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