This thread is a classic example of liberals "magic thinking." The reason liberals lean toward "magic thinking" is because they fail to understand that there are limits to the "natural law".

Technically no one is entitled to anything. building on that premise you have people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Others use their skill sets to build a life. Many defer payments todays for future benefits. Still further some people for one reason or another have genuinely been disadvanyaged from the start.

Some people genetically are pre-disposed to maladies, while others will go through life without as much as a cold.

Since the beginning of time person(s) have pitched security requiring people surrrender control of their lives to gain said security.

Science is not exact nor is it ever settled.

Some people do abuse their bodies while others are victims of their genetics.

Beginning in ther 1980 insurance companies began to demand peer reviews making decisions that should have been left with a physician. The government has done the same with medicaid/medicare and now wants control of the entire medical community

I believe medical decisions should be left in the hands of doctors. They can best decide if an obsese person is being irresponsible or has organic reasons for the obseity. I sure don't want an insurance company or a government employee deciding for me. Yes I understand that there are a few doctors who participate in fraud but that can be managed

Finally people should focus on what good health means to them rather than being judgemental as to who is entitled to health care and who should not, such a position some, may view, as being arrogant.

I opine, you decide.....

I am appalled at how callus some can be. If you are poor, die is what I see in this thread. Should we not do everything in our power to keep all gods children alive. Why does the ones with the most money have a right to live over those that serve rather than enslave.

Originally Posted by rubicon

This thread is a classic example of liberals "magic thinking." The reason liberals lean toward "magic thinking" is because they fail to understand that there are limits to the "natural law".

Technically no one is entitled to anything. building on that premise you have people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Others use their skill sets to build a life. Many defer payments todays for future benefits. Still further some people for one reason or another have genuinely been disadvanyaged from the start.

Some people genetically are pre-disposed to maladies, while others will go through life without as much as a cold.

Since the beginning of time person(s) have pitched security requiring people surrrender control of their lives to gain said security.

Science is not exact nor is it ever settled.

Some people do abuse their bodies while others are victims of their genetics.

Beginning in ther 1980 insurance companies began to demand peer reviews making decisions that should have been left with a physician. The government has done the same with medicaid/medicare and now wants control of the entire medical community

I believe medical decisions should be left in the hands of doctors. They can best decide if an obsese person is being irresponsible or has organic reasons for the obseity. I sure don't want an insurance company or a government employee deciding for me. Yes I understand that there are a few doctors who participate in fraud but that can be managed

Finally people should focus on what good health means to them rather than being judgemental as to who is entitled to health care and who should not, such a position some, may view, as being arrogant.

I opine, you decide.....

No offense, but I find this post cold and inhumane. I love everyone and not just the rich.

Rich it is my business. It's everyones business. Obesity and all its bad effects is the major cause of our healthcare problems. It is costing us billions of dollars. And finally for the majority of overweight people it is their fault. They are fat for two reasons...they eat too much and do not exercise at all. If we all think like you our healthcare system will go bankrupt. The government does not cause fat people,either does big pharm.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

"what if's"; here we go with the "what if's".

"If" an insurance company decides to withhold coverage for treatment, I have legal recourse, unlike I what I would have with the government.

You don't vote out bureaucrats, so your reasoning is fatally flawed; emphasis on the "fatally".

Richie, this one is one of your more laughable posts. When's the last time you read a report of someone winning a lawsuit against an insurance company over coverage? I'll ask a simpler question--how wealthy would a person have to be to fle a suit and take it all the way thru adjudication and appeals against a company like United Healhcare? How long would that take? Who pays for the rejected claims for coverage of needed medical procedures in the meantime?

This post is not really laughable--it's not funny. But it is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

That is what all 50 states have a state insurance commissioner and depatment for. No policy and its coverages and exclusions can be sold until it has been analyzed by actuaries for its financial solvency and claims vs. premiums collected ability to stay solvent with legal amounts of reinsirance and reserves. Nor can any policy be marketed without the department's approval of the policy coverages and exclusions reqired or allowed under state and federal law.

And the state cimmissioner or director is accountable to voters by way of the election of the governor who appoints him as a Cabinet member or by way of the legislators who we vote in and out.

Best of all, insurance co. dolts at a computer screen, reading a script to your doctor and approving payment, can be fired because they are not in public sector unions that bar firings for incompetency, chronic absence and lateness etc.

You accurately describe the role of state insurance commissioners in assuring the financial stability and solvency of state-registered insurance companies. But insurance commissioners do not get involved in the interpretation and administration of the contractual terms of insurance coverage. Your statement is not only misleading, it's wrong!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Richie, this one is one of your more laughable posts. When's the last time you read a report of someone winning a lawsuit against an insurance company over coverage? I'll ask a simpler question--how wealthy would a person have to be to fle a suit and take it all the way thru adjudication and appeals against a company like United Healhcare? How long would that take? Who pays for the rejected claims for coverage of needed medical procedures in the meantime?

This post is not really laughable--it's not funny. But it is ridiculous.

Can it Kahuna; I would have more success in litigating against insurance companies than you would have against a government agency.

You want something laughable, as you so rudely addressed me; how about your assertion that you would accomplish something at the ballot box; against a government bureaucrat?; how do you make that connection?

Talk about laughable!! You get mean when you're challenged. What's your defect?

Originally Posted by waynet

Rich it is my business. It's everyones business. Obesity and all its bad effects is the major cause of our healthcare problems. It is costing us billions of dollars. And finally for the majority of overweight people it is their fault. They are fat for two reasons...they eat too much and do not exercise at all. If we all think like you our healthcare system will go bankrupt. The government does not cause fat people,either does big pharm.

Holier than thou people make me ill.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I am appalled at how callus some can be. If you are poor, die is what I see in this thread. Should we not do everything in our power to keep all gods children alive. Why does the ones with the most money have a right to live over those that serve rather than enslave.

On March 20th, you made this big and tearful announcement:

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Thanks to management for being tolerant of me on this forum. I am logging out for the good of the entire TV site. I feel it would be better to do that than try any longer to attempt at Bi-Partisanship discussion on this forum. This is a radical conservative Forum without hope of change. Thanks to those that have tried to make it better.

Goodbye.

It was good while it lasted.

Originally Posted by billethkid

the so called costs in the health care business is directly attributable to fraud, price gouging by pharmaceutical companies, political and other government protection of the pharmaceutical companies (just like oil) and probably the biggest contributor to health care costs the US Government for it's lack of action(s) to curtail all the above....because it is in their personal self interest to do nothing....just as in oil and energy.....and too many to mention other hose jobs...

we the people get stuck with the end result.
We the majority are getting what we deserve because we allow it to continue.

Obamascare is only more icing on an already, long ago baked cake.....destined to break the back of what we think is bad now. What you have today is the best health care at the lowest price not to be continued in the foreseeable future. You will pay more in the years to come to TRY to remain at parity with what you now have. Future costs in and of itself will be a rationing in effect shutting out those who just cannot afford what needs to be done.

btk

Have you actually analyzed the amount of Medicare fraud, Billie? Last time I looked, those who analyze such things estimated that fraudulent claims contribute somewhere in the range of $60-80 billion per year, about 15-20% of total Medicare expenditures. That's certainly not insignificant, but it's a long way from your allegation that increasing healthcare costs are directly attributable to fraud and the government's unwillingness to attack the problem.

Did you ever ask the amount of fraudulent claims made against private health insurance companies, and how much they might add to skyrocketing premiums? Surely, you're not asserting that the private insurers have fraud completely in check, are you? Of course, you surely recognize that just like government insurance, we pay for fraud against private insurers too. You've noted I'm sure that then insurance company's profit margins don't decline, but our premiums have doubled in just five years. Do you think that private insurers are also subject to fraud, just like Medicare?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

?..I would have more success in litigating against insurance companies than you would have against a government agency....

I'll bet you have a terrific lawyer, Richie. But you didn't answer any of my questions.

• When was the last time you've seen a news report of a successful lawsuit against a health insurance company over coverage?
• How long would it take to take such a suit to final adjudication?
• What might your legal fees be? Who cold better afford such fees, you or the insurance company?
• And who pays for your medical care declined by the insurance company while you're suing them?

Until you can respond with at least some reasonable responses, quit the soundbites, OK?

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I try to stay away, but I think you are missing the point. We all know that the way money is being spent has to change.

The UK is trying to ration in a logical way....

Finally, an intelligent response. Of course, decisions must be made that will limit or modify payment for healthcare claims to those procedures and treatments proven to be necessary, effective and cost efficient for the patients being treated. Is that "rationing"? Of course it is. What Great Britain seems to be doing is trying to make some intelligent choices as to what medical care is necessary and affordable and what is not. Will some people remain sick or even die as the result? Yes. But the objective will be to provide an effective and affordable system of healthcare for the maximum number of people.

That's an approach not yet considered here in the U.S., and our skyrocketing costs show it. Yet there are those, including many on this forum, who refuse to recognize that we simply can't continue our healthcare system which produces sub-standard results with unaffordable costs.

The critics, like the original poster in this thread, will continue to refuse to recognize the problem or even begin to suggest a solution. Rather, they'll take their own form of " fun" by throwing out inflammatory and often incomplete and inaccurate allegations.

But why should I be critical of anyone doing that here in this forum? The same type of thing happens every day in the Congress of the United States.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'll bet you have a terrific lawyer, Richie. But you didn't answer any of my questions.

• When was the last time you've seen a news report of a successful lawsuit against a health insurance company over coverage?
• How long would it take to take such a suit to final adjudication?
• What might your legal fees be? Who cold better afford such fees, you or the insurance company?
• And who pays for your medical care declined by the insurance company while you're suing them?

Until you can respond with at least some reasonable responses, quit the soundbites, OK?

I see you also deleted out of my quote of your silly assertion that you can somehow get relief from a bad medical decision at the ballot box.

I don't need to answer your fanciful what if's, when you didn't address that bit of comedy.

Why stop with the too old and too fat?

Should we include profession - Police and Fire Fighters face significantly more danger than the rest of this in their line of work.

Bad neighborhoods - If live in the Chicago south side you are at much greater danger than if you live in the Villages.

Avocations - Sky diving, deep sea diving, extreme snowboarding have a much greater chance of being injured than the general population.

The list can go on nearly forever. Just a good a case can be for almost any area of life. Why not simply expect that everyone has a reasonable right to privacy and kill all the discrimination for whatever reason?

Originally Posted by BBQMan

Why stop with the too old and too fat?

Should we include profession - Police and Fire Fighters face significantly more danger than the rest of this in their line of work.

Bad neighborhoods - If live in the Chicago south side you are at much greater danger than if you live in the Villages.

Avocations - Sky diving, deep sea diving, extreme snowboarding have a much greater chance of being injured than the general population.

The list can go on nearly forever. Just a good a case can be for almost any area of life. Why not simply expect that everyone has a reasonable right to privacy and kill all the discrimination for whatever reason?

All great points.