Interestingly, Scott Brown did make health care a major part of his campaign and shocked the democratic leadership by winning in heavily democratic Massachusetts. Combined with the results of national polling, one would think democrats would realize that Americans don't want this health care reform plan.
Give me enough money, and I could produce a national poll that indicates I may well be Napoleon Bonaparte. ;-)
That aside, I don't think simple majority is a great form of government. Do you?
Except he did not campaign on universal health care. While it was a PART of his platform, it wasn't the major theme of his campaign speeches. Change was his major theme. And after 8 years of Bush, people wanted change.
Semantics. I didn't say is was a fundamental pillar of his campaign.
I suggest that if one voted for Obama and doesn't like his health care reform, that's not his fault. Likewise if one didn't vote for Obama, them's the breaks. It's a democracy. It ain't perfect, by anyone's standards. But Obama has every right to push health care reform based on his getting elected.
Interestingly, Scott Brown did make health care a major part of his campaign and shocked the democratic leadership by winning in heavily democratic Massachusetts. Combined with the results of national polling, one would think democrats would realize that Americans don't want this health care reform plan.
Sorry, don't buy it. Brown is a Sentor for one state. He represents those people, and those people only.
The veracity of polls has been discussed elsewhere, so I won't re-iterate what more informed people have said. Somehow I don't think Obama plots his day based on the latest poll results.
Greg
@GregH:
The funny part is Obama is neither socialist nor communist; he's pretty much a textbook Keynesian. Do the people leveling these charges even bother to look up the words they're using?
(Had to look that up. :) My wife is doing her MBA, but me, I've only got physics degrees.)
No of course not. Heck, I live in Canada. Our conservatives are against capital punishment...
Greg
Your argument seems absurd on its face.
My argument was *meant* to be absurd on it's face. VROOM.
Zo
(Had to look that up. :) My wife is doing her MBA, but me, I've only got physics degrees.)
No of course not. Heck, I live in Canada. Our conservatives are against capital punishment...
Greg
I minored in economics (undergrad; I don't have a graduate degree).*
You're better off with physics. ;-)
* Not trying to claim any special enlightenment. In fact, most of my professors would no doubt be shocked how much my heart bleeds in my old age. I kinda buck the "get more conservative as you age" trend.
Hey 8th dwarf.....nice post. You make me want to move over to Australia! It seems that clearer heads are prevailing there instead of this whole American 2 party government that can't see past each's own agenda and the crap-tons of money tossed at them by special interests.
Now if I can just incorporate "mate" into my speech patterns and remember that Dropbears only attack the tourists.....
Fake you are welcome any time - Australia is not perfect it has its own problems - (we are over governed we have 3 levels of government when we only need 2)
- We work the longest hours of the western hemisphere- Sport is a religion
- We have all the other problems of western nations just on different scales.
But other than that Australia is great.
Wow, so in your country there is no penalty if you don't pay your taxes? Everyone just does it because they really want to? That's awesome. Maybe your system is superior.Here in the US if we don't pay our taxes they can take our wages and accounts and even our homes. If we don't like it and we try to keep our own stuff if they made a mistake and we can't prove it they can put us in prison where our government brags about how inmates are raped and murdered by other inmates and guards. If you don't like that they may just shoot you or burn your house down or kill your children.
I think it's really awesome that you guys don't use force at all to support government policy against your own people and you just let them opt out of the whole system if they want.
.
.
.
.
Sarcasm aside, all states use force and the threat thereof. The question for me is what justifies the use of that force.
You obviously haven't read my first post - people who don't pay tax are traitors and deserve jail.
So you want all of the rights and none of the responsibilities of being a member of a community - sorry that's just greed
When you are part of a community you enter into a social contract
In a Democracy it is when a government is voted in then while it is your right to disagree with its policies they have been given the right by the majority of the population to implement that agenda
If you don't like it vote in people to change it to what you want. Unfortunately if the majority don't want what you do then as part of the social contract you can protest and disagree but the majority win.
We have people that opt out - they go out into the desert or up into the mountains - they don't have the comforts of the 21st Century - but hey even if they live rough and don't have enough money to pay taxes they are still covered by the social contract that they have opted out of - The police will still look after them, the Ambulance will still come and help them, they still get free health care and the Army will still defend them as the government has made a contract with the people to provide these services with the taxes paid.
I'm sick of all of them, bought and paid for by big corps and lobbyists. F*ck 'em. I'm voting against every incumbent in 2010.You can say the same thing about the Republicans. It seems to me that as soon as one party gets complete control over both congress and the presidency, they self-destruct. History shows us that the country is always better off when both parties share power.Agreed.
I'm pretty much feeling the same way. Especially with the House. Can't get it done? Your two years are up. Next in line.
Power of the vote, folks.
Sorry, don't buy it. Brown is a Sentor for one state. He represents those people, and those people only.
Maybe as an outsider, you don't understand just how amazing Brown's election was. I am from Massachusetts, and I knew both candidates well from local politics. Even with the obvious dunderheadedness of Coakley, it was assumed by many (including myself) that Brown would end up coming close, but in the end coming up short. It was the Kennedy Seat after all, which held the rotund posterior of the Lion of Licentiousness himself, and before him his much more capable brother.
Massachusetts is the closest in state government to more liberal countries. We even have 'universal' healthcare (or at least you will be punished if you dont buy some). A lot of old-school Democrats voted for Brown just to register their complaints with the way Democrats in Washington were acting, at least the old-school Democrats I have talked to. You watch the Congressional races in November. It'll make 1994 look like a garden party.
Does anyone care that if this particular bill passes, the taxes go up immediately, but the 'universal' care doesn't kick in until 2013? Or that if you are young and have a job you will now be REQUIRED to carry health insurance no matter what? The evil health insurance companies and Big Pharma are laughing all the way to the bank on this bill.
There's not even the oh-so-lamented 'public option' in it anymore. So 'universal' coverage means, buy health insurance or face a penalty. I'm not certain, but I am sure they will go the Massachustess route, confiscate any tax return and garnish wages. Have fun all you college-age folks! There's another bill for you! The Democrats don't even want to VOTE on it, the bill is so compromised.
Oh and yes, I own my land, and my tomatoes. Anyone wanna test that assertion better come well armed. I share with people who ask nice, but people who claim I don't own either or that I have some sort of social obligation to share them with people who can't be bothered to grow any can pike it. I don't take kindly to threats.
Power of the vote, folks.
Amen to that brother. All this crap arguing amounts to nothing, because despite all the mental blocks and the ranting about America, WE will be deciding our destiny as we always have: At the ballot box. Hopefully once the dust settles we can work on this problem in a more productive manner.
|
Hey 8th dwarf.....nice post. You make me want to move over to Australia! It seems that clearer heads are prevailing there instead of this whole American 2 party government that can't see past each's own agenda and the crap-tons of money tossed at them by special interests.
Now if I can just incorporate "mate" into my speech patterns and remember that Dropbears only attack the tourists.....
Mate, we’d be happy to have you. I have to say though, politics here are not quite as rosy and friendly as the 8th Dwarf has painted it; we still have essentially a two party system, and they’re still at each other’s throats most of the time and playing dirty … it just seems that the people here tend not to get quite as polarised on political issues (and political divisions) as I get the impression a lot of people do in the US, and the political parties reflect this.
But yeah, you gotta watch the dropbears.
Oh and yes, I own my land, and my tomatoes.
Just verifying, but you paid cash for the land in full value, with no mortgage? If you owe money on it, then technically you aren't the owner, but rather the bank that loaned you the money to take possession of it, and is giving you the opportunity to eventually own it.
That's a problem communicating with some of my co-workers: my boss tells me I'm stupid for not owning land; he fails to realize that, unlike him, I wasn't born into a family that already owned half of West Texas and was willing to give me some portion of that. Rather, I've had to work for everything I've got, which is a much different prospect. When I've saved enough money I'll buy a house and land. Until then, I won't be an indentured servant to a bank who makes empty claims of owning land (which I assume does not describe you, but which accurately describes a large number of "this is MY property!" people I know).
Maybe as an outsider, you don't understand just how amazing Brown's election was.
Oh, I've got an inkling. I get CNN and all the major US networks out of Vermont & upstate New York. Plus our national news covers American politics like it's a spectator sport.
I also know that (one of) the most liberal states in the US has a Republican governor - Da Gubanator. (Yes I know he's left of most of the other Rep governors, but he's a republican nonetheless.) Oh, and by the way, weren't both Reagan and Nixon governors of California?
We even have 'universal' healthcare (or at least you will be punished if you dont buy some).
That was brought in when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, right? And from what I hear it smells strikingly like what Obama is trying to put in place. (I know, I know - states rights vs federal over-reach).
Massachusetts is the closest in state government to more liberal countries. A lot of old-school Democrats voted for Brown just to register their complaints with the way Democrats in Washington were acting, at least the old-school Democrats I have talked to.
While I understand the point, the fact of the matter is, the US has 100 senators. This was one.
If I were Obama (and you can all thank goodness I'm not...) I'd keep right on truckin' with that Change[TM].
Greg
Oh and yes, I own my land, and my tomatoes. Anyone wanna test that assertion better come well armed. I share with people who ask nice, but people who claim I don't own either or that I have some sort of social obligation to share them with people who can't be bothered to grow any can pike it. I don't take kindly to threats.
?
I hope you aren't talking to me; I didn't threaten anyone.
|
I also know that (one of) the most liberal states in the US has a Republican governor - Da Gubanator. (Yes I know he's left of most of the other Rep governors, but he's a republican nonetheless.) Oh, and by the way, weren't both Reagan and Nixon governors of California?
Have you seen Demolition Man? It's going to happen. The movie was prophetic.
Have you seen Demolition Man? It's going to happen. The movie was prophetic.
All restaurants will become Taco Bell? :P
|
|
Have you seen Demolition Man? It's going to happen. The movie was prophetic.All restaurants will become Taco Bell? :P
That'll do wonders for people's health.
|
It is pretty easy to criticise the world when you are sitting at home, in front of your computer, with your 24" screen and a Coke at hand. Why do you need to care about those who might be suffering down the street? As long as you can afford the doctor, who cares about those Mexicans or even those poor folks staring longingly at Doug's tomatoes?It might be said that it's easy to criticize the greed of those who create wealth while sucking on the state welfare teat, but that would be presumptuous and ignorant, so I will refrain.
Do we criticise the act of creating wealth or the disregard those people have for the helpless or the weak? May be even their disregard for the community and society?
I suppose you're right, the presumption works both ways. We do have men and women who generate wealth and become philanthropists. However, in the mean time, they're not the ones who are suffering from lack of health care.
It might be said that it's easy to criticize the greed of those who create wealth while sucking on the state welfare teat, but that would be presumptuous and ignorant, so I will refrain.
Put the Ayn Rand novel down, then slowly walk away...
|
|
Possibly, but there is an element of truth to it.They have been using procedures and equipment that has been largely developed by us. If we went the way of other governments, I believe that many would be scared that this advancement would slow considerably down.Wow. Now that is a Yankee-centric comment if I ever heard one!
I agree. However, a comment like that smacks of "The World? What f**king contribution do they make to anything? They're not American?" The US has lead in many areas, but not all areas.
That'll do wonders for people's health.Have you seen Demolition Man? It's going to happen. The movie was prophetic.All restaurants will become Taco Bell? :P
Yeah, the obesity rates will plummet from all the food poisoning. :)
Maybe as an outsider, you don't understand just how amazing Brown's election was.Oh, I've got an inkling. I get CNN and all the major US networks out of Vermont & upstate New York. Plus our national news covers American politics like it's a spectator sport.
I also know that (one of) the most liberal states in the US has a Republican governor - Da Gubanator. (Yes I know he's left of most of the other Rep governors, but he's a republican nonetheless.) Oh, and by the way, weren't both Reagan and Nixon governors of California?
Sure, and Brown wont be hard-core conservative, nor would I want him to be. It's just amazing that he even won. Liberal states seem to like moderate Republican governors. I think that harkens back to the whole 'shared power' thing. The government seems to function best when the two parties are balanced more than what we are seeing now.
We even have 'universal' healthcare (or at least you will be punished if you dont buy some).That was brought in when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, right? And from what I hear it smells strikingly like what Obama is trying to put in place. (I know, I know - states rights vs federal over-reach).
Actually, I disagreed with Romney on that bill, and it isn't doing Massachusetts a lot of good right now. Romney's attempts to woo the conservative vote will most likely founder on that bill, and it's a shame because I think he'd make a decent president.
Massachusetts is the closest in state government to more liberal countries. A lot of old-school Democrats voted for Brown just to register their complaints with the way Democrats in Washington were acting, at least the old-school Democrats I have talked to.While I understand the point, the fact of the matter is, the US has 100 senators. This was one.
If I were Obama (and you can all thank goodness I'm not...) I'd keep right on truckin' with that Change[TM].
Greg
Sure, it's one senator. For now. We'll see what November brings. Hopefully a little more balance.
Oh and yes, I own my land, and my tomatoes. Anyone wanna test that assertion better come well armed. I share with people who ask nice, but people who claim I don't own either or that I have some sort of social obligation to share them with people who can't be bothered to grow any can pike it. I don't take kindly to threats.?
I hope you aren't talking to me; I didn't threaten anyone.
Nope, not talking about you, nor did I threaten. I am simply asserting that I own my property and the results of my labor (and hopefully where it is directed).
Have you seen Demolition Man? It's going to happen. The movie was prophetic.
Yeah, I've seen it. I never understood the need for the President to be a natural born citizen anyways. Sure, there was an issue 250 years ago when there was concern a British sympathizer could become president. But now? C'mon. Where's the logic?
Greg
I just don't understand why people just don't shut up and let The Great One tell us what's best for us! It doesn't matter what the people want, Obama is the only one who knows what we really want, stop resisting his change! We all work for him anyway.... right?
|
Have you seen Demolition Man? It's going to happen. The movie was prophetic.Yeah, I've seen it. I never understood the need for the President to be a natural born citizen anyways. Sure, there was an issue 250 years ago when there was concern a British sympathizer could become president. But now? C'mon. Where's the logic?
Greg
This I agree with, I would however require US ctizenship of decades however. Just my 2cp.
Oh and yes, I own my land, and my tomatoes.Just verifying, but you paid cash for the land in full value, with no mortgage? If you owe money on it, then technically you aren't the owner, but rather the bank that loaned you the money to take possession of it, and is giving you the opportunity to eventually own it.
Sure and I entered into that contract with the bank and pay them a small loan precentage for the use of that money to buy the house. As long as I pay I 'own' the house. If I stop paying, eventually 'my' house becomes 'the bank's' house. That was in the contract I signed. As was the fixed rate of the interest on the loan. If I abide by the contract eventually I will 'own' my house outright.
That's a problem communicating with some of my co-workers: my boss tells me I'm stupid for not owning land; he fails to realize that, unlike him, I wasn't born into a family that already owned half of West Texas and was willing to give me some portion of that. Rather, I've had to work for everything I've got, which is a much different prospect. When I've saved enough money I'll buy a house and land. Until then, I won't be an indentured servant to a bank who makes empty claims of owning land (which I assume does not describe you, but which accurately describes a large number of "this is MY property!" people I know).
Having a loan against the property doesn't make it the bank's, any more than using sunlight to grow tomatoes makes them everyone's since sunlight is free. The contract we signed delineates the rights of both sides. If the bank decided to abrogate the terms of my mortgage, then I will refer to my assertion above. If I abrogate them then I deserve to have the property taken away. The bank has a claim against my home if I don't pay, nothing more. That's part of Capitalism, the use of capital to facilitate people to do things that otherwise they wouldn't be able to, and pay for the priviledge. Something I obviously find great favor in. Plus mortgages vs. rent the mortgage builds equity, another wonderful tool of capitalism (used WISELY ...). Rent builds the landlord's equity.
The government seems to function best when the two parties are balanced more than what we are seeing now.
Is that why the US developed a political meaning for the word "gridlock"? Sorry, but it seems to me that a divided Washington only provides more arguments, not more productivity.
It's almost like you don't want Washington to accomplish anything... Ohhh I get it! :)
Greg
So i guess i would like to understand more.
Simply put, I don't trust the fools in charge to run anything. i don't want to rely on them to, for the first time in the existence of government, do something right. you're dad would in no way be better taken care of in a socialized country. if you want specific examples, i would encourage you to Google it. anecdotal evidence like yours is everywhere if you look for it.
try reading Dennis Prager, at Townhall.com. or Thomas Sowell for some brilliant writing on this and many other conservative thoughts, that you well never be exposed to in your normal life.
Due to the first 2 idiotic responses in this thread i'm having trouble continuing reading, i'm sorry to all those that posted brilliant responses.
<SNIP>Due to the first 2 idiotic responses in this thread i'm having trouble continuing reading, i'm sorry to all those that posted brilliant responses.
So your argument is: The other guy is a moron.
Grats!
I just don't understand <SNIP>
Edited for brevity.
Nope, not talking about you, nor did I threaten. I am simply asserting that I own my property and the results of my labor (and hopefully where it is directed).
Fair enough.
|
|
...then throw tomatoes at it!It might be said that it's easy to criticize the greed of those who create wealth while sucking on the state welfare teat, but that would be presumptuous and ignorant, so I will refrain.Put the Ayn Rand novel down, then slowly walk away...
Yep, because the extreme left anti-semetic racist (Marx) is so much more palatable than the extreme right version (Rand).
Whatever.
Yep, because the extreme left anti-semetic racist (Marx) is so much more palatable than the extreme right version (Rand).
Whatever.
Edit: Removed smart-ass comment.
I feel it is necessary to point out that Marxism != Leninism (or communism, or socialism). I do not believe in overthrowing capitalism; merely that we inordinately reward control of capital at the expense of labor. The fix could be a simple as shifting some tax burden from income tax to capital gains tax; please don't assume I'm advocating revolution of the proletariat, nor do I support authoritarian regimes of any stripe.
|
|
Yep, because the extreme left anti-semetic racist (Marx) is so much more palatable than the extreme right version (Rand).
Whatever.Edit: Removed smart-ass comment.
I feel it is necessary to point out that Marxism != Leninism (or communism, or socialism). I do not believe in overthrowing capitalism; merely that we inordinately reward control of capital at the expense of labor. The fix could be a simple as shifting some tax burden from income tax to capital gains tax; please don't assume I'm advocating revolution of the proletariat, nor do I support authoritarian regimes of any stripe.
That was more of a comment on the thread in general. Sorry.
Personally, I prefer a consumption tax (food and medicine exempted) to an income tax, more voluntary that way (not a big fan of the initiation of force to achieve ends either, really, and the only way government can ensure compliance is to make the alternate painful).
I feel it is necessary to point out that Marxism != Leninism
Protip: don't ever try to argue points that require more than 1 or two logical steps to reach the conclusion.
Marxism = bad. I should know, I watch Fox news. Also, freedom means a corporation is a person, and liberty means taxes are bad (unless they're used to pay for something I agree with).
Zo
That was more of a comment on the thread in general. Sorry.Personally, I prefer a consumption tax (food and medicine exempted) to an income tax, more voluntary that way (not a big fan of the initiation of force to achieve ends either, really, and the only way government can ensure compliance is to make the alternate painful).
I'm sorry, too -- I know I can be a real dick sometimes.
And you have a valid point; extremism (on either side) is the real enemy. 'Night! :D
|
|
The government seems to function best when the two parties are balanced more than what we are seeing now.Is that why the US developed a political meaning for the word "gridlock"? Sorry, but it seems to me that a divided Washington only provides more arguments, not more productivity.
It's almost like you don't want Washington to accomplish anything... Ohhh I get it! :)
Greg
No I don't think you do get it. When we have either party with considerably more political power than the other, they tend to do whats best for the party first, second and last. "Screw the American people, I'm gonna get paid" seems to be their motto. At least when both parties share control they find the fear of being replaced incentive enough to actually do a little something.
Zombieneighbours, the title of this thread involved your mental block. I think we've discovered your mental block. It has to do with the ownership of your skill, ability, and that which you produce.
Paying tax is a choice, I am not coerced to do so. Just as if i chose to live in a flats which has a free hold, I would also be choosing to pay a service charge for the upkeep of the building. I choose to pay taxes and i choose to live in england. I don't believe that the government is entitled to my money, but i do accept that in a civil society, you have responciblities.
Now, I hold no illusions that some problems are massive, and seem to require a small group of people weilding a big stick to solve those problems. But at the root of the issue is that I have no inheirent right to your stuff. I have no right to force you to sell your RotRL AP to fund my surgery, and you have no right to force me to grow tomatoes for you.
Do you have the right to force me to sell my RotRL AP to pay for the police and the military?
Is there a role for government to play? Yes. But, it comes down to your assumption that it's okay to bully individuals into doing what you want them to do. Is it appropriate at times? Sure, because forcibly removing people from a burning house is usually justified. But there should be very strict limitations on the use of that force. Quite obviously, we disagree as to what those limitations should be.
I don't assume it is right to bully anyone. But, if someone who lives in my girlfriends flat complex, decides to stop paying the service charges set out in the lease, it would result in concequences.
The point is, you very clearly believe that their are exceptions to you 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', for things like the military and the justice system. So if i am a bully, or the victim of them, then you are the same. The difference is, your morals are inconsistant.
I have no desire to experience the NHS firsthand. I am quite happy with my private insurance and private doctors. History has shown that governments only muck things up when they decide to get involved.
What would i need to show you to falsify your belief. I ask because the evidences seems to be against you on health care, Considering how many countries with government intervention in healthcare have considerably better health outcomes at lower costs. Blind faith,does not impress me.
If you want to learn more, I might suggest you google "Natural Rights." Consider that a charitable contribution to your education. But that's the limit of my charity. I've already wasted enough time discussing why bullying is bad, even if others don't get it.
I know what natural law is. I understand the concept of natural rights. But since you so kindly offered it, exactly which of the various streams of thought that make up the field would you like me to look at? Maybe i should try islamic natural law?
Now, as I took today off work, I'm going to go prepare a garden. I have tomatoes to grow. And sell. Yes, I intend to use other people's hunger in order to make money. Profit, even.
Go for it, nothing wrong with that, i hope you enjoy it.
But i really would like a straight answer on this one questions i have now asked three of four times.
If you are intractably set that the provision of universal healthcare breaks 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', because it 'forces' people to pay.
Why is it that it is moral to break the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'to provide a military and a justice system.
|
|
...then throw tomatoes at it!It might be said that it's easy to criticize the greed of those who create wealth while sucking on the state welfare teat, but that would be presumptuous and ignorant, so I will refrain.Put the Ayn Rand novel down, then slowly walk away...Yep, because the extreme left anti-semetic racist (Marx) is so much more palatable than the extreme right version (Rand).
Whatever.
I just wanted to throw some tomatoes!
If you are intractably set that the provision of universal healthcare breaks 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', because it 'forces' people to pay.
Why is it that it is moral to break the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'to provide a military and a justice system.
Okay. There is another problem though.
While, I am actually for government provided health coverage, as an American citizen, I oppose the current legistation.
Some very bold Senators have loaded this "must pass" bill with more pork then an advanced industrial Hog Farm.
The government seems to function best when the two parties are balanced more than what we are seeing now.Is that why the US developed a political meaning for the word "gridlock"? Sorry, but it seems to me that a divided Washington only provides more arguments, not more productivity.
It's almost like you don't want Washington to accomplish anything... Ohhh I get it! :)
Greg
Oh I don't know. Once the '94 'Pubs calmed down a bit and Clinton stopped moaning and prudently shifted direction more to the center the country seemed to go in a fairly good direction. So much so I voted for Clinton a 2nd time in '96. Reagan and his Democratic congresses got a lot of stuff done as well. We'll see how Obama steps up to the plate once the Dems lose control of Congress this November.
The Democrats have had a 'supermajority' for a year. Problem they are seeing is Democrat != Liberal. Just like Republican != Conservative (as you posted above with Ahnold and my ex-governor Romney). So the 'gridlock' seems to be just as bad when one party has control. I know I haven't seen a lot of great legislation coming out of Congress, despite that supermajority.
If the Republicans are the 'Party of no' then I guess the Democrats are the 'party of I don't know'. As in 'I don't know how to get my agenda pushed through even with a supermajority.'
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
...If the Democrats lose seats in the house and senate, it's not because of the Republican skill in getting their message across. It's because the Democrats self destruction.The Democratic Party is similar to the Miami Dolphins... they are their own worst enemy. :)
Apparently you've not watched the Republicans over the last 8 years. *sigh*
As much as I dislike the man, I can't argue President Clinton was the master politcian.
|
|
Of interest.
Insurer revoked HIV patient' coverage
One key passage stuck out in that article.
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
Nice to see Insurance Companies doing what they are there for, namely ensuring profits for their shareholders, and not providing health care coverage.
Nice to see Insurance Companies doing what they are there for, namely ensuring profits for their shareholders, and not providing health care coverage.
I learned a long time ago when studying History.
"When confronted with an event that does not any sense, Look for where the money is."
So, to understand the American Healthcare system ...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Barack Obama's campaign promises have expiration dates, all of them."I'm curious as to where that quote comes from - and the subtext. Like any politician, his promises expire formally when the next guy is sworn into office. But I'm being literal. I'm assuming that's not what you meant.
The line goes to Jim Geraghty at National Review. He's written a lot about them frequently online sometimes with tongue in cheek.
The problem with Health care, like most campaign promises is that it comes down to which audience he was speaking in front of that day.If it were only mentioned once, and never, ever refered to again, I can see where you are coming from. But I got that link from a Google search of "obama health care reform campaign". It was link #2. And its on barackobama.com, his official campaign web site.
Not exactly hidden and buried.
Greg
I could likely find his no lobbiests pledge too if I looked.
Everyone knows politicians make promises they can't keep. They shouldn't, but they do. The frequency and brazen nature of his is what troubles me.
It's also why I can't be a good politician. "Mr. Morris, do you promise X?"
"No. I'd love to do X, but if elected and I find out Y means I have to postpone or not do X for the good of the nation, then I won't sacrifice others so I can look good because I 'kept my promise on X'."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Of interest.
Insurer revoked HIV patient' coverage
One key passage stuck out in that article.
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.Nice to see Insurance Companies doing what they are there for, namely ensuring profits for their shareholders, and not providing health care coverage.
Wow, nice broad brush there. Using your logic...
I should point out that at least this link is more real than the President's tonsil chopping, leg amputating doctor stories.
|
|
Might be a broad brush, but given that Insurance companies have been doing it for years, it's an accurate one.
Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of "rescission," whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they've been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.
It's entirely understandable that for profit companies would do such a thing. They have to protect profits, after all, and treating people suffering from long term illnesses is quite expensive. The court judgement even said as much.
Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: "The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer." In upholding Nettles' verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that "Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell's costly medical condition."
Much easier to investigate the claim and disqualify the claimant for illegitmate reasons. The insurance companies even have 'Rescission Panels' that decide whether to drop people. Hey.. wait a moment. Health Insurance Companies have Panels that will drop people's insurance if they have life threatening illnesses. That sounds familiar! It's almost as if Sarah Palin was speaking from experience when she condemned our socialist death panels!
Of course, over here in the NHS, we don't drop people who have life threatening illnesses. My auntie was diagonised with Pancreatic Cancer, and given about a year to live. No doubt her American private insurance would have dropped at that point, but as we have Universal Health Care, the NHS provided for her for the two years she had left, right up until the day she died. Maybe the Death Panels we have over here weren't working?
Sure wish people would let the name SP fade, instead of using her as a rallying cry. It really diminishes the points.
On any side of an argument you can find extreme examples, such as the BS with Fortis. To counter the death panel rebuttal example of your aunt, rest her soul, I offer that of my cousin. Same diagnosis, but not dropped from his insurer in the current system. We pray for a miracle. So the real life examples oppose each other, HIV versus my cousin's cancer.
Yep, insurers pull all kinds of asshattery. Will that change? Nope. Either corporate profits will motivate them or personal greed/corruption. I have no faith in bureaucrats. Sad, but that's the way I feel. Americanized NHS or private.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually insurance companies have 'investigation units' and 'processing logic' that comes up a lot more. If a claim comes in with a code related to an accident, the company will ask for subrogation information. If the claim comes in with a worker's comp claim number, the claim will be pended for ther worker's comp. For those caes where a policy is revisited by a high dollar/high diagnosis claim is being revisited, the recission panel determines if the policy was issued in error. In fact, it is a halmark that the insurance company initially takes the statement of the applicant at face value, since it is assumed that most of the people who apply for insurance are honest.
But hey, All Canadian politicians are corrupt by your logic. Or would you prefer all Canadians are criminals?*
This may have been a case of action done by one insurance company. Not everything reported about the evil insurance horror stories are true.
In fact, Private insurance does better than Medicare.**
*
**Standard disclaimer.