News

**Tyche Unleashed**

LooneyBin Wrote:

Tune 440 Wrote:
There is a lot worse rationing of healthcare already going on, right now.

So long as an insurance company makes more money by not covering people that by treating them it will always be so.

You want to see death panels? Look at Aetna, Blue Cross and the rest.

Then there are those who work for a living but un-able to get insurance at all.

Not for themselves or their families.

Are the lives of their families worth less than that of the 1% ?

But we don't have rationing?

Bullshit!

The government turns down procedures at a higher rate than any of the insurance companies. The people complaining about private insurance companies don't know what they are talking about.

Medicare led the group with the greatest percentage of insurance claims denied (6.85%), more than double the denial rate for private insurers like UHC (2.7%), Coventry (2.9%), Humana (2.9%) and CIGNA (3.4%).

Rationing in one form or another has always existed.Yes, the major companies turn you down for pre existing( my big issue cuz I was born this way).
However replacing that system with one that systematically ignores those pre existing conditions in their care plans is no solution.
This plan suggests that those who are elderly or badly dis abled should be denied certain care based on that criteria.
Personally,I prefer to be told I cant be covered due to cerebral palsy rather than be told I can't be treated because,even though I am covered-I'm really not.
That,my dear,is rationing at it's best/worst.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 114809 08-19-2012 12:19 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

We have been on Rations, since the obama health care passed. diabetic supplies have been reduced. nursing home medicines and supplies have been cut. many medical tests are no longer covered.

It's like Nazi Germany all over again.

Fox Gospel.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 94687 08-19-2012 03:24 PM

Just2Laws Wrote:

The video was from 2009-2010? He had hopes that his friend would get elected and begin making changes.

But the jack boots march on.

There is no stopping them.

We will have to experience TOTAL tyranny before the average American will notice that something is wrong.

^^^ ("total" added)

**Disturbed nli** Not the real one! User ID: 1 08-19-2012 04:08 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
We have been on Rations, since the obama health care passed. diabetic supplies have been reduced. nursing home medicines and supplies have been cut. many medical tests are no longer covered.

It's like Nazi Germany all over again.

Fox Gospel.

According to an MSNBC shill bot.

**Bond, James Bond** Licensed to kill User ID: 007 08-19-2012 04:52 PM

The most offensive part of this drama is my fellow man's attitudes and desire to blame whomever is not covered. They call them 'irresponsible' for not having the proper tests and care. I can only guess they have no experience with the medical system, insurance or doctors.

It's all been so crooked for so long. The people who seem to benefit work for large corporations and are part of group plans. Even then, the insurance companies manage to come up with reasons not to cover someone. For example, BCBS used to refuse to cover anything if you are among the first 3 people it ever happened to in your state.

That's reassuring, huh? I've seen them deny any coverage at all to people who had serious issues. One family who worked for GM in the 80's had to sell their home in order to pay for the wife's emergency reconstructive surgery. It only cost them 110,000.00 in medical expenses which were never reimbursed to save her life. BCBS didn't cover anything since she was the 2nd person it happened to. OMG.

In Canada, they don't diagnose conditions. That way, there is nothing to treat. LOL.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 107623 08-19-2012 04:54 PM

LooneyBin Wrote:

Tune 440 Wrote:
There is a lot worse rationing of healthcare already going on, right now.

So long as an insurance company makes more money by not covering people that by treating them it will always be so.

You want to see death panels? Look at Aetna, Blue Cross and the rest.

Then there are those who work for a living but un-able to get insurance at all.

Not for themselves or their families.

Are the lives of their families worth less than that of the 1% ?

But we don't have rationing?

Bullshit!

The government turns down procedures at a higher rate than any of the insurance companies. The people complaining about private insurance companies don't know what they are talking about.

Medicare led the group with the greatest percentage of insurance claims denied (6.85%), more than double the denial rate for private insurers like UHC (2.7%), Coventry (2.9%), Humana (2.9%) and CIGNA (3.4%).

Then don't use healthcare insurance companies. Like I said earlier, if people put money into a fund, say a set percent like 10% or so, starting as soon as they entered the workforce, they could dip into that fund to pay for any and all medical expenses. I'm not just saying medical, I'm saying also dental AND vision too. The chronically ill would probably benefit from staying with insurance, but for the vast majority of healthy young people, they would be better off the other way. Wouldn't it be nice to have to only put away a certain amount of money each month for medical and have ALL your medical covered? Not have to pay your $1,000 deductible and co-pay like insurance requires you to? You could then make your own medical decisions as to what doctor you'd like to see, if you wanted to get a second opinion, if you wanted to pay for regular meds or would rather pay for generic, since you'd be paying the bill with your own money.

If someone only made $15,000 a year (minimum wage), they would be putting $125/month into a fund. If they started working at 18, by the time they were 60 they'd have about $80,000 sitting in a fund even if they only earned 1% interest.

Now increase that to someone making $25,000 a year. They would pay in approximately $200/month into a fund. Starting at 18 and working to 60, they would've accumulated $125,000 by the time they reached 60 and that's at only 1% interest.

The average cost of insurance varies greatly, but it's not unusual to have to pay close to $200/month for individual coverage.

If a person was required to get bypass surgery, that cost is approximately $60,000. Even the individual making only $15,000 a year (minimum wage) could afford to have that surgery done with extra money left over to cover medications and such.

But what if you happened to get cancer?

Over the course of the study, the average cost for treating a lung cancer patient went up $7,139, to an average of $39,891. With prostate cancer, the average price tag for treatment went up $5,345, to an average of $41,134. The cost of treating breast cancer went up $4,189, to an average cost of $20,964.

However, the cost of treating prostate cancer dropped $196, to an average of $18,261 in 2002. The drop in cost was due to fewer men undergoing surgery for their cancer, the researchers found.

My, it looks like the person making only minimum wage could even afford to pay for a bout with cancer on the small amount he would have accumulated over the years.

I understand the $125/month would be difficult to come by for some people, but if I was forced to pay, I would rather put those funds into a medical savings account than donate them to some insurance company or to the government in the form of a tax.

**Bond, James Bond** Licensed to kill User ID: 007 08-19-2012 05:29 PM

LoP Guest Wrote:

LooneyBin Wrote:
Tune 440 Wrote:
There is a lot worse rationing of healthcare already going on, right now.

So long as an insurance company makes more money by not covering people that by treating them it will always be so.

You want to see death panels? Look at Aetna, Blue Cross and the rest.

Then there are those who work for a living but un-able to get insurance at all.

Not for themselves or their families.

Are the lives of their families worth less than that of the 1% ?

But we don't have rationing?

Bullshit!

The government turns down procedures at a higher rate than any of the insurance companies. The people complaining about private insurance companies don't know what they are talking about.

Medicare led the group with the greatest percentage of insurance claims denied (6.85%), more than double the denial rate for private insurers like UHC (2.7%), Coventry (2.9%), Humana (2.9%) and CIGNA (3.4%).

Then don't use healthcare insurance companies. Like I said earlier, if people put money into a fund, say a set percent like 10% or so, starting as soon as they entered the workforce, they could dip into that fund to pay for any and all medical expenses. I'm not just saying medical, I'm saying also dental AND vision too. The chronically ill would probably benefit from staying with insurance, but for the vast majority of healthy young people, they would be better off the other way. Wouldn't it be nice to have to only put away a certain amount of money each month for medical and have ALL your medical covered? Not have to pay your $1,000 deductible and co-pay like insurance requires you to? You could then make your own medical decisions as to what doctor you'd like to see, if you wanted to get a second opinion, if you wanted to pay for regular meds or would rather pay for generic, since you'd be paying the bill with your own money.

If someone only made $15,000 a year (minimum wage), they would be putting $125/month into a fund. If they started working at 18, by the time they were 60 they'd have about $80,000 sitting in a fund even if they only earned 1% interest.

Now increase that to someone making $25,000 a year. They would pay in approximately $200/month into a fund. Starting at 18 and working to 60, they would've accumulated $125,000 by the time they reached 60 and that's at only 1% interest.

The average cost of insurance varies greatly, but it's not unusual to have to pay close to $200/month for individual coverage.

If a person was required to get bypass surgery, that cost is approximately $60,000. Even the individual making only $15,000 a year (minimum wage) could afford to have that surgery done with extra money left over to cover medications and such.

But what if you happened to get cancer?

Over the course of the study, the average cost for treating a lung cancer patient went up $7,139, to an average of $39,891. With prostate cancer, the average price tag for treatment went up $5,345, to an average of $41,134. The cost of treating breast cancer went up $4,189, to an average cost of $20,964.

However, the cost of treating prostate cancer dropped $196, to an average of $18,261 in 2002. The drop in cost was due to fewer men undergoing surgery for their cancer, the researchers found.

My, it looks like the person making only minimum wage could even afford to pay for a bout with cancer on the small amount he would have accumulated over the years.

I understand the $125/month would be difficult to come by for some people, but if I was forced to pay, I would rather put those funds into a medical savings account than donate them to some insurance company or to the government in the form of a tax.

$200/month? Are you kidding? In 2000, I paid $500.00 a month to Blue Cross as a self employed person without a group. My deductible was $5,000.00. My income was only $20,000.00. Unfortunately, I needed podiatry and foot surgery which wasn't covered at all by my policy. I would have had to pay cash for that.

6,000.00 for health care
$5,000.00 yearly deductible
______________________
$11,000.00/year for "insurance/medical"

Technically, I paid about 35% tax rate (self employed)
So, $7,000.00 for taxes

That leaves $2,000.00 to live on and hire an attorney to force BCBS to pay my medical bills that they agreed to pay if I bought their product.

Can you see why I don't have insurance anymore?

My dental insurance was $2,000.00 per year with them.
I could claim up to $2,500.00 in dental services per year.
What a deal!!!!

**Zardoz** · (This post was last modified: 08-19-2012 05:56 PM by Zardoz.)

Bond, James Bond Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
LooneyBin Wrote:
The government turns down procedures at a higher rate than any of the insurance companies. The people complaining about private insurance companies don't know what they are talking about.

Medicare led the group with the greatest percentage of insurance claims denied (6.85%), more than double the denial rate for private insurers like UHC (2.7%), Coventry (2.9%), Humana (2.9%) and CIGNA (3.4%).

Then don't use healthcare insurance companies. Like I said earlier, if people put money into a fund, say a set percent like 10% or so, starting as soon as they entered the workforce, they could dip into that fund to pay for any and all medical expenses. I'm not just saying medical, I'm saying also dental AND vision too. The chronically ill would probably benefit from staying with insurance, but for the vast majority of healthy young people, they would be better off the other way. Wouldn't it be nice to have to only put away a certain amount of money each month for medical and have ALL your medical covered? Not have to pay your $1,000 deductible and co-pay like insurance requires you to? You could then make your own medical decisions as to what doctor you'd like to see, if you wanted to get a second opinion, if you wanted to pay for regular meds or would rather pay for generic, since you'd be paying the bill with your own money.

If someone only made $15,000 a year (minimum wage), they would be putting $125/month into a fund. If they started working at 18, by the time they were 60 they'd have about $80,000 sitting in a fund even if they only earned 1% interest.

Now increase that to someone making $25,000 a year. They would pay in approximately $200/month into a fund. Starting at 18 and working to 60, they would've accumulated $125,000 by the time they reached 60 and that's at only 1% interest.

The average cost of insurance varies greatly, but it's not unusual to have to pay close to $200/month for individual coverage.

If a person was required to get bypass surgery, that cost is approximately $60,000. Even the individual making only $15,000 a year (minimum wage) could afford to have that surgery done with extra money left over to cover medications and such.

But what if you happened to get cancer?

Over the course of the study, the average cost for treating a lung cancer patient went up $7,139, to an average of $39,891. With prostate cancer, the average price tag for treatment went up $5,345, to an average of $41,134. The cost of treating breast cancer went up $4,189, to an average cost of $20,964.

However, the cost of treating prostate cancer dropped $196, to an average of $18,261 in 2002. The drop in cost was due to fewer men undergoing surgery for their cancer, the researchers found.

My, it looks like the person making only minimum wage could even afford to pay for a bout with cancer on the small amount he would have accumulated over the years.

I understand the $125/month would be difficult to come by for some people, but if I was forced to pay, I would rather put those funds into a medical savings account than donate them to some insurance company or to the government in the form of a tax.

$200/month? Are you kidding? In 2000, I paid $500.00 a month to Blue Cross as a self employed person without a group. My deductible was $5,000.00. My income was only $20,000.00. Unfortunately, I needed podiatry and foot surgery which wasn't covered at all by my policy. I would have had to pay cash for that.

6,000.00 for health care
$5,000.00 yearly deductible
______________________
$11,000.00/year for "insurance/medical"

Technically, I paid about 35% tax rate (self employed)
So, $7,000.00 for taxes

That leaves $2,000.00 to live on and hire an attorney to force BCBS to pay my medical bills that they agreed to pay if I bought their product.

Can you see why I don't have insurance anymore?

My dental insurance was $2,000.00 per year with them.
I could claim up to $2,500.00 in dental services per year.
What a deal!!!!

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 110556 08-19-2012 08:55 PM

RomneyCare will be exactly the same as ObamaCare. There's no stopping what's been planned all along.

They have to implement a Nazi type state, where they kill off the sick, elderly, and handicapped, otherwise the state will go broke on non-productive tax-payers.

Voting is completely meaningless to the plan.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 107623 08-19-2012 10:48 PM

Well then I guess I'll just have to do my time behind bars. I won't be lining the pockets of any insurance companies with their crazy premiums and limited coverage, and I refuse to pay a tax to the government for choosing not to have insurance. I wonder how they would collect their proposed tax. If they plan on taking it out of a person's tax refund, I guess I'll just have to make sure I claim enough exemtions so there won't be a refund for them to collect.

**dolphin** · (This post was last modified: 08-20-2012 01:16 AM by dolphin.)

Lets cut the chase and face the practical application of what this means for all of us.

What it all really boils down to is this.

In no uncertain terms it is a government takeover of your personal healthcare and making the decisions about your treatment.

Your Doctor now works for the Government instead of working for you.

Up until recently if you were lucky enough to find a good Doctor he could do what he felt was best and what you were comfortable with.

Thats all changed.

Now its a program designed by a beurocracy telling the Doctor what he can and can't do and it does not matter if he knows it won't help and it won't matter if he knows what will help.

You get what the beurocratic computer code says you get and the Doctor gets fined $100,000, or goes to jail if they treat you with what you really need instead.

You no longer have a say.

The Doctor Patient relationship is gone.

You are no longer a patient. Your just a computer generated calculation that gets figured in. There is a Star Trek episode that depicts the concept. The program not only rations treatment, but catagorizes individials with a code. The lower your individual code the worse it will be in terms of consideration for a treatment that will save your life. If your a low income nobody with a sick child your baby gets to die; while the child of a rich person with the exact same illness gets the life saving treatment. Its not exactly the same with this DeathCare, but it works out that way. The rich with their political connections can fly their kid to China for a transpant, but you can't afford to. That saves the Insurance companies a fortune depsite the fact that now everyone is forced to pay for insurance which increases their revenues on top of the savings they will reap in being allowed to legally deny you life saving tratement.

It will only get worse as the TECHNOCRACY creeps into every aspect of our lives right down to the smart meter they intend to install to keep tabs on your electricity usage which is a device to monitor your activity in your own home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5oQ3wbstQ

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 107623 08-20-2012 04:03 AM

I'm aware of that, but what if a state came up with an alternative plan. Would the citizens of that state still have the US government decide who gets treated and who doesn't and what treatment options were available?

Under a provision Wyden put in the ACA, states who don’t want to go along with the individual mandate and the tax for being uninsured have the option of setting up their own alternative systems for covering the uninsured – just as long as the alternative state plan gives individuals insurance coverage that’s at least as comprehensive as provided under federal law and as long as the state plan covers as many people as the federal plan would cover.

I guess the federal government would still have to approve it, so it probably would still be a no go.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 107623 08-20-2012 04:44 AM

I was just wondering how Obama's panel plans on handling the mentally handicapped that are in state institutions and group homes.

I used to work with a Cambodian, and he said when the communists took over anyone who couldn't work was left to die. They did have mentally handicapped people there, but nobody was allowed to work in the hospitals to care for them and they all died.

Will it get that bad here as well? I guess only time will tell.

http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/past-gen...n-genocide

The ill, disabled, old and young who were incapable of making the journey to the collectivized farms and labor camps were killed on the spot.

civilian deaths totaled well over 2 million.

**kittykat**

Tune 440 Wrote:

There is a lot worse rationing of healthcare already going on, right now.

So long as an insurance company makes more money by not covering people that by treating them it will always be so.

You want to see death panels? Look at Aetna, Blue Cross and the rest.

Then there are those who work for a living but un-able to get insurance at all.

Not for themselves or their families.

Are the lives of their families worth less than that of the 1% ?

But we don't have rationing?

Bullshit!

yea - agree - the whole system sucks !

I just read a 27 year old, otherwise healthy boy was turned down for a heart transplant due to autism

they are normally healthy and live long lives !

now take an alcoholic rich guy like whats his name who played in DALLAS

destroyed his liver and with just barely a 1/4 of his life left

gets a new liver - but he blatantly abused himself - and was well into his 60's if now 70's for a transplant and he gets approved!

but a kid with no voice, no money and a disorder - gets turned down

I think that stinks!

Talk about disparity an discrimination!

**Tyche Unleashed**

kittykat Wrote:

Tune 440 Wrote:
There is a lot worse rationing of healthcare already going on, right now.

So long as an insurance company makes more money by not covering people that by treating them it will always be so.

You want to see death panels? Look at Aetna, Blue Cross and the rest.

Then there are those who work for a living but un-able to get insurance at all.

Not for themselves or their families.

Are the lives of their families worth less than that of the 1% ?

But we don't have rationing?

Bullshit!

yea - agree - the whole system sucks !

I just read a 27 year old, otherwise healthy boy was turned down for a heart transplant due to autism

they are normally healthy and live long lives !

now take an alcoholic rich guy like whats his name who played in DALLAS

destroyed his liver and with just barely a 1/4 of his life left

gets a new liver - but he blatantly abused himself - and was well into his 60's if now 70's for a transplant and he gets approved!

but a kid with no voice, no money and a disorder - gets turned down

I think that stinks!

Talk about disparity an discrimination!

Larry Hagman.
You're right it truly stinks.
Several weeks after the transplant Hagman was out drinking again but gets yet another shot.
Aint right at all.