On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:56:52 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:01:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

king the
policy?

When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.

the health care law hasnt gone into effect yet.


You have had to go to an in system doctor for most health plans for at
least
40 years. Where you been?

ROFLMAO!! IOW you approve of rationing by insurance companies...and
you are backpedaling since you guys claimed it was the GOVT doing
this. it's not. it's the insurance companies.


Where did I say I approve? I understand why you have not had a raise in 10
years. You are very ignorant and probably socially unacceptable to most of
your coworkers.

so he thinks i'm 100M americans. i know the right wing can't count but
that's a bit stupid

the ENTIRE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS hasnt had a raise in 10 years.

and he blames it on me!!!

what a MORON.

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:25:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:50:51 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38294522...ew_york_times/

insurance companies are starting to ration care by choosing which
doctors they'll let you see.

so much for free enterprise.

This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.

how is it regulated when it's the insurance companies making the
policy?

When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.

the health care law hasnt gone into effect yet.

You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

you really do drink the right wing kool aid, don't you?


You have had to go to an in system doctor for most health plans for at least
40 years. Where you been?

I can go to any doctor I want to go to. However, if they are not in my
plans, PPO network, then I pay 30%. If I pick an in-network doctor then
I pay 10% up to a maximum.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:52:46 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:44:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.

how is it regulated when it's the insurance companies making the
policy?

The government is regulating who the insurance companies have to cover
from day one and they are going to be regulating the maximum rate they
can charge next year

actually they aren't. there is no provision in current law to do this.

any more right wing bull**** you want to spread?



You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

you really do drink the right wing kool aid, don't you?

You are the one who is saying things are not all going so great in
spite of that wonderful legislation entirely written and voted in by
Democrats.


]]}since the law is not yet in effect it looks like the insurance
companies are doing business as usual...

no sign of free enterprise. no sign of efficiencies. nothing but greed

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:50:51 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38294522...ew_york_times/

insurance companies are starting to ration care by choosing which
doctors they'll let you see.

so much for free enterprise.

This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.
When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.
You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

I hope they're regulated out of business.

On 17/07/2010 11:08 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:50:51 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38294522...ew_york_times/

insurance companies are starting to ration care by choosing which
doctors they'll let you see.

so much for free enterprise.

This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.
When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.
You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related
to healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

I hope they're regulated out of business.

Maybe there is nothing they can do for you?

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 17/07/2010 11:08 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:50:51 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38294522...ew_york_times/

insurance companies are starting to ration care by choosing which
doctors they'll let you see.

so much for free enterprise.

This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.
When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.
You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related
to healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

I hope they're regulated out of business.

Maybe there is nothing they can do for you?

?? You're an idiot. There's no medical fix for that, that's for sure.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:08:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:50:51 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38294522...ew_york_times/

insurance companies are starting to ration care by choosing which
doctors they'll let you see.

so much for free enterprise.

This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.
When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.
You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

Then why did Harry Reid let them write the Senate bill? It is a fact
that it was written by a couple of lobbyists who were from UHC.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you were more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics. It's
also not the end of the line for reform.

As long as insurance companies pump billions into politician's
pockets, they are not going anywhere.

Thanks SCOTUS for making it even easier.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, wrote:


BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

Then why did Harry Reid let them write the Senate bill? It is a fact
that it was written by a couple of lobbyists who were from UHC.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you were more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics. It's
also not the end of the line for reform.


That right wing network PBS reported it on Frontline, naming the
lobbyists. I suppose they could have lied but nobody called them on
it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl... rce=proglist


so what your OWN reference says is that, like ALL legislation, the
powerful interest groups had a voice in it...

gee. tell it to the NRA. i suppose they don't do this, do they?

obama was working within the current system. the logical choiice would
have been to dismantle the insurance companies and go to a single
payer system

but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, wrote:


BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related
to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

Then why did Harry Reid let them write the Senate bill? It is a fact
that it was written by a couple of lobbyists who were from UHC.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you were
more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one
that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics.
It's
also not the end of the line for reform.


That right wing network PBS reported it on Frontline, naming the
lobbyists. I suppose they could have lied but nobody called them on
it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl... rce=proglist


so what your OWN reference says is that, like ALL legislation, the
powerful interest groups had a voice in it...

gee. tell it to the NRA. i suppose they don't do this, do they?

obama was working within the current system. the logical choiice would
have been to dismantle the insurance companies and go to a single
payer system

but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...


Hillary came up with the framework for what we ended up with when she was
championing healthcare reform during Bill Clinton's presidency.
She wanted to make health insurance mandatory for all and for those that
fell below the line our taxes would pay for it. If you were above the line,
you pay the insurance company or handed the money in as a tax and the gov't
paid the insurance company.
Same smelly funk that we have now. Nothing done to fix the supply side
(corporate $$$$ giants) just bleed a little more out of the demand side
(us).
Either way it was a HUGE friggin payday for the health insurance industry.
Had she swung it, the industry may have bought her the presidency.
Your party is as dirty as the other.

On 18/07/2010 6:01 PM, mmc wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, wrote:


BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related
to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

Then why did Harry Reid let them write the Senate bill? It is a fact
that it was written by a couple of lobbyists who were from UHC.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you were
more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one
that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics.
It's
also not the end of the line for reform.


That right wing network PBS reported it on Frontline, naming the
lobbyists. I suppose they could have lied but nobody called them on
it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl... rce=proglist


so what your OWN reference says is that, like ALL legislation, the
powerful interest groups had a voice in it...

gee. tell it to the NRA. i suppose they don't do this, do they?

obama was working within the current system. the logical choiice would
have been to dismantle the insurance companies and go to a single
payer system

but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...


Hillary came up with the framework for what we ended up with when she was
championing healthcare reform during Bill Clinton's presidency.
She wanted to make health insurance mandatory for all and for those that
fell below the line our taxes would pay for it. If you were above the line,
you pay the insurance company or handed the money in as a tax and the gov't
paid the insurance company.
Same smelly funk that we have now. Nothing done to fix the supply side
(corporate $$$$ giants) just bleed a little more out of the demand side
(us).
Either way it was a HUGE friggin payday for the health insurance industry.
Had she swung it, the industry may have bought her the presidency.
Your party is as dirty as the other.

Have the same problem in Canada, all the parties are dirty.


--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?