OUR COUNTDOWN TO FASCIST MEDICINE

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you had bothered to read the fine print and understood the contract DTOM, you would have KNOWN that having blood is experimental under your insurance.

hahahaha! i know... what a crock. we pay them $1800/m under calpers, it's a blue shield ppo, i.e., not an hmo.

it was an exceedingly good policy until 2001. not long after that, it, along with a lot of other things in this country, became more costly and less beneficial.

0 Replies

Whatever the frailties and sins of our existing healthcare system might be, I think it is really really foolish to assume that there won't be many of the same or different frailties and sins in a healthcare system administered by the Federal government.

According to the early news this morning, our lawmakers back home on August break are getting an earfull and most of it is not supportive of government dismantling the current healthcare system:

Here's one example:

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Whatever the frailties and sins of our existing healthcare system might be, I think it is really really foolish to assume that there won't be many of the same or different frailties and sins in a healthcare system administered by the Federal government.

Like which exactly?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

how the hell are they supposed to be hear the answers of spector and sebelius when they start yelling, screaming and trying to start chants each time they begin talking?

and true to the radical right nitwit b.s., the first guy is complaining about a bill that has not even been written yet.

i'm sure that many of the audience will be in attendence at the next big Pee Party, so they can piss and moan about all of the terrible things america and it's citizens and it's governments have done to them.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DTOM, I am really sorry you are having a tough time with your insurance company and I don't know that you aren't being royally screwed over. I have never defended insurance companies (or any other industry) as being pure as the driven snow or being above unethical practices. But having worked in it as long as I have, I also know insurance is often one of the most misunderstood necessary commodities out there and everything they do that we don't like is not necessarily questionable or unethical. It wouldn't hurt to have a competent attorney look over your policy and see if there is cause for you to challenge the denial. Many do challenge such rulings and do win.

All I am saying is that our President seems hellbent on cramming healthcare reform through whether we want that or not, and before we will have a chance to see whether we will want that or not. I am more conservative than you and therefore, while I appreciate good government, a greater mistrust of government motives and intentions is more entrenched into my DNA I think. I do not trust government to get it something like this right, and I don't trust government to make it better for me or you or everybody or maybe more than a very few.

I don't trust them to tell the truth.

Quote:

By MIKE ALLEN | 8/4/09 6:43 AM EDT
Updated: 8/4/09

The White House on Tuesday posted a three-minute video punching back at an old clip of President Barack Obama that was featured on the Drudge Report with the headline “Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will 'Eliminate' Private Insurance.”

The White House response features Linda Douglass, formerly an ABC News correspondent and now a White House official, showing Drudge’s homepage on the screen of her office computer.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House deputy communications director, said: “We intend to use a lot of the grassroots viral Internet techniques from the campaign to beat back the campaign of misstatements and outright falsehoods about the president’s efforts to reform health insurance.”

The video begins: “Hi. I’m Linda Douglass. I’m the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, and one of my jobs is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this one " take a look at this one. This one says, ‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’

“Well, nothing can be farther from the truth. You know the people who always try to SCARE people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a VERY false impression. The truth is that the president has been talking to the American people a LOT about health-insurance reform and what is at stake for them.

“So what happens is that because he’s talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there " they simply cherry-pick and put it together, and make it sound like he’s saying something that he didn’t really say.”

The video the White House seeks to rebut, labeled “SHOCK UNCOVERED,” was linked by Andrew Breitbart on his video site, Breitbart.tv, after a site called Naked Emperor News brought it to his attention.

The clip is labeled, “SEIU Health Care Forum 3/24/07,” and shows Obama saying: “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html

Now compare this with the uncut clip of the 2003 SEIU speech that Breitbart put up after they were criticized for posting the abbreviated version yesterday:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

a) hire a competent lawyer. a "competent" lawyer will cost much more than the $1200 the lab wants to bill. even a mediocre lawyer will easily find a way to bill $200 x 6. and then there is my time spent on it. funny how so many things that used to get covered are now deemed "experimental".

b) you still seem to have missed my entire gripe. 1) the insurance companies are totally out of control. how do they get away with it? by being in cahoots. who has more money than those guys? the combined people of the united states represented by the federal government. if you trust them to start, or join in on, wars and national defence where life or death is decided on a far larger and more immediate basis why wouldn't you trust them to attempt to secure at least baseline healthcare for your fellow citizens?

what about medicare. is medicare socialized healthcare? or does it only become "socialism" if you receive it under 65 years of age?

there's a lot of funny rules that are being used, and even those in a way that is not evenhanded on this and other topics.

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

The last lawyer we consulted not all that long ago charged us $80 to review our complaint including a half hour consultation. He advised us that he would take the case, but we had such a good case that we could competently handle it ourselves in small claims court and save legal fees. Turned out the court insisted we first go to mediation where we were able to settle the matter and we didn't have to go to court at all.

There are good ethical attorneys out there who won't take your case if you don't have one or if they won't be able to help you.

But nevertheless, you seem confident that the government will be the answer for you. I am confident that you would likely be buying into a worse nightmare with government controlled healthcare.

We could either be right or wrong in part or in whole.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But nevertheless, you seem confident that the government will be the answer for you.

not what i said at all. what i said was thet the government is the only american entity with enough juice to get the outlandish practices of the insurance and medical systems under control. they have shown no interest in doing it themselves.

and for the record, since i have insurance which is not perfect, it is not a total waste.

my argument for government regulation or intervention or whatever has more to do with those who are a lot less fortunate than myself. there's a lot of 'em.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Don't you have an "ombudsman" or a "arbitration board" for such?

(Would be quite different here: which insurance companies' troubles in the mandatroy health insurance system as well as -though only partly- private health insurers we have "social courts". You don't need necessarily a lawyer to going there. And the various ombudsmen as well as the "arbitration boards"

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Don't you have an "ombudsman" or a "arbitration board" for such?

(Would be quite different here: which insurance companies' troubles in the mandatroy health insurance system as well as -though only partly- private health insurers we have "social courts". You don't need necessarily a lawyer to going there. And the various ombudsmen as well as the "arbitration boards"

i haven't heard of that here, walter. to be honest, this has only come up a couple of days ago, and they haven't used that excuse before. ; ). they turned down a cat scan as unneeded. maybe they didn't need one, but the doctor thought it might do me some good. stuff like that.

so i'm still looking into it. and waiting for a call back from the insurance company. and waiting. and waiting.

0 Replies

OUR COUNTDOWN TO FASCIST MEDICINE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know