36 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

How about: 1. Tort reform? One surgeon pays 100K a year for malpractice insurance. He passes that cost on to the patients (read insurance companies). We agree to arbitration when we open a brokerage account. Why can't we opt for lower rates and accept an arbitration option for malpractice. 2. Patients responsible for normal health -care "maintenance"? I have car insurance but I pay for oil changes and tune-ups. 3. Customer selected options such as Catastrophic-only coverage? Many doctors and clinics offer discounts to self-paying customers. And many would opt for being self-insured if they could simply get that 150K bypass surgery covered. 4. Eliminate government mandated coverage for sex-change operations & counseling, maternity coverage for men, etc. Some of that stuff gets really silly. There are other simple suggestions. Can you offer one?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 09 August 2009 - 09:36 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

Mandatory $1500 MSA's. If you can't afford one, one will be provided for you (Why? we're all paying for those who don't pay but use healthcare anyway). If you don't use it in 2 years, you get to roll it into your IRA or pay taxes on it and just take it and run. If you took government monies, you can only take 50% of it after taxes (but it's "free" money). This will curb the overuse of healthcare and introduce some price discipline. None of that would increase net costs and would likely dramatically curb health care price inflation.

[Rogerdodger]

Half of the $2.2 trillion the United States spends on health care each year is WASTED!

Here are 3 areas where HUGE waste is occurring:

UN-NECESSARY TESTING WASTES $210,000,000,000

Filing out & PROCESSING CLAIMS adds another $210,000,000,000 in waste.

Patients IGNORING DOCTOR'S ORDERS, another $100,000,000,000 wasted.


LINK

I can see where government run health care could reduce the first cost because it will no doubt deny many tests which your doctor recommends and you want, as we hear is the practice in other countries government run programs, as well as some failed state-run programs here in the US.

But reducing paperwork? The Government? LOL!
Of course the cost of that could be eliminated by not reimbersing the doctor's time.
And a government agency similar to the IRS will oversee the paperwork processing.
That of course has no cost (wink wink) since it's all paid for by the government.
Oh yeah, taxes will be collected from taxpayers.

And will they have inspectors in your home to make sure you are following doctor's orders?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 10 August 2009 - 08:35 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

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

PS: Does anyone know why I cannot find the actual wording of this bill online?
Do you sign a contract without reading it?
Transparency?

Time to invest in mattresses?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 12 August 2009 - 03:02 PM.

[salsabob]

Here are two sites that do a pretty good job of debunking all the myths and propaganda surrounding the proposed legislation.

http://www.politifac...ubjects/health/

http://tinyurl.com/pv4n64



The debunking happens on both sides.

The myth about Section 163 government access to accounts doesn't reach the "pants of fire" level but it is generally a dishonest portrayal. It is mostly about bringing consistency to e-info shared across providers and insurers to help lower admin costs through the existing approaches used in Medicare. What's a hoot, however, is that while the bill states that the system should "enable" (rather than "require") the possibility for such consistent info exchange at the individual level (to facilitate online payment of medical billings that more and more people desire), banking systems are already REQUIRED to be set up to allow easy access by the IRS and government criminal investigate agencies to get this information and more, much more.

Some bat-shirt things going on out there, but that is fully expected in a Fourth Turning. A lot of the 'screamers' at those meetings seem to be in their 60s - I wonder how many are going to stand on principal and refuse there govt-run Medicare checks - the most socialized program out there.

What a bunch of clowns. Entertaining though.

[mss]

Here are two sites that do a pretty good job of debunking all the myths and propaganda surrounding the proposed legislation.

THE TRUTH COMES FROM READING THE SECTIONS OF THE BILL THAT BOTHER YOU!

Not some debunking site that each have private agenda.
mss

[salsabob]

Here are two sites that do a pretty good job of debunking all the myths and propaganda surrounding the proposed legislation.

THE TRUTH COMES FROM READING THE SECTIONS OF THE BILL THAT BOTHER YOU!

Not some debunking site that each have private agenda.
mss

Oh, if it was only that easy.

Section 163 amends the Part C of title XI of the Social Security Act. How many screamers at the town meetings do you think are familiar with that legislation or the legislative history (75 years of committee minutes and statements) used by the reams of bureaucrats necessary to establish the resulting regulations in the CFR, specifically 42 U.S.C. 1320d? One might think you would need that background before delving into the trade literature or attending the national or regional conferences by the private sector to gain their legal and programmatic insights on how best to respond to government requirements. That would seem to be the bare minimum before one could begin to interpret what Section 163 actually does.

But maybe its just me - you others can go ahead and pretend that the screamers at these meetings know shirt-from-shinola, even if they've memorized the latest legislative offering.

But this is a little too political for me. How can we make some money off of this?!

[stocks]

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi

“There’s something happening here…”

It began with the tea parties. People of all ages joined in huge protests against the massive spending approved in Washington. They gathered by the thousands in cities and towns from coast to coast to speak out against the huge stimulus plan. Yet, for months not much was covered by the mainstream media and President Barack Obama told the press that he didn’t know anything about the tea parties.

“What it is ain’t exactly clear…”


In the war years, President Richard Nixon called the protestors “bums”. This time, President Barack Obama has told them to shut up. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called the protestors “un-American”. And, when the media finally began covering the protests, organized union opposition curiously arrived to shout the protestors down and, in some cases, attack them. You can tell who these thugs are. They carry professionally printed signs with union bugs. The protestors carry home made cardboard signs.

Public option has been tried and failed in Canada and England. It has amounted to rationed care, long waits to see a Doctor and denial of services to those considered less likely to live as long as others. England cannot get rid of its public healthcare now because bureaucrats running its public health system are now the third largest block of employees in the world.

The leadership in Washington appears to have been purposely deaf to Middle America’s voice and its power at the polls. Playing games with the census won’t be enough to stop the votes to oust them if they don’t begin to listen to the people. Their numbers are growing, not through the SEIU and ACORN paid organizing of Obamacare storm troopers – Obama’s praetorian guard — but through word on the street among everyday people and over their kitchen tables. Friends are telling friends and those friends are showing up, no matter that Washington leaders are calling them a mob. They’re growing in numbers and showing up with their children in tow, pushing baby buggies, or in their walkers and carrying oxygen. Their message is clear. They want Washington to stop the spending spree, read bills before they pass them, and give them some tax relief. It’s time for Washington to begin to listen.


“We better stop, hey what’s that sound. Everybody look what’s going down.”


http://www.cdobs.com...ning-here,51313

[Rogerdodger]

Salsabob, your two links were not the bill's wording... but spin.
I have spin out my ears.

When salesmen tell me the benefits of a "deal" but will not discuss the fine print and tell me I must sign now or never..."I say never."

Shall we eat the elderly and take their property for the good of the collective?
That would make more funds available for the "viable" among us and solve the social security and medicare bankruptcies (other examples of failed government plans).
Illustrating the absurd with absurdity.

"Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction movie depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers.

It's the year 2022... People are still the same. They'll do anything to get what they need. And they need SOYLENT GREEN.

The message of Soylent Green is pretty relevant these days, when nobody seems to know what the hell the government or corporations are up to."

Edited by Rogerdodger, 12 August 2009 - 10:42 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

10 years ago I would have said that the opponents of the Health Insurance bill are engaging in hyperbole.
But things have changed in favor of "Statism" over the individual's rights.
Now we live in a country where the supreme court says that I can forceably take your private property if I simply will pay more taxes than you do, for "the public good".

Is my life and health my private property also?

60 Minutes:
"Eminent Domain: Being Abused?
Is Seizure Of Private Property Always In Public's Interest?
(CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse.
But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"?
Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.
Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value.
Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.
But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.
Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.

( I wonder how many of them are EMPTY NOW!)

The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money."

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says in part:
No person shall... be deprived of... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


This bill is not about HEALTH or insurance, it is about the increasing power of the STATe above the individual!
Statism is a term that may refer to either one or both of the following:
* A major government or state role in the direction of the economy, both directly through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy.
* A political viewpoint "that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."

Statism is sometimes used to refer to state capitalism or highly regulated market economies with large amounts of government intervention.

Definition: Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.

Hmmm....

The old and sick individuals get in the way of the efficient state.
Eat 'em.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 13 August 2009 - 12:08 AM.