Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[Cold Fusion38]

Well Bern what I DON'T want is some guy who gets a six figure bonus based on how low he can keep costs(deny coverage).

A sfor you Andrew I really don't know what procedure he needs done. He is suffering from a sever depresion and my sister told me that they could confirm exactly what prob he has but she doesn't have the 10K to do it.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Bern do you understand how much MORE expensive it is to treat a cancer that has moved to other organs? Do you know how much worse the recovery rate is if not cfound early?

 

[rightwinger]

We are not at the bottom, you're believing what you're told w/o questioning it. The U.S. is ranked number one in all of the most important areas according to the WHO. Have you ever looked at it?

Really? Infant mortality.......Life span? I have seen the WHO report and we rank VERY poorly based on the HUGE amounts of money we spend.

And you are another nitwit that embarassingly believes lifespan is dictated by a countries health care system.

No someone who is not willing to change their habits should get a transplant. If you are going to continue smoking/drinking etc then you should NOT be eligable for a transplant. Fair enough Bern? Oh and by the way what did you mean about judging you by your handle?

Okay. Do you see what slippery slope that is? You admit such a system would not just be prioritized on the basis of one's need, but on whether someone deserves to be treated as well. Who would you want deciding that for you? WHY would want anyone to be able to decide that for you?
Hint: The commonality is simply that person in reference shares the same name.

In our existing system, access to healthcare is determined by how good your insurance is. When you enter an emergency room, the first determination is what your insurance coverage is, not how sick you are.
If you have good insurance, you go to the head of the line. If not, you are provided with medications to treat your symptoms

 

[Newby]

Sorry that you think your KNEE is more important than a cancer or heart patiant. The fact is they use a triage mentality those with treatable conditions that are LIFE THREATENING get to go first. You are just a selfish prick who thinks the world revolves around him.......News flash Andrew the world does NOT revolve around you sorry to bust your bubble.

So, you really believe that a cancer patient in the US is waiting around for knee replacement surgery to be completed before it's their turn?

Btw, you're very immature and it is very obvious. You have a lot to learn.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Really Newby? I think I am far wiser than you. If you think a low income uninsured person will get the CUTTING EDGE best treatment then you are just being willfully ignorant. The fact is the uninsured go to the ER because their symptoms are to the point that they can no longer function normally and at that point it is offten too late!

 

[Newby]

Really? Infant mortality.......Life span? I have seen the WHO report and we rank VERY poorly based on the HUGE amounts of money we spend.

And you are another nitwit that embarassingly believes lifespan is dictated by a countries health care system.

No someone who is not willing to change their habits should get a transplant. If you are going to continue smoking/drinking etc then you should NOT be eligable for a transplant. Fair enough Bern? Oh and by the way what did you mean about judging you by your handle?

Okay. Do you see what slippery slope that is? You admit such a system would not just be prioritized on the basis of one's need, but on whether someone deserves to be treated as well. Who would you want deciding that for you? WHY would want anyone to be able to decide that for you?
Hint: The commonality is simply that person in reference shares the same name.

In our existing system, access to healthcare is determined by how good your insurance is. When you enter an emergency room, the first determination is what your insurance coverage is, not how sick you are.
If you have good insurance, you go to the head of the line. If not, you are provided with medications to treat your symptoms

Proof?

 

[Newby]

Really Newby? I think I am far wiser than you. If you think a low income uninsured person will get the CUTTING EDGE best treatment then you are just being willfully ignorant. The fact is the uninsured go to the ER because their symptoms are to the point that they can no longer function normally and at that point it is offten too late!

How old are you?

You're wrong. I'm personally aware of how the system works for low income people, I've seen it firsthand. I'm guessing that you have not, and are repeating what you've heard from your leftwing progressive blogs and websites.

 

[Bern80]

Well Bern what I DON'T want is some guy who gets a six figure bonus based on how low he can keep costs(deny coverage).

You don't think government will have keep costs down too. That's one of their stated goals for pete's sake (even though it probably won't accomplish that).

You are contradicting yourself right and left. You just admitted that we should go to triage system where people who need and deserve it get treated first. Isn't that a form of keeping costs down? You admit that people who, in your eyes, don't deserve it should not be treated. And for what other reason would that be than either A) we don't have the supply of docotrs to meet the demand and/or b) to keep costs down for the taxpayers?

And you conveniently dodged my last question. Why would you want someone else to be able to decided when you can get treated? I thought the whole goal of health care reform was that YOU were going to get to go to the doctor when YOU deemed it necessary.

 

[Bern80]

Bern do you understand how much MORE expensive it is to treat a cancer that has moved to other organs? Do you know how much worse the recovery rate is if not cfound early?

Personally, yes I do. I just want to know where in this new system that will have increased demand and that treats the most immediate and deserving needs first, you think there is going to be an improvement in being able to get preventative treatment (as in not so immediately needed)?

 

[Bern80]

In our existing system, access to healthcare is determined by how good your insurance is. When you enter an emergency room, the first determination is what your insurance coverage is, not how sick you are.
If you have good insurance, you go to the head of the line. If not, you are provided with medications to treat your symptoms

Despite the fact that you bolded it, you didn't answer the question.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

And you conveniently dodged my last question. Why would you want someone else to be able to decided when you can get treated? I thought the whole goal of health care reform was that YOU were going to get to go to the doctor when YOU deemed it necessary.




I already DO I have insurance. My Doc doesn't get to decide what meds he wants me on I don't get to decide what treatment I need. AN INSURANCE ADJUSTER DOES!!! And yeah I DO know thise for a fact becausee I have a medical prob and the INS co would not cover what my DOC wanted me to take. I had to "try and fail" on two other meds before they would PARTIALLY cover the med my doc wanted me on in the first place. I SUFFERED FOR TWO MONTHS because my INS didn't want to pay.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Newby take a wild guess.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

By the way Andrew if you could give me some info on how to get the INS co to pay for that scan I would REALLY appreciate it.

 

[Andrew2382]

Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

MR spectroscopy is a somewhat brand new procedure that is still being tested...guess what...it would be denied in a national healthplan just as fast, if not faster

In order for these new procedures to be covered it has to pass certain criteria which it hasn't yet. As much as these doctors tell you that this MRI WOULD DEFINATELY WORK is inconclusive and is not the truth.

Link above is from bluecorss/blue shield, I looked at a lot of the other states and they all have the same policy...that type of MRI is considered investigational.

As much as that sucks for your nephew your beef shouldnt be with anyone cause under national health it would have been rejected.

Kinda like how avistan gets rejected in canada and england and peopel have to fork over 10 grand a month to survive that type of brain tumor ...however some insurance companies do cover that here

 

[Andrew2382]

I will research it for you...what state does he live in and what company and plan does he have

 

[Andrew2382]

Off the top of my head b4 even researching some things you can do to help a denied claim go through is first read the policy over carefully.

Also go to the doctor and see how they are billing it...all this shit goes under codes and what codes get denied or approved. For example, your plan may cover a colonscopy fully if its part of a check up but only partially if its a diagnostic....the same may occur in this situation.

The insurance departments in many states fund independent ombudsman offices or offer administrative help for citizens who are dealing with difficult claims. There is also help on the federal level where he U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration has a staff of benefit advisors who can help you obtain your benefits.

Also, remember just because the first adjuster says no, means nothing...escalate the call and speak to a supervisor then that persons supervisor etc..

That shit helps trust me...but let me know the state and companya nd plan and i'll see what i can look up

 

[Newby]

Newby take a wild guess.

Early 20's.

 

[edthecynic]

I 'get' that you are one of the poorer excuses for a spin doctor I have come across. I assume you are referring to the following:

You have attempted to spin this and the second article to mean that of the wealthy more of them are liberal rather than conservative. In NO way can that conclusion be reached in either of your links. The above sentence is an example of where having a modicum of reading comprehension would help. It says that liberals AVERAGE higher incomes than conservatives. That is a bit different then there being MORE wealthy liberals than conservatives. The sentence is measure QUANTITY of MONEY. Which with a wave of your dishonest magical wand tried feebly to turn into a measure of the QUANTITY of PEOPLE that are wealthy. Do YOU 'get it'?

The dumb act again.
Somehow you missed the part where CON$ claim the welfare roles are filled with Libs. If that habitual CON$ervative claim is true then the rich have to be mostly libs on order for Libs to AVERAGE 6% more income than CON$.
Get it now????

Wrong again. Did we fail math perhaps? The first part of your statement is completely unsubstantiated. Though feel free to provide the evidence if you have it. You still don't get it. Both of your articles talk about how much MONEY people have, not how many of them there are. You can have 100 conservatives making making six figures and their AVERAGE will be 6 figures. And you can have 10 liberals making seven figures and their average will be 7 figures. Now in that scenario are there more wealthy conservatives or liberals? I think you can figure that part out, so explain to me how either of your articles contradicts the above.

Still playing dumb.
If the people on welfare are mostly Libs, as CON$ habitually claim, then you need wealthy Libs to offset those Libs on welfare in order for Libs to AVERAGE 6% more than CON$.
It's so obvious you make a fool of yourself every time you pretend not to get it.

 

[Newby]

The dumb act again.
Somehow you missed the part where CON$ claim the welfare roles are filled with Libs. If that habitual CON$ervative claim is true then the rich have to be mostly libs on order for Libs to AVERAGE 6% more income than CON$.
Get it now????

Wrong again. Did we fail math perhaps? The first part of your statement is completely unsubstantiated. Though feel free to provide the evidence if you have it. You still don't get it. Both of your articles talk about how much MONEY people have, not how many of them there are. You can have 100 conservatives making making six figures and their AVERAGE will be 6 figures. And you can have 10 liberals making seven figures and their average will be 7 figures. Now in that scenario are there more wealthy conservatives or liberals? I think you can figure that part out, so explain to me how either of your articles contradicts the above.

Still playing dumb.
If the people on welfare are mostly Libs, as CON$ habitually claim, then you need wealthy Libs to offset those Libs on welfare in order for Libs to AVERAGE 6% more than CON$.
It's so obvious you make a fool of yourself every time you pretend not to get it.

Are you seriously implying that welfare recipients vote Republican????

 

[Andrew2382]

Wrong again. Did we fail math perhaps? The first part of your statement is completely unsubstantiated. Though feel free to provide the evidence if you have it. You still don't get it. Both of your articles talk about how much MONEY people have, not how many of them there are. You can have 100 conservatives making making six figures and their AVERAGE will be 6 figures. And you can have 10 liberals making seven figures and their average will be 7 figures. Now in that scenario are there more wealthy conservatives or liberals? I think you can figure that part out, so explain to me how either of your articles contradicts the above.

Still playing dumb.
If the people on welfare are mostly Libs, as CON$ habitually claim, then you need wealthy Libs to offset those Libs on welfare in order for Libs to AVERAGE 6% more than CON$.
It's so obvious you make a fool of yourself every time you pretend not to get it.

Are you seriously implying that welfare recipients vote Republican????

lol