We're not all idiots hereFollow

Goggy,



People who have definable issues should be taken care of through medicare and medicaid. People who've chosen poor lifestyle choices should have to pay for that choice. If they can't then yes they should be left to the care of churches and the generosity of local charitable organizations.

Edited, Aug 21st 2009 11:00am by publiusvarus

Death panels

So now the government does need to step in and fix healthcare insurance? Or it doesnt? I'm confused, Varus. I thought that private insurance agnecies were wonderful and they can fix themselves and everyone will be happy.




And they come up with new, bullsh*t rules every day to trim down what they consider "covered losses." I have a client who has to have an IV treatment every three weeks to remain healthy. It is prescribed by her doctor for her condition. Her insurance agency tried first to tell us it was "experimental." This is after they have been paying for it for half a year. Suddenly, it's not something they'll cover. We ******* at them, and they said they'd pay for it.

Now it's considered "investigational." It's not covered specifically for the health issue that she has. If the hospital doesn't force her to sign a waiver saying that she understands it's investigational, then the hospital has to eat the cost of her treatment.

If they do force her to sign the waiver, then that means that she will be responsible for the drug. Over $6,000 every three weeks.

And this sh*t happens every single day, to hundreds, maybe thousands of people.

Malpractice? I think we have much, much bigger problems. And "one paragraph" of legislation isn't going to help. Tenessee has already told the insurance companies that they cannot deny coverage to someone for a pre-existing illness. You live here, Varus. Do you know what that means? Do you know what the insurance companies do now? Instead of denying you coverage, they charge you over $1,000 a month for insurance, and they will add a rider saying that your illness, the one you need insurance for, won't be covered.

Personal responsibility? Let's talk about people who want insurance, who had insurance through a job, and because of the current economy, they are laid off and can't afford to buy a policy. Entire families go uncovered because of this. Then, when they are offered a job, it doesn't offer health insurance. Too bad, so sad, out of luck.

I think it's time that our government took a little responsibility and did what they are supposed to do: protect the citizens of this country and keep them safe. Even if that means keeping them safe from themselves (i.e. seatbelt laws and sin tax) or from corporations who don't give a sh*t about who's behind the veil and who's suffering all in the name of the all mighty dollar.

This sh*t is why people like you and gbaji who want to stifle the "Public Option" make me sick to my stomach.

Edit: Apparently it makes me so sick, I can't spell or do quote tags right.

Edited, Aug 21st 2009 10:14am by Belkira

My mother was presented a bill for her chemotherapy by United Healthcare after her second round of therapy for breast cancer. It wasn't a new drug or anything but they deemed the chemo "experimental." This was in 1997 and it took a threat of lawsuit to get it covered. Took my Dad a year and a half years to get it resolved and United Healthcare turned the bill over to collections in the mean time. The cost of that round of chemo? $2,000 (they covered the therapy but not the drug). This alone is the reason why I want single-payer, to hell with those companies.

DEATH PANELS!!!!!!

Better to be mugged at gunpoint in the street, raped, have your identity stolen, and beaten to a pulp than mugged, raped, identity stolen, and beaten to death, also.Fortunately, you aren't forced to pick either one. Both are bad, and we make every effort to prevent both from happening. When one does, it's a mistake, not par for the course.

I don't understand this fascination with accepting only two possibilities for healthcare. You don't always have to pick between two horrific evils you know.

If I could have Belky's babies, I would.

You'd have to ask someone who lies about it.

I don't know why you think that I'm trying to advance an argument that seems good to conservatives so that I could convince them to support what I do; I thought that I was being fairly clearly polemical.



Sometimes people pretend to argue things that they don't actually believe, things that are totally contrary to their serious thoughts and character in general, to emphasize bad things about that position, through either absurdity, hyperbole, or both. In this case, it's that the notion of "unfair" competition is ludicrous when you've accepted the (again, as a polemic) market system, mainly because I can't think of a situation where competition is fair.

It's only a lie if you actually don't believe it. One may just be wrong about what will happen, or subconsciously hiding your true feelings, but not believe them to be true. Lies require some sort of malice behind them. I doubt that anyone here is lying about what they think will happen.

It might be possible that they are right, and that private companies will still exist; it might be possible that you are right and that privates will be driven out, but I don't care. Whether they exist or are abolished is entirely incidental and unimportant to me so long as the public option or mandate (respectively) is there. There's just not a single fibre of my being that can bring myself to care about that consequence. We can test whether or not people intend to drive out the private sector, or whether they are like me and just don't care, by asking them a very simple question:

"If the private sector was actually not driven out of business due to the institution of a public avenue, would your support for the public avenue change to opposition =?"

If the answer is "no" then no one who currently supports the measure intends, or wants really, the private sector of medicine gone, at least not in any practical capacity. If the answer is "yes" then that means that the abolition of private stuff is more important to that person than the institution of public stuff, and you may feel free to call those people dastardly and execrable and other bad things.

***



Do you really want me to? I try not to point out conflicting ideas or bad inferences unless I'm already disagreeing with the person. This is because I really do try not to be a complete cunt to people, and like it when I have an ultimate point with whatever thing I'm using to argue. Shocking, I know. Imagine what it might be like without that inhibition.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2009 9:09am by Pensive

Mindel will cut you.

Also, get in line.