Thread: New Healthcare Bill Passed - Your thoughts?

Not saying you're wrong but what part of the constitution does it violate?

The government tells you to buy things all the time. Roads, schools, police services, etcetera.

Memento, Obama and the Democrats campaigned on insuring everyone. It's one of the central reasons we elected them. Whether it's accomplished via true single payer or this scheme of subsidies and state exchanges, everyone has to pay for it, and just as it would be with a wholly tax-funded system, those with lower family incomes will pay less, if anything. All you're being asked to do is pick a plan and fill out the paperwork, after which your premiums as a low-income single parent will likely be zero.

I'm not seeing the logic in fleeing to places with established national healthcare systems in response to the passage of a substantially less "socialized" plan here.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Because health care is one of those things that you can't live without, like food or electricity.

This doesn't answer my question/statement.

And insurance companies lose money when they provide health care, so they avoid it whenever possible. Every insurance company works this way (car, house, etc.)

If this is true, why are there health insurance companies at all?

This is definitely not what we have seen, HMOs that gave top notch care to every patient would go bankrupt.

Obviously it's not what we have seen, the government regulates them at both federal and state levels.

You told me you thought it was OK to profit from health care.

I said this...

Meaning human life is open to monetary evaluation, and that it is OK to accept or deny medical treatment depending on whether or not it is economically viable.

But I did not say this. Hence, strawman. Or non-sequitur. Your choice.

Your opinion

And is it your opinion that healthcare is a right?

Maybe because we've had good health care for the last 50 years

Is this before or after they wait?

Originally Posted by Naiya

Yes. Healthcare is a basic human right.

Is this an opinion?

Originally Posted by Xei

Not saying you're wrong but what part of the constitution does it violate?

The government tells you to buy things all the time. Roads, schools, police services, etcetera.

The only power the government is given by the constitution to control money is where the control has to do with commerce or the voluntary use of government service. The government can make you get a tag sticker to ride on its roads, for example, and the government can tax income and sales because they are involved in commerce. What the government is not authorized to do is tell you that you simply have to buy something period. That is a power the Democrats made up and can only pretend to have.

Originally Posted by Xei

Mori, you realise that Canada and Europe (in general) both have national health services?

If you're dead set though, where do you plan to go? The UK?

I'm not planning a permanent stay in those places, just temporary, like a halfway place

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

38 states have filed lawsuits over it. I'm pretty sure it will go to the Supreme Court in a hurry and be shot down. It is blatantly unconstitutional. The government cannot tell you that you that you have to buy anything. Also, I think the people who passed the bill are about to be voted out of office. The country feels majorly disrespected over the bill and the attitudes Pelosi, Obama, and others are showing over it. People are really pissed. The Democrats will probably go out of commission for a while in the next few years. If it's permanent, then one major party down and one to go.

if it is repealed then i may stay a little longer. Though i don't see this country being able to be retrieved from those at power. As i stated before, i wouldn't mind it if i were given the choice, and the debt of the country was on the top of the agenda right next to raising the jobs available in the country...

Originally Posted by Xei

Not saying you're wrong but what part of the constitution does it violate?

The government tells you to buy things all the time. Roads, schools, police services, etcetera.

Right, they tax your for things you HAVE to USE, you must go to school to become anything but homeless, you have to use the roads, and police are needed for our protection. Healthcare is a choice, if you are healthy and don't feel like having the insurance then you should be able to say "ok i'll take my chances and try to save that money for college, or a new home, or car or whatever else i want"

They are taking a "product" under government control and telling you to buy or be fined and punished.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Memento, Obama and the Democrats campaigned on insuring everyone. It's one of the central reasons we elected them. Whether it's accomplished via true single payer or this scheme of subsidies and state exchanges, everyone has to pay for it, and just as it would be with a wholly tax-funded system, those with lower family incomes will pay less, if anything. All you're being asked to do is pick a plan and fill out the paperwork, after which your premiums as a low-income single parent will likely be zero.

I'm not seeing the logic in fleeing to places with established national healthcare systems in response to the passage of a substantially less "socialized" plan here.

I didn't elect Obama, i voted for Ron Paul.... I've been planning a move for a long time my friend, this just spurred it into reality that much faster. I lost faith in my government a few years ago over personal matters, and they have yet to gain it back. Remember i was in the military, i was once a very proud American citizen and i would've shed my blood for any of you, but i will not die for these bastards that can't stop feeding me crap sandwiches... i deserve the right of choice. I have been stripped of that right, so i am leaving my american citizenship behind and will try a life somewhere else. I mean no respect to any other american, i wish the best for the great people of this country. America is the people, not the corporations, not the government, not the military, but the people that work and live for the soil they stand on. The rest are parasites and byproducts of the people, serving and administering to the people. Now the country is becoming of money and power blatantly and the people are becoming the parasites to the government and the corporations.

I plan on getting to Scotland or Sweden, i don't know the exact heading yet, i'm searching right now for the a list of possible places to consider a permanent home. I'm not planning a permanent stay in the UK or Canada, although i do plan to make my way to the Ilse of Skye, from what i've heard life there is what i prefer.

Edit: I'll still be here on DV and online, i'm looking into some different types of internet sources... and the move wont happen for a year or two, night even give it three but that's pushing it

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

38 states have filed lawsuits over it. I'm pretty sure it will go to the Supreme Court in a hurry and be shot down. It is blatantly unconstitutional. The government cannot tell you that you that you have to buy anything. Also, I think the people who passed the bill are about to be voted out of office. The country feels majorly disrespected over the bill and the attitudes Pelosi, Obama, and others are showing over it. People are really pissed. The Democrats will probably go out of commission for a while in the next few years. If it's permanent, then one major party down and one to go.

While there's a decent chance the Court will hear one of these cases, the odds that this bill will fail to meet the test of "necessary and proper" powers are slim to none. As for "the country," while no one is thrilled with this compromise, outrage is far from universal. The Democratic leadership has been dithering with uncooperative Republicans on this issue for nearly a year, and quite a few of us were saying, "just push it through" when there was still a public option. Anyone feeling disrespected should have gotten involved in the process when they had the chance.

It's definitely a toss up how much this will spin for or against both parties in November, and again in 2012, but it all depends on what happens between now and then.

I don't think it matters that it passed... they're just going to deliberate over it for another 2 years and overturn it in the end before its actual implementation. So, pepople's feelings on it are unimportant in my opinion.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Is this an opinion?

Isn't everything?

I plan on getting to Scotland or Sweden, i don't know the exact heading yet, i'm searching right now for the a list of possible places to consider a permanent home. I'm not planning a permanent stay in the UK or Canada, although i do plan to make my way to the Ilse of Skye, from what i've heard life there is what i prefer.

Interesting, why've you chosen those two? Obviously they're quite different. Do you plan on learning Swedish..?

I still don't understand why your reaction to getting national healthcare (which Obama did make clear was one of his policies, and Obama was democratically elected by the American people) is moving to a country which already has national healthcare..?

In Scotland even university is paid for by the public.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

This doesn't answer my question/statement.

People will keep buying policies no matter how shitty service gets because you're still better off than with no insurance at all.

If this is true, why are there health insurance companies at all?

Because in the majority of times they do provide health care. But before doing so, they'll look for any loophole (far-fetched preexisting condition, "experimental" treatment, etc.), and so help you if they find one. I'll let Nixon explain it...

http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clip/...s-medical-care

Obviously it's not what we have seen, the government regulates them at both federal and state levels.

Explain to me how an insurance company can aim for maximum profits while providing the best possible health care.

I said this...

But I did not say this. Hence, strawman. Or non-sequitur. Your choice.

OK, so if you were in charge of a health insurance company and in it for profits, and a patient of yours requires treatment that would mean a large loss for your company, you would provide it with no bells and whistles?

And is it your opinion that healthcare is a right?

Yes

Is this before or after they wait?

It's called triage, you know, the people with cancer get to use the MRIs before the athletes with sport injuries. I've had my fair share of non-essential surgeries and rehabilitation, stuff that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the US. The wait is tolerable.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

I plan on getting to Scotland or Sweden, i don't know the exact heading yet, i'm searching right now for the a list of possible places to consider a permanent home. I'm not planning a permanent stay in the UK or Canada, although i do plan to make my way to the Ilse of Skye, from what i've heard life there is what i prefer.

Ugh, you know Scotland is in the UK... And both the UK and Sweden have universal health care, which they will FORCE you to pay for through taxes, which will be much higher than what you are used to in the US; and if you don't pay you go to jail (tax evasion).

i just read that, well, i'll keep looking.

hmm, seems a hard thing to escape...

Well, there's always India, Africa or the Middle East.

Welcome to planet Earth.

Wonder what the most developed (excluding USA) grey country is...

I'd go to Turkey.

Originally Posted by Naiya

Isn't everything?

So you're just sort of whimsically saying it's a right and you're not putting forth a moral absolute. Fine with me.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

People will keep buying policies no matter how shitty service gets because you're still better off than with no insurance at all.

While this may be true for some, the vast majority would switch over to healthier life-styles or other higher-quality policies/companies before sticking with poor quality policies simply because "crappy insurance is better than no insurance."

The company providing poor-quality service would go out of business anyway, or perhaps would downsize to stay within budgets and profits, because they'd have fewer customers and wouldn't be able to stay at their previous size. If anything the quality of service would rise anyway despite serving a smaller consumer base.

Because in the majority of times they do provide health care. But before doing so, they'll look for any loophole (far-fetched preexisting condition, "experimental" treatment, etc.), and so help you if they find one. I'll let Nixon explain it...

http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clip/...s-medical-care

Well you just said they avoid providing healthcare because they lose money when they do so, now you're saying they do provide healthcare.

Explain to me how an insurance company can aim for maximum profits while providing the best possible health care.

What relevance is this to the discussion?

OK, so if you were in charge of a health insurance company and in it for profits, and a patient of yours requires treatment that would mean a large loss for your company, you would provide it with no bells and whistles?

Do you understand how profits work?

Yes

So you're just sort of whimsically saying it's a right and you're not putting forth a moral absolute. Fine with me.

It's called triage, you know, the people with cancer get to use the MRIs before the athletes with sport injuries. I've had my fair share of non-essential surgeries and rehabilitation, stuff that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the US. The wait is tolerable.

Not tolerable enough:

A 58-year-old grandmother awaited open-heart surgery in a Montreal hospital hallway with 66 other patients as electric doors opened and closed all night long, bringing in drafts from sub-zero weather. She was on a five-year waiting list for her heart surgery.

In Toronto, 23 of the city's 25 hospitals turned away ambulances in a single day because of a shortage of doctors.

In Vancouver, ambulances have been "stacked up" for hours while heart attack victims wait in them before being properly taken care of.

"Canadian price-control-induced shortages also manifest themselves in scarce access to medical technology. Per capita, the United States has eight times more MRI machines, seven times more radiation therapy units for cancer treatment, six times more lithotripsy units, and three times more open-heart surgery units. There are more MRI scanners in Washington state, population five million, than in all of Canada, with a population of more than 30 million (See John Goodman and Gerald Musgrave, Patient Power)."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Not tolerable enough:

A 58-year-old grandmother awaited open-heart surgery in a Montreal hospital hallway with 66 other patients as electric doors opened and closed all night long, bringing in drafts from sub-zero weather. She was on a five-year waiting list for her heart surgery.

In Toronto, 23 of the city's 25 hospitals turned away ambulances in a single day because of a shortage of doctors.

In Vancouver, ambulances have been "stacked up" for hours while heart attack victims wait in them before being properly taken care of.

"Canadian price-control-induced shortages also manifest themselves in scarce access to medical technology. Per capita, the United States has eight times more MRI machines, seven times more radiation therapy units for cancer treatment, six times more lithotripsy units, and three times more open-heart surgery units. There are more MRI scanners in Washington state, population five million, than in all of Canada, with a population of more than 30 million (See John Goodman and Gerald Musgrave, Patient Power)."

That says it all. Socialism takes away incentive and screws everything up big time. Americans have the opportunities to save their lives if they are responsible. In a socialist system, even the most responsible people are up the creek. That is severe injustice.

There's no doubt it's going to cost more. In general, it will be less efficient in creating cost effective medicine. People with food stamps care less about how much their food costs- and people with health care care less about the price of their care.

Explain to me how an insurance company can aim for maximum profits while providing the best possible health care.

How does life insurance make money, Spart? They end up giving money bak to their people, since their clients die 100% of the time. The insurance companies invest the funds and make a profit... like banks.

I don't think it matters that it passed... they're just going to deliberate over it for another 2 years and overturn it in the end before its actual implementation. So, pepople's feelings on it are unimportant in my opinion.

Replace the word 'overturn' with 'reject' and I said the same thing last year. I don't know. When granted authority over the people, the establishment rarely gives it back. Even when they promise that they will, much less when they initiate a program intending to be long-term.

Don't mean to play Devil's advocate, but on the other side-

At the same time, alot of people die that don't have to die in this country. That's tragic, when the largest producer and consumer in the world has a poverty rate and preventable death rate like ours? Yeah...

Americans have the opportunities to save their lives if they are responsible.

But UM, does a lower middle class family have the funds to pay for 20-100,000 dollars a year on cancer treatment? Or 350,000 dollars for a heart/kidney transplant? I'm sure you know that not everyone can, (could have,) get most of their medical bills paid for by the government, so what exactly do you mean by this statement?




I am pissed that Obama directly lied about the policy, though, moreso than the idea of social medicine in itself.

It really isn't about how much they pay out for an insurance company. Its about the risk ratio. If you want high quality coverage, you simply pay more or get yourself in a lower risk group.

You can find health insurance, even now that will cover unlimited amount on health care. You just need to be willing to put in your fair share.

Insurance doesn't save money but not paying people. If you don't pay people, no one buys your insurance and you go out a business. The insurance company makes money by fixing the risk ratio so they are paying out less than they are taking in.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Wonder what the most developed (excluding USA) grey country is...

I'd go to Turkey.

I like this map. It really illustrates how medieval the USA is. And, I'd hate to say it, but how ignorant and fearful the people are. You don't hear anyone bitching about libraries.

Most americans only know what Fox news tell them, and FOX news isn't really news, it is mostly right wing opinions. Most americans are like Joe the plumber. It is sad.

as someone who traveled a lot, I got to see firsthand how other countries do things. I find it funny that Americans are afraid of becoming like countries in Europe. America has serious serious crime problems. It really isn't safe here. Some third world countries are less safe, but as far as developed countries. Yet America has some of the most prisons and prisoners. It is because the people are encouraged to be ignorant and fearful.

Most Americans have not traveled enough to understand that there is a whole world out there, and that America isn't better than other places. Most Americans can't imagine that a beautiful young woman can walk through any neighborhood in Tokyo at any hour of the night and completely trust strangers and feel safe. People are so fearful here that they create what they are afraid of, so we have the highest crime. We don't trust our government and our government doesn't take care of us. Most americans can't imagine that you can live in Europe and trust your government and that your government will take care of you. I agree however that the government shouldn't have too much power. I think that the role of the government should be to have libraries, postal system, minimal police, minimal military, and universal healthcare.

People are against universal healthcare because it costs too much but they are for war is quite ironic that death is more valuable than life.

The whole system is a mess. Our politicians are bought and sold and it is the corporations that really run things.

I think that the U.S.A. should sponsor and subsidize every american to go travel the world for up to 5 years. I know that Australians are encouraged to travel the world and you see them everywhere in the world.

But, what is the answer?!!! If I didn't have commitments here I would go back to Japan if I could get a work VISA.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

While this may be true for some, the vast majority would switch over to healthier life-styles or other higher-quality policies/companies before sticking with poor quality policies simply because "crappy insurance is better than no insurance."

The company providing poor-quality service would go out of business anyway, or perhaps would downsize to stay within budgets and profits, because they'd have fewer customers and wouldn't be able to stay at their previous size. If anything the quality of service would rise anyway despite serving a smaller consumer base.

You'd think that Americans would already take better care of themselves considering that they pay the most for health care in the world.

And I don't think a health insurance company would be profitable without resorting to the crocks and lack of coverage that they currently do. Health care reminds me very much of the airline industry, it's almost impossible to be profitable. Most countries have national airlines, because air travel is necessary in today's society. In the 70s, the US deregulated its commercial airline industry. The result was that prices were driven down as competition increased, but the cost of operating an airline (planes, fuel, taxes, gates, etc.) is so damn huge that prices were driven below what was necessary to keep them solvent. The giants of the day (Pan-Am, TWA, etc.) all went bankrupt, and the new airlines stayed profitable by minimizing expenses as much as possible (hence now having to pay for meals, headphones, extra luggage, seat belts, etc.), because raising prices would mean going out of business. And now US airlines range from mediocre to terrible with nowhere near the quality of service as in other countries. Oh yeah, their pilots are the worst paid in the world too.

Well you just said they avoid providing healthcare because they lose money when they do so, now you're saying they do provide healthcare.

Of course they provide healthcare, they just get out of it if they can, which is an option they research thoroughly. Watch the video again.

What relevance is this to the discussion?

Do you understand how profits work?

We seem to be at an impasse here. You believe that it's possible to provide the best quality healthcare possible while focusing on profits, I think that's impossible for aforementioned reasons.

Profits = Revenue - Expenses

So you're just sort of whimsically saying it's a right and you're not putting forth a moral absolute. Fine with me.

I believe that a person's health is not a resource to be exploited by private enterprises. Our health should be a higher priority than monetary gain and falls under our rights to life and security of the person.

Not tolerable enough:

A 58-year-old grandmother awaited open-heart surgery in a Montreal hospital hallway with 66 other patients as electric doors opened and closed all night long, bringing in drafts from sub-zero weather. She was on a five-year waiting list for her heart surgery.

In Toronto, 23 of the city's 25 hospitals turned away ambulances in a single day because of a shortage of doctors.

In Vancouver, ambulances have been "stacked up" for hours while heart attack victims wait in them before being properly taken care of.

"Canadian price-control-induced shortages also manifest themselves in scarce access to medical technology. Per capita, the United States has eight times more MRI machines, seven times more radiation therapy units for cancer treatment, six times more lithotripsy units, and three times more open-heart surgery units. There are more MRI scanners in Washington state, population five million, than in all of Canada, with a population of more than 30 million (See John Goodman and Gerald Musgrave, Patient Power)."

That's a bit of a result of 4 years of Conservative minority rule, plus 2 years of Liberal minority before that. Our health care system is not fundamentally flawed, it's underfunded. Health care improvement here was a hot topic debate a couple years ago before it went by the wayside, replaced by government criticism of the war in Afghanistan (just in time for an election). Whenever these kinds of stories do occur, they get national coverage and spark quite a bit of outrage (Canadians feel we should get our money's worth and don't just blindly pay taxes). Anyways, the fact that I don't see these stories on the news that often combined with my own personal experiences tells me that things aren't as bad here as you make them out to be.

More importantly, this is fixable. Compared to US horror stories, which are a result of the system performing as intended.

A Chicago man with testicular cancer who was insured (yet sill paid thousands in deductibles) was told that after three years of treatment at a certain hospital, who's staff he had become attached with, that it was no longer considered a provider of his health plan.

And I thought socialism meant you couldn't chose your doctor?!?!?!

A Nashville man lost his wife due to heart failure a week after she was admitted for a heart attack, as her insurance company was deliberating whether it should cover a battery of heart tests.

A Hawaii couple travelled to their native Netherlands to have their child as in reading the fine print, they found out that their insurance didn't cover any aspect of pregnancy.

These are the ones that HAVE insurance, as opposed to...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

I prefer waiting to bankruptcy or death.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That says it all. Socialism takes away incentive and screws everything up big time. Americans have the opportunities to save their lives if they are responsible. In a socialist system, even the most responsible people are up the creek. That is severe injustice.

So responsible = wealthy now?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I like this map. It really illustrates how medieval the USA is. And, I'd hate to say it, but how ignorant and fearful the people are. You don't hear anyone bitching about libraries.

Most americans only know what Fox news tell them, and FOX news isn't really news, it is mostly right wing opinions. Most americans are like Joe the plumber. It is sad.

ur sad

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Socialized medicine is a great way for a socialist administration to move the country toward full blown socialism, and socialism has always been a disaster. Get ready for long lines, an outrageous amount of government control, and life saving pills getting banned because the bill payer (the fucking government) deems them too expensive. The government is getting way too powerful, and I don't understand why so many people trust government so much. What has government done to earn your trust? The government has no right to force people to buy anything, and that makes the bill unconstitutional. I am pretty sure the Supreme Court will shoot down at least that much of it, but I think it was meant to be a temporary measure on the way to 100% socialist healthcare. I am baffled over what is happening to my country. Socialism doesn't work. It is a disaster. Look at history. Prohibition and socialism have both proven to be horrific policies for countries, yet nations keep practicing them. Why don't people learn from history? The worst of it keeps repeating itself.

The government needs to be taken out by the back of the barn and shot like old yeller.

They are just going way to far now, and the people will not sit with their thumbs up their asses much longer, I can hear a storm brewing in the nation, I will just sit back and watch the mayhem that will most likely be headed to our near future, damnit, why couldn't I have been born in a different country.

Edit: oh wait every other damn country is on a shamble universal system too nearly.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You'd think that Americans would already take better care of themselves considering that they pay the most for health care in the world.

There are probably extenuating circumstances such as a lower quality of food. The fact that the gov. subsidizes so much could be another reason.

Most countries have national airlines, because air travel is necessary in today's society. In the 70s, the US deregulated its commercial airline industry. The result was that prices were driven down as competition increased, but the cost of operating an airline (planes, fuel, taxes, gates, etc.) is so damn huge that prices were driven below what was necessary to keep them solvent. The giants of the day (Pan-Am, TWA, etc.) all went bankrupt, and the new airlines stayed profitable by minimizing expenses as much as possible (hence now having to pay for meals, headphones, extra luggage, seat belts, etc.), because raising prices would mean going out of business. And now US airlines range from mediocre to terrible with nowhere near the quality of service as in other countries. Oh yeah, their pilots are the worst paid in the world too.

Do you have sources for these claims? Because I don't see how its possible for an industry to drive down costs so far that they screw themselves over.

Of course they provide healthcare, they just get out of it if they can, which is an option they research thoroughly. Watch the video again.

I did watch it, but that's besides the point. You first said they don't provide healthcare now you said they do. Which side of the road are you on?

The reason they "get out of it when they can" is probably due to the fact that they aren't able to take such high-risk cases. Their business is so regulated that they can't use their money efficiently. Their costs are so high that they can't lower the service costs to the consumers so they're not getting as high profits and thus can't take such high-risk consumers. I'm no healthcare expert but that's how it seems to me.

We seem to be at an impasse here. You believe that it's possible to provide the best quality healthcare possible while focusing on profits, I think that's impossible for aforementioned reasons.

Profits = Revenue - Expenses

In a high school class, that would pass.

Profits largely act at as a motivator of production. That means they motivate people to take a risk in order to forecast consumer needs. They also act as a signal to "adjust production." That means it changes the quality of goods/services, the amount of goods/services, the existence of the goods/services in the first place, etc. It is also a way to lower consumer costs (meaning "what the consumer pays for the good/service") via investing in cost-cutting technologies or methods. It is essentially an indicator of success. However, "profit incentive" is different from "money incentive."

I believe that a person's health is not a resource to be exploited by private enterprises. Our health should be a higher priority than monetary gain and falls under our rights to life and security of the person.

So you are putting forth a moral absolute?

That's a bit of a result of 4 years of Conservative minority rule, plus 2 years of Liberal minority before that. Our health care system is not fundamentally flawed, it's underfunded. Health care improvement here was a hot topic debate a couple years ago before it went by the wayside, replaced by government criticism of the war in Afghanistan (just in time for an election). Whenever these kinds of stories do occur, they get national coverage and spark quite a bit of outrage (Canadians feel we should get our money's worth and don't just blindly pay taxes). Anyways, the fact that I don't see these stories on the news that often combined with my own personal experiences tells me that things aren't as bad here as you make them out to be.

More importantly, this is fixable. Compared to US horror stories, which are a result of the system performing as intended.

A Chicago man with testicular cancer who was insured (yet sill paid thousands in deductibles) was told that after three years of treatment at a certain hospital, who's staff he had become attached with, that it was no longer considered a provider of his health plan.

And I thought socialism meant you couldn't chose your doctor?!?!?!

A Nashville man lost his wife due to heart failure a week after she was admitted for a heart attack, as her insurance company was deliberating whether it should cover a battery of heart tests.

A Hawaii couple travelled to their native Netherlands to have their child as in reading the fine print, they found out that their insurance didn't cover any aspect of pregnancy.

These are the ones that HAVE insurance, as opposed to...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

I prefer waiting to bankruptcy or death.

Well your cases dealt with insurance and risk brought about by the gov. regulations (and definitely not working "as intended") while mine dealt with people waiting for intolerable amounts of time due to the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy.

You say yours stems from the system being "underfunded." When does it become "funded enough?" With government, there are no profits, meaning there is no way for good performance to be praised and bad performance to be punished. Bad performance is rewarded with larger budgets!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

FOX news isn't really news, it is mostly right wing opinions.

"Fox isn't news, it's the largest trolling experiment ever conducted." - ExoByte (I think he said this a few years ago. You'll have to ask him )

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"Fox isn't news, it's the largest trolling experiment ever conducted." - ExoByte (I think he said this a few years ago. You'll have to ask him )

Lol...you just happen to keep this quote around handy? I think of Fox, I think of the alien newscaster on futurama