In Middle Of Cancer Treatment Woman Loses Her Insurance

[Old Bookaroo]

Ammonhotep:

So would I. There's a first for almost everything.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

OB,, Ammo-
Poor little fellers. With you nipping at my heels it makes me feel pretty good. While you cry and snivel about the small details you try to distract from reality so you can go back to your little rock. Media matters was funded for years by Soros. With indirect funding from other Soros backed operations filtered through the open society institute, Until finally he felt he could give money in the open. Yup,, In my opinion, Media matters would not be around today without massive cash infusions through these operations.


Do you REALLY want me to go into WHY buying insurance across state lines WOULD HAVE been better than lucifercare ( and less effort to boot? Is it that important to your small grasp on reality even though "what does it matter, at this point" ? Maybe you could give us an opinion why millions are losing their insurance?

Time is not a friend to your unfounded assumptions any way,, bet you are biting your nails waiting to hear the results of how many fools are signing up for lucifercare ( when the site works). You will jump for joy at the unqualified success when figures reach 50,000?

There you go.. Now,, Go and look,, who was the president in 1916? Can't bring yourself to do it can you?

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

"Cry?" "Snivel?" Your insults prove you have nothing of substance to offer. The pattern continues.

You fail to address the bedrock issue regarding inter-state health insurance (or, for that matter, life or any other form of insurance) - who would regulate it? Who would pay the losses if a company goes belly-up?

You are wrong, of course, about Media Matters. But proof won't change your mind. You will cling to your belief.

Finally, the Federal government insurance exchange is only a marketplace. Private companies are providing the health insurance. You already knew that. Right?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Stop the insults on both sides....

We will NOT go quitely into the night!

 

[Dave44]

So reality is tough for you I see Booky. Private exchanges.. check. Whose private business is dictated by, and predicated upon government approval. You won't see the problem because the facts are lost on you still. But you can keep screaming it if you want too.

 

[Dave44]

Okay TH- peace out.

 

[Ammonhotep]

Here's the reality ...

No conservative has yet admitted this fact: if the insurer wanted to keep the lady, to help her, they would do it!

The simple fact, however, is that they booted her because she's not profitable. Did Obamacare make her unprofitable? No. What made her unprofitable? It's the high cost of medical care. Why is it so costly? Because corporations have a captive market. They don't have to charge outrageous prices. They do it because they can.

They do it because they care more about money than about the health of American citizens.

I'll quench the "but R&D" counter-argument right now: other corporations in other countries are doing just fine recouping their RD at lower prices than in the US. In addition, many of the most profitable privately held patents were in part (or whole) developed via publicly funded National Institutes of Health!

Sure, obamacare has a LONG way to go before it'll work like it's supposed to. I mean ... wow, that website debacle! Yet all conservatives keep bringing to the table are anecdotes. Those anecdotes only prove one thing: conservatives hold the same values as the businesses and the insurers.

Those "values" are simply that they could care less about others as long as their bottom line doesn't change for the worse.

 

[Dave44]

Here's the reality ...

No conservative has yet admitted this fact: if the insurer wanted to keep the lady, to help her, they would do it!

The simple fact, however, is that they booted her because she's not profitable. Did Obamacare make her unprofitable? No. What made her unprofitable? It's the high cost of medical care. Why is it so costly? Because corporations have a captive market. They don't have to charge outrageous prices. They do it because they can.

They do it because they care more about money than about the health of American citizens.

I'll quench the "but R&D" counter-argument right now: other corporations in other countries are doing just fine recouping their RD at lower prices than in the US. In addition, many of the most profitable privately held patents were in part (or whole) developed via publicly funded National Institutes of Health!

Sure, obamacare has a LONG way to go before it'll work like it's supposed to. I mean ... wow, that website debacle! Yet all conservatives keep bringing to the table are anecdotes. Those anecdotes only prove one thing: conservatives hold the same values as the businesses and the insurers.

Those "values" are simply that they could care less about others as long as their bottom line doesn't change for the worse.

3 Pinnochios

?Obamacare? and rising health insurance premiums - The Washington Post

 

[Ammonhotep]

Interesting but unsatisfying rebuttal, as is your modus operandi: the article you posted has nothing to do with my post whatsoever, and it's 18 months old!

Your signature is sufficient admission of my previous post: free market.

The lady was dropped because the company didn't want her any more. Rather than suck up the cost, they'll let her die. If they wanted her, they'd have kept her. Period. Free market.

Those are the "conservative" values you and yours promote.

 

[DeepseekerADS]

Interesting but unsatisfying rebuttal, as is your modus operandi: the article you posted has nothing to do with my post whatsoever, and it's 18 months old!

Your signature is sufficient admission of my previous post: free market.

The lady was dropped because the company didn't want her any more. Rather than suck up the cost, they'll let her die. If they wanted her, they'd have kept her. Period. Free market.

Those are the "conservative" values you and yours promote.

This poor lady just got a death sentence. Let's be sensitive to that here. Certainly the insurance company took advantage of the opportunity with the advent of Obamacare.

I guess Obamacare doesn't need a death panel after all....

Seems I remember Obamacare was written with help from the insurance companies, just itching to jump & profit. Essentially they wrote a license to steal.

 

[Dave44]

Your opinions make a nice talking point abut they are short on any kind of factual evidence. This issue is too complicated for that. And I am not sure this thread and your misinformation, can hold my attn that long.
But i did mistakenly say 3 pinocchios,, wrong time frame. I meant 4 Thanks for pointing it out

WaPo's Kessler Gives Obama's 'You Can Keep Your Plan' Promise 'Four Pinocchios,' Still Blows Key Points | NewsBusters

 

[Chadeaux]

Being killed by cancer or by capitalism?

Old Bookaroo nails it again.

No, it isn't capitalism ... she's being killed by COMMUNISM.

 

[Ammonhotep]

I'll leave Dave44 be since he doesn't respond to my points. He merely responds with dogma and propaganda.

No, it isn't capitalism ... she's being killed by COMMUNISM.

Chadeaux, first, let's not continue to confuse communism and socialism. What you meant to say was socialism. Communism is primarily a social system. Socialism is primarily an economic system. Unless you really did mean communism, which I'd love to hear an explanation for.

Next, I have a question for you, Chadeaux: How would health insurance operate in a laissez-faire economic system? Now, if you understand the principles of socialism (and oppose them) you should also oppose ANY insurance system, as they are essentially socialist. Or is it ok to "share" (read: slough) risk as long as you don't share the negative consequences?

Clearly conservatives feel that adding people to a socialized system (of which they already approve) will change the cost-benefit ratio for them. Their cost may increase and the health benefits of the poor increase. Thus the opposition: a belief that their small amount of money is more important that the health of another human being!

I've never been to a hospital for anything. I went to a clinic once for a hook work I got will working for a nonprofit in Ghana. I don't mind paying more if more people benefit from my insurance costs. Maybe some people will call that socialism. I'd call that being a warm-blooded human being.

And if you (ultra-conservatives) truly oppose socialism, you would also oppose the present-day US military, as it is the largest socialized program the world has ever witnessed! But no, conservatives support the crony capitalist military industrial complex because ... the majority of the US military is conservative!

Yes, it is because conservatives received the majority of those socialized benefits: salary, free education, technical training. The irony!

Conservatives don't hate the idea of socialism, they hate the idea that they might part of those who contribute without getting the benefits. For them socialism is fine, so long as others take the brunt of it.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I'll leave Dave44 be since he doesn't respond to my points. He merely responds with dogma and propaganda.



Chadeaux, first, let's not continue to confuse communism and socialism. What you meant to say was socialism. Communism is primarily a social system. Socialism is primarily an economic system. Unless you really did mean communism, which I'd love to hear an explanation for.

Next, I have a question for you, Chadeaux: How would health insurance operate in a laissez-faire economic system? Now, if you understand the principles of socialism (and oppose them) you should also oppose ANY insurance system, as they are essentially socialist. Or is it ok to "share" (read: slough) risk as long as you don't share the negative consequences?

Clearly conservatives feel that adding people to a socialized system (of which they already approve) will change the cost-benefit ratio for them. Their cost may increase and the health benefits of the poor increase. Thus the opposition: a belief that their small amount of money is more important that the health of another human being!

I've never been to a hospital for anything. I went to a clinic once for a hook work I got will working for a nonprofit in Ghana. I don't mind paying more if more people benefit from my insurance costs. Maybe some people will call that socialism. I'd call that being a warm-blooded human being.

And if you (ultra-conservatives) truly oppose socialism, you would also oppose the present-day US military, as it is the largest socialized program the world has ever witnessed! But no, conservatives support the crony capitalist military industrial complex because ... the majority of the US military is conservative!

Yes, it is because conservatives received the majority of those socialized benefits: salary, free education, technical training. The irony!

Conservatives don't hate the idea of socialism, they hate the idea that they might part of those who contribute without getting the benefits. For them socialism is fine, so long as others take the brunt of it.

Ammo,

Every person living in this country benefits by our military, every one of them sleeps at night peacefully because of the men and women serving their country in our military.

You don't mind paying more so others have insurance, so before Lucifercare was crammed down America's throat by bo telling lies how many other people were you paying their insurance for or is it you just don't mind other people paying?

Here Is the thing about your socialism, you don't have the right to put your hand in our pockets to take our money or spend our money the way you want to, you see it isn't your money it's our money, we worked for it and earned it, you didn't...

That is the thing about socialists, they think they have the right to put their hands in other people's pockets and take their money anytime they want to.

When someone else is trying to stick their hand in my pocket to take my money I call that robbing and I don't take kindly to being robbed by theives.

In a free society we are free to choose what insurance we buy and who we buy it from, in a socialist society you don't have that freedom, your ordered what to buy and from whom....

None of my ancestors fought and died so we could be good little socialists, they did not serve their country to protect and defend socialism and neither did I, we all served to defend democracy and freedom not socialism and slavery.

You want to live in a socialist society, move to one....





We will NOT go quitely into the night!

 

[davest]

You'll have to forgive me TreasureHunter, but aside from the Revolutionary War and World War 2, I have a hard time finding any wars, invasions, police actions or other military ventures by the U.S.of A. that defended my freedom or extended freedom and democracy to other countries.

As a veteran, I'm tired of the military industrial complex continually stealing from me and my progeny in order for corporations to continue growth of their bottom line. Do I get the opportunity to pick and choose which war I want to contribute to?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

You'll have to forgive me TreasureHunter, but aside from the Revolutionary War and World War 2, I have a hard time finding any wars, invasions, police actions or other military ventures by the U.S.of A. that defended my freedom or extended freedom and democracy to other countries.

As a veteran, I'm tired of the military industrial complex continually stealing from me and my progeny in order for corporations to continue growth of their bottom line. Do I get the opportunity to pick and choose which war I want to contribute to?

Dave my family has served in military for generations. I'm not going into where they served again as I have already posted it.

Just what war zone did you serve in against your will..?

No one has the right to put their hand in my pocket to pay for someone else's insurance nor to force me to pay to buy insurance in case I become the first man in history to become pregnant or for my wife to be covered for prostate cancer....

Socialism is a cancer on fredom and I will never support it, if you want to live in a socialist society there are plenty you can move to?



We will NOT go quitely into the night!

 

[Chadeaux]

I'll leave Dave44 be since he doesn't respond to my points. He merely responds with dogma and propaganda.



Chadeaux, first, let's not continue to confuse communism and socialism. What you meant to say was socialism. Communism is primarily a social system. Socialism is primarily an economic system. Unless you really did mean communism, which I'd love to hear an explanation for.

Next, I have a question for you, Chadeaux: How would health insurance operate in a laissez-faire economic system? Now, if you understand the principles of socialism (and oppose them) you should also oppose ANY insurance system, as they are essentially socialist. Or is it ok to "share" (read: slough) risk as long as you don't share the negative consequences?

Clearly conservatives feel that adding people to a socialized system (of which they already approve) will change the cost-benefit ratio for them. Their cost may increase and the health benefits of the poor increase. Thus the opposition: a belief that their small amount of money is more important that the health of another human being!

I've never been to a hospital for anything. I went to a clinic once for a hook work I got will working for a nonprofit in Ghana. I don't mind paying more if more people benefit from my insurance costs. Maybe some people will call that socialism. I'd call that being a warm-blooded human being.

And if you (ultra-conservatives) truly oppose socialism, you would also oppose the present-day US military, as it is the largest socialized program the world has ever witnessed! But no, conservatives support the crony capitalist military industrial complex because ... the majority of the US military is conservative!

Yes, it is because conservatives received the majority of those socialized benefits: salary, free education, technical training. The irony!

Conservatives don't hate the idea of socialism, they hate the idea that they might part of those who contribute without getting the benefits. For them socialism is fine, so long as others take the brunt of it.

Did you forget your meds?

The insurance industry may not be perfect, but I guarantee you that Socialized Medicine is even worse. You're definitely trying to convince the wrong person that the current version of socialized medicine being forced upon us in this country is an improvement.

We have a phrase that describes this situation, but I can only type the first word, you'll have to guess the second one: Cluster ....

 

[Ammonhotep]

Did you forget your meds?

The insurance industry may not be perfect, but I guarantee you that Socialized Medicine is even worse. You're definitely trying to convince the wrong person that the current version of socialized medicine being forced upon us in this country is an improvement.

We have a phrase that describes this situation, but I can only type the first word, you'll have to guess the second one: Cluster ....

...bomb.

Word association: military industrial complex.

I have never argued for Obamacare. Check all my posts. I've argued against incorrect social interpretations, hypocrisy, and ultra-conservatism (American fascism) generally. Personally, I think health care needs an overhaul on the preventative side, as well as on the corporate side. Sure, insurance for the poor is important, but I'd have done it differently than the ACA.

What you, Dave44, and TH don't seem to realize is the irony of the ultra-conservative stance. You move farther and farther right, and then call me a leftist. (People! I voted Romney for heaven's sake!)

You approve of socialist programs calling them "patriotic" when they benefit you and yours, and you call them evil "communism" (and other misnomers) when they don't benefit you. You care more about the money in your pocket than you care for the poor--and you toss red herrings everywhere to try and distract people from that fact.

(PS, Chadeaux, you can dispense with the insults.)

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

Well I for one, have never confused insurance company profits, with healthcare!

Almost makes one wonder, how St. Jude's and the Shriners finance their care given.

People take care of people. Companies take care of their share holders and bottom lines.

I got no clue, who Obama thinks he is helping, atm. He may not even know.

 

[Ammonhotep]

Well I for one, have never confused insurance company profits, with healthcare!

Almost makes one wonder, how St. Jude's and the Shriners finance their care given.

People take care of people. Companies take care of their share holders and bottom lines.

I got no clue, who Obama thinks he is helping, atm. He may not even know.

I see your point. Yet, the ACA isn't about the healthcare per se. We know insurers aren't providers. It's about access to healthcare. As I said, I'd do it differently. I just can't stand the hypocrisy on the extreme right. Even here in this thread there are those who would deny that insurance in inherently socialist!

This is actually one of the great ironies of US politics: many liberals see all conservatives as fundamentalists and dark-age religionists while many conservatives see all liberals as communists/socialists, depending on which they pick that day.

Neither interpretation is wholly correct. Both conservative and progressive approaches have merit in different circumstances. Modern warfare, for example, is something political conservatives are extremely progressive about.