Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
So that makes it all OK? The fact that the Sarkisians were able to sue with no guarantee that they would win?
You're all outraged about the state of Oregon, but when it's a private insurer it's all cool because "they can sue" after their daughter dies.
I really hope that the alternative republican plan to fix our health care system is a little more comprehensive.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
So that makes it all OK? The fact that the Sarkisians were able to sue with no guarantee that they would win?
You're all outraged about the state of Oregon, but when it's a private insurer it's all cool because "they can sue" after their daughter dies.
I really hope that the alternative republican plan to fix our health care system is a little more comprehensive.

Your oversimplying this. Both events are tragedys, but when the government monopolizes the healthcare system and allows people to die because of an administrative flaw in their under efficient system there will be little recourse. You cannot change providers, and suing the government is seldom an easy task to win at. When the government is the end all be all when it comes to healthcare their decisions are final. When you cannot receive cancer treatment because the government says so you have no other options. When the government says you must wait years for a joint replacement you have no choice but to suffer in pain for that time period. We will be at the mercy of the bureaucratic nightmare that will be created with such a system. Our current system has flaws which need attention, but a complete overhauling to a government run system will only create more problems, not solve the ones we have today.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Your oversimplifying this. Both events are tragedies, but when the government monopolizes the health care system and allows people to die because of an administrative flaw in their under efficient system there will be little recourse.
Actually, your recourse would be the same as it is now when you are unhappy with government. Vote in someone who will change the policies that you disagree with.
You cannot change providers, and suing the government is seldom an easy task to win at. When the government is the end all be all when it comes to healthcare their decisions are final.
I cannot change providers now. CIGNA has been chosen as my health care provider by my local. Sure, I could change jobs, but that's really not a good option for a lot of reasons, and most people who have health insurance through their employer are in the same boat. If the government was the sole provider of healthcare, then everybody would care quite a bit about the government plan and would vote for politicians who promise to adress whatever they see as the plan's shortcomings.
When you cannot receive cancer treatment because the government says so you have no other options. When the government says you must wait years for a joint replacement you have no choice but to suffer in pain for that time period. We will be at the mercy of the bureaucratic nightmare that will be created with such a system. Our current system has flaws which need attention, but a complete overhauling to a government run system will only create more problems, not solve the ones we have today.
I'm not sold on a government health plan, but at the very least we need regulations to make sure that no one is denied affordable insurance due to a pre-existing condition, and that the abhorrent practice of rescission becomes a thing of the past. I'm waiting to hear a comprehensive republican proposal that at least addresses those two issues.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
I just thought this was funny, don't take it too serious :happy2:
5RkJK.png
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Why not? Since you brought it up. I know several people who purchase their own insurance but since you are a Marine why not just use the government plan?
Sure, I could buy additional insurance, but I can't opt out of the plan that has been selected by my local, so I would essentially be paying for 2 insurance policies. My last contract ran out in 2003, so I'm out of luck on the Marine plan.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Sure, I could buy additional insurance, but I can't opt out of the plan that has been selected by my local, so I would essentially be paying for 2 insurance policies. My last contract ran out in 2003, so I'm out of luck on the Marine plan.


I assume you already know they changed the VA rules in 2009 and you are saying that do not qualify but you should know you are not missing much.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
I assume you already know they changed the VA rules in 2009 and you are saying that do not qualify but you should know you are not missing much.
I just read the new rules, and I do technically qualify, but I almost certainly would be denied enrollment because of my income level. It's nice to know that if I lose my job I'll have something though.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Susan Ackermann

Allegations have swirled that the Administration has been keeping an "enemies list," a rumor that began when the White House asked citizens to email them if they came in contact with "fishy" information about Health Care reform. Though the President has said this info was needed to dispel "misinformation," and that a list was not being kept, a partial catalog of names and complaints has been leaked.

The document, which seems to in stark contrast to the President's assurances, contains several pieces of surprising information.

The majority of the index simply contains complaints fielded by the Administration from received emails. At the top of these listings is written "Disseminator Unknown." This label is included when the person spreading 'misinformation' in unknown to the citizen who reported them.

However, a moderate percent of the entries have not only people's complaints, but also their name. If the name of the 'disseminator' is known, it is included with the concerns they have been voicing.

An even smaller percent of people, however, have much bigger entries. Not only does the list include these people's names and 'misinformation,' but also residence, gender, race, age, political party, annual income, size of family, and, in some cases, their social security numbers.

This leak seems to discredit President Obama's statements that no such list exists. It is also unknown what the information is used for, or why it was gathered in such detail. The document also raises questions on what information the Executive Branch should be allowed constitutionally to gather on individual citizens.

The release of this information comes at a time when support for the President's plan seems to be wavering. Also, Town Hall meeting have recently taken place in which opponents of the President's reforms have loudly voiced their opinions. It is unknown what effect this release will have on the bill and support for it.

The President could not be reached at the time of this release.
 
Top