits my needs and charges less than the insurance company I contract with ;why can't I contract for the services of the Neraska company ? My current insurer no doubt would sharpen their number 2 Ticonderoga and most likely come up with a competitive plan to retain my business.

12. Encourage and in some cases just allow small businesses to set up private cooperatives and negotiate with their servers as a more powerful customer base. This is a good idea that has been introduced by Nydia Velazquez ,a Dem Congressional Rep from NY this year(H.R.859 ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

11. States mandate what insurance companies must cover. This adds onto the cost of coverage and reduces options. Eliminate or deregulate mandatory coverage and open up the competition intra-state . If the plan the company in Nebraska offers suits my needs and charges less than the insurance company I contract with ;why can't I contract for the services of the Neraska company ? My current insurer no doubt would sharpen their number 2 Ticonderoga and most likely come up with a competitive plan to retain my business.

---

That sort of falls into #10... keep the government out of it. Keep the government out of mandatory coverage and get rid of the government barriers to inter-state trade.

Quote:

---

12. Encourage and in some cases just allow small businesses to set up private cooperatives and negotiate with their servers as a more powerful customer base. This is a good idea that has been introduced by Nydia Velazquez ,a Dem Congressional Rep from NY this year(H.R.859 ).

---

Excellent idea. It sort of follows my idea of letting those on unemployment insurance form their own groups for collective bargaining with the insurance companies.

Go know... me agreeing with a NY Dem.

Quote:

---

Keep the government out of mandatory coverage and get rid of the government barriers to inter-state trade.

---

I should've given proper credit to Rep. John Shaddegg for the competition across state lines idea.

Critics of the private insurance argue that there are only a few big companies that dominate the market reducing choice. This is true ;but it was again ,gvt intervention that caused it to be so. Read the testimony from Greg Scandlen, President of Consumers for Health Care Choices back before Congress in 2007 . He explains the unintended consequences well.
Testimony of Greg Scandlen President Consumers for Health Care Choices

Quote:

---

All of these regulations, however well-intentioned, add to the cost of coverage. Moreover, many carriers found it expensive and difficult to comply with all the varying requirements of many different states, especially as the requirements changed from year to year. As a consequence, many carriers decided to get out of the health business and sold off their blocks of business to larger carriers who could afford the compliance costs. This is the primary cause of concentration in this market.

---

Scandlen suggests giving insurers the option of being federally chartered .

All good ideas, guys. To me it's a no-brainer to allow companies to pool resources, cross state lines and otherwise eliminate barriers. That's how you get purchasing power and increase competition.

And speaking of competition, Pelosi went ballistic on evil insurance companies...

Quote:

---

“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”

As she prepares to send her members home for the month of August having not voted on a healthcare bill — a deadline the Speaker said she would meet for President Obama — Pelosi said she was urging those members to go on the attack against the private insurance industry to try to rally support for the strongest public option possible when negotiations resume in September.

“The more the public knows about what we’re doing, the more they support it, and especially if you’re talking about a public option, because that’s where the insurance companies are making their attack,” Pelosi said. “Our members have to go out there ready to take on a big special interest that has not made our country healthier, has made costs spiral upward, and for whom that is coming to an end.

“It’s almost immoral what they are doing,” added Pelosi, who stood outside her office long after her press conference ended to continue speaking to reporters, even as aides tried in vain to usher her inside. “Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure with pre-existing conditions, you know, the litany of it all.”

---

I can't imagine why an insurance company would want to fight back against a government monopoly (AKA "competition") that will drive them out of business. How dishonest can the Dems get on this, invoking "competition" as a means to push a sweeping anti-competitive program, using the lure of "choice" to end your ability to choose and self-righteously accusing others of fear-mongering while engaging in the very same?

And what another lie, claiming "The more the public knows about what we’re doing, the more they support it" when clearly public support for Obamacare is tanking because the more they know, the more they realize how badly Obamacare sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

All good ideas, guys. To me it's a no-brainer to allow companies to pool resources, cross state lines and otherwise eliminate barriers. That's how you get purchasing power and increase competition.

---

Sounds good. But Health Net just sold all their east coast insurance coverage to Health Group and is focusing on California and Arizona. Sounds like they are reducing competition and giving consumers fewer choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Sounds good. But Health Net just sold all their east coast insurance coverage to Health Group and is focusing on California and Arizona. Sounds like they are reducing competition and giving consumers fewer choices.

---

Did you read tom's post?

Hello again:

It occurs to me that we DO have an interest in our neighbors health. After all, bugs DO migrate. They'll infect you or your wife or your children, and they don't care which side of the debate you're on.

Do you, Elliot, take cabs or ride the subway in NY?? Do you take a train to Jersey, perhaps? Ooooh, I'm not sure if I would do that. Be afraid, people. Be really, really afraid.

The funny thing is, what I'm telling you to be scared of is REAL.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You think not?

You are equating the death penalty for criminal who is found guilty by a court of law with a JURY OF HIS PEERS with an intentional abuse by a single politician who's sole goal is to eliminate a political opponent who committed no crime?

And you don't see a difference between the levels of power involved? One requires application of the legal system. No one man has the power to pervert that system. The other is extra-legal, as in OUTSIDE the legal system, wherein one influential person can undermine the system for political or personal gain.

We are talking about the difference between applying the law to punish criminals and prevent crime and abuses of power by politicians in order to stifle political opposition. You see no difference between the two?

This is a pretty poor argument, Skell. I think you can recognize that.

Elliot

---

I can see the difference but I wasn't arguing.

If you live in a system where a politician could possibly abuse his power like that then a lot more needs fixing than simply your health care..
Wow, I can't believe you think that could actually happen and no one would do anything about it. It's sad that you have to live in such a society. Good luck to you.

Or is it simply that you are trying to scare people?