Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

The right wing scare points are that there's NO APPEAL. Because they didn't say there is, you say that means there isn't.

Dude! Dude! Dude! Are you listening to yourself???????

If health care shouldn't be reformed, you're gonna have to come up with better stuff than THAT! The buffoonery your side is presenting as debate, is actually HURTING your cause - not helping it.

DUDE!

excon

---

This is like your "right to health care" argument. Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it comes from the 9th Amendment which doesn't actually create any rights.

This too... just because it doesn't list a method of appeals for the government system, while it DOES list a method of appeals for private insurance, doesn't mean that there ISN'T such an appeals process.

Well then tell me why they left that little thing off the bill? If it is something SO IMPORTANT that it is the very thing that makes most people scared of a government health system, why didn't they list a method of appeals for the government system? Especially since they took the time to list it for the private system.

Dude... your logic is like Swiss cheese. So full of holes.

Elliot

Here is what people that want the government health care don't seem to get.

People complain about welfare moms getting foodstamps out of their tax dollars as it is but with the health care they will also be paying 'tax' dollars for people like me that have to be covered but don't have the income to get health coverage. So with this new system welfare will be forced to cover any one that doesn't qualify under the current qualifications standards. So that's how many million people that will then be put on the welfare medical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Well then tell me why they left that little thing off the bill? If it is something SO IMPORTANT that it is the very thing that makes most people scared of a government health system, why didn't they list a method of appeals for the goverment system?

---

Hello again, El:

They did. It's in the Constitution, specifically in the First Amendment where it says "...Congress shall make NO LAW PROHIBITING.... the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It couldn't be clearer. Yet, you think they're going to write a bill that says otherwise...

Of course, they're NOT going to write a bill that says otherwise, and watching you TWIST the language to say they DID is the most fun I've had in decades.

Don't you get tired of grasping at these straws?? But, I'm loving it, for one.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

They did. It's in the Constitution, specifically in the First Amendment where it says "...Congress shall make NO LAW PROHIBITING.... the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It couldn't be clearer. Yet, you think they're gonna write a bill that says otherwise....

Of course, they're NOT gonna write a bill that says otherwise, and watching you TWIST the language to say they DID is the most fun I've had in decades.

Don't you get tired of grasping at these straws???? But, I'm loving it, for one.

excon

---

They're not straws. Again, go "petition" to the IRS for an appeal of a decision. See what the outcome is.

And again, what is the method of appeals for the government system. They clearly show it for the private insurers, but they make NO MENTION of the method for the "public option". Why not? If it is mandated by the 1st Amendment, as you suggest, why didn't they list the methodology in the bill like they did for the private health insurers?

Were they afraid that this 1000+ page bill was going to be too long and that people wouldn't have time to read it?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

why didn't they list the methodology in the bill like they did for the private health insurers?

---

Hello again, El:

Why didn't they write something they don't have to write? Is that your question?? Well, I can't answer that one, dude.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

So thats how many million people that will then be put on the welfare medical?

---

Speaking of welfare medical...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

They did. It's in the Constitution, specifically in the First Amendment where it says "...Congress shall make NO LAW PROHIBITING.... the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

---

Thanks for finally supporting the masses confronting their elected leaders. Now if we can just get all those bloggers, journalists, overpaid actors, the DNC, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and others like Durbin to support the constitution we might get somewhere.

Now here's another interesting aspect of Obamacare...

Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook

Quote:

---

Congressman John Shadegg calls the language in the healthcare bill "pretty troubling."
By KFYI News

(KFYI News) Half of Congress is in recess, but debate continues over President Obama's health care program concerning privacy.

Section 163 of the bill states that the government would be allowed real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.

Even-though the bill mentions privacy aspects, the fact remains that if approved, Obama's health care plan will give the government permission at any time to your personal bank records.

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg says people have the right to be concerned.

"It's pretty Orwellian, it certainly gets the government pretty darn deeply involved in private matters in our lives."

---

Are you troubled yet, ex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Why didn't they write something they don't have to write?? Is that your question??? Well, I can't answer that one, dude.

excon

---

I know you can't. Which just proves my point.

They didn't HAVE to write it about the private insurance companies either. Every single one of them already has a system of appeals in place.

The government, though... they're starting from scratch. They have NOTHING in place. Don't you think it behooves them to detail the methods by which we will be able to appeal their decisions when nobody knows what it is?

Unless they don't WANT to detail such a system for us. And if not... why not?

If you take the time and effort to list the system of appeals for one, you SHOULD be listing the system of appeals for the other as well. That's just logical. Unless there isn't such a system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Thanks for finally supporting the masses confronting their elected leaders. Now if we can just get all those bloggers, journalists, overpaid actors, the DNC, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and others like Durbin to support the constitution we might get somewhere.

Now here's another interesting aspect of Obamacare...

Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook



Are you troubled yet, ex?

---

For excon's benefit, here's the exact wording:

• ''(D) enable the 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;"

That means they get to check your personal records, including your bank records, employment records, income history, etc. to determine if you are capable of paying for the service, and how much.

And I thought that the whole point of this plan was to make sure that nobody had to worry about paying at the point of service. You pay taxes for a universal health care system so that you don't have to pay anything at the doctor's office.

Yet now we're being told that they're going to look at our private records in order to determine what we can afford to pay, even AFTER we're in the system.

Huh?

What's going on here?

Violations of our privacy and we STILL have to pay for the medical services?

This comprehensive health care reform bill doesn't seem very comprehensive to me.

More like APrehensive.

Or are these lies too? Even though it's straight out of the bill. (Page 58)

Elliot

PS: I'm actually less worried about the idea of a machine-readable medical plan ID card. I already have a driver's license and social security card, so it's a bit late to worry about the government finding me. A card that has my MEDICAL data on it is actually a GOOD idea... good data on ER patients as they are entering the hospital could save lots of lives. I'm actually good with that part. I just wish it wouldn't be the government running the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

They didn't HAVE to write it about the private insurance companies either. Every single one of them already has a system of appeals in place.

---

Hello again, El:

Please pay attention. I don't know how you missed civics 101, but let's review... The Bill of Rights grants CITIZENS rights. It does NOT grant corporations rights. Therefore, if they wanted an appeal system for CORPORATIONS, they most certainly DID have to write it in.

But, I'm here, diligently catching all the BS you can throw. Let me ask you this again. IF you have such GOOD arguments about why health care needs to be defeated, why do you need to make stuff up all the time??

Go ahead, do like tom did. Tell us how the Democrats want this bill so they can kill old people... Go on. I dare you!

excon

Ex - I'll tell you how - neglect and paperwork.

I use to work in the VA system, and primary care, preventitive care, elctronic medical records is above par.

But when it comes to working up a problem or take care of an emergency, the VA farmed it out to local private hospitals. The veterans in this particular area HAD TO GO TO St Louis - a 3 hour drive away, versus Nashville- 2 hours or Memphis 2 hours for routine specailty care. I've never been to the VA in St Louis, but a good percentage of veterans [ some of them combat vets ] would not risk their lives going to the St Louis VA. And then there is a the delays because the system is overwhelmed, and there are not enough specialists around [ low pay ]. When someone has an abnormality that indicates cancer you can't wait 6 months because by then it may have spread and become incurable. This stuff unfortunantly happens.

Remember earlier this year when Obama wanted the vet's private health insurance to pay the bills even for service connected condtions.

Imagine how US healthcare is going to be without the CHOICE of private health insurance ?




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Please pay attention. I dunno how you missed civics 101, but let's review.... The Bill of Rights grants CITIZENS rights. It does NOT grant corporations rights. Therefore, if they wanted an appeal system for CORPORATIONS, they most certainly DID have to write it in.

But, I'm here, diligently catching all the BS you can throw. Lemme ask you this again. IF you have such GOOD arguments about why health care needs to be defeated, why do you need to make stuff up all the time???

Go ahead, do like tom did. Tell us how the Democrats want this bill so they can kill old people... Go on. I dare ya!

excon

---

Nah... they don't want to kill old people. They just don't want to spend any money to save them.

So you're telling me that they put the methods of how people could appeal to the insurance companies into the bill, even though every insurance company has such a method in place already, and customer service telephone number are available to avail ourselves of the appeals process. It HAD to be put into law, even though it already exists and is already used on a regular basis and is common knowledge.

But they decided NOT to put the methods of how people could appeal to the government health plan into the bill, even though no such methodology exists, people don't know how to do it, and the government itself doesn't know how it is going to work.

And you buy that?

They took the OBVIOUS and put it in the bill, but left out the not-so-obvious?

And you find that to make perfect sense?

No wonder you think health care is a right. With logic like that, I'd be able to pull stuff out of the air too.

Elliot

Can someone show me a current example where an elderly person was denied some heart surgery by an insurance company and the person called the customer service line and got the denial reversed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Can someone show me a current example where an elderly person was denied some heart surgery by an insurance company and the person called the customer service line and got the denial reversed?

---

Yes. I can. My grandfather was denied for surgery about 7 years ago. They wanted him to get a stent instead. He appealed, his doctor spoke to the insurance company and told them that the surgery would make a significant difference in his quality of life, a stent would only help for a few months whereas surgery would be a long-term fix, and the decision was reversed in about two days. He had the surgery and lived for 7 more years until this past March when he passed away at the age of 92.

I have been denied certain care as well, and my practitioners and I have appealed and gotten additional coverage for the services I needed.

Within private insurance, denials are appealed and reversed all the time. Usually within a day or two. Sometimes the denials stand, but often they are reversed.

I am aware that you wouldn't know this because you have no experience with private health insurance companies. But it does happen rather frequently.

But the key point is that even if the denial stands, I can still pay for the service out of pocket. That's permitted in a private health care setting. Even if insurance denies my claim, I still have options.

But in a single payer system, if the government denies my claim, and if I can't get it reversed on appeal (assuming that there's an appeals process at all), I cannot then pay out of pocket for my care. If the government denies it, I can't get it. I'm not allowed to pay out of pocket.

Here's a perfect example. A few weeks ago I went in to the drug store to fill some perscriptions. I found out that one of the perscriptions wasn't covered by my insurance. I asked the pharmacist how much the medicine cost, and he informed me that it was $8 for the bottle. Naturally, I paid out of pocket for it... $8 bucks is pretty cheap for 90 pills.

In the same scenario, if I had been covered under a single payer system, and I was denied for that medicine, I would have been screwed. Because even though the medicine is only $8 per bottle, I would not have been allowed to buy it out of pocket. That is, in fact, the definition of a "single-payer system". There is only one payer, and that is the US Government.

So the issue isn't whether a medicine or a procedure can be denied and then the denial overturned in private insurance (which it often is). The issue is that even if denied, there are still other options for obtaining it. Whereas under a government single-payer system there is no other option.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But in a single payer system, if the government denies my claim

---

You say that but it really does not happen. Same with the pills, you get a prescription for the medicine you need, any prescription given by a Canadian doctor is by definition not denied so your point is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You say that but it really does not happen. Same with the pills, you get a prescription for the medicine you need, any prescription given by a Canadian doctor is by definition not denied so your point is irrelevant.

---

So what you are saying is that doctors can only prescribe what the government approves ahead of time. If it isn't approved already, the doctor can't prescribe it.

Thanks for proving my point that decisions of health care will be made by government bureaucrats that have no knowledge of your particular situation.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The issue is that even if denied, there are still other options for obtaining it. Whereas under a government single-payer system there is no other option.

---

Hello El:

Do you remember the conversation we had yesterday when I referred you to the FIRST AMENDMENT which gives citizens options you say above they don't have? What happened to you overnight. Do you need to be retrained every day?

In other words, you believe the rightwing mantra instead of the Constitution... And, you call yourself an American... You ought to be ashamed misspeaking so badly. But, you're not.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So what you are saying is that doctors can only prescribe what the government approves ahead of time. If it isn't approved already, the doctor can't prescribe it.

---

Yep, government doctors. You try to make people think it's a guy at a desk but you know that's a lie.

You can read more here: Health Canada Drug Product Database (DPD)
And this too: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/acces/index-eng.php

Devils advocate:

Who say we have a choice of healthcare now? Your employer usually picks the plan. Maybe 2, maybe 3 to choose from depending on the company size. If your luckly you have a PPO and HMO to choose from. One of 2.

If your company offers a prescription plan, you may have 1 to choose from.

Is this choice?

Secondly why do procedures cost an abundant amount of money if your uninsured? Say $500 if uninsured, $200 if insured under X plan.

Why the caps on cost that an insurance will pay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

Do you remember the conversation we had yesterday when I referred you to the FIRST AMENDMENT which gives citizens options you say above they don't have? What happened to you overnight. Do you need to be retrained every day?

In other words, you believe the rightwing mantra instead of the Constitution... And, you call yourself an American.... You ought to be ashamed misspeaking so badly. But, you're not.

excon

---

A statement in the Constitution that there is a right to dissent does not mean that the government is setting up an appeals process within a government health care system. What is the method of appeal, please? If you cannot answer that question, it is because such a method has not been created. WHY NOT?? WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY LEAVE OUT A DESCRIPTION OF A METHOD OF APPEALS WHEN THAT IS THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN?

If

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

WHY NOT??? WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY LEAVE OUT A DESCRIPTION OF A METHOD OF APPEALS WHEN THAT IS THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN?

---

Calm down, take a chill pill. It isn't "THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN" it's a manufactured concern by you silly neocons to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

Do you remember the conversation we had yesterday when I referred you to the FIRST AMENDMENT which gives citizens options you say above they don't have? What happened to you overnight. Do you need to be retrained every day?

In other words, you believe the rightwing mantra instead of the Constitution... And, you call yourself an American.... You ought to be ashamed misspeaking so badly. But, you're not.

excon

---

A statement in the Constitution that there is a right to dissent does not mean that the government is setting up an appeals process within a government health care system. What is the method of appeal, please? If you cannot answer that question, it is because such a method has not been created. WHY NOT?? WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY LEAVE OUT A DESCRIPTION OF A METHOD OF APPEALS WHEN THAT IS THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN?

If you were a politician trying to pass this very contested piece of legislation, and you KNEW that this was the biggest concern of most people, would you deliberately leave it out of the bill? Especially when you deliberately put it into the bill for private insurance companies that already have such systems in place?

C'mon, excon. Saying that the Constitution provides for it doesn't mean that a system is set up for it. It clearly isn't or it would have been put into the bill.

They were hoping to pass this abortion without giving anyone time to read it and ask these questions. They thought it wouldn't matter if there was no appeals process put in place. Once the bill was passed and the system was up and running, there would be nothing anyone could do about it. They tried to ram it down our throats.

But we weren't swallowing it.

Now they've been caught with their pants down, and they have to answer questions about the bill that they can't answer. And statements like yours don't adequately answer basice procedural questions about this bill. And these blithe statements that don't answer the questions are starting to pi$$ of regular Americans, who are showing their anger at town hall meetings. The more you try to convince people with your witticisms about the Constitution, the less they trust the procedures of the bill.

You are making the same mistakes that the Dem politicians are making. You are trying to just put out enough of an answer to cover your backside. But the American people want better answers than "The Constitution says so" or "We have to make quick decisions" or "There's an emergency and we need to pass this now without debate". Americans want real answers to their questions. And neither the politicians nor you are supplying them.

That's why the bill is going to fail.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

A statement in the Constitution that there is a right to dissent does not mean that the government is setting up an appeals process

---

Hello again, El:

"Congress shall make NO law... prohibiting the right of the people to peaceably assemble AND to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

I guess you DO need daily retraining... The First Amendment is not a statement... It is a RIGHT, and you only read PART of it, and cite the WRONG part. I don't know why. (Yes I do. Deflection is a way of life for you wrongies.)

It's meaning is CLEAR to any English speaking adult, ceptin you folks. Bummer.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

C'mon, excon. Saying that the Constitution provides for it doesn't mean that a system is set up for it. It clearly isn't or it would have been put into the bill.

---

Hello again, El:

So, in THIS country, we have no system set up for people to retain their rights. That's your story, and you're sticking to it, huh??

Okee doakee.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

"Congress shall make NO law... prohibiting the right of the people to peaceably assemble AND to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

I guess you DO need daily retraining.....The First Amendment is not a statement... It is a RIGHT, and you only read PART of it, and cite the WRONG part. I dunno why. (Yes I do. Deflection is a way of life for you wrongies.)

It's meaning is CLEAR to any English speaking adult, ceptin you folks. Bummer.

excon

---

Again, how does one go about redressing grievances in this medical system?

Can you answer this basic question?

If you cannot, then it means there is no system in place. Or at least not one that anybody knows about, which amounts to the same thing.

Yep, there's a RIGHT to redress grievances. But there's not METHOD for redressing grievances.

You are confusing the right with the methodology.

Not surprising, since you are so easily confused by simple things.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Again, how does one go about redressing grievances in this medical system?

Can you answer this basic question?

---

Hello again, El:

I could tell that you forgot we have a third branch of government called the judicial. I can also tell that you don't know how to use it, or what it does. But, those of us who took civics 101 know.

Bummer for you guys to have forgotten that.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Nah... they don't want to kill old people. They just don't want to spend any money to save em.

No wonder you think health care is a right. With logic like that, I'd be able to pull stuff out of the air too.

Elliot

---

No, health care isn't a right. Our society just opposes free choice, won't let people choose to die, forces people to stay alive at any cost, be it pain, brain death, etc. But health care is only mandated when the interests of society are concerned. Seems kind of ignorant to let people die because they don't know how to get access to health care, but we allow a system that prevents millions that access. Yes, I know some fool is going to point out that our emergency rooms are open for emergency life saving care, but how many Americans die each year because they don't get non-emergent care? Many medical problems don't get better left untreated.

[quote=excon;1908743]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Again, how does one go about redressing grievances in this medical system?

Can you answer this basic question?QUOTE]Hello again, El:

I could tell that you forgot we have a third branch of government called the judicial. I can also tell that you don't know how to use it, or what it does. But, those of us who took civics 101 know.

Bummer for you guys to have forgotten that.

excon

---

So you are saying that every time that someone wants to appeal a decision by the national health care system, they're going to have to file a court case... in our already over-taxed court system. They'll have to wait months to have their cases heard. HOPEFULLY they won't die before then.

This is your appeals process within the national health care system?

Good luck with selling that to the common American. They'll just LOVE knowing that the way to appeal a decision is through the court system.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amdeist

No, health care isn't a right. Our society just opposes free choice, won't let people choose to die, forces people to stay alive at any cost, be it pain, brain death, etc.

---

Oh... a right to die fanatic.

So you support killing people rather than trying to save them as a way to save money.

How communist of you.

Quote:

---

But health care is only mandated when the interests of society are concerned.

---

Yep... there's that "good of society" justification used by the Soviets to justify everything. I'm just waiting for you to invoke "The Motherland".

Quote:

---

Seems kind of ignorant to let people die because they don't know how to get access to health care, but we allow a system that prevents millions that access.

---

You mean as opposed to killing them ourselves for the good of the nation as a whole. Yeah... I think I'll choose the system with options, thanks.

Quote:

---

Yes, I know some fool is going to point out that our emergency rooms are open for emergency life saving care, but how many Americans die each year because they don't get non-emergent care?

---

I don't know. Do you?

[/quote]Many medical problems don't get better left untreated.[/quote]

Yep. So... how long are the lines in the UK for specialty care? In Canada? Compared to the USA? Those problems that don't get better with time do worse in nationalized health care systems than they do in the US system.

That's why we have the BEST outcomes in the world for EVERY DISEASE, ILLNESS AND TRAUMA. Our patients have better survival rates and faster recovery times. MOSTLY that's because our patients don't have to wait as long for advanced care. Theirs do.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So you are saying that every time that someone wants to appeal a decision by the national health care system, they're going to have to file a court case... in our already over-taxed court system. They'll have to wait months to have their cases heard. HOPEFULLY they won't die before then.

This is your appeals process within the national health care system?

---

Hello again, El:

What you're doing is furthering my argument that you know NOTHING about the judicial system. I can't teach you about it here on these pages, but suffice to say, the courts ARE set up to hear emergency type stuff, and make emergency type rulings... They do it EVERY day. Bummer for you that you didn't know that.

But, let's review. This argument stems from the right wing talking point, that YOU HAVE NO APPEAL. We've spent the better part of several pages discussing it. I'm not going to convince you that the talking point is WRONG.

However, any sane person reading this thread, and still believes the right wing crap, is ALWAYS going to believe the right wing crap. Those who can READ and UNDERSTAND English, however, and BELIEVE in the Constitution will think otherwise...

So, we've harped this to death... You think there's no appeal. Ok, think it. Let's move on to the Democrats want to kill old people. I'm sure we can fill several more pages with that crap. I can't wait.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

What you're doing is furthering my argument that you know NOTHING about the judicial system. I can't teach you about it here on these pages, but suffice to say, the courts ARE set up to hear emergency type stuff, and make emergency type rulings... They do it EVERY day. Bummer for you that you didn't know that.

---

Do you really believe that the courts are set up to hear cases from 300 million people?

If only 1/3 of 1% of the people on this single-payer system have something to appeal every year, that's over 1 million cases to be heard per year. If each case only takes 15 minutes to hear, that's 250,000 hours of court time. With no breaks. If we had 100 judges working on these cases alone, it would take them 2,500 hours to hear all those cases.

There are only 2,080 working hours in a year (assuming a 40-hour work week). It would take over a year to just hear the first year's cases.

You think out court system can handle this level of activity?

You're dreaming.

Like I said, good luck selling this crock of $h!t to the American people.

Quote:

---

But, let's review. This argument stems from the right wing talking point, that YOU HAVE NO APPEAL. We've spent the better part of several pages discussing it. I'm not going to convince you that the talking point is WRONG.

---

That's right. You won't. Because it's not wrong. It is, in fact, exactly what's happening in the UK and Canada and France and Sweden, and everywhere else there's socialist health care, every single day.

Quote:

---

However, any sane person reading this thread, and still believes the right wing crap, is ALWAYS going to believe the right wing crap. Those who can READ and UNDERSTAND English, however, and BELIEVE in the Constitution will think otherwise...

---

Not unless you can show them HOW it would work. Which you can't. You've already proven that.

Quote:

---

So, we've harped this to death... You think there's no appeal. Ok, think it. Let's move on to the Democrats want to kill old people. I'm sure we can fill several more pages with that crap. I can't wait.

Excon

---

Like I said, they don't want to kill 'em. They just don't want to save 'em. It's not in the best interest of "society". Forget the fact that this country was built on individual rights and freedoms. Apparently the good of society trumps all.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Do you really believe that the courts are set up to hear cases from 300 million people?

---

Hello again, El:

Do you really believe that all 300 million of us - every man, woman and child in America will be denied services and be forced to appeal?? You DO, don't you? And, you expect to be taken seriously. Dude!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Do you really believe that all 300 million of us - every man, woman and child in America will be denied services and be forced to appeal????? You DO, don't you? And, you expect to be taken seriously. Dude!

excon

---

You didn't read my post. Not surprising.

I said:

If only 1/3 of 1% (that's 0.33%) of us have issues that need to be appealed, that's over 1 million cases that need to be adjudicated in the court system, according to you.

And if each one of those adjudications takes only 15 minutes each (unlikely, since just the application process would take about that long if everything went well) and if we had 100 dedicated judges who's job was to do nothing but adjudicate those appeals, it would take over a year for every one of those cases to be heard (2500 hours of adjudication time in a 2080-hour work-year). Closer to a year and a quarter.

A year and a quarter during which NEW APPEALS were being filed every day. Creating more backlog in the system.

That's just the result of 1/3 of 1% of the people in the system having an issue that needs to be appealed. That means that the government got it miraculously right 99.66% of the time. The result would STILL be disaster if the court system is the system of appeals.

Do you want to be the guy waiting for that appeal for a year and a quarter?

Oh... I get it, you are so trusting of the abilities and efficiencies of our government that you think that the government is going to handle this perfectly. Despite the fact that the government bankrupted Social Security, screwed up the stimulus bill, has broken the backs of Medicare and Medicaid, and spends $500 on a hammer, you think that the government is so efficient and capable that there aren't going to be any issues whatsoever. And that even if they DO screw up, the court system, which is run by the same government that just screwed up in the first place, is going to be so efficient that it can turn around those appeals in mere minutes, leaving everyone with perfect health coverage.

You do, don't you? And you expect to be taken seriously?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeepItSimpleStupid

Devils advocate:

Who say we have a choice of healthcare now? Your employer usually picks the plan. Maybe 2, maybe 3 to choose from depending on the company size. If your luckly you have a PPO and HMO to choose from. One of 2.

If your company offers a prescription plan, you may have 1 to choose from.

Is this choice?

Secondly why do procedures cost an abundant amount of money if your uninsured? Say $500 if uninsured, $200 if insured under X plan.

Why the caps on cost that an insurance will pay?

---

Because the insurance companies, medicare, medicaid have the power of paying for 10s of thousands of lives or more. This gives them bargaining power.

For example, a couple of years ago my wife had an Echocardiogarm that we were billed the full amount $1100. We had just catastrophic coverage so the $5000 deductible had not been met. Because I work in healthcare I know htat Blue cross reimbursed $800 Medicare $600 Medicaid $400 but if you had no insurance you had to pay the full bill. You as a single individual have no negotiating power to reduce your cost.

Unfortunantly this is the system. Those without health insurance often pay the most because they and the privately insured often subsidize the lower reimbursement of medicare and medicaid.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amdeist

No, health care isn't a right. Our society just opposes free choice, won't let people choose to die, forces people to stay alive at any cost, be it pain, brain death, etc. But health care is only mandated when the interests of society are concerned. Seems kind of ignorant to let people die because they don't know how to get access to health care, but we allow a system that prevents millions that access. Yes, I know some fool is going to point out that our emergency rooms are open for emergency life saving care, but how many Americans die each year because they don't get non-emergent care? Many medical problems don't get better left untreated.

---

That is a complete oxymoron. Physiscians and nurse act to HELP the sick and the dying.

Look up Living will or Advance directive, you can state your wishes. That is a CHOICE any competent individual can make. I know at the hospital I work, the question of whether a person has a living will is asked on admission. The default is that someone who does not have a living will is that they are, "full code." If they stop breathing or cannot get enough oxygen they may be placed on a "machine" - mechanically ventilated. If their heart stops or they have an abnormal heart rhythm that causes NO blood pressure, advanced cardiac life support is initiated. [ cpr , defibrillation etc. ]


Is it your contention that certain segments of the population [ like those beyond a certain age ] be have their living will MADE FOR THEM BY THE GOVERNMENT? Are you suggesting that that you are in favor of making certain segments of the population DO NOT RESUSCITATE?

That is awfully arrogant of you to think you know what a specific individual would want, for you to make their end of life decisions for them.





G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Can someone show me a current example where an elderly person was denied some heart surgery by an insurance company and the person called the customer service line and got the denial reversed?

---

I can tell you it is a pain in the rear to have someone who is not taking direct care of the patient tell you what your patient's length of stay in the hospital should be. This happens with medicare as well as private insurance.

With medicare they just state they won't cover or pay for additional days. The private health insurers do the same. The chart, the record , has to be documented in the proper way such that care is approved. 99% of the time, no problem.

I have spoken to those on the other end, use to be it wasn't even a physician, to plead the case for the patient. All they are going by is what is on the record or some ivory tower protocol. These days it is usually a physician on the third party payor side, and this has helped them understand medically, not just actuarillly, why someone needs a specific care plan.

Back in the 90s routine child birth was just an overnight stay. Enough of a public outcry was made and this is no longer the case.





G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amdeist

After watching the bloodbath that just happened with the non-government financial industry, the automobile industry, and the insurance industry that is yet to come, to say the government run programs are the problem is somewhat misinformed. It is unfortunate that the government got involved with helping any of these companies. Were they to be allowed to fail, millions who would find themselves unemployed without any unemployment payments would wake up and smell the coffee. All that the stimulus has done is pushed forward the demise of capitalism for a short while.

---

This of course is completely besides the point that you support a program that would put seniors on notice... that in an effort to contain costs they will be sacrificed;and that your final worth will be determined by some nameless bureaucrat looking at a computer generated spread sheet . Do you really think any government should have that much power ? Evidently so .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that in an effort to contain costs they will be sacrificed;and that your final worth will be determined by some nameless bureaucrat looking at a computer generated spread sheet . Do you really think any government should have that much power ? Evidently so .

---

Hello tom:

I don't want my government to have that much power and they won't according the bill I read. Of course, you just listened to the dingbats instead of reading. That's not really like you, but I guess when it comes to health care, people lose their minds...

I don't think the insurance adjusters should have that power over me, either, but they DO NOW under the system YOU support... What have you got against old people?? Do you own stock in the insurance industry?? You ACT like you do.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This of course is completely besides the point that you support a program that would put seniors on notice ....that in an effort to contain costs they will be sacrificed;and that your final worth will be determined by some nameless bureaucrat looking at a computer generated spread sheet . Do you really think any government should have that much power ? Evidently so .

---

Who said anything about supporting the current proposal? I am totally opposed to any health care plan that is capitalist based. Insurance companies are in fact, the reason why medicare and medicaid are going bankrupt. We have a free market economy in health care today, not only has it not worked, but it will bankrupt America if it isn't changed. I am a senior, and I don't buy your Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc. BS that senior will be sacrificed. I have a close friend in England who is nearing 90, and they just gave him spinal surgery to correct a non-emergent problem. I won't argue with ignorant people who want to jump on the crazy bandwagon. The good thing about life, is that what goes around comes around. Many of those fools who are being paid by the RNC to disrupt the town hall meetings will suffer the consequences of keeping the existing health care system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This of course is completely besides the point that you support a program that would put seniors on notice ....

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry. I find that I must respond TWICE to your rightwing claptrap!!

The health insurance system YOU support condemns people to DEATH every day in the name of PROFITS... Since you like it sooo much, I must assume that you're sharing in the profits... If not, you're just a water carrier for those that are making the big bucks.

Shouldn't you at least get a commission??

The above is TRUE, unless you're going to tell me that the insurance companies cover EVERYTHING... And, they DON'T!

excon