Sorry Republicans, The Government isn't trying to kill Granny

[Darkwind]

You don't want to have any sort of debate, you've proven it thus far in this thread.

PolitiFact | The Joe Biden file

There's Joe Biden's ^^

Nancy Pelosi's:

PolitiFact | The Nancy Pelosi file

Michael Moore's:

PolitiFact | The Michael Moore file

McCain's:

PolitiFact | The John McCain file

Keith Olbermann's:

PolitiFact | The Keith Olbermann file

Sarah Palin's:

PolitiFact | The Sarah Palin file

Hillary Clinton's:

PolitiFact | The Hillary Clinton file

Might want to wipe that egg off your face.

One last time.

Instead of letting others do your thinking for you, how about you think for yourself?

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Two resources to the bill in question.

Start putting sections of that bill...one at a time, here in this thread and then tell Me, in YOUR OWN WORDS, what that section says to you and how you think it is a good thing for America.

We will then tell you how it may or may not be good for America and then we both can go get facts and information to back up our assertions....

That is called debate....

Or you can go on calling people names and making yourself look foolish in doing so.

This will be the last time I make this offer.

 

[Modbert]

One last time.

Instead of letting others do your thinking for you, how about you think for yourself?

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Two resources to the bill in question.

Start putting sections of that bill...one at a time, here in this thread and then tell Me, in YOUR OWN WORDS, what that section says to you and how you think it is a good thing for America.

We will then tell you how it may or may not be good for America and then we both can go get facts and information to back up our assertions....

That is called debate....

Or you can go on calling people names and making yourself look foolish in doing so.

This will be the last time I make this offer.

I think for myself quite nicely thank you. I'm currently reading through this bill myself, and I may post sections so we can debate about it. However, if you refuse to put down the blinders, and still think that a non-partisan site is a partisan one, then we're going to have a problem already when we start posting evidence to back up what we consider facts.

 

[Darkwind]

One last time.

Instead of letting others do your thinking for you, how about you think for yourself?

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Two resources to the bill in question.

Start putting sections of that bill...one at a time, here in this thread and then tell Me, in YOUR OWN WORDS, what that section says to you and how you think it is a good thing for America.

We will then tell you how it may or may not be good for America and then we both can go get facts and information to back up our assertions....

That is called debate....

Or you can go on calling people names and making yourself look foolish in doing so.

This will be the last time I make this offer.

I think for myself quite nicely thank you. I'm currently reading through this bill myself, and I may post sections so we can debate about it. However, if you refuse to put down the blinders, and still think that a non-partisan site is a partisan one, then we're going to have a problem already when we start posting evidence to back up what we consider facts.

I have no blinders on, at all. That is why I KNOW that this bill will not do what everyone says it will and it will not alleviate the alleged problems we have in this country when it comes to providing health finance.

The biggest problem with this thread and all such threads is that your talking about what may or may not be wrong with health provision.

The truth is, we need to be talking about and debating what the bill has in in. We need to be debating on whether or not the bill in question even meets a fraction of the problems that people have outlined.

Anything else is just mental masturbation.

 

[Modbert]

Also, I would just like to point out that you seemed to ignore my point where I already stated the best kind of health insurance we could get. You also seemed to ignore the fact that when I'm referring to reform in general, not this bill. Many of the Republicans who I've seen talk about Health Care say the system is fine, when it isn't. That is whom I'm referring to. To say the system does not need improvement is ignorance more then anything.

Nothing wrong with this:

SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE.

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this title is to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

THIS is one of the key things we need:

SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.

Transparency is key:

SEC. 133. REQUIRING INFORMATION TRANSPARENCY AND PLAN DISCLOSURE.

(a) Accurate and Timely Disclosure-
(1) IN GENERAL- A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner for the accurate and timely disclosure of plan documents, plan terms and conditions, claims payment policies and practices, periodic financial disclosure, data on enrollment, data on disenrollment, data on the number of claims denials, data on rating practices, information on cost-sharing and payments with respect to any out-of-network coverage, and other information as determined appropriate by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall require that such disclosure be provided in plain language.
(2) PLAIN LANGUAGE- In this subsection, the term `plain language' means language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.
(3) GUIDANCE- The Commissioner shall develop and issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.
(b) Contracting Reimbursement- A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner to ensure transparency to each health care provider relating to reimbursement arrangements between such plan and such provider.
(c) Advance Notice of Plan Changes- A change in a qualified health benefits plan shall not be made without such reasonable and timely advance notice to enrollees of such change.

The Senate gets involved as well, just not a President pick and bam, they're in.

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.

(a) In General- There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the `Administration').
(b) Commissioner-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the `Commissioner') who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC- The provisions of paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relating to compensation, terms, general powers, rulemaking, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the Commissioner and the Administration in the same manner as such provisions apply to the Commissioner of Social Security and the Social Security Administration.

Start there for now.

 

[Harry Dresden]

question Robert....if someone gets a horrific disease that may cost a bunch to keep him going...is this NHC gonna stick with the guy or tell him how sorry they are but we cant continue to cover you.....unless of course you sign your house over to us....what will it be?

I was busy and didn't have a chance to see, never mind answer your question. Under new laws, Insurance Companies will no longer be able to throw you off for a pre-existing condition or throw you off anytime they feel like it basically.

What you're proposing is BS. Do you even have any evidence to back it up?

im not proposing nothing....im asking a question.....my mother had to be in a home,now it was like if you want the state to take care of the costs....sign over her house.....her ins co. would not go there nor would medicare unless her house was givin to them......so if she would not have passed away...1 of 2 things would have happened
1- my old man would have been absolutly bankrupt
2- us kids would have had a big dent in our finances trying to keep that from happening.....all in all Robert my point is, private or UHC....these guys will take care of the minor things and some fairly serious stuff....but if something REALLY serious happens and you NEED professional care.....YOUR UP SHIT CREEK.....and i have a hunch many of those amongst us who are just blindly going for the UHC....think the National plan will be with them no matter what happens to you.....many are going to be surprised.....

 

[Darkwind]

Also, I would just like to point out that you seemed to ignore my point where I already stated the best kind of health insurance we could get.

And yet, its a proven fact that government does not provide the best of anything, ever.

You also seemed to ignore the fact that when I'm referring to reform in general, not this bill. Many of the Republicans who I've seen talk about Health Care say the system is fine, when it isn't. That is whom I'm referring to. To say the system does not need improvement is ignorance more then anything.

It is a moot point in what any of us think. The debate, and all of the debate right now centers around the current legislation. The motives for that legislation is a separate discussion. But I find it the height of ignorance to believe that we have a healthcare crisis to begin with. Most people can't even distinguish between healthcare and health insurance.

Nothing wrong with this:

SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE.

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this title is to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

THIS is one of the key things we need:

Really? Looks innocent on its face, doesn't it? But who will be setting the standards? The government or the Doctors? Will insurance companies have to compete with Big Government? How will they compete with Big Government?. What is the definition of 'affordable'? These are some of the things that need to be cleared up.

SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.

Transparency is key:

So explain to Me how this is going to work. A person who has not paid a dime into an insurance plan who has a disease or other medical problem that will cost the insurance agent (Me) hundreds of thousands of dollars (and that may be per annum) is going to keep costs down? While I think that a pre-exisiting condition should not be grounds for denial of coverage, I don't buy the arguement that their coverage should be done at the cost of everyone. And explain to Me how the person with a pre-existing condition won't be denied specific treatments to keep costs down under a government run system?

SEC. 133. REQUIRING INFORMATION TRANSPARENCY AND PLAN DISCLOSURE.

(a) Accurate and Timely Disclosure-
(1) IN GENERAL- A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner for the accurate and timely disclosure of plan documents, plan terms and conditions, claims payment policies and practices, periodic financial disclosure, data on enrollment, data on disenrollment, data on the number of claims denials, data on rating practices, information on cost-sharing and payments with respect to any out-of-network coverage, and other information as determined appropriate by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall require that such disclosure be provided in plain language.
(2) PLAIN LANGUAGE- In this subsection, the term `plain language' means language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.
(3) GUIDANCE- The Commissioner shall develop and issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.
(b) Contracting Reimbursement- A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner to ensure transparency to each health care provider relating to reimbursement arrangements between such plan and such provider.
(c) Advance Notice of Plan Changes- A change in a qualified health benefits plan shall not be made without such reasonable and timely advance notice to enrollees of such change.

The Senate gets involved as well, just not a President pick and bam, they're in.

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.

(a) In General- There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the `Administration').
(b) Commissioner-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the `Commissioner') who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC- The provisions of paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relating to compensation, terms, general powers, rulemaking, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the Commissioner and the Administration in the same manner as such provisions apply to the Commissioner of Social Security and the Social Security Administration.

Start there for now.

This last section is going to take more time then I have tonight. But I will be back to give you My thoughts on it.

Right now, I have to get to bed as I have to work in the morning.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't understand why they don't focus on fixing the problems in the current health care system, rather than introducing a massive bureaucracy-laden, red-tape, less effective (get real, it's the government), twice as costly as stated (get real, it's the government) new system.

Why don't they address the problems in the current system and come up with new rules and/or regulations that would fix them?

Maybe benefits needed to be provided by employers at one time . . . . does it still need to be that way? Why don't they change health insurance from being (mainly) provided by employers to work more the way car insurance works? Employers could pay their employees the cost of the benefits and those employees could then choose what plan worked best for them. That way if someone loses their job, they don't automatically lose their benefits. That extra pay would also be taxed, right? I'd think the government would like that.

 

[oreo]

"Whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies ... procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts ... estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system..."

Too bad Lawrence Summers of the Obama Traveling Circus and Euthanasia Brigade disagrees with the OP

You mean to tell me--that you're O.K. with some Washington D.C. beaurocrat telling your doctor what he can or cannot do for your health?-

Not me!

 

[Old Rocks]

That's about the size of it editec. It's a scramble in mass fear mongering right now. Meanwhile, 15,000+ people a day lose their Health Insurance.

Then those 15K need to get another job, and get another health insurance policy. Can't get a job, you say? That's because they don't want to actually "work". Waiting tables, washing dishes, sacking groceries and working for the highway department are beneath most of these so-called out of work prople who want the government to furnish a healthcare program for them paid for by the actual workers in this country.

You are one asshole. No, there are very few jobs out there of any kind. And try to get coverage on the new job for a pre-existing condition.

What we have here is another sociopathic Rushpublican. A damned liar that has nothing but contempt and ill feelings for his fellow Americans.

 

[Old Rocks]

question Robert....if someone gets a horrific disease that may cost a bunch to keep him going...is this NHC gonna stick with the guy or tell him how sorry they are but we cant continue to cover you.....unless of course you sign your house over to us....what will it be?

I was busy and didn't have a chance to see, never mind answer your question. Under new laws, Insurance Companies will no longer be able to throw you off for a pre-existing condition or throw you off anytime they feel like it basically.

What you're proposing is BS. Do you even have any evidence to back it up?

im not proposing nothing....im asking a question.....my mother had to be in a home,now it was like if you want the state to take care of the costs....sign over her house.....her ins co. would not go there nor would medicare unless her house was givin to them......so if she would not have passed away...1 of 2 things would have happened
1- my old man would have been absolutly bankrupt
2- us kids would have had a big dent in our finances trying to keep that from happening.....all in all Robert my point is, private or UHC....these guys will take care of the minor things and some fairly serious stuff....but if something REALLY serious happens and you NEED professional care.....YOUR UP SHIT CREEK.....and i have a hunch many of those amongst us who are just blindly going for the UHC....think the National plan will be with them no matter what happens to you.....many are going to be surprised.....

So what would have happened had you lived in Japan, Germany, France, or even Costa Rica? And how does that compare to your experiance? That is the question you should be asking. All of the health care systems I mentioned are differant in how they are ran. Look at them, their results, and see what is applicable to our nation, and your situation.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies ... procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts ... estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system..."

Too bad Lawrence Summers of the Obama Traveling Circus and Euthanasia Brigade disagrees with the OP

You mean to tell me--that you're O.K. with some Washington D.C. beaurocrat telling your doctor what he can or cannot do for your health?-

Not me!

You mean that it is OK for some private insurance beaurocrat to tell your doctor what he can or cannot do for you? Yes, it is, because that is exactly where you are at.

 

[DiveCon]

If Conservatives love to start/defend the War in Iraq so much, why didn't they go over and fight in it?

Fucking hypocrite.

If Obama is against air raiding villages and killing civilians why is Obama air raiding villages and killing civilians?

Because he likes to bomb them from afar.....

Oh wait....He was against that, wasn't he?

only when he wasnt "in charge"

 

[ba1614]

Also, I would just like to point out that you seemed to ignore my point where I already stated the best kind of health insurance we could get.

And yet, its a proven fact that government does not provide the best of anything, ever.

You also seemed to ignore the fact that when I'm referring to reform in general, not this bill. Many of the Republicans who I've seen talk about Health Care say the system is fine, when it isn't. That is whom I'm referring to. To say the system does not need improvement is ignorance more then anything.

It is a moot point in what any of us think. The debate, and all of the debate right now centers around the current legislation. The motives for that legislation is a separate discussion. But I find it the height of ignorance to believe that we have a healthcare crisis to begin with. Most people can't even distinguish between healthcare and health insurance.Really? Looks innocent on its face, doesn't it? But who will be setting the standards? The government or the Doctors? Will insurance companies have to compete with Big Government? How will they compete with Big Government?. What is the definition of 'affordable'? These are some of the things that need to be cleared up.

So explain to Me how this is going to work. A person who has not paid a dime into an insurance plan who has a disease or other medical problem that will cost the insurance agent (Me) hundreds of thousands of dollars (and that may be per annum) is going to keep costs down? While I think that a pre-exisiting condition should not be grounds for denial of coverage, I don't buy the arguement that their coverage should be done at the cost of everyone. And explain to Me how the person with a pre-existing condition won't be denied specific treatments to keep costs down under a government run system?

The Senate gets involved as well, just not a President pick and bam, they're in.

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.

(a) In General- There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the `Administration').
(b) Commissioner-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the `Commissioner') who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC- The provisions of paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relating to compensation, terms, general powers, rulemaking, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the Commissioner and the Administration in the same manner as such provisions apply to the Commissioner of Social Security and the Social Security Administration.

Start there for now.

This last section is going to take more time then I have tonight. But I will be back to give you My thoughts on it.

Right now, I have to get to bed as I have to work in the morning.

Good questions Darkwind, unfortunately there won't be any answers because they don't have any.
That is my whole problem with the current health care debate, real concerns don't get answers. Instead of providing an answer(cause they don't have one), they play the victim card and recite the manipulated numbers in an attempt to scare people into submission. Then of course if that doesn't work they play the "playing politics" card, whatever it takes to avoid answering the difficult questions.

If the people trying to ram this policy through could answer peoples questions about it, I think it would go a long way to easing peoples fears. Instead they come off as not having a fucking clue of what they are trying to pass.

Unfortunately, the right isn't much better, they are acting almost as childish/idiotic.

 

[Gunny]

PolitiFact | McCaughey claims end-of-life counseling will be required for Medicare patients

The Statement: The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory -- absolutely require -- that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."

The Ruling: Pants on Fire

Jon Keyserling, general counsel and vice president of public policy for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which supports the provision, said the bill doesn't encourage seniors to end their lives, it just allows some important counseling for decisions that take time and consideration.

"These are very serious conversations," he said. "It needs to be an informative conversation from the medical side and it needs to be thought about carefully by the patient and their families."

In no way would these sessions be designed to encourage patients to end their lives, said Jim Dau, national spokeman for AARP, a group that represents people over 50 years of age and that has lobbied in support of the advanced planning provision.

For his part, Keyserling said he and outside counsel read the language carefully to make sure that was not the case.

"Neither of us can come to the conclusion that it's mandatory." he said. "This new consultation is just like all in Medicare: it's voluntary."

"The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling," said Dau.

Well look at that, that whole myth that this new Health Care Reform is going to force Seniors to die or that they will be advised to die is a myth! Who knew, such partisan statements were lies!

Look at that, a valuable voluntary thing that Medicare will pay for. How shameful!

In other words, Myth *stamps* Busted.

This the best you can do? The whole bill is a piece of fascist shit, and all you can defend against is something anyone with half a brain already knew?

Nice.

 

[editec]

Sorry Republicans, The Government isn't trying to kill Granny

Nobody is trying to kill Granny.

She's just another of those unfortunate collatoral victims of the war on ill-health that we hear so much about.

 

[mskafka]

This is one of the lowest blows, and the most ridiculous thing that I have read by conservatives so far.

Picture it: "Well good morning Mrs. Smith. You're not dead yet? We're so glad that you decided to come in today so that we may discuss how you can do your part to serve your country. The next time that you have chest pain, don't seek treatment. If you just lay in your bed and suffer, you'll be taking one for the team. By dying, you will lower the costs of healthcare. We've recently been discussing placing a gag over the mouths of those with Alzheimer's Dementia, so that they won't tell us when they are uncomfortable. Hey, we can't be expected to do anything about it if we don't know....right? If you need any help dying, just let us know. We're always ready to serve.".

Yeah, there is such a thing as end-of-life planning, and Mr. Thompson is well aware of what it is called. An advanced directive, a Do-Not-Resuscitate/Post form. MANY people of all ages have these. Physicians will sometimes encourage the daughter of a 90-year old with chronic health problems, to sign it. Not because he/she wants him/her out of their hair. It is so that the family member is aware of the patient's prognosis. It's common sense. If I live to be 80 (doubtful) I don't want to be intubated and placed on a ventilator for 2 weeks while someone has to make the painful decision of whether or not to pull the plug.

 

[mskafka]

That's about the size of it editec. It's a scramble in mass fear mongering right now. Meanwhile, 15,000+ people a day lose their Health Insurance.

Then those 15K need to get another job, and get another health insurance policy. Can't get a job, you say? That's because they don't want to actually "work". Waiting tables, washing dishes, sacking groceries and working for the highway department are beneath most of these so-called out of work prople who want the government to furnish a healthcare program for them paid for by the actual workers in this country.

Be realistic. What if that person who sacks groceries or washes dishes can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Maybe they can't afford the premiums. Have you seen some of the healthcare plans of these places? Not every place offers insurance.

Take Walmart for instance. Many of the people who work there cannot afford the premiums of the plan that Walmart offers. So these people who are working for poverty-level wages, are forced (if they want healthcare) to get on medicaid.

These are facts. Reality.

 

[Political Junky]

Yup, that's right Soaring. In order to defend your argument, insult the average American in order to bolster your argument.

What ignorance on your part to just group together every single person who has lost their health insurance (and assume) that it came from losing their job alone. These companies also throw you off for pre-existing conditions, and when you get a horrible chronic disease.

question Robert....if someone gets a horrific disease that may cost a bunch to keep him going...is this NHC gonna stick with the guy or tell him how sorry they are but we cant continue to cover you.....unless of course you sign your house over to us....what will it be?

Wait up, Harry, why go as far as "a horrific disease that may cost a bunch ...," do you think the Obama-Politbureau might give us each a pliers?

A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients.
Iraq War veteran Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment so instead took the drastic action to remove 13 of his teeth that were giving him severe pain.
The 42-year-old, from Beverley, East Yorkshire, had not had his teeth looked at since seeing the army dentist in 2003. He had not been registered with a dentist of his own since 2001. He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.'
Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist' | Mail Online

This is at the end of the article, perhaps you didn't get that far.
>
A spokesman for NHS East Riding of Yorkshire said Mr Boynton's case gave an 'inaccurate scare-mongering picture of dental service provision in East Yorkshire based solely on the claims of one man'
The spokesman said: 'As well as 34 dental practices, we have seven dental access centres across East Riding of Yorkshire, including Beverley, where Mr Boynton could access a full range of NHS dentist services.
'So there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to resort to pulling out their own teeth. NHS East Riding of Yorkshire has invested around £1 million in helping dentists target new patients. At many of our dental practices appointments are being offered to new patients within two weeks.
'Our local out-of-hours and Accident and Emergency Services would have both been able to give Mr Boynton details of how to access emergency/urgent dental services if he had approached them.'

Read more: Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist' | Mail Online

 

[Harry Dresden]

I was busy and didn't have a chance to see, never mind answer your question. Under new laws, Insurance Companies will no longer be able to throw you off for a pre-existing condition or throw you off anytime they feel like it basically.

What you're proposing is BS. Do you even have any evidence to back it up?

im not proposing nothing....im asking a question.....my mother had to be in a home,now it was like if you want the state to take care of the costs....sign over her house.....her ins co. would not go there nor would medicare unless her house was givin to them......so if she would not have passed away...1 of 2 things would have happened
1- my old man would have been absolutly bankrupt
2- us kids would have had a big dent in our finances trying to keep that from happening.....all in all Robert my point is, private or UHC....these guys will take care of the minor things and some fairly serious stuff....but if something REALLY serious happens and you NEED professional care.....YOUR UP SHIT CREEK.....and i have a hunch many of those amongst us who are just blindly going for the UHC....think the National plan will be with them no matter what happens to you.....many are going to be surprised.....

So what would have happened had you lived in Japan, Germany, France, or even Costa Rica? And how does that compare to your experiance? That is the question you should be asking. All of the health care systems I mentioned are differant in how they are ran. Look at them, their results, and see what is applicable to our nation, and your situation.

i dont live over there Rocks....i care about what these guys are going to do here....and i dont have any imput on the situation here....but not one person who is totaly gung-ho for this has answered the question that many seniors may be facing....if they need daily care,will the National plan either cover it or help out....and like i said,i believe the answer is NO....so for those people and their family....NOTHING changes....and believe me daily care is rough if your not a professional and if you do get help...its expensive

 

[mskafka]

So, is Obama creating more unemployment to make more people lose their health insurance as a way to build support for the Gubbamint take over?

If I had a dime for everytime I've heard that hypothesis, I would be a wealthy woman.