But we have the best healthcare system in the world.

I know that, because that's all the right wing keeps chanting.

Privatized Health Insurance Companies - 1
Crytal Lee ("Norma Rae") Sutton - 0

I hope the insurance company and all the share holders are happy with the money they saved.......

Good thing her care wasn't rationed or she might have died.

Good thing we don't have those governemnt death panels, or our elderly would be going without the life saving medical care they desperately need...

Doh!!!

In 2008, the North Carolina branch of the AFL-CIO urged supporters to donate money to Sutton's medical fund. On its Web site, the union had stated that "after initially being denied coverage by her insurance company for life saving treatment, Sutton is now on drug and chemo therapies and has undergone two surgeries."
* * * *

So . . . who was paying for the drug and chemo therapies, and the two surgeries? Did the insurance company?

I'm sure the Obamatons are right, though. Had she been under Obamacare, she would be alive today. She wouldn't be waiting on some bureaucrat to process her paperwork, or some functionary at Obama's Oversight Committee to decide whether or not it was in the taxpayers' interest to keep her alive.

Of course in her case, it would have been. Obama is very sensitive to bad press.

She wouldn't be waiting on some bureaucrat to process her paperwork

RiR, you're okay with bureaucrats at private health insurance companies, but not okay with bureaucrats when they work for the government? Is that about it?

Where do all the paper-pushers at the Pentagon figure in your worldview? Are they good bureaucrats or bad bureaucrats, or does your head just explode whey you try to think that hard? :)

Not that it's any good when anybody dies but paying for treatment of a condition just to prolong a person's misery so others can feel better about themselves at the inflicted person's expense isn't really humane. And don't believe that the inflicted person really wants to prolong it either we're programmed to think we're weak if we succumb to the all but inevitable outcome no matter how much every thread of our being tells us death is the preferable option.

I've had my share of problems with insurance companies but they aren't the evil entities so many want to believe they always are.

Pentagon paper-pushers need to be fired. Ditto for the entire Dept of Education, Energy, HHS, Trans, and on down.

In the UK, fat people are now routinely denied care. There's no money to go around, so if you're at a higher risk of expensive care, they just shut you out completely.

Did Norma get her care paid for by the insurance company, or not? Why is the AFC CIO involved at all--is it a union-run health plan? Or are we just supposed to take at face value the events on some 'blog?

The problem with health care is that we are all going to die.

Dems and leberals are always looking for victims.

Whether it is Norma Rae or Teddy.

Pentagon paper-pushers need to be fired. Ditto for the entire Dept of Education, Energy, HHS, Trans, and on down. RiR

I agree with this premise.

I mean what do 17,000 people do at the Dept of Education or the umteen thousands of the Dept of Labor???

"Pentagon paper-pushers need to be fired. Ditto for the entire Dept of Education, Energy, HHS, Trans, and on down."

I'm all for looking at waste and discussing logistical needs, but really? Really? Define paper pusher, I guess. Not all bureaucrats are evil, dumb, or even unnecessary. Systems need to be administrated by someone. And the bigger the system, the greater the bureacracy. That's real life. (That said, I would love to see what would happen if the DoE were dismantled. So much for NCLB, eh?) But you know, this is part of my point about teachers and the improvement of education. If those who talk about poor teaching would turn their attention to administrators and bureaucracies that are too big to deal with problems as they occur, we might get somewhere.

The only links with stories at all are blogs--I've just googled it. But apparently she had a two-month period when the company didn't pay, then they stepped up and forked over a few hundred thousand for the chemo and the surgeries, which prolonged her life by a couple of years.

I wonder--under Obamacare, will it take longer than two months? Under Obamacare, resources will be limited: is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a brain-cancer stricken woman considered a wise use of those resources, if the money is coming from China? Or from cuts in the Education budget? Or from cuts to young people's health care? What should be worth more: putting that money into leukemia research, or prolonging the life of an elderly brain cancer victim by a few more months?

We'll just let Obama decide, I guess. He knows best.

RiR, you're okay with bureaucrats at private health insurance companies, but not okay with bureaucrats when they work for the government? Is that about it?

#8 | Posted by snoofy

* * * *

I've answered your question. Now I've got one for you. How much are you willing to pay in taxes, so this doesn't happen again? Or, rather, that when it does happen, it's the government on the hook for the care, rather than her and her insurer? Two thousand dollars a year? Three? One?

Right wingers seem to be obsessed with death panels and applying the profit motive to basic human needs so here's a privatized "death panel" decision like Norma Rae's and one that is not from "some blog".

"Last year, just three days before her scheduled double mastectomy, Blue Cross Blue Shield canceled Beaton's policy because, among other things, she failed to report a case of acne.

"By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size," Obama said in his speech. "That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."

Representatives for Blue Cross Blue Shield could not be reached for comment Thursday, but they previously have declined to comment, citing health privacy laws."

Not that it's any good when anybody dies but paying for treatment of a condition just to prolong a person's misery so others can feel better about themselves at the inflicted person's expense isn't really humane.

Don't tell that to the people who thought Terri Schiavo might snap out of it any day. Even though her brain was gone, God still might intervene and work one of His miracles!

RiR, should we fire the bureaucrats in the private sector too? Or is bureaucracy only a problem when it's government bureaucracy?

"How in the world can it take so long to find out (whether they would cover the medicine or not) when it could be a matter of life or death," she said. "It is almost like, in a way, committing murder."

She eventually received the medication, but the cancer is taking a toll on her strong will and solid frame.
* * * *

So she eventually received the medication, but the cancer continued, as it usually does. Ted Kennedy had a blank check when it comes to medical care, and he died anyway. Brain cancer is like that.

How much more in taxes, libbies? How much are you personally willing to pay for Obamacare, never mind that Rae would have been under Medicare anyhow? How much more?

How much are you willing to pay in taxes, so this doesn't happen again? Or, rather, that when it does happen, it's the government on the hook for the care, rather than her and her insurer? Two thousand dollars a year? Three? One?

RiR, considering my health insurance currently costs six thousand dollars a year, I'll take any of the deals you offered.

However, nothing happens in America unless someone makes a buck off it. We even have privatized prisons and privatized red light cameras. This is the real impediment to change: Too many leeches, to the tune of 1/6th our GDP, are attached to the American populous. To remove them all at once would be too big a shock to the system.

I'm optimistic a public option comes about, proves to be significantly more efficient, heck even the employers would love it since it removes the burden of having to shop for insurance for their employers. Over time the public option becomes so much more financially attractive we end up with a de facto single-payer system.

One tragic story among MILLIONS - and how I remember Sally Field standing silently in the shop with a sign that said Union! - ends. The wing nuts continue with their blatant lies about mandatory euthanasia for over-40s, no pills at all for Republicans and let's not forget them thar higher taxes. The AMA itself has set the tax savings of health insurance reforms in the hundreds of billions. And STILL the best the wing nuts have is one lone South Carolinian hollering "you lie"... herm

Ted Kennedy had the best insurance and doctors in the world and it didn't do him any good. Norma Rae was a good as dead.

#10 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-13 01:51 PM
***"In the UK, fat people are now routinely denied care. There's no money to go around, so if you're at a higher risk of expensive care, they just shut you out completely."

Okay, I call BULLSHIT: please provide a source, as I just googled for 20 minutes trying to find ANYTHING about the "UK" "ROUTINELY DENY" "HEALTHCARE" TO "FAT PEOPLE" "OBESE"...

So please source me...

#19 Over time the public option becomes so much more financially attractive we end up with a de facto single-payer system.

Exactly. This is why the healthcare industry is fighting it tooth and nail using the ever-willing GOP. They want to continue raking it in with Americans paying higher prices for drugs than every other western democracy, paying thousands of dollars every year for coverage premiums, deductibles and co-pays and having to guess what kind of coverage they really need at open enrollment every year. That's if they're lucky enough to get group rates through their employer or union. If they don't have it and they're lucky they can pay two or three times as much for it providing they don't have "pre-existing conditions" like acne. Or they can declare bankruptcy like so many do related to medical expenses.

Fat people in the UK denied coverage say the rightnuts.

It doesn't have to be true. A lie repeated often enough to those predisposed to believe is as good as the truth. Joseph Goebbels would have felt right at home in today's GOP.

"She was going to die anyway, so who cares if the Insurance Company denied her and made profits from that?"

Signed, The DR Right.

That's about the extent of your argument.

You are all morons.

With the new proposals, she probably would not have been able to see a doctor by now to get a prognosis of treatment needed...!!!
she would still be standing in line to find out what was causing the pain...

The REAL DEATH PANELS, which pay Doctors to DENY claims.

Naturally the Rethugs turn this issue on end, investing heavily on commercial TV and convincing the 51% of this country that are complete idiots into believing the opposite.

In the UK, fat people are now routinely denied care.

#10 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-13 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: FAT & WORRIED

"Ted Kennedy had the best insurance and doctors in the world and it didn't do him any good. Norma Rae was a good as dead."

#21 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2009-09-13 02:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Armchair Neurologist

Bullshit. You're comparing apples to oranges, leading me to believe you don't know there's a difference between these two very different cancers.

Two points:

1. Health insurers would LOVE to have coverage mandated with no public option to keep rates down (which have been rising 15% a year for a LONG time).

2. As 'Braised Cod' said yesterday, FoxNews is the new Scientology

Another complicating factor for many victims of glioblastoma (Kennedy included) is that the already-malignant tumor tends to originate in parts of the brain you don't want to put under the knife - frontotemporal, parietal (on the dominant hemisphere, in Kennedy's case), at the temporal-parietal-occipital multiassociational junction, etc. And, there are almost always microembolizations in tissue that otherwise appears to be healthy.

The parietal (somatosensory) cortex is involved in pretty much every aspect of higher cognition in one capacity or another. In other parts of the body, doctors can cut a bit past the tumor to make sure removal is complete. In the brain, this simply isn't possible, especially in the case of a malignant tumor, like a glioblastoma; at best, doctors can try to de-bulk the tumor and relieve some of the pressure it's putting on surrounding tissue.

Much care is necessary when operating on a meningioma, to be sure, but in that case, the borders of the tumor are much clearer, most are benign, and the cancer originates in the meninges - instead of the glial cells, which are important support cells necessary for healthy neurons.

1. Health insurers would LOVE to have coverage mandated with no public option to keep rates down (which have been rising 15% a year for a LONG time).

#31 | Posted by Timex at 2009-09-13 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

And you just nailed the reason I am now against health care reform. I belive that we as a nation desperatly need reform as the 1/6 of the GDP is insane and rising. However the current bill that looks likely to pass is almost like a blessing for insurace companies and most definatly screws both tax payers and insurance consumers, being both I think I will start running out of holes to be screwed in pretty soon.

Fat people in the UK denied coverage say the rightnuts.

It doesn't have to be true. A lie repeated often enough to those predisposed to believe is as good as the truth. Joseph Goebbels would have felt right at home in today's GOP.

#24 | Posted by brock at 2009-09-13 02:35 PM
* * * *

Ah. So throwing a Nazi reference around is easier than pulling up a search engine, just to make sure you're not a stupid douchebag.
Fortunately, I can use google, and your douchebaggery is obvious. Achtung! Obama speaks! Libbies obey!

Nine primary care trusts have a specific policy to refuse joint replacements to obese patients. And four will not consider orthopaedic surgery if patients smoke.

In all, six million patients live in areas affected by so-called lifestyle rationing.

Jean Ryan has been told she cannot have her hip replaced until she loses weight.

But she says that is impossible because the pain means she can barely move, let alone exercise.

Despite living on a pension she has taken out an 8000 loan to pay for surgery abroad.

Overweight patients have been denied hip and knee replacement surgery on the NHS as some health authorities try to cut costs.

Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust and primary care trusts in Suffolk are taking a series of measures to save NHS money locally.

Those with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above, are classed as obese and will not be allowed surgery to replace worn out joints.

www.freerepublic.com

LOL!! Now THERE's a trusted source for unbiased 'news'! LOL LOL LOL

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and emphysema

Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

Smokers, people with alcohol problems and the obese could be denied priority treatment on the NHS if they do not try to change their lifestyle.

The Cabinet is discussing the controversial idea as part of a drive by Tony Blair to secure his domestic political legacy by pushing through a final round of public service reforms before he departs next year.

I think that being a libtard is just a license to be willfully ignorant. Easier to just march in lockstep to everything Obama wants than to do any real critical thinking or research on your own. Easier still to toss around Nazi and racist labels on anyone who disagrees with you.

I have another idea: maybe the people who disagree with you are the ones who troubled themselves to use Google from time to time. Turn off Air America, pick up a book, maybe you'll get smarter.

LOL!! Now THERE's a trusted source for unbiased 'news'! LOL LOL LOL

#38 | Posted by Timex at 2009-09-13 05:04 PM
* * * *

How about the Daily Mail and the Independent?

Achtung! O-BAH-MAH HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) across the country are denying patients some NHS treatments because they are seriously overweight or because they smoke.

PCTs with a specific policy of denying joint surgery to obese patients include North Staffordshire, Stoke, Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, Milton Keynes, Hereford, West Hertfordshire, East and North Hertfordshire and Suffolk while some also refuse to perform a variety of operations on smokers. Surrey, South Staffordshire, Dorset, and Central and East Cheshire Trusts all say they expect doctors to consider weight and tobacco use before referring patients for surgery. When questioned the trusts say the risks of surgery are greatly increased for smokers and those who are overweight and Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, has supported them saying it is "perfectly legitimate�? for individual trusts to set their own treatment requirements.

"Those with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above, are classed as obese and will not be allowed surgery to replace worn out joints.
"

Common sense. If you can't put the fork down and exercise some 'personal responsibility', why should anyone pay to have your knees replaced?

I think Americans should be required to pay for their obesity. 30% more if you're 30% overweight, 50% if you're 50% overweight. Knee replacements are only the tip of the iceberg. Diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc. - preventable diseases if people would only exercise some "personal responsibility" (GOP mantra, right?)

Hospitals are currently entitled to draw up their own guidelines on access to particular treatments.

Doctors say the risks of operating on obese patients are higher and the treatment may be less effective, with replacement joints wearing out more quickly, for example. Smokers also have a higher risk of complications after surgery.

Health trusts in North Staffordshire have the toughest restrictions. Patients must have a body mass index below 30 and have not smoked for three months to qualify for any routine operation.

So . . . who was paying for the drug and chemo therapies, and the two surgeries? Did the insurance company?

#6 | Posted by rightisright

Apparently NOT the insurance companies..

She died dumbass.

I fucking HATE health insurance companies and the insurers that and the people that rep them.

30% adder for NOTHING!! Typical middlemen

I would have voted for a stray dog over another Republican for President. Even a stray dog couldn't have messed up as badly as the last bunch did.

Okay, I call BULLSHIT: please provide a source, as I just googled for 20 minutes trying to find ANYTHING about the "UK" "ROUTINELY DENY" "HEALTHCARE" TO "FAT PEOPLE" "OBESE"...

So please source me...

#22 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus
* * * *

20 minutes? Really?

You're too stupid to vote conservative, or to work in a free economy. Obama needs you. Keep regurgitating Air America talking points wherever and whenever you can, and be sure to collect your welfare check the first of the month. With luck, you can get yourself an Acorn position advising crack whores how to file for tax benefits.

I just went to the CDC site and discovered that the largest percentage of people over 30% obese live ...(guess where?)

The REDDEST states - Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Tennessee

Apparently NOT the insurance companies..

She died dumbass.

I fucking HATE health insurance companies and the insurers that and the people that rep them.

30% adder for NOTHING!! Typical middlemen

#46 | Posted by Legio
* * * *

Read the article retard. The insurance paid up for all that stuff, and she died anyway.

Air America's on, though. So just do it later.

Good, Timex. Good.

Actually, it suits me that fat people don't get taken care of. Ditto for drinkers, smokers, people who engage in high-risk sexual behaviors, people who have reptiles, etc. I'm like you libbies in that respect--just use the power of the purse to screw people who don't live the way I do, and all that.

Gobama!

RightIsRight

I'd love to hear your logic as to why people who don't take care of themselves SHOULDN'T pay more for health insurance. They do for life insurance.

PS Are you fat? You seem to have taken offense to my pointing out the most Republican states have the fattest people - who suck up health care dollars at a higher rate than anyone else.

They should pay more. And I'm 5'11", 185.

Interesting the way this thread has turned, though. Earlier I was a Nazi for saying that the NHS in the UK discriminates against fat people. Now it's logical that they should.

You libbies sure like moving the goalposts around.

"Earlier I was a Nazi for saying that the NHS in the UK discriminates against fat people. Now it's logical that they should."

Huh? First you suggested they shouldn't, and they that they should, and someone else is moving the goalposts?!?

first "they" = then

I'm in shape too. People who allow themselves to become a health risk through not taking responsibility for their own well being should be paying more so I can pay less. Who moved goal posts? Not me. I think it makes sense to deny a knee replacement to someone who won't lose some weight - which caused the problem in the first place.

By the way, France is in the top three in overall health. Singapore too. Both have excellent health care systems, and Singapore has both private and public health insurance options. Didn't ruin their private insurance industry one iota. France also has private insurance. Call EMS? A doctor is on board. The ambulance takes you to the best facility for your particular emergency.

The U.S. is at the bottom of the industrialized nations in overall health and at the top of how much insurance costs.

They should pay more.

So then, RiR, you are in favor of rationing?

She was 68 years old so your death panel wouldn't have saved her either.

Besides she took on the unions so the death panel would have sent in Dr. Kevorkian.

ted was brain dead decades ago from staying underwater to long.

The problem is the Liberals really don't want to solve the problem, and this push to nationalize health care is about grabbing power.

The Liberals like Obama, Reid and Pelosi could care less if the real 'Norma Rae' died. For the Liberals people dying is exactly what they want so they can make an emotional unthinking argument for a big take over.

The Democrats don't have any real solution, they want to mimic failed Socialistic policies that are failing everywhere they're been tried.

Republicans and Independents have real solutions:

1. Eliminates unfair tax treatment of health insurance for all Americans, thereby expanding choices, coverage, and control over your health care

2. Increase affordable options for working families to purchase health insurance through a standard tax deduction

3. Ensure affordable health insurance to low-income individuals through a refundable, advanceable, assignable tax-based subsidy

4. Provide cross-state pooling to reduce health care costs and increase accessibility for small business owners, unions, associations, and their workers, members, and families

5. Blend the individual and group market to extend important HIPAA portability protections to the individual market so that insurance security can better move with you from job to job

6. Emphasize preventive benefits and helps individuals with chronic diseases so America will finally have health care and not sick care

7. Gives people the choice to convert the value of Medicaid and SCHIP program benefits into private health insurance, putting you in control of your health care, not the Federal government

8. Save lives and money by better coordinating health information technology to improve health care delivery

9. Increase access to primary care in rural and frontier areas by helping future providers and nurses pay for their education, and gives seniors more options to receive care in their homes and communities

10. Decrease the sky-rocketing cost of health care by restoring reliability in our medical justice system through State-based solutions

Socialism is a great idea, we're just the wrong species. Crystal Lee Sutton died, and my sympathies go out to her and her family.

She was murdered by Democrats and Liberals who have created so many obstacles to effective health care AND who have no desire to remove them now.

No The Republicans have no real soloutions. It's the same status quo for them. They don't want to inturrupt the Dealth Insurance Gravy train by allowing the Government to do it's job and insure it's citizenry. Pisses Me off. The SOB's would rather spend trillions Yes Trillions to kill people but they piss their pants if You even suggest helping to insure the uninsured and uninsurable. Boy they have a cow if thats even thought up.

Larry

#61 | POSTED BY ZULU

And they didn't enact that during their 6 years of total control ...why? They chose to make it illegal to negotiate drug prices in a trillion dollar .... DRUG bill. why?

Oh and don't even mention tort reform. Tort reforms sounds greaty until it is You who gets fucked over by a bad Doctor/Hospital then it's tort reform what tort reform that Doctor/Hospital is going to pay(As they rightfully should)

Larry

Here here, Larry

No, there's shouldn't be rationing. I believe in the liberal view: everyone should get free care, and everyone who makes more money than I do should be made to pay for it.

Gobama!

"1. Eliminates unfair tax treatment of health insurance for all Americans, thereby expanding choices, coverage, and control over your health care"

False. Repubilcans had 6 unfettered years and did nothing like this.

"2. Increase affordable options for working families to purchase health insurance through a standard tax deduction"

An income tax deduction means nothing to those too poor to qualify to pay income taxes. But if you'll notice, Republicans never suggest a rebate of regressive taxes, like FICA taxes.

"3. Ensure affordable health insurance to low-income individuals through a refundable, advanceable, assignable tax-based subsidy"

Misguided. All this ever does is increase the price by roughly the amount of the subsidy.

"4. Provide cross-state pooling to reduce health care costs and increase accessibility for small business owners, unions, associations, and their workers, members, and families"

All cross-state pooling will do is give the largest insurers a bigger pool from which to cherry-pick.

"5. Blend the individual and group market to extend important HIPAA portability protections to the individual market so that insurance security can better move with you from job to job"

Again, 6 unfettered years, and Republicans didn't do anything like that. Suggesting they would do it now is fantasy.

"6. Emphasize preventive benefits and helps individuals with chronic diseases so America will finally have health care and not sick care"

Same as #5.

"7. Gives people the choice to convert the value of Medicaid and SCHIP program benefits into private health insurance, putting you in control of your health care, not the Federal government"

All that does is increase average prices by the amount of the subsidy.

"8. Save lives and money by better coordinating health information technology to improve health care delivery"

Where were they on this when they were in power? Same with #9, and #10. It's completely disingenuous for the Republicans to come up with all these 'solutions' once they're OUT of power.

"Socialism is a great idea, we're just the wrong species."

What a crock. Socialism works just fine in some areas. Military, Fire & police protection, roads, clean air & water are all results of a socialistic approach. And currently, 40% of insured people are covered by a single-payer, socialistic system.

"Crystal Lee Sutton ... was murdered by Democrats and Liberals who have created so many obstacles to effective health care AND who have no desire to remove them now."

What a huge pile of partisan crap.

Nice job, Danforth.

Unfortunately, logic isn't a strong suit of the right wing.

The problem is the Liberals really don't want to solve the problem, and this push to nationalize health care is about grabbing power.

I agree that it is about grabbing power. It is about grabbing the power of medicine away from private, for-profit entities and putting it in the hands of We The People.

It's about working together for the common good. It's about all of us pitching in to provide for the health and welfare of every American, without exception. (We should even provide health care for tourists from foreign lands who get sick while they're here, just on the general principle of being gracious hosts.)

How is this simple ideal not one that all Americans believe in?

How can Christians not believe in this?

She was 68. Under any 'mature' single payer health care system she would have been given pain pills and that would be all.

There are two classes of Liberals.

1. The servant idealist class. These people have swallowed the lies and hate everyone they've been told to hate. This year it's insurance companies. It could just as easily be hair dressers or railroad brakemen. These people think of themselves as Democrats or Liberals, they are passionately devoted to doing the bidding of an elite class they never challenge.

2. The elite ruling class. For the most part these people are Fascists posing as Socialists. Think George Soros or Al Gore. These elites have the single goal of obtaining power over other people. The elites hate the U.S. Constitution and seek what ever means necessary to circumvent it. The elite class has a simple strategy, define a crisis and use that crisis to weaken the U.S. Constitution and centralize power.

Since the Second World War the liberal elite ruling has focused on destroying individualism and self reliance through the public school system, and have been unchallenged and they have been successful.

Larry, and many of the Liberal members of this site, are of the 1st class.

"Under any 'mature' single payer health care system she would have been given pain pills and that would be all."

Link?

The servant idealist class. These people have swallowed the lies and hate everyone they've been told to hate. This year it's insurance companies. It could just as easily be hair dressers or railroad brakemen. These people think of themselves as Democrats or Liberals, they are passionately devoted to doing the bidding of an elite class they never challenge.
* * * *

Exactly. Last year it was the energy companies. I remember when almost every industry has taken its turn: real estate developers, chemical companies, investment banking firms, big agriculture, big pharma, big military contractors. In the 19th century it was railroads, steel, radio.
It's Orwellian, watching these guys conjuring up one boogeyman after another. Isn't it funny how they never get upset with Big Government, as long as it's their guys sitting at the top? They can do no wrong, those big-govy types.

"7. Gives people the choice to convert the value of Medicaid and SCHIP program benefits into private health insurance, putting you in control of your health care, not the Federal government"

CMS et.al. provide funding to the States. The States regulate the health insurers and distribute the Federal CMS funds to the insurers in that State.

The Federal government and the States pay the health insurance companies to provide care to CHIP and Medicaid enrollees. At no point is the Federal government "in charge" of anyone's health care. The Federal government does not make medical decisions, that is done by doctors and nurses. (There are a few areas where the Feds explicitly will NOT pay, such as the prohibition on Federal dollars to pay for abortions.)

In summary, you don't know what you're talking about.

10. Decrease the sky-rocketing cost of health care by restoring reliability in our medical justice system through State-based solutions

What a strange notion, that fifty bureaucracies performing the exact same function for a subset of the population are bound to be cheaper than one all-encompassing bureaucracy. Do you have any real-world examples where this sort of geographic balkanization has decreased the cost of distributing resources to the population?

Why would anyone want anymore God Damned money going to Private Insurance Agencies beings they have fucked over so many people in todays climate. I mean really why reward Private Insurance with more money?? It's t totally fucked up in a double helix.

Larry

Would the government be a better option, LAR? How?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-13 06:46 PM | Reply

oohRah it would eliminate the For Profit drive that the Private Insurance thrives upon. You cut out the profit motivator You eliminate alot of denials of claims. Since it would be the health of the individual rather than the health of the company that takes priority. That's why a Government Option is imparative.

Larry

"It's Orwellian, watching these guys conjuring up one boogeyman after another. Isn't it funny how they never get upset with Big Government, as long as it's their guys sitting at the top? They can do no wrong, those big-govy types."

Are you talking about the Bush administration, or are you pretending this only began when a guy with a (D) after his name took office?

"Would the government be a better option, LAR? How?

#75 | POSTED BY OOHRAH"

80 million insured by Medicare/Medicaid can tell you. They can go to the doctor of their choice in any 50 states, be admitted to any hospital (without having to pay the bill themselves if they go to the wrong one), they do not have to file bankruptcy over unpaid medical bills, their doctor can decide on the best course of treatment without having to call some idiot without medical training hundreds of miles away for pre-approval, and the list goes on - all at a much lower cost, 2% administrative costs (as opposed to 20-30% in the private sector) and premiums.

Everyone I know on Medicare is extremely happy with it.

One uncomfortable incongruity that a Class 1 Liberal is faced with is the unrepentant and easily researched desires of the Class 2 Liberals to obtain wealth and power.

(1)One... if a for-profit is forced to compete with an entity which doesn't have to turn a profit and can simply either run an indefinite deficit (or raise taxes to meet a shortfall)(2) how long till you would see the private sector being phased out? Can you see that happening?(3) Or is your goal a single payer system? If it is, why not say so and extoll its virtues?

I know you're not a big fan of monopolies. How efficient do you envision a monopolistic government entity?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-13 07:05 PM | Reply

(1) The Military spending is like that and You do not bellyache about that. I don'tyy see the problem in this.

(2) Don't care if the Private Health Care Insurance is phased out because they can't compete. Ones health care must not be dictated upon the desire to profit upon someones physical/Mental misery.

(3)Whats the difference between a public option and a single payer?? If there is still a private entity involved I don't want it.

Larry

PS I only added numbers to Your thread to single them out.

More liberal bullshit. She was a senior citizen on Medicare. She already HAD government-provided healthcare. If she had a problem with an insurance company, it was a problem with a supplemental insurance policy to cover the shortcomings of Medicare. See, the government plan (Medicare) is so good, people need to buy insurance for their insurance. If the government plan is so good, why
is that the case?

"Is Medicare in decent financial shape, not only today but going forward?"

Funding and efficiency are two different issues. As an example, in the last decade, have your health care costs gone up or down? A lot, or a little? If you're like most, it's been up, and a lot. Certainly it's been outpacing inflation that entire time, and again, on average, it's more than doubled. And what about the Medicare tax rate? A decade ago, it was 2.9%, split between employer and employee. What is it now?

2.9%.

Funding and efficiency are two different issues. Grossly underfunding Medicare, and then pointing to the underfunding as proof it doesn't work, is Norquist-ian.

Is Medicare in decent financial shape, not only today but going forward?

I've never spoken with relatives/friends specifically about their Medicare. I have spoken with a handful of retirees who are very very leery of our gov't taking over the healthcare system.

#81 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-13 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Seems everyone that I know on Medicare is happy with it. Oh and as far as monies available to afford Medicare in the furture. Funny how You worry about the finanacial wellbeing of muedicare but You nary say a word about Military spending OohRah?? Seems Your priorities are all out of whack.

Larry

Medicare is going broke as well as everything else government operates.

Medicare is going broke as well as everything else government operates.

#86 | Posted by Ray

We need to increase taxes and decrease spending. We are spending too much on these wars.

Dinsey writes:

'More liberal bullshit. She was a senior citizen on Medicare. She already HAD government-provided healthcare.'

I wish more people, including myself, were that perceptive.

" outside the military, is there any other government-run entity which is not only effective, but cost effective and efficient?"

Social Security and Medicare.

On military... there is waste and fraud in the system. But we don't have a feasible privatized military option like we do with the host of insurance companies.

A huge difference is that the military doesn't say to you and me, "we aren't gonna be able to justify your diabetes treatments because..."

The military DOES perform admirably - at great cost. To reverse the question on you... are you happy with the way our government is spending its money on the military?

And, outside the military, is there any other government-run entity which is not only effective, but cost effective and efficient?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-13 07:29 PM | Reply

Look OohRah we don't have a feisable health care insurance industry now!!!!!!!!!!!. If we did everyone would have coverage and nobody would be denied service. The Military serves the Nation the whole nation without denying certain segments of the population because of pre existing bad condititions. No they serve us all. Am I happy with how the Military is funded?? No way jose. It's funny we spend the euivalent to most of the rest of the world combined on Military spending. It harkens back to Ikes MIC letter that said for every dollar spent upon the Military is a theft to the poor in America(Yes it's not His quoted words but Paraphrasing) I am sorry but if we can waste money in the Military then by God we can "waste" it prividing health care coverage to Americans.

Larry

"So are you suggesting we should raise the taxes/contributions to Medicare?"

Absolutely.

"Or reduce beneifits?"

We'll probably have to, as well as increase the eligibility age. We're all living longer, which hasn't been properly addressed.

"The 2.9/2.9% is based on income. Incomes have risen over the years, tossing more $$$ into the kitty, no?

Which means as long as wages lag medical inflation, we get further behind each year, no?

The thought that a single payer health care system will remove profit and eliminate a lot of denial claims is juvenile.

What the removal of profit motive will do to the health care system is devastate it, just as removing the profit motive from potato chip manufacturing or any other industry.

That's just the way real economics works.

That explains why Cuba has a 12% lower infant mortality rate and just a 1% (eight month) lower life expectancy than the United States.

That's just the way health care works, Zulu. You might consider looking into the facts someday.

"You've got to be kidding, DAN. Social Security? It's going broke."

Look at your question again. I answered it correctly. Again, stop confusing proper funding with efficiency.

"I don't know as much about Medicare. Is it financially solvent?"

No, it's underfunded, for the reasons I've enumerated.

"Are there tax increases or other "contributions" necessary to service the growing number of elderly?"

Going from 6-1 payers-to-users to closer to 3-1? You tell me.

"Or will it face the same issues as Social Security?"

Same issues, but the fix on SS is much easier. Plus, SS won't spike higher than inflation, whereas medical costs most certainly will, unless drastic action is taken.

Imagine if the Republicans had been successful in privatizing Medicare or Social Security. It would have been a disaster, especially if they'd used the same logic they used to make it illegal to negotiate drug prices in a DRUG program. Hundreds of billions in waste right there. A peep from the right wing? Hardly.

"Incomes have risen over the years" - OohRah

Recently released figures show that average incomes have not risen a penny in 8 years or kept pace with inflation.

You've got to be kidding, DAN. Social Security? It's going broke. You'll either see drastic tax increases or a reduction in benefits.

I don't know as much about Medicare. Is it financially solvent? Are there tax increases or other "contributions" necessary to service the growing number of elderly? Or will it face the same issues as Social Security?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-13 07:41 PM | Reply

So?? When there is extra spending upon the two Wars that You support You remain silent. Why is it You don't worry about that but worry about the Government doing it's Job by taking care of it's citizenry?? Please I beg of You OohRah explain it to Me so that I may understand Your disconnect.

Larry

No The Republicans have no real soloutions. It's the same status quo for them. They don't want to inturrupt the Dealth Insurance Gravy train by allowing the Government to do it's job and insure it's citizenry. Pisses Me off. The SOB's would rather spend trillions Yes Trillions to kill people but they piss their pants if You even suggest helping to insure the uninsured and uninsurable. Boy they have a cow if thats even thought up.
Larry

#62 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

you got that right.. people like Zulu are a waste of oxygen.

Tax credits and portability don't mean shit when you are unemployed trying to find a job. It's all fucking BS.

"Or will it face the same issues as Social Security?"

Which would have been shored up under Clinton's plan to pay off the national debt. Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney had other ideas.

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

NATIONAL DEBT:

07/22/2009 11,634,723,000,000.00 (Bush's budget)

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 (Clinton's last budget)

Yes, LAR, we do have a feasible privatized option. It doesn't need to be trashed in favor of a single payer (the gov't option, which will supercede other options).

Republicans have offered alternatives... albeit they're drowned out in the grand scheme of things. They've been hashed out here before. Things like transportability from state to state, tax credits for insurance purchases, etc.

Keep decision making between people and private entities. Competition keeps pricing lower.

#96 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-13 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You're so full of shit it's drizzing out of Your ass. Keeping it private won't reduce3 costs. Hell dude I was willing to pay twice the amount just to get covered and the least expensive was 200 bucks a month and I couldn't even get them to take Me on. It's unbelievbable that You have the gall to say keep it private vwhen the prices of health care insurances is skyrocketing now. I mean Hellloooooooooo OohRah if competitition was going to lower costs then they would have been lowered by now. LMAO

Larry

"Or will it face the same issues as Social Security?"
Which would have been shored up under Clinton's plan to pay off the national debt. Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney had other ideas.
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

NATIONAL DEBT:

07/22/2009 11,634,723,000,000.00 (Bush's budget)
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 (Clinton's last budget)

Tell Me this OohRah. If we have a feasable privatized insurance option then pray tell why are so many like Me without health Care insurance?? If we have a feasable privitized health care insurance option then pray tell don't I have health insurance after being turned down by every single insurance company I have applied to?? Face it we do not have a feasable privitized health insurance option. We never have had.

Larry

"Zulu" does smack a little of a political orator standing on a soap box in the middle of a driving rainstorm at midnight, telling us that the sun is too hot and if we don't go indoors we shall all die of heat prostration. Our U.S. health care system has deteriorated to 38th worldwide (WHO figures) and repairing it would save $400 billion a year in tax money (AMA figures), but dammit, we have adfark-complected centrist in the White House and keeping HIM from pushing us onto the socialist road trumps all other progress. herm

Why is it people rail against Clinton for downsizing the Military(Even though it was agreed upon the waning years of Reagans tenure and first implimented under Bush41) but You are the same assholes who want to either cut medicare spending or eliminate it entirely?? You act as if You cut one bullet from the Defenese department You go into cardiac arrest. But You get a fucking triple hard hard on for cutting medical care to Your lesser citizenry?? Please would one of You righty tighties explain it to Me?? I would dearly love to know where Your priorities are??

Larry

Larry,

Please quit making sense!!

- The Right

"I think Americans should be required to pay for their obesity. 30% more if you're 30% overweight, 50% if you're 50% overweight. Knee replacements are only the tip of the iceberg. Diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc. - preventable diseases if people would only exercise some "personal responsibility" (GOP mantra, right?)"

1. Much of Congress would be fucked. Fat bastards.

2. Who decides what "overweight" is? The BMI is bullshit.

The BMI isn't bullshit. People with a BMI over 30 are usually obese. There are different body type to take into account but as a broad benchmark, it's a useful statistic.

It's also extremely easy to calculate, and useful historically as height and weight have been recorded for hundreds of years.

2. Who decides what "overweight" is? The BMI is bullshit.

#109 | Posted by pragmatist

body fat test is better with calipers.

Elvis is bored.

BMI? Height and weight aren't the only indicators of health. I'll just put it that way. I think I'm obese by BMI, and that's funny. I can do a lot more than some people 50 pounds lighter than I can do. And my health is better than theirs.

I still want to lose weight. ; )

BMI? Height and weight aren't the only indicators of health. I'll just put it that way. I think I'm obese by BMI, and that's funny. I can do a lot more than some people 50 pounds lighter than I can do. And my health is better than theirs.

I still want to lose weight. ; )

#116 | Posted by pragmatist

Body builders are morbidly obese by bmi standards. You need a complete physical to know a persons condition. Including EKG and lung capacity tests.

RightisRight sourced the story of fat people being denied coverage in the UK to Free Republic and Sky News. You do know that Freepers are lunatics even by rightnut standards and that SKY News is a Rupert Murdoch operation, don't you RisR?

The Independent, which is a real newspaper unlike what we have here masquerading as journalism, had a report from 2006 saying that some consideration was being given to it but, as far as I know, nothing was implemented because common sense prevailed. Rather like Bush's lunatic scheme to privatize social security -- how would that have worked out as he was desperately trying to get out of office before he admitted that the economy had tanked on his watch? Common sense -- another brain function noticeably absent here in right wing circles.

Most people are not bodybuilders. For the average joe, BMI is a reasonable measure of obesity.

You can also be strong as an ox and still be overweight. I know a one guy like that. Dude is like 6'3" and weighs 340 or something. But he does need to lose some fat. Even if he did lose some fat, though, he'd still be freakin' huge.

But like I said, that's one guy out of the hundreds I can think of for whom BMI might not be a reasonable measure of obesity and general healthfulness.

I'm guessing you're one of those football-sized dudes, Pragmatist. :)

Jackass is right, BMI alone isn't enough, but it's a good proxy measure. Historically, it's often all we've got. Just my opinion.

I'm 5'11 and weigh 187. My BMI is 26.1

Congratulations on not being obese, Jackass!

My BMI Is 22.5. But I am a skinny guy and could stand to replace ten pounds (guesstimate) of this beer gut with muscles elsewhere in my body.

I wrestled in college at 177 so I could lose ten lbs but I would have to give up beer and good food. If Obamacare costs me an extra 20 bucks a month so be it.

Overweight patients have been denied hip and knee replacement surgery on the NHS as some health authorities try to cut costs.

#37 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-13 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag: FAT and WORRIED, WITH SORE KNEES

68? Its questionable whether that's too early to deny monumentally expensive care, but I believe rationing is necessary.

Just found out yesterday that Medicare and insurance spent nearly $3 million on chemo and radiation treatment for my 84 year old grandmother (I thought it was much less, previously).

She can't walk, certainly will never contribute to tax revenue, and has a prognosis giving her another 3 years to live at most due to a completely separate condition.

Ultimately, what was the point? I would have prescribed pain meds and counseling and saved the tax payers a few million... And its my own grandmother.

Rationing is necessary unless you want the market to dictate price and the availability of goods, even in medicine. It just makes me uneasy when the people making the decisions to ration are agents of the private sector and not individuals who are publicly accountable.

i haven't read through the thread but I read the article.

she was 68 and with a private insurer?

not medicare?

the insurance company was not named and no details of the denied claims are given.

for her to be insured by a private insurance company and not medicare she would have been employed and carried under her employer's plan.

again, no details.

Okay, I see Dinsey caught it and the thread changed direction immediately after that.

nobody wanted to talk about Norma anymore.

LOL

Ultimately, what was the point? I would have prescribed pain meds and counseling and saved the tax payers a few million... And its my own grandmother.

Rationing is necessary unless you want the market to dictate price and the availability of goods, even in medicine. It just makes me uneasy when the people making the decisions to ration are agents of the private sector and not individuals who are publicly accountable.

Posted by apparatchik at 2009-09-13 10:51 PM | Reply

What's the point?? The point is She is part of the fabric of America and Americana. Do You deny a thread it's value just because that thread has a blemish and needs cared for?? I would argue that had they have just given Her pain meds and sent Her home to die instead of trying to fix Her would be tantamount to cutting the very heart of that fabric out and leaving a big gaping wound upon our values as Americans. After all I would bet She contributed to the progression of America in Her Spring and Summer of life. It's time to repay that fruit bearing by taking care of Her in Her winter of life.

Larry

According to the HHS/NIH website calculator, my BMI is 29.1 I am overweight, not obese (though mighty close). I'd have to lose 30 pounds to be of normal weight, according to this calculator. Normal weight? Really? Man, I would be fuckin' tight at 30 pounds below where I am now. Hm.

I don't know. I'd be pretty uncomfortable getting charged, say, 20% more than some dude my age who falls into that "normal" range. (Maybe it's more like 30%.) Without seeing in what other ways we compare to one another health-wise. But hell, why should someone "healthier" than I am pay the same rate?

for her to be insured by a private insurance company and not medicare she would have been employed and carried under her employer's plan.

again, no details.

#129 | Posted by eberly

She was in the union when she worked. Some unions give benefits to retirees if they were in the union for over 20 years.

She was in the union when she worked. Some unions give benefits to retirees if they were in the union for over 20 years

beyond age 65 when she is eligible for medicare?

I've never seen a pension plan that would do that.

"beyond age 65 when she is eligible for medicare?
I've never seen a pension plan that would do that."

Usually they are secondary plans, supplemental to Medicare. If someone doesn't qualify for Medicare, then it becomes their primary plan.

* Employer- or union-sponsored plans. Both you and your spouse/partner should check with your local union representative, human resources department and/or benefits plan administrator to see what retiree health insurance options are available to you. As a union member, you are more likely to have retiree health benefits through one of these types of plans than most other groups in the country. However, it is a good idea to have an alternative plan just in case your plan is modified in the future.

Danforth is right. When I retire I'll be 62 so It'll be my primary plan until I turn 65 and it'll be a supplemental plan after that.

Even the best insurance plans try to cut cost where they can. Private or public somebody will always be getting screwed. I think people need to have a nest egg just in case you end up needing an experimental treatment that isn't covered by anybody.

"Danforth is right. When I retire I'll be 62 so It'll be my primary plan until I turn 65 and it'll be a supplemental plan after that"

Between now and then, if your plan is sensible, it will extend the retirement age. It will probably have to, to survive. I wouldn't put much stock in early retirement (no pun intended).

Larry, you wax poetic, but I don't get get any substance from your argument. She now lives a largely immobile life, constantly tended to by hospital orderlies. She has limited independence and is always experiencing some varying degree of pain.

That's being "taken care of"?

And you and I and the rest of America spent $3,000,000+ to make it happen, much more -- accounting for inflation adjusted dollars -- than she has ever contributed to either a) her private insurance and b) to medicare. To be fair, health care inflation is nearly Zimbabwean in comparison to CPI.

I'd like to think I'm not assigning value to an individual, but its almost impossible not to when you're considering the allocation of a limited resource. I'm pointing out that scarce medical resources should be allocated in greater proportion to those who will receive the maximum benefit -- that benefit being the successful lengthening and enhancement of a productive and meaningful life, not spending $3 mil to immobilize and incapacitate someone who has only a 3-5 years left anyway.

The same thing happens on the battlefield. Only there, they call it triage and here, we chalk up its moral ramifications as being merely another unfortunate practice necessitated by the chaos of war.

Unbelievable. You worry about the 3 MILLION Dollars spent upon Your Failing Grandmothers Care yet we are collectively wasting 3 TRILLION Dollars on an Illegal Needless War?? I may be fucked up in the head but I am not that fucked up to know that just doesn't make sense whatsoever Apparatchik. I guess I don't get Your troubles on a mere 3 Million Dollars when We are wasting so much on a War Machine.

Larry

Wow... What batshit crazy handle have you flown off of? I've been against both wars from the very beginning.

This is a separate issue.

Yeah, if we had crazy shit tons of cash laying around and budget surpluses, I'd say everyone, including someone who's life expectancy is less than 6 months -- regardless of treatment --, should get multi-million dollar medical attendance.

It's sad that we can't have a rational discussion about a serious issue without devolving into these histrionics.

Death is a touchy subject it seems.

attendance == attention
--, == --

Pedantry, FTW

I'm sorry but I always and I do mean always side on the sake of trying to preserve life. Life is ttoo precious to waste simply because it may cost a bit of coin. I guess I don't understand it Apparatchik.

Larry

I guess what I am trying to say is I would never trash someones life simply because the treatment is costly and it may not help. If that makes any sense.

Take care of Your Grandma as best You can Apparatchik. You's good people and I bet She is too.

Larry

I always stay on the side of preserving _quality_ of life, the sustainability of a knowledge-driven civilization through stable governance and economic practices, and the most effective and equitable means of maintaining that for the greatest number of people.

I also don't share your sentiments with respect to life being precious. Its a sophisticated chain of electro-chemical reactions. That most peoples' minds somehow seem to equate that with a sort of quasi-supernatural process of some special meaning is irrelevant.

Life just is, and I agree to disagree.

So after she unionized her factory....the textile jobs went where?

"So after she unionized her factory....the textile jobs went where?"

The same place the non-unionized textile jobs went.

I guess to put this in not-so-philosophical a perspective...

I can't wrap my head around the fact that we spent that kind of money on those in the very twilight of their lives while we can allow someone like the 16 year old daughter of a colleague to go without the treatments that might have saved her life from a rare form of non-hodgkins lymphoma.

She could have recovered and done something great for society. We said "no, thanks".

I guess the difference is, some people see a person's worth as something that is built up over time i.e. one is old, they worked hard their whole life, so they are entitled to x, y, and z

where as I see an individual's potential as a contributor to society.

I'm not saying you're guilty of this, it's just something I've noticed in general.

I also believe that a society that wishes to have longevity and maintain quality of life must one day tackle the difficult problem of how that society deals with a growing aging population as medicine grants us unprecedented life expectancies.

Apparatchik I wished like hell I had the power to make everyones life perfect. I really do. I am powerless so I don't know what to do You know??? Hope for the best that's all I can think of.

Larry

Apparatchik-
re: I guess the difference is, some people see a person's worth as something that is built up over time i.e. one is old, they worked hard their whole life, so they are entitled to x, y, and z

where as I see an individual's potential as a contributor to society.

It seems "Norma Rae's" private insurance company agrees with you, as does the Republican Party.

Ouch, Betelg. That stings!

Actually, I'll assume you followed my discussion with Larry, but I never said that Norma Rae should have been let to die by her insurer or by anyone. I used this forum -- and perhaps tastelessly and wrongfully so -- to raise the question of how we should deal with a growing population of aging people given limited medical resources. I mean, she's 68. Its not exactly apples-to-apples to compare her to my 84 year old grandmother, I'll admit.

I also went on to say that

It just makes me uneasy when the people making the decisions to ration are agents of the private sector and not individuals who are publicly accountable.

Very NOT Republican, if I might say so myself. I also do not advocate government death panels, FYI. I'm on the fence as to how to deal with the issue of a growing retired and elderly population and their health care.

Also, the case of my grandmother was used to point out something that I thought was out of whack, not to justify that Norma should not be cared for. The insurance company saw this woman as a financial liability and weaseled its way out of its obligations. Unfortunately, a perfectly logical act of an entity whose primary concern is financial gain.

And another thing... Not to cite this instance as an example (because its not), but that an insurance company's or a political party's views on this sort of issue might in one particular case lead to the same conclusion as where my line of thinking leads is pure coincidence and nothing more. My ideas and philosophical basis are much too bizarre and out-of-the-mainstream to possibly bare any resemblance to those of a band of religious and ideological nutters such as the Republicans.

for her to be insured by a private insurance company and not medicare she would have been employed and carried under her employer's plan.

Or it could be a spouse's plan, Eberly. Or perhaps it was a union benefit.

App, the reason all that money got spent on grandma is because it's profitable to do so.

It's bleeding the country dry, and it's not sustainable, but it is profitable. And that's Wall Street's primary concern.

Insurance companies and the AMA railed against Medicaid when LBJ pushed it through. But now the medical profession has discovered a nice little cash cow in the form of our Medicare/Medicaid tax dollars. And the cow is fattening up much, much faster than inflation.

Now we buy the old-timers prescriptions with our taxes, how sweet a deal is that if you're a pharmaceutical manufacturer? Talk about utter lack of price transparency! Not to mention the sweet "deal" taxpayers have "negotiated" with the pharmaceutical companies where we can't even argue drug prices and it's illegal to import the same drug from other countries where the governments have struck a better bargain.

It's essentially the oppposite of a free market. It delivers taxes into the hands of profiteers. It's even more dishonest, economically speaking, than a State-run monopoly.

Interview With Insurance Whistleblower

"He's not well known to most Americans. But he worked for almost 20 years as an insurance executive, almost 15 for Cigna (one of the nation's largest insurance companies) until he decided he'd had enough. He then blew the whistle on insurers at congressional hearings last June when he revealed how private insurers dumped patients with costly health problems to protect their profits. Now he's speaking out on the practices of these same insurers. "

What he has to say should send shivers down anyone's spine regardless of which party they ID with...

He then blew the whistle on insurers at congressional hearings last June when he revealed how private insurers dumped patients with costly health problems to protect their profits.

Actual death panels, eh?

Really scary thing fer Spud when reading about the health care crisis in the US was finding out 7 outta 10 bankrupcies due to medical bills happened to families who HAD insurance.

And the rtards continue to bleat...

"Crisis? What Crisis?"

Nice find.

Good eye, Timex.

Be Well.

Dethspud

Maybe you could post a thread on this? Everyone should read it, right or left. It's a VERY revealing article about an issue that affects us all. Besides the stories of how the industry operates to the detriment of their 'clients', the fact that monopolies controlled by a handful are controlling policy and now should be given a run for their money (literally) is glaring. 'Competition' is really nonexistent.

Dethspud

Or it could be a spouse's plan, Eberly. Or perhaps it was a union benefit.

She would still be on Medicare for primary care.

there are plenty of legitimate cases of insurance companies denying care without having to grab one that has virtually no details (except to mention her age) and that tells us that Medicare is the "private insurance company" that is denying the significant care she needed.

In such a rush to sling mud on private insurance companies, the left winds up getting it on yourselves.

LOL

Ted Kennedy

"6 unfettered years"

If what the republicans had was "unfettered," then what would you call what the Dems have now?

then what would you call what the Dems have now?
#162 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Just admit that they aren't the same.

They don't act in concert like the previous majority and have a tenuous hold on a fillibuster proof vote even if they were. Republicans in the last Congress blew previous fillibuster averages out of the water.

But we have the best healthcare system in the world.

I know that, because that's all the right wing keeps chanting.

#1 | Posted by Roy_Batty

you hear horror stories like this from Private Insurance companies here and you hear the same thing from Socialized Medicine in Europe.

At least you are hearing good ideas coming from the Conservatives (not the politicians, sadly).

Some of the ideas are to increase competition among the Insurance companies.

I say go one step further and have each state provide the policy! Any Insurance company want to step up and cover, can do that. The state still regulates it.

Obamacare is simply moving this horrible problem to the government.

Eddie,
STFU.

Something tells me that Crystal Lee's death is going to be a turning point for Obama's plan. Sometimes a person's problems with Big Business become a case-in-point that cannot be ignored.

I hope this situation pushes Congress in the direction it needs to go.

"So after she unionized her factory....the textile jobs went where?
#148 | Posted by Diablo"

"The same place the non-unionized textile jobs went.
#149 | Posted by Danforth"

Lol! That shut Diablo the fuck up.

Eddie,
STFU.

#166 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Chair doesn't like getting his ass handed to him by a Conservative.

"Chair doesn't like getting his ass handed to him by a Conservative.

#169 | Posted by Eddie"

But Eddie, on the other hand, does like getting his ass handled by a Conservative.

Eb, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Medicare is not itself an insurance provider.

Medicare (via CMS) makes payments to the Medicare recipient's insurance company. But they're not actually providing care, or the insurance. Just our tax dollars to pay for the insurance.

There's no shortage of mud to go around, that much is for sure.

I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

#172 | Posted by zulu

Hahahaha. Drone, you long since overdosed on blue pills.

"illegal to import the same drug from other countrie"

a bit of good news, Walmart is bring $4.00 30 supply drugs in from India, ($10.00 for 90 days)
of my 6 drugs, 5 are available under the Walmart plan. Others are starting to do the same (Wallgrens,Fred Myer)

I can now stop buying from Canada (breaking the law)

Just admit that they aren't the same.

They don't act in concert like the previous majority and have a tenuous hold on a fillibuster proof vote even if they were. Republicans in the last Congress blew previous fillibuster averages out of the water.

#163 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-14 11:13 AM

Massive majorities that would make the previous republican 1 party rule blush, and you still have people making excuses for the Dems (like HC here).

We could have 99 Democrats in the Senate and HC would be right here with his "But but but... it's dIfFeReNt!!!"