Why PPACA is inexcusable, in a nutshell.

Post #360,843 by mmoffitt 7/16/12 8:25:30 AM Reply	Why PPACA is inexcusable, in a nutshell. A patient walks into an urgent care facility with severely bloody urine. She has health insurance. She's told to report to an ER because she needs further tests. She refuses. Why? Because her private health insurance plan has a high deductible and she can't afford medical payments. So, she goes home, refusing diagnostic tests and possible treatment. Google extremely bloody urine and you'll find a possible cause is bladder cancer. How does this relate to the PPACA? Well, this patient is a "covered" patient, so she's got everything she needs and all that she's guaranteed to have under PPACA. The goal of the PPACA is to have everyone under a private healthcare insurance plan and that's exactly what's she got. So, we're good under the PPACA. But, because this hard working patient actually wants to pay her bills, she doesn't get the healthcare she needs despite having private health insurance. And that, my friends, is why the PPACA accomplishes nothing - except of course, that Wall Street companies now get to victimize everyone in exactly the same way they've victimized her. qed.
Post #360,845 by Another Scott 7/16/12 10:20:06 AM Reply	Corner cases are always there. Under the PPACA, routine annual medical exams and similar will be free. So presumably things like this will be caught earlier for more people. Yes, Bronze plans have high deductibles. It's a problem. But there are some subsidies to help lower-income people out. Reducing the PPACA to a corner-case sound bite ignores all the good it will do. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,855 by mmoffitt 7/16/12 4:13:26 PM Reply	A corner case? Hardly. Her case represents the majority of cases of the working poor. And PPACA ain't gonna fix it. A single payer solution would, of course, but then where would the campaign funds come from?
Post #360,857 by Another Scott 7/16/12 4:22:06 PM 7/16/12 7:12:41 PM Reply	How many votes were there for single payer? Looks like zero - it didn't reach the House flooor. It looks like it died in committee in 2009 - http://thomas.loc.go.../z?d111:h.r.00676: Railing against reality when your preferred solution can't get the votes is not going to do anything but raise your blood pressure. An imperfect solution is better than an "ideal" that can't be implemented. [edit:] Sorry the Thomas linky didn't work. You can get there from this Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia....l_Health_Care_Act Click on the "Legislative history" link on the right. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott July 16, 2012, 07:12:41 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #360,860 by folkert 7/16/12 5:52:32 PM Reply	Hey... how many times... How many times did Congress vote on Obama's Jobs Bill? How many times did Congress vote on the repealing "Obamacare"? How much does it cost to "operate" Congress a day? Yeah...
Post #360,863 by Another Scott 7/16/12 6:33:52 PM Reply	Different animals. One is comparing something that has passed and is being implemented (PPACA) with Medicare for All. The other is lack of votes on anything of substance. Yes, I was too curt - of course one should agitate for things one wants a vote on. But if you're willing to throw out a flawed but decent piece of legislation for something that would be better in many respects but does not have the votes, well, you'll get neither. And if you're expecting Congress to throw an entire industry (health insurance) on the unemployment line at one fell swoop, at a time of high unemployment, well you're dreaming. And not in a good way. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,890 by folkert 7/16/12 9:34:36 PM Reply	I am not... willing to throw out PPACA. Incremental change is the only way we will get through and get it somewhat right.
Post #360,891 by Another Scott 7/16/12 9:44:56 PM Reply	Understood. Me neither; ditto. :-)
Post #360,900 by mmoffitt 7/17/12 8:20:30 AM Reply	In the absence of real leadership... that might be true. But, it won't come anywhere near being "right" because the leadership we have is a subsidiary of Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
Post #360,904 by folkert 7/17/12 8:34:50 AM Reply	I can agree with that... but it IS a start... a stumbling one out of the gate for sure... but a start none the less.
Post #360,911 by crazy 7/17/12 9:41:06 AM Reply	"real leadership"? Would that me the guy with all the guns who is pushing your point of view? You are waiting for the next demagogue to fall in line behind.
Post #360,865 by mmoffitt 7/16/12 6:55:02 PM Reply	Your President killed Single Payer in the crib. I couldn't get to your link, but I do remember Nader's attempt (along with the President of the AMA) to be heard during the hearings and the WH was having NONE of it. After several weeks of protests at Senate hearings and health care events by single payer advocates (visit singlepayeraction.org), six physicians from Oregon, with 191 years of combined real-world medical experience, are crossing the country in a 27-foot Winnebago making stops in nearly 30 cities, to debate, educate and advance full medicare for all. Everybody in, nobody out. Calling themselves ÂMad as Hell Doctors,Â these physicians are already drawing crowds and expect thousands to turn out at each city that they visit, culminating in a large arrival demonstration in front of the White House around October 1. (Visit www.madashelldoctors.com) They have written President Obama asking for a meeting Âto discuss the future of health care as well as the moral, social, and fiscal imperative of enacting a single-payer system for America at this moment in our history.Â The White House turned them down flat, not even leaving the door open for reconsideration. Mr. Obama has met countless times with the CEOs of large corporations, whose greed and callousness causes so much of this crisis. Though he believes in single payer Âif we started from scratch,Â he has yet to meet with any single payer delegation. http://thetruthorthe...gory/ralph-nader/ It's easy to defeat an idea if you never let it be discussed. As should be abundantly clear to everyone by now (at least!) Obama is YAN tool of Wall Street and Big Pharma.
Post #360,868 by Another Scott 7/16/12 7:14:55 PM Reply	We've been through this ad nauseum... I wasn't aware that the White House controlled congressional hearings. Interesting. </snark> Cheers, Scott
Post #360,867 by mmoffitt 7/16/12 7:03:41 PM Reply	See what happens when you let the option on the table? Set to be implemented by 2017, VermontÂs healthcare overhaul goes well beyond the new federal law. The Vermont Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted last month, will make Vermont the first state in the nation to offer single-payer healthcare. On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin hailed the Supreme Court decision upholding the federal Affordable Care Act, but he said Vermont would probably be least impacted by it. "WeÂve had a long history of healthcare reform and a real priority of taking care of our citizens," says Robin Lunge, VermontÂs director of Health Care Reform. "WeÂre not interested in waiting for the nation to catch up with us." http://www.democracy...irms_patchwork_us
Post #360,869 by Another Scott 7/16/12 7:20:50 PM Reply	States are free to implement single payer if they want. http://en.wikipedia....January_1.2C_2017 Funny how this fatally flawed piece of legislation allows that, huh. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,884 by mmoffitt 7/16/12 8:24:23 PM Reply	You've never been more wrong. The federal health care reform law would not allow Vermont to enact single payer until 2017; Vermont is asking the administration to grant it a waiver so that it can get there even faster, by 2014. http://www.motherjon...payer-health-care Guess what? They didn't get it. So, the administration actually prevented Vermont from implementing single payer as soon as they wanted to. Boy, that White House really hates single payer doesn't it? Pretty clear who they're really worried about, isn't it?
Post #360,892 by Another Scott 7/16/12 10:00:58 PM Reply	You do understand that Obama isn't king, right? Obama doesn't have a vote in the Senate any more. http://www.whitehous...mmitteereport.pdf (p.43 of 80) From September 2011: Accelerate the issuance of State Innovation Waivers. This proposal empowers States to develop their own innovative strategies to ensure their residents have access to high quality, affordable health insurance achieving the same outcomes as the ACA. Similar to legislation previously introduced by Senators Ron Wyden, Scott Brown, and Mary Landrieu and endorsed by the President, it would make ÂState Innovation WaiversÂ available starting in 2014, three years earlier than under current law. These State strategies would need to provide affordable insurance coverage to at least as many residents as without the waiver and must not increase the Federal deficit. The Administration is committed to the budget neutrality of these waivers; an allowance for these waivers is included to account for the possibility that CBO will estimate costs for this proposal. Moving the date forward to 2014 requires legislation. HTH. Cheers, Scott. (Who has been more wrong about many, many more things than this. ;-)
Post #360,895 by hnick 7/17/12 7:22:16 AM Reply	Well, then, similarly You do understand that Obama apparently can't lead a group of cub scouts to the toilet, right? He's supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party. Either he's a total flop or he's getting exactly what he wanted. Your choice.
Post #360,896 by Another Scott 7/17/12 7:41:03 AM Reply	Heh. "Leader" has many meanings. What does Obama have for leverage with members of Congress? Especially compared to the olden days when the parties were the major sources of largess (campaign funding, etc.)? Obama passed a nearly universal health care bill with no votes to spare. He knows how to count votes and got it done in the face of nearly continuous unified opposition by the Republicans. Do you think Obama would have vetoed a bill with a Public Option? Do you think that he would have vetoed a Single Payer bill if it had made it through both the House and Senate? http://www.progressi.../nichols0109.html (from January 2009): [...] The point won't be to teach Obama about single-payer. Less than six years ago, he told the Illinois AFLCIO: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody . . . a singlepayer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." Since then, Democrats have taken back the House, the Senate, and the White House. The man who set those prerequisites in 2003 will sit in the Oval Office in 2009. But change didn't just come to Washington. It came to Barack Obama. His statements, his strategies, and his appointments evidence a caution born of the political and structural pressures faced by Presidential contenders and Presidents-elect. Whether the previous, more progressive Obama still exists within the man who will take the oath of office on January 20 remains to be seen. But the only way to determine if Obama really is the progressive he claimed as recently as last summer to be is to push not just Obama but the public. Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." It is reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama agrees with them on many funda-mental issues. He has said as much. It is equally reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it. Obama is a pragmatist. He knows when to take half a loaf rather than expend all his money for a whole loaf that he had no chance of getting. Incremental progress is where it's at. If the public wants single payer, and their representatives vote for it, he'll be more than happy to sign it. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,898 by mmoffitt 7/17/12 8:18:31 AM Reply	Swing and Another miss. The facts are not in your favor here. A significant majority of Americans wanted Single Payer in 2009. 58% in favor, 38% opposed in a Kaiser Foundation Study in July, 2009 ( http://www.kff.org/k...s/upload/7943.pdf ). Physician for a National Health Program found two-thirds of Americans favored Single Payer. This six-part series explores the research on American attitudes about a single-payer (or Medicare-for-all) system to evaluate the truth of the new version of the "yes but" argument. We will see that the research demonstrates that approximately two-thirds of Americans support a Medicare-for-all system despite constant attacks on Medicare and the systems of other countries by conservatives. The evidence supporting this statement is rock solid. The evidence against it - the focus group and polling "research" commissioned by the "option" movement's founders - is defective, misinterpreted, or both. In Part 2 of this series, I will describe two experiments with "citizen juries" which found that 60 to 80 percent of Americans support a Medicare-for-all or single-payer system. The citizen jury research is the most rigorous research available on the question of what Americans think about single payer and other proposals to solve the health care crisis. It is the most rigorous because it exposes randomly selected Americans to a lengthy debate between proponents of single payer and other proposals. http://www.pnhp.org/...icare-for-all.pdf Another poll in January, 2009 found similar results: The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, Â59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.Â Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise. http://www.healthcar...-for-single-payer I guess Obama figured that 32% was far more equal than the 59%. Probably included Big Pharma, Big Bank and Big Insurance types. Want to try again?
Post #360,907 by Another Scott 7/17/12 9:14:56 AM Reply	The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again.
Post #360,922 by mmoffitt 7/17/12 4:13:04 PM Reply	Changing arguments mid-stream gets you only so far. ;0)
Post #360,955 by Ashton 7/18/12 6:16:13 AM Reply	Re: The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again. Alas. this is [STILL] TRUE. No matter What Poll indicates the sense/sensibility of lots of Muricans (not on the Kool-Aid): The Congress [nor USSC] of 2012 are NOT representing 'people' (Etc. Yada, qed. All Done Here already.) Ergo, I shall Not vote for Any Old/New Nincompoop--as a satisfactory (or even digital-logical) evidence of my discontent with Obama's (say, to pick one: continuance of all the Bush Rights-rapes.) Of Course.. I would have used the bully-pulpit In Controlled and Effective Anger! just often enough to 'correct any false impressions of wimpishness'. But I do not imagine, in wildest egoistic Dreams: that as Prez, I could have gotten ANY 'Health Care expansion' through the DC insanity --as persists, perhaps even deadlier. But He Did! Jeezz.. it's fucking-Crazy out there, and intensifying unto --> It Can't Happen Here clinical madness. :-/ .hr Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
Post #360,958 by mmoffitt 7/18/12 9:16:41 AM 7/18/12 9:22:41 AM Reply	So, can you or Scott help me out here? If a significant majority want change (isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?) and they get "their guy" in the White House with a huge amount of public desire for change backing him, how is it not a huge, unforgivable failing of the President himself not to leverage that into change we could all believe in? This is precisely the danger of Obama as President I was most concerned about in 2007. I saw him for what he was: YAN empty Wall Street Armani. Yet, people who still believed in actual change voted him in, taking him for something he never was and never will be - an agent of change. And, as the 2010 elections showed, the disillusionment with the government and the absolute conviction people have now that "nothing will ever change" in Washington almost guarantees the impossibility of fixing it without tearing it completely down. Obama has cost the US its remaining believers. All that's left to participate are the screaming idiots of the Tea Bagger and like movements. Obama has sealed our fate and extinguished the last hope we had: belief in our collective ability to influence our government. edit: tpyo and elaboration of point. Edited by mmoffitt July 18, 2012, 09:17:02 AM EDT Edited by mmoffitt July 18, 2012, 09:22:41 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #360,961 by Another Scott 7/18/12 10:08:42 AM Reply	Obama isn't the problem - Congress is the problem. HTH. Your continued focus on Obama as the big villain here is misguided. All it takes is for 26 seats to flip and you'll see that your "impossible" strawman will actually flop around in the forest like the red herring it actually is. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,965 by mmoffitt 7/18/12 11:34:05 AM Reply	The question remains. Who is left to vote to flip the 26 seats?
Post #360,966 by Another Scott 7/18/12 11:44:19 AM Reply	We'll see in November. I'm optimistic myself. YMMV. ;-)
Post #360,974 by mmoffitt 7/18/12 1:33:54 PM Reply	See post below. Either way, we all lose.
Post #360,975 by Another Scott 7/18/12 1:40:00 PM Reply	Meh.
Post #360,962 by crazy 7/18/12 10:57:24 AM Reply	Actually no If a significant majority want change (isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?) A PORTION of those that elected Obama want the level of change you want. Many of them have other specific areas that caused them to vote for him. You conflate your goals with everyone else's. Since the majority of US citizens currently have healthcare, and they fear it getting worse, then they'd simply like to keep the status quo without too much change, since change is often for the worse for those who already have a piece of what is changing. These are not the sheeple you are looking for.
Post #360,972 by mmoffitt 7/18/12 1:31:40 PM Reply	The "portion" was the determining factor. Without that "portion" Obama wins neither Indiana nor the election. Now, that they're completely disillusioned, I doubt very seriously they'll be back in 2012 - which is why even a toad like Mittens is polling so close to Bam-Bam. Just so you know, the people in that portion of America are called Progressives. And Progressives know that you won't get anywhere by being a Partisan Democrat. There are essentially two major camps left-of-center in American politics, and the divisions between the two are often as deep and wide as the rifts between the two major parties. One camp is composed of Democratic partisans Â a group that goes to great ends to stifle any and all criticism of President Obama and other Democratic politicians. Commonly referred to as ÂDemocratic loyalistsÂ, ÂObamabotsÂ, ÂObama LoyalistsÂ ÂObama apologistsÂ, ÂsheepleÂ Â they are fueled by a deep conviction that the Democratic Party Â no matter what they do and how far to the right they swing Â must have our full unflinching support to ensure their eventual reelection. The second camp is composed of progressives Â a group whose loyalties lie ONLY with progressive policies. These individuals relentlessly pursue the truth irregardless [SIC] of which party suffers from their findings. Unlike partisans, they refuse to cherry-pick, or engage in historic revisionism, or even to pull punches as a way of sparing Democratic politicians embarrassment. Commonly referred to as Âthe LeftÂ, Âthe populist LeftÂ, Âtruth-tellersÂ, Âthe professional LeftÂ, Ânon-partisan LeftÂ, Âideological puristsÂ, Â they tend to vote Democratic, but will at times Â depending on the options available to them Â consider voting for Greens and independents. The Left has been especially critical of President Obama over the last three years. He won a decisive victory in 2008 having campaigned on the following progressive platform: a public option as the vital component to any health care reform legislation; allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs; ending Bush tax cuts; scrapping the Patriot Act, which he deemed Âshoddy and dangerousÂ; ending the warring policies of the neocons; closing GITMO; ending ÂToo Big to FailÂ on Wall Street (so as to avoid future TARPS); rewriting job-killing NAFTA-like trade policies, etc. etc. Once elected, he instantly turned his back on all these campaign promises, instead cutting back-room deals with the wealthy entrenched interest groups who profit from the very deep structural problems he vowed to reform... Progressives are of the mindset that the only way to transform this country into a more progressive one, is to heighten politiciansÂ FEAR of their own constituents in a way that rivals the fear instilled by deep-pocketed interest groups. Progressives know that politicians strategically move towards their ideological base, whenever confronted with political insecurity. When the Left calls Obama out in a way that penetrates the inner-beltway bubble Â and becomes quantifiable by corresponding poll numbers Â the PresidentÂs political advisers interpret this as voter repudiation. They realize his policy pendulum has swung too far Right in favor of entrenched interests and to the detriment of his own political stability. And itÂs at this moment he begins to fear his supporters Â the ones who elected him, and who will actually cast the votes in 2012. This leaves him with little choice, but to pivot towards his base and attempt to diffuse rising populist dissent. Therein lies the key crucial difference between the two camps: Progressives understand that when a PresidentÂs poll numbers drop he is more likely to push progressive priorities to appease his supporters. As such, the Left doesnÂt believe its criticism of Obama in any way threatens the ends it hopes to achieve: progressive policies. If Obama stubbornly refuses to pivot to the Left then he has only himself to blame for a disenchanted, unenergized base come election time. Partisans are always in campaign mode Â viewing actual governing as little more than the muddy tracks of a perpetual horse race Â and thus equate lowering poll numbers as a precursor to defeat. Therefore, as a group, they are incapable of ever pressuring their politicians to champion progressive causes or to promote meaningful change. The message partisans continue to send to their Democratic representatives is this: ÂJust ignore me and everything I want, because I intend to campaign for you and vote for you regardless of what you do. IÂll even lie for you and cover up how youÂve screwed me every which way til Sunday Â anything to ensure those scary Republicans donÂt win.Â The Left hopes to send them the exact opposite message. http://www.alterpoli...ident-obama-fear/ But, but, but, He didn't have the votes!
Post #360,976 by Another Scott 7/18/12 1:54:28 PM Reply	IIRC, you didn't expect him to win IN in the first place. You think progressives in IN put him over the top there? Really? I think he won IN because lots of people (including a few progressives) wanted to give change a chance and lots of new voters were enthusiastic about him. Sure, many of those people stayed home in 2010, but that's always the pattern - fewer people turn out in off-year elections, and the President usually loses seats. I've seen little that indicates the pattern was generally different because Obama was there. I didn't find the article you posted persuasive. Or I think it only describes a small number of people. Carville versus Kucinich or something. E.g. "The Left has been especially critical of President Obama over the last three years." Really? http://www.gallup.co...remains-high.aspx Or is this a "no true Scotsman" argument? If you want the system to change, you have to work within it. That means supporting the better candidate(s). They're not all the same. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,980 by mmoffitt 7/18/12 3:03:50 PM Reply	No dispute. I did not think he would win in 2008. I'd hoped he wouldn't because I knew if he came to "pass for a Liberal" let alone a "Progressive" as his campaign indicated, we'd be forever strapped with apologists who say "well, at least he's more liberal than Dick Armey" or some such. The bar for being labelled "Liberal" in this country was already so low that I suspect even Nixon could be so labelled. And that's the discussion we're bound to keep having from now on, thanks in no small measure to Obama's victory in 2008. Obama's policies have turned us into a nation debating whether we should be as liberal as Nixon or as conservative as Armey or Bachmann. With Obama as the Left Sentinel, there is no longer a middle in American politics nor is there likely to ever be. I'll not repeat my mistake of 2008. The only thing I will predict this go 'round is that if you go to sleep now and wake up in 3 years, review the implemented policies of the 3 years when you were asleep, you won't know if Mittens or Obama won. There's not as much guessing in this prediction because I have three years experience to draw upon.
Post #360,905 by hnick 7/17/12 8:45:20 AM Reply	I suppose that's good to know. And here's me thinking that all those closed door sessions where he preemptively capitulated virtually every point his base wanted in favor of the big money interests was actually accomplishing something. I seem to recall some blather about how bright he was and n-dimensional chess and him manipulating the republicans. He DID clear the table pretty nicely before the repubs even got there. There wasn't much left for them to attack since all that was left was a republican plan. No prob... He won't miss any meals and his healthcare is covered for life. He's on the upside of neo-feudalism. There's a bright side though. At least I can't be guilted into voting for him because it doesn't really matter who is there. If there isn't perfect harmony, nobody can do anything good or bad. I think we just beat entropy!
Post #360,908 by Another Scott 7/17/12 9:16:49 AM Reply	Reread DeLong's recent post. The choice for president and congress does matter. http://delong.typepa...-of-november.html Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,913 by hnick 7/17/12 10:20:54 AM Reply	I remain sceptical DeLong seems to be ignoring the fact that Obama packed his administration with republican retreads (the same ones who caused this mess) and preemptively capitulated every opportunity he got. The enthusiasm in 2008 was caused by the hope for real change. By 2010, it was pretty obvious that we had been sold out and it would be business as usual. Perhaps if the DNC wanted us to vote democratic in 2012, they should have run a democrat. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voting for bottom feeders or bottom ballots or whatever he called them just supporting the LOTE system. They want support, they need to deliver. They failed the voters. We didn't fail them.
Post #360,914 by Another Scott 7/17/12 10:41:41 AM Reply	Who would have been your candidate in 2008? Serious question. And how would they have been better? Hillary? Edwards? Biden? Gravel? Dodd? Kucinich? Bayh? Vilsack? Other? Incoming administrations pick as staff people who worked in previous administrations because they have experience and connections and know how the systems work. Chaos results when masses of new people without those attributes assume high positions. Look at Carter's experience - http://en.wikipedia....ssional_relations Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,916 by hnick 7/17/12 11:11:54 AM Reply	Serious answer My wife and I both supported Obama, I less so after the FISA reversal. We had an Obama sign in our yard, and my wife pounded the pavement for him. At election time, I thought he was a bit of a stinker, but still better than the others. I thought Hillary was too much of a republican and a hawk. Well, she is, but she's nowhere close to Obama's league. Oh, and we both voted in 2010 (against republicans, of course.) So how do I vote against a republican in 2012? Obama can (and does) out republican most of the morons with a R after their name.
Post #360,917 by Another Scott 7/17/12 11:17:13 AM Reply	Thanks. I understand the disappointment. Imagine if you had Jim Webb and Mark Warner as your senators. ;-) Hang in there. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,899 by mmoffitt 7/17/12 8:19:03 AM Reply	Really? I thought he could kill people whenever he wanted. That's "Kingly" isn't it?
Post #360,910 by Another Scott 7/17/12 9:17:11 AM Reply	<sigh>
Post #360,846 by crazy 7/16/12 10:41:05 AM 7/16/12 10:44:32 AM Reply	That's a crock She HAS insurance, she might DIE from what she sees happening, she needs to BITE the bullet, go do the tests, and OWE the deductable. Maybe she pays it, maybe she doesn't, maybe she owes it for years until it gets written off and fucks with her credit,maybe a social worker shows up to visit her in the hospital to pull the funds from some other source. These are all CHOICES. Better that than than wait 6 months, as it gets worse, and have the cancer or infection or whatever get to the point of untreatable. And then DIE. Is LIFE worth it? Yes. Stop blaming others for the crappy generic situation and go get the tests done. Don't like taking any support funds from any other source? Maybe those genes weren't meant to continue. Pride is not worth life! For those that it is, then natural selection is still as work. You either work in the system and survive, or don't and go it on your own. Try living in the woods with NO medical access for a few years. Maybe then you will appreciate what is available to us now, even if it is rediculously expensive and the insurance companies are skimming huge chunks. Edited by crazy July 16, 2012, 10:44:32 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #360,856 by mmoffitt 7/16/12 4:16:05 PM Reply	So, she should ... lose her house, skip meals for her family, "go live in the woods", in short, become completely impoverished because she became ill. No wonder you like the PPACA. That attitude is explicit within it.
Post #360,861 by malraux 7/16/12 6:03:47 PM Reply	The PPACA is much better than nothing As previously discussed with respect to pre-existing conditions. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #360,864 by mmoffitt 7/16/12 6:46:41 PM Reply	We'll see. I doubt it.
Post #360,912 by crazy 7/17/12 9:49:56 AM Reply	You did not read what I wrote Very bad medical symptom, with possible death in the future. 2 choices. Ignore it and MAYBE you get better. But maybe you DIE. Diagnose and then treat, with a possible large financial hit. Probability of living much higher, ie: the correct choice (for me). Don't give me any crap about the money owed or the house lost. Yeah, sucks, BUT BETTER THAN DYING. And to start off with, the initial tests might simply show something that can be either ignored or treated cheaply to start off with, but because she is delaying treatment, when she finally shows up at the emenrgency room it'll cost HUGE. And at that point it will be her fault. YES! It Will. BTW: I spent the final few months with my sister inlaw as she died an AGONIZING death. Lost my job over it when I refused to work from the funeral. She ignored blood in the urine. Bladder cancer. Very treatable if caught on the first symptoms. Of course she ignored it. But when metasized, it became a death sentence, killing in about 3 months once it hits that stage. Don't bother telling me I don't understand.

Welcome to IWETHEY!