Well you are TELLING me what I think is not better for people. That would be a pretty clear case of you telling my opinion was wrong... lol anywho no time for squables tonight was just blowing some steam off for a bit.

Just so I got it straight, Lefties talking out both sides of their mouths has something to do with what's better for the people?

Well lets see since they all think our government is retarded, it would be a good thing to let a retarded person handle our health care needs.

You'll catch on.

Stereotyping, another sign of greater intelligence.

I don't think our gov't is retarded, I think that the people allowing our Gov't to operate the way they do are 100% responsible for the problems. Hopefully, that will change, but somehow I doubt it.

Don't you think this is ludicrous that a company would try to weasel its way out of paying a valid claim because it didnt get notified within two days? I would understand giving the party a month.

Ok lets feel this out... You dont think our goverment will solve its current issues, and yet you want to add on a huge burdensome health care system onto it.... hmmm This sounds like a solid plan. Lets move forward with it IMMEDIATELY! :thumbsup

When did I say I wanted the Gov't to run the healthcare? But I also don't want Insurance & Pharmaceutical companies controlling our Gov't, like they do now.

Our office is pretty happy with Medicare payments. They are more reliable than most insurance company payments.

Sticky,

I personally don't want this current administration to run things any more - Im willing to give a new Executive branch the benefit of the doubt. Please ask your friends if they can resign now. The American public sure wants it that way.

I would say it depends on what the contract says. I doubt the providers don't KNOW what the contract says - you have lazy workers who don't get the claims processed on time. If you sign a contract that says 48 hours then don't expect them to take the claim after 30 days.

Hmm you must be confused one what Mikey wants then...

You're lucky - and must have good coders :thumbsup

I was just reading where there was over $28bil (yes, that's with "b") in Medicare fraud in 2005. With Medicaid, state funded medical plans and private insurance added in it totaled $77bil. Seems we should be looking towards some of that to get the ball rolling on getting medical costs down.

The executive branch has little to do with it. Its a demmy majority right now, what universal health care bills are currently trying to be passed?

Better healthcare for Americans? All Americans having healthcare?

God, he must be nuts.

Umm ok so how exactly do you propose that gets done?

The Department of Health and Human Services falls under the control of the Secretary of HHS, an Executive Branch appointee. They would probably oversee whatever expansion of Medicare or new health care system.

What do you fail to understand about my statement? And please don't answer with some non-sequitur about its Clinton's fault/Democrats can't manage anything.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGBSKR3RA1.DTL

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=73865

Ok you do realize that is a state bill right?

It would require a bill to be passed and made into a law. The only thing the executive branch would have to do with it would be if it was vetoed. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Fuck if I know, but i know what is going on now is insane & wrong.

Yes, but, it's a start. If it works there, people may catch on, if it doesn't, then we can see why it didn't work. California is a pretty big fucking place, not sure what it's ranked today but it was the 5th largest economy in the world.

You can't just flip a switch and say "ok, healthcare is on".

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think that State managed healthcare would have a much higher chance of success than Federal.

Tennessee has had TennCare for years. Its a mismanaged mess that has nearly collapsed several times. Lots of states already have free health care of some sort.

Id be more inclined to endorse a state system over federal. Still has problems though. Does it cover you if you are in a different state and get hurt etc etc.

So why can most first world countries manage to implement universal healthcare and make it so popular even conservatives support it?

I think you're confusing government with the people who run it.

You know as well as I that if it were passed it would be vetoed and they don't have a 2/3 majority to override the veto.

You were saying how liberals want the government to provide health care and Im saying yes, but we dont want the current Executive branch running universal health care.

Please tell me you're not this stupid. You've said a lot of ignorant things in this thread but these two points are completely off track.

First off, there are not many doctors that will not take Medicare and if there are ones out there that won't it's not because of 'the strings attached' or that 'payments take months', there are much more strings attached with insurance companies and an insurance company will delay payments a hell of a lot more. The reason a doctor would not take Medicare is because the profits are a lot lower than with the privates. Medicare/Medicaid has a pre-determined amount it will pay out on medical procedures, the privates do not.

A very good friend of mine is a Urologist and he explained how this works. Say someone needs an operation. If they have private insurance they would charge an insurance company $50,000 (obviously an example), for the same operation Medicare will only pay out $30,000. The doctors, surgeons, hospital, etc still make a profit JUST NOT AS MUCH. Now here's the kicker, if that same person needs an operation and DOES NOT HAVE ANY COVERAGE they will get charged $70,000...why? Because they can. The health care industry and the pharmacutical companies have created this problem, not the insurance companies. These industries are all about how much profit they can make, not helping people.

And as far as your other ignorant statement about landlords and section 8, I have owned many rental properties throughout the years and I have rented to section 8. With section 8 I ALWAYS knew I would get the rent, THAT was the good thing. The bad thing, and the reason why many landlords won't do it is because section 8's damage the property more often and there is an overall less concern about keeping up the condition of the property, it certainly isnt due to waiting months for the rent.

Its gotta be painful to watch tv in states if you have IQ over Bush...

Moore says the United States spends $6,096 per person per year for health care and wants it free for everyone so wouldn't that mean it would cost $20,000 plus if it was free for everyone ?

If this is the case then it wouldn't be free would it ?

If people think your government is retarded I imagine it's because of policies, not incompetence. Their policies benefit corporations in exchange for financial gain when the policies should benefit the society as a whole. That is the purpose of government.

Retarded is not the right word, corrupt fits better.

When you take the power away from the drug companies the monopolies are lost and the prices drop, look at what it costs to treat people in other countries. That's what it should cost, but when the medical "industry" is out for profits supply and demand come into play and they'll bill you up the ass for anything they can.