|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 9, 2009 12:43:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 9, 2009 17:12:51 GMT -8
Well first, there is not a single bill in Congress that goes to a single-payer system, so the Canadian example is nonsense. Second, the examples he offers are extreme and would be treated in an emergency room. Nobody denies care in the ER, it's not permitted under law. But third, the entire argument about there being a bureaucrat between the patient and his or her doctor is nonsense, because there is already a bureaucrat between the two. It just happens to be an employee of a large corporate, for-profit bureaucracy instead of an employee of the non-profit government. My Mother is on Medicare with a Secure Horizons supplemental. Her toenails got really, really bad - very long and thick because she can't bend over enough to cut them and even if she could, cannot see well enough to do it. So when she saw her new GP, we talked to him about seeing a podiatrist. He said he would check with Secure Horizons about getting her a referral (that's just for cutting her toenails). Took about a month for the referral to be approved by SH. The podiatrist said after the trimming that he wanted her back in 3 months for another trim and that they would apply to renew the referral. That will be on going every 3 months for the rest of her life. Most likely SH won't turn it down, but they have the power to do so with no explanation. But surely, given your age and the age of your wife, you already know this. So why you keep posting this nonsense about bureaucrats coming between a doctor and a patient is unknown to me. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 9, 2009 21:44:39 GMT -8
Well first, there is not a single bill in Congress that goes to a single-payer system, so the Canadian example is nonsense. Second, the examples he offers are extreme and would be treated in an emergency room. Nobody denies care in the ER, it's not permitted under law. But third, the entire argument about there being a bureaucrat between the patient and his or her doctor is nonsense, because there is already a bureaucrat between the two. It just happens to be an employee of a large corporate, for-profit bureaucracy instead of an employee of the non-profit government. My Mother is on Medicare with a Secure Horizons supplemental. Her toenails got really, really bad - very long and thick because she can't bend over enough to cut them and even if she could, cannot see well enough to do it. So when she saw her new GP, we talked to him about seeing a podiatrist. He said he would check with Secure Horizons about getting her a referral (that's just for cutting her toenails). Took about a month for the referral to be approved by SH. The podiatrist said after the trimming that he wanted her back in 3 months for another trim and that they would apply to renew the referral. That will be on going every 3 months for the rest of her life. Most likely SH won't turn it down, but they have the power to do so with no explanation. But surely, given your age and the age of your wife, you already know this. So why you keep posting this nonsense about bureaucrats coming between a doctor and a patient is unknown to me. =Bob If a federal body similar to the one in the UK that determines what care is appropriate is created in this country we will indeed have government bureaucrats calling the shots. In the UK, one cannot get treatment for a particular eye disease that causes blindness UNTIL ONE HAS ACTUALLY LOST THE VISION IN ONE EYE! Did the British politicians who dreamed up the National Health anticipate or want such horrendous examples of rationing? Undoubtedly not. But that sort of thing has come to pass there, since government run or controlled health services will always be so inefficient that they will be forced to ration care or end up taking over half the national budget. No, there are no fiends in government who want this sort of thing to happen. But there are fools big enough to think that the government can make decisions better than individual citizens. And lower cost. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 10, 2009 8:46:17 GMT -8
Well first, there is not a single bill in Congress that goes to a single-payer system, so the Canadian example is nonsense. Second, the examples he offers are extreme and would be treated in an emergency room. Nobody denies care in the ER, it's not permitted under law. But third, the entire argument about there being a bureaucrat between the patient and his or her doctor is nonsense, because there is already a bureaucrat between the two. It just happens to be an employee of a large corporate, for-profit bureaucracy instead of an employee of the non-profit government. My Mother is on Medicare with a Secure Horizons supplemental. Her toenails got really, really bad - very long and thick because she can't bend over enough to cut them and even if she could, cannot see well enough to do it. So when she saw her new GP, we talked to him about seeing a podiatrist. He said he would check with Secure Horizons about getting her a referral (that's just for cutting her toenails). Took about a month for the referral to be approved by SH. The podiatrist said after the trimming that he wanted her back in 3 months for another trim and that they would apply to renew the referral. That will be on going every 3 months for the rest of her life. Most likely SH won't turn it down, but they have the power to do so with no explanation. But surely, given your age and the age of your wife, you already know this. So why you keep posting this nonsense about bureaucrats coming between a doctor and a patient is unknown to me. =Bob Very true Bob. As I said in another thread. My monther-in-law is waiting for a Secure Horizons (Pacificare) referral to get a tumor on her spine examined by a specialist. If she had traditional Medicare she would already have been treated a week ago. Damn insurance company scum.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 10, 2009 9:15:34 GMT -8
Well first, there is not a single bill in Congress that goes to a single-payer system, so the Canadian example is nonsense. Second, the examples he offers are extreme and would be treated in an emergency room. Nobody denies care in the ER, it's not permitted under law. But third, the entire argument about there being a bureaucrat between the patient and his or her doctor is nonsense, because there is already a bureaucrat between the two. It just happens to be an employee of a large corporate, for-profit bureaucracy instead of an employee of the non-profit government. My Mother is on Medicare with a Secure Horizons supplemental. Her toenails got really, really bad - very long and thick because she can't bend over enough to cut them and even if she could, cannot see well enough to do it. So when she saw her new GP, we talked to him about seeing a podiatrist. He said he would check with Secure Horizons about getting her a referral (that's just for cutting her toenails). Took about a month for the referral to be approved by SH. The podiatrist said after the trimming that he wanted her back in 3 months for another trim and that they would apply to renew the referral. That will be on going every 3 months for the rest of her life. Most likely SH won't turn it down, but they have the power to do so with no explanation. But surely, given your age and the age of your wife, you already know this. So why you keep posting this nonsense about bureaucrats coming between a doctor and a patient is unknown to me. =Bob If a federal body similar to the one in the UK that determines what care is appropriate is created in this country we will indeed have government bureaucrats calling the shots. In the UK, one cannot get treatment for a particular eye disease that causes blindness UNTIL ONE HAS ACTUALLY LOST THE VISION IN ONE EYE! Did the British politicians who dreamed up the National Health anticipate or want such horrendous examples of rationing? Undoubtedly not. But that sort of thing has come to pass there, since government run or controlled health services will always be so inefficient that they will be forced to ration care or end up taking over half the national budget. No, there are no fiends in government who want this sort of thing to happen. But there are fools big enough to think that the government can make decisions better than individual citizens. And lower cost. AzWm Using the Brit system is nonsense because it's terrible. But it's not the only system we can look at. Again I bring up Germany. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 11, 2009 11:46:57 GMT -8
The same people who say that what procedure happens between a patient and a doctor is no business of the government, will now tell us that it is the absolute business of the government. Typical. The constitution to them is just something to work around. Justices who say they look at what is right rather than original meaning. We might as well have a monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 12, 2009 16:59:52 GMT -8
The same people who say that what procedure happens between a patient and a doctor is no business of the government, will now tell us that it is the absolute business of the government. Typical. The constitution to them is just something to work around. Justices who say they look at what is right rather than original meaning. We might as well have a monarchy. Ah yes. Yet another recipient of Medicare offers his opinion. Tell ya what Bozo - drop your Medicare coverage and then come back and talk to us. And tell ya what again - drop your Medicare coverage and try to find an insurance company that is willing to cover you. Two questions: 1. Are you on Medicare? 2. Are you willing to drop it because your ideology says that it's "socialized medicine" and therefore you don't want it? God, I love the fact that most of the people on here who are arguing against health care reform are people who are on Medicare or VA plans. It is truly amazing to me that you are basically willing to hand over your health care to your children but are not willing to give other children the choice. You are incredible hypocrites who assume that because you did your 20 in the military, you are entitled, even if you never faced a day of combat, to something the rest of us are not. As my best friend, the son of a Nav mustang Captain has said, the military is the the best welfare system this country has ever come up with. All the whining from the vets on here who have never seen combat, who wouldn't have a clue if they were in combat, reaffirms that sentiment. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 12, 2009 17:22:18 GMT -8
I paid into your f****** medicare for over forty f****** years.
I haven't even got close to the value of those premiums in return.
You're goddam right I'll use it to whatever advantage I find it useful.
I didn't get a choice to begin with, so now I do. Lump it.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 12, 2009 17:27:03 GMT -8
Well first, there is not a single bill in Congress that goes to a single-payer system, so the Canadian example is nonsense. Second, the examples he offers are extreme and would be treated in an emergency room. Nobody denies care in the ER, it's not permitted under law. But third, the entire argument about there being a bureaucrat between the patient and his or her doctor is nonsense, because there is already a bureaucrat between the two. It just happens to be an employee of a large corporate, for-profit bureaucracy instead of an employee of the non-profit government. My Mother is on Medicare with a Secure Horizons supplemental. Her toenails got really, really bad - very long and thick because she can't bend over enough to cut them and even if she could, cannot see well enough to do it. So when she saw her new GP, we talked to him about seeing a podiatrist. He said he would check with Secure Horizons about getting her a referral (that's just for cutting her toenails). Took about a month for the referral to be approved by SH. The podiatrist said after the trimming that he wanted her back in 3 months for another trim and that they would apply to renew the referral. That will be on going every 3 months for the rest of her life. Most likely SH won't turn it down, but they have the power to do so with no explanation. But surely, given your age and the age of your wife, you already know this. So why you keep posting this nonsense about bureaucrats coming between a doctor and a patient is unknown to me. =Bob Very true Bob. As I said in another thread. My monther-in-law is waiting for a Secure Horizons (Pacificare) referral to get a tumor on her spine examined by a specialist. If she had traditional Medicare she would already have been treated a week ago. Damn insurance company scum. Monther-in law? Is that some kind of Freudian slip? Jane Fonda's Monster in Law perhaps? Just our of curiosity, why would what appears to be a Medicare supplement at your expense be more restrictive than traditional Medicare?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 12, 2009 17:38:18 GMT -8
I paid into your f****** medicare for over forty f****** years. I haven't even got close to the value of those premiums in return. You're goddam right I'll use it to whatever advantage I find it useful. I didn't get a choice to begin with, so now I do. Lump it. I laugh when it is implied that you should not work the system as it is structured when that is a full time job for multitudes of liberals. Lots of them it is their only job! I think that it was in 1958 that we first started to pay into Social Security and then Medicare when it became law. That was when our health care started to get eroded slowly to the still generous but precarious plan that we have now. If these Democrats pass this ObamaKare initiative on a party line vote over the overwhelming objection of their constituents there will be the piper to pay in the 2010 elections. This is for =Bobs sake. Wash your mouth out with soap!
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 12, 2009 17:43:56 GMT -8
>>As my best friend, the son of a Nav mustang Captain has said, the military is the the best welfare system this country has ever come up with.<<the =Perfesser
Your friend was wrong.
The best welfare system is municipal employment.
Sit on their asses every day, go home to momma's ***** every night, collect hundreds of thousands in salary, and bitch about everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 13, 2009 8:15:14 GMT -8
Very true Bob. As I said in another thread. My monther-in-law is waiting for a Secure Horizons (Pacificare) referral to get a tumor on her spine examined by a specialist. If she had traditional Medicare she would already have been treated a week ago. Damn insurance company scum. Monther-in law? Is that some kind of Freudian slip? Jane Fonda's Monster in Law perhaps? Just our of curiosity, why would what appears to be a Medicare supplement at your expense be more restrictive than traditional Medicare? Win, I've explained this at least three times in different threads. The plan that my in-laws have, Secure Horizions, is a HMO and therefore restricted to their network. You can go "out-of-network" but it will cost. www.securehorizons.com/
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 13, 2009 8:16:59 GMT -8
I paid into your f****** medicare for over forty f****** years. I haven't even got close to the value of those premiums in return. You're goddam right I'll use it to whatever advantage I find it useful. I didn't get a choice to begin with, so now I do. Lump it. >>As my best friend, the son of a Nav mustang Captain has said, the military is the the best welfare system this country has ever come up with.<<the =Perfesser Your friend was wrong. The best welfare system is municipal employment. Sit on their asses every day, go home to momma's ***** every night, collect hundreds of thousands in salary, and bitch about everyone else. There is no reason to step into the gutter. Let's keep out discussions clean.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 13, 2009 10:31:24 GMT -8
Monther-in law? Is that some kind of Freudian slip? Jane Fonda's Monster in Law perhaps? Just our of curiosity, why would what appears to be a Medicare supplement at your expense be more restrictive than traditional Medicare? Win, I've explained this at least three times in different threads. The plan that my in-laws have, Secure Horizions, is a HMO and therefore restricted to their network. You can go "out-of-network" but it will cost. www.securehorizons.com/Then I would ask what other options do they have. While my wife was with Kaiser, it does not seem that there were many problems that could not be overcome. The problems were mostly what you would expect when you choose a HMO when a "fee for service" option was available. There are arguments to be made both ways, but we finally figured out that a "fee for service" plan with our secondary payer was just about fool proof.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 13, 2009 13:27:54 GMT -8
Win, I've explained this at least three times in different threads. The plan that my in-laws have, Secure Horizions, is a HMO and therefore restricted to their network. You can go "out-of-network" but it will cost. www.securehorizons.com/Then I would ask what other options do they have. While my wife was with Kaiser, it does not seem that there were many problems that could not be overcome. The problems were mostly what you would expect when you choose a HMO when a "fee for service" option was available. There are arguments to be made both ways, but we finally figured out that a "fee for service" plan with our secondary payer was just about fool proof. I agree with you. You also need to realize that many employers do not offer anything other than a HMO as it is usually the least expensive option.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 13, 2009 18:24:47 GMT -8
I paid into your f****** medicare for over forty f****** years. I haven't even got close to the value of those premiums in return. You're goddam right I'll use it to whatever advantage I find it useful. I didn't get a choice to begin with, so now I do. Lump it. I'm 59. Please explain to me how you paid for my Medicare for over 40 years. And then explain to me why I should care when I've paid for your wages, retirement and medical care since I was 17. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 13, 2009 18:26:52 GMT -8
Very true Bob. As I said in another thread. My monther-in-law is waiting for a Secure Horizons (Pacificare) referral to get a tumor on her spine examined by a specialist. If she had traditional Medicare she would already have been treated a week ago. Damn insurance company scum. Monther-in law? Is that some kind of Freudian slip? Jane Fonda's Monster in Law perhaps? Just our of curiosity, why would what appears to be a Medicare supplement at your expense be more restrictive than traditional Medicare? In other words, you see no problem with insurance companies rationing medical care but you see a big problem with government doing it. Thanks for letting us know that you're just a shill for the health insurance industry. Are any of your kids insurance salesmen, BTW? =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 13, 2009 18:36:43 GMT -8
I paid into your f****** medicare for over forty f****** years. I haven't even got close to the value of those premiums in return. You're goddam right I'll use it to whatever advantage I find it useful. I didn't get a choice to begin with, so now I do. Lump it. I laugh when it is implied that you should not work the system as it is structured when that is a full time job for multitudes of liberals. Lots of them it is their only job! I think that it was in 1958 that we first started to pay into Social Security and then Medicare when it became law. That was when our health care started to get eroded slowly to the still generous but precarious plan that we have now. Well, I'm glad to see you finally admit that retired military gets a generous health plan. What I find interesting is that you think your health care was "slowly eroded". Hell Pooh, you were apparently making big bucks after you retired and could have gone with some insurance plan but apparently you decided not to do that because after retiring in the your late 30s you figured there wasn't any reason since you were getting free medical care. I had not realized that the military was paying into Social Security, but it doesn't surprise me that you are drawing a military pension that was handed to you years before even cops and firemen can retire and have SS checks as well. I'm sorry, but the retired military people on here have no reason to complain. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 13, 2009 18:49:58 GMT -8
>>As my best friend, the son of a Nav mustang Captain has said, the military is the the best welfare system this country has ever come up with.<<the =Perfesser Your friend was wrong. The best welfare system is municipal employment. Sit on their asses every day, go home to momma's ***** every night, collect hundreds of thousands in salary, and bitch about everyone else. Dave, I think it's time you stop posting after having a few rounds. Your language is getting really offensive. But just for the sake of argument, the CAO at the County makes a couple hundred grand a year. He has upwards of 17,000 employees that he oversees and he has to answer to elected officials who hold him responsible if something gets screwed up because, unlike corporate CEOs, he has to deal with politicians who want to get reelected. He has to make sure that complaints from idiots like you get responses while he attempts to allocate funds while this State is ripping off the counties like crazy on property and other taxes but still handing down unfunded mandates. In short, you have no clue of what you write because you've never had to face the public. You certainly faced far more deadly people on river patrols, but you have no clue of what public servants face on a daily basis. Until you walk in the shoes I walked in you have no right to bitch. I can't bitch about what you faced in Vietnam, but the reverse is that you cannot complain about what I dealt with being a public servant (a term I always took seriously). But tell ya what - if you ever have a problem with some land use issue that comes up in your community, I'll be more than happy to help you with it because I took public service seriously, as did most everyone I worked with at the County. You can now feel free to go to bed and try to chock your chicken. Damn, I really don't understand how someone as bright as you are can offer some of the most incredibly stupid statements I see on here. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 13, 2009 18:51:32 GMT -8
Monther-in law? Is that some kind of Freudian slip? Jane Fonda's Monster in Law perhaps? Just our of curiosity, why would what appears to be a Medicare supplement at your expense be more restrictive than traditional Medicare? Win, I've explained this at least three times in different threads. The plan that my in-laws have, Secure Horizions, is a HMO and therefore restricted to their network. You can go "out-of-network" but it will cost. If you respond to a Pooh troll, he'll just keep whacking you on it. He won't bother with your responses, he'll just keep trolling. It's what he does. =Bob
|
|