Yes but Larry, what if you want an MRI from a mall? Can you do that in
Canada? I don't think so. And why should I have to pay for some bum's health
care? The only people who can't afford health care are the lazy welfare
cases and immigrants. Why should I have to pay for them? Canada is just some
s
thought people would find this interesting comparison between the US
and Canadian systems. I think it shows how much the opponents of
health care reform have lied.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/22/f-health-care-canada-us-reform-access.html
A tale of 2 insurance approaches
\
Patients lin
Isn't that the definition of the big lie technique?
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, denstar wrote:
>
> Palin is a bastion of facts and knowledge. Up there with Dan Quayle
> and Bush 43.
>
> Do you really think that if you repeatedly use words in a certain
> manner, it will change the definit
Palin is a bastion of facts and knowledge. Up there with Dan Quayle
and Bush 43.
Do you really think that if you repeatedly use words in a certain
manner, it will change the definition of the words?
Oh, yeah. NM.
Carry on! =)
--
Good means not merely not to do wrong, but rather not to desi
I am saying Palin, and every other moron saying the same thing, is
being a drama queen by using the term 'death squads'. Its hyperbole at
its most pathetic.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> So you're saying Palin wasn't lying?
>
> More on the life panels and rationing of health ca
Dana did not say that. Full stop end of sentence. Dana *did* say that some
neighborhoods in DC are dangerous.
Sam, you have a nice day.
I know Dana thinks a white boy drinking with blacks must be a moron
> but that's another thread.
>
~~~
So you're saying Palin wasn't lying?
More on the life panels and rationing of health care:
What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare
Changes to Medicare will give the feds control of surgical decisions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574613992408387548.html
SAm - there are groups of assholes that determine if your illness
passes the cost-benefit test in private insurance as well. Yet, I do
not hear you calling them 'death squads'.
That practice you are referring to has existed probably as long as
insurance has existed, why give it a new name now? Oh
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Sam wrote:
> Can stop with the other side is the devil bullshit and get back to
> discussing the issue?
> I really hate the game of hiding the topic under the guise of evil or
> stupid or whatever. Either discuss the topic or step off. Pretty
> simple.
I did disc
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:>
> I'd go for craven and despicable rather than over reaction but then
> again, I'm a hater. These are the same folks who claimed that Obama
> hated his own grandmother and "threw her under the bus".
I never heard he hated his grandmother bu
Stop talking over my head, a trick commonly used by the foremost
homeschooler, and respond to this without a simple dismisal of the
messenger.
Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent
Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with
cutting health care
Actually it was Larry Lyons that brought it up. He represents your side.
So you're saying private insurance sucks but med* is awesome? It's
hard to debate against that kind of mindset.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I agree, that would suck. Hence my concerns about fr
Death panel: Group of assholes the determine if you illness passes the
Cost-benefit analysis.
Medicaid is for poor people, medicare is for the over 65.
Doesn't really matter because neither is sustainable.
On the other hand, private insurance is what makes keeping people
alive profitable.
On W
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Personally, I think its an over reaction and nothing more than
> re-labeling of something that is already being done by private
> insurance, but the republicans won't go around calling the big
> insurance companies 'death squads', even though
personally, I think the whole 'death squad' thing comes form the
thought that if government gets into the business of healthcare, then
at some point, someone will need to draw the line on what is and what
is not covered.
Personally, I think its an over reaction and nothing more than
re-labeling o
I agree, that would suck. Hence my concerns about fraud and waste in
Medicare and Medicaid. They aren't bad, per se, but I think they could
certainly be better. However, this death panel thing that Sam and
others keeps bringing up seems to be the opposite. They seem to think
that the big bad gover
It seems a lot of people think that if the government gets in to the
business of healthcare that there will be no limits on any care and
that Uncle Sam will just keep cutting checks.
That would not be a good thing as it will bankrupt this country faster
than anything else we spend/spent money on.
I thought we were talking about Death Panels. My point, however, is
that government programs are routinely more generous in what they pay
for the physician to do. In some cases that's good (covering important
tests to determine what is wrong) and in some cases it is bad (more
fraud and gaming of t
Haha, and here I was thinking the exact same thing about you.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Nothing worthy to add yet you still did.
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Medicaide wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> All available evidence points to it becoming easier to get
> >> treated und
I don't think you've ever been right about anything on this list :)
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> ha ;) the man who can get "death panel" from the professional guidance of a
> medical organization is accusing me of being "wrong" LOL.
>
> You have a nice day Sam.
>
~~~
Nothing worthy to add yet you still did.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Medicaide wrote:
>
>>
>> All available evidence points to it becoming easier to get
>> treated under new regulations, not harder.
>>
>
> Yes but this doesn't help Sam's "the sky is falling" death panel rants in
> any way.
We're talking Medicaid not Medicare. Medicare isn't available to women under 40.
Five times the number of doctors will refuse new Medicaid patients
than they will private insurance patients.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> But why would it be any different than it is no
ha ;) the man who can get "death panel" from the professional guidance of a
medical organization is accusing me of being "wrong" LOL.
You have a nice day Sam.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> The real question is, why do you engage in conversations before
> thinking them throug
>
> All available evidence points to it becoming easier to get
> treated under new regulations, not harder.
>
Yes but this doesn't help Sam's "the sky is falling" death panel rants in
any way.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion co
But why would it be any different than it is now? Private insurers
give a lot more grief to physicians than Medicare does. Which is a
problem, really, there is a fair bit of billing fraud in the Medicare
system that they are working to bring down. Many physicians may not
like the reimbursement rat
I agree that's how it works now, but let's say the Dems buy enough
votes to put in the public option. Doctors on that plan might have to
shave the ten-fifteen minutes off of the routine exam in the future
because the panel said it has no benefit. I'm not saying it's written
in stone, just showing
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sam wrote:
> If they decide there is no benefit they won't pay. But you're saying
> the doctor can sneak it in?
It isn't a sneaking in thing. Women, under most decent insurance
programs, get an annual physical that includes a pap smear, basic
physical exam, etc.
The real question is, why do you engage in conversations before
thinking them through, which will always guarantee you will be proven
wrong, which will always cause you to stomp your feet and try and
demoralize the person that was correct?
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I lear
I learned that I was correct when I said:
You can talk to Sam or you can ignore him. Both have the same effect, but
the latter allows you to take care of business.
Have a nice day, Sam.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I didn't waste your time. You actually learned things toda
I didn't waste your time. You actually learned things today. You're
just too stubborn to admit it.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> we've reached that point where I say to myself "you know he wates people's
> time for fun. Why do you even talk to him?
~
we've reached that point where I say to myself "you know he wates people's
time for fun. Why do you even talk to him?"
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Dana wrote:
> >
> > doctors never did teach self-exam, actually... that's a female thing.
>
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> doctors never did teach self-exam, actually... that's a female thing.
>
It's a male thing too
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
o
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Sam wrote:
>>> They are out there, that's true. I am very certain
>>> nobody is telling anyone to not to self exam.
>>
>> The said they are of no benefit.
>
> That is incorrect. They said that they did no
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Of course doctors are paid for their time to instruct, its an office
> visit. Our doctor does instruction on breast self exam during a
> woman's annual exam and since those are classified as preventative
> medicine visits, the visit is not
good doctor and good plan then.
Of course doctors are paid for their time to instruct, its an office
> visit. Our doctor does instruction on breast self exam during a
> woman's annual exam and since those are classified as preventative
> medicine visits, the visit is not only covered, the deducti
doctors never did teach self-exam, actually... that's a female thing.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Dana wrote:
> >
> > I think they are wrong. But that and five bucks will get you a mocha
> latte.
> > This is medical advice, which we are fre
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Sam wrote:
>> They are out there, that's true. I am very certain
>> nobody is telling anyone to not to self exam.
>
> The said they are of no benefit.
That is incorrect. They said that they did not recommend pushing self
examinations because of a high rate of fa
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Sam wrote:
> But if as Judah says the real issues is lack of education about how to
> self exam, doctors won't be paid for there time to instruct since the
> are deemed by the panel to not be cost efficient. In other words, the
> amount of lives saved isn't worth
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I think they are wrong. But that and five bucks will get you a mocha latte.
> This is medical advice, which we are free to ignore. People do it all the
> time ;)
But if as Judah says the real issues is lack of education about how to
self exam, do
>
> The said they are of no benefit.
>
I think they are wrong. But that and five bucks will get you a mocha latte.
This is medical advice, which we are free to ignore. People do it all the
time ;)
>But you're glad you didn't miss one of them?
I'd just as soon have missed having my them actually
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> I don't think the recommendation applies to women with a family history of
> early breast cancer.
That's correct.
> They are out there, that's true. I am very certain
> nobody is telling anyone to not to self exam.
The said they are of no bene
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> The recommendations don't apply to women with any elevated risk of
> breast cancer, family history especially.
You're right, I missed that.
> My wife will start getting
> yearly mammograms at age 40 because her mother had breast cancer.
I think the key is becoming in tune with the body. I got a test a while
back, fifteen years before the recommended routine screening, because I had
symptoms and asked about them. This allowed for something to be no longer a
problem at a time when under the guidelines it would just be getting foun
The recommendations don't apply to women with any elevated risk of
breast cancer, family history especially. My wife will start getting
yearly mammograms at age 40 because her mother had breast cancer.
Sucks, but it is what it is. And, much to my everlasting annoyance,
there is a decreased emphas
> Where did that come from? We do know women get breast cancer before 40
> so why tell them not to test even with a history and not to self exam.
> As Mo has stated the insurance industry that's paying for it are
> pushing it more now.
>
I don't think the recommendation applies to women with a fa
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=213042303434
> Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel
>
>
> This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive
> expansions of the role of government into our lives. Were talking
so, whether it would be accomplished through greater
efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to
care or diminish the quality of care.
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call death panels the
lie of the year, this type of rationing what the CBO calls
> Sam wrote:
> Too many variables in health care. Insurance companies are monopolies
> so they aren't going to cut prices unless you knock down state
> borders.
yes and no.
The monopoly thing is absolutely right - it must go.
But so must the tie to employers.
and healthcare costs are NOT contr
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> Sam, Sam, Sam.you do realize that evil is a religious term and me
> being.well, an atheist would not use those terms to describe
> anyone or anything. It'd kinda be like me describing a good deed as
> being "inspired by jesus"
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> You know, I disagree with the mammogram decision, but the people who made
> it are not a death panel. This was a recommendation for best practices by a
> professional group, not a ruling on an individual patient, first of all.
I guess if you take
Sam, Sam, Sam.you do realize that evil is a religious term and me
being.well, an atheist would not use those terms to describe
anyone or anything. It'd kinda be like me describing a good deed as
being "inspired by jesus". But you go ahead and keep repositioning my
stance in order to fit
You know, I disagree with the mammogram decision, but the people who made
it are not a death panel. This was a recommendation for best practices by a
professional group, not a ruling on an individual patient, first of all.
Second, a lot of the art of medicine comes in deciding who needs what, and
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Dammit Sam. I'm agreeing with you for the second time this week. And
> I've read this whole thread.
I must be wrong then :) I'll have to review.
Nope I'm good.
> See if all airlines asked $5000 for a ticket we'd all have to pay it.
> B
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> ha, I really don't think Maureen would ever confuse me for you :)
>
> It really is amazing to me how you can read something...actually see the
> words, yet come up with an entirely unrelated interpretation. You are
> something else
ha, I really don't think Maureen would ever confuse me for you :)
It really is amazing to me how you can read something...actually see the words,
yet come up with an entirely unrelated interpretation. You are something else
Sam.
I seem to remember you bringing up the issue of the new age rec
> Sam wrote:
> What I was implying was that the so called public option plan would
> ban early detection mm's. Since the PO would likely put most ins co's
> out of biz that would eventually mean all plans.
>
Dammit Sam. I'm agreeing with you for the second time this week. And
I've read this who
You've confused me with Bettlejuice, for some strange reason he thinks
the recommendation of age forty for mm's forced ins co's to pay for
them. I tried to explain it more cost effective to catch cancer early.
What I was implying was that the so called public option plan would
ban early detection
The ruling on mammograms has had the opposite effect for some
carriers. Kaiser is running ads stating "all our women get
mammograms'". So as usual, you're wrong.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Death panels are real and they are already fast at work.
> Mammograms are no longer
That reminds me of a funny story from when I worked as a paramedic.
I had a call for a guy who was obviously having a massive heart
attack, but he was refusing any treatment based on his religious views
(I do not recall what religion, though I am sure at the time he told
me).
Every time we tried
Well, isn't against God's law to even use life support? Aren't you really
slapping God in the face by saying "I know you're trying to call one of your
children home, but I feel we'll keep him/her here in a vegetative state
instead."
Aren't Obama's death panels really doing God's work? Obviously S
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> Hey, Sam, we agree I guess, because see, I think that govt. should be in
> healthcare along with capitalism. Kinda like the post office. When I want
> to get something delivered really really fast and be able to track it every
>
Now we've discovered you are all for weeding out the people in coma's.
What's next, people that can no longer give back to society.
What's odd is you've contributed nothing to this discussion and yet
you claim to have won it. Then you throw in a dismissing insult. Maybe
you need to re-think your
On Dec 21, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sam wrote:
>> So, if the hospital you're using wants to pull the plug on your relative,
>> you can find another hospital that won't. Right?
>
> This is true. But since most people can't pay for the extended care
> they will have no option. Hospitals as capitalist c
So what about Trig while your weeding out the undesirables? Do you
think he's worthy of life?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> I guess for it to be relevant the "people" would need to be better defined.
> What people will be at risk? The guy with a broken arm? Joe sixpack? I d
Actually Larry, the end-of-life counseling does include ending the life.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> the really stupid part of this is that what Palin was referring to was
> a recommendation that seniors receive end of life counseling. Not how
> to kill themselves
Death Panel: a panel of so-called experts to determine if you life is
worth the expense of continued treatment. - my definition
Flogging a dead horse? So you're for getting rid of the dead weight?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> How is it different? Well Sarah Palin was basic
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I expected nothing less of you. Parroting RNC and tea party talking
> points as usual. Well done I am sure your political masters would be
> pleased.
Do you always have to start a discussion on the bottom rung?
> Hey ignore the science
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> huh? This law gives the hospital authority to do what it wants to.
> Deregulation of a capitalistic institution. This is what you advocate, is it
> not?
No. When did I say that?
> So, if the hospital you're using wants to pull
, going round and round and round. Eventually
> you would just become exhausted and stop arguing. Basically siege mentality.
> You remind me of her Samuel.
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> You mean the death panel? Yes they are responsible. Now you a
siege mentality.
You remind me of her Samuel.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> You mean the death panel? Yes they are responsible. Now you agree it's
> not the biggest lie of the year?
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Medic wrote:
> >
> >
men under 50. That means
> >> soon health care won't pay for them. That means death to women under
> >> 50 with breast cancer.
> >> It's started already.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
> >
You mean the death panel? Yes they are responsible. Now you agree it's
not the biggest lie of the year?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> So let me get this straight Sam. No responsibility lies with the panel of
> doctors? Only the government for not legisla
the really stupid part of this is that what Palin was referring to was
a recommendation that seniors receive end of life counseling. Not how
to kill themselves etc but how to deal with stuff that will be
happening to them over the next while.
As for death panels doesn't that happen now with curre
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Larry C. Lyons
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The votes are in and the results are obvious and don't need a recount,
>>> Sara Palin had the lie of the year with her Death Panels comment.
>>>
>&g
How is it different? Well Sarah Palin was basically saying that Obama wants
to kills your gramma. The article talks about a panel of doctors familiar
with the specific case that wish to supsend life support because in their
medical opinions it's futile. Flogging a dead horse so to speak. I don't s
20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>>
>> The votes are in and the results are obvious and don't need a recount,
>> Sara Palin had the lie of the year with her Death Panels comment.
>>
>> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-
huh? This law gives the hospital authority to do what it wants to.
Deregulation of a capitalistic institution. This is what you advocate, is it
not?
So, if the hospital you're using wants to pull the plug on your relative, you
can find another hospital that won't. Right?
This article y
So let me get this straight Sam. No responsibility lies with the panel of
doctors? Only the government for not legislating that life support go on
indefinitely regardless of the futility of it?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Only you could chalk this up as government good, cap
How is it different?
In the end, government decides to ration care to save money.
Hospitals, insurance companies and doctors all have to fall in line or
work for free.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> Summary: "It's just like Sarah Palin said, only completely different! Run,
>
Only you could chalk this up as government good, capitalists bad.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> That article states that it's the hospitals decision and not the
> doctors.so guess whatyou can haggle with the hospital! Capitalism
> WIN!
>
Hence, the 'might'.
You can haggle for just about anything. Most of the time, you will not
be successful, but it does not mean you can not try.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
>> I am sure if you tried to haggle for yo
ut is already happening in Texas.
>
> http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/19/death-panels-exist-already/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dana wrote:
> >
> > I'd call it fact-checking, myself. Well, perhaps the "lie of the year"
> piece
> &g
ike what Pailn was talking about is already happening in Texas.
>
> http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/19/death-panels-exist-already/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> I'd call it fact-checking, myself. Well, perhaps the "
act-checking, myself. Well, perhaps the "lie of the year" piece
> was opinion. It's hard to see "most untrue" as anything but opinion. But you
> seem to be saying that it's not untrue at all? That it's an opinion that
> there are no death panels?
>
~~
e, I am saying its opinion what they consider to be 'lie of the
> year'. You can scatter facts around an op/ed piece, but that does not
> make it NOT op/ed.
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dana wrote:
> >
> > I'd call it fact-checking, myself. Well, perhaps t
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> I am sure if you tried to haggle for your teeth
> cleaning, you might find a dentist who would agree to those terms.
>
Not necessarily. Docs agree to those terms because allowing a certain
insurance company opens their office up to potentia
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> I don't think capitalism is evil...never have. I'm well aware though that
> capitalism could really care less about my welfare.
You can chose a capitalist company that does.
> So you're saying that they weren't forced to pay for m
Nope, I am saying its opinion what they consider to be 'lie of the
year'. You can scatter facts around an op/ed piece, but that does not
make it NOT op/ed.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> I'd call it fact-checking, myself. Well, perhaps the "li
Lets be clear, you are not paying $25 for the cleaning, your insurance
company is. You are paying the insurance company.
Even if you could negotiate down to $30, that would still be better,
would it not?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> It's been years since I had
I'd call it fact-checking, myself. Well, perhaps the "lie of the year" piece
was opinion. It's hard to see "most untrue" as anything but opinion. But you
seem to be saying that it's not untrue at all? That it's an opinion that
there are no death panels?
that link than any threads on this list.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Larry C. Lyons
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The votes are in and the results are obvious and don't need a recount,
> >> > Sara Palin h
It's been years since I had to, but I have had to haggle with healthcare costs
in the past and have never been able to get down to the level that insurance
paid.
To think that an individual would be able to pay the same price as a large
insurance company that has leverage over a doctor by exc
On Dec 21, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
> wrote:
>>> I'm confused.
>>>
>> The insurance companies were being forced to pay for mammograms because the
>> suggested age was 40 before...now that it's 50, they can save 10 years worth
>> of
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
> sure doctors make more money. I just got my dentist claim summary back about
> 2 days ago. My routine cleaning was a $45 charge. My insurance company said
> that they only allowed $25. The dentist only got paid $25. Now, if I we
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>> I'm confused.
>>
> The insurance companies were being forced to pay for mammograms because the
> suggested age was 40 before...now that it's 50, they can save 10 years worth
> of mammogram fees.
They weren't forced to. You really do
On Dec 21, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>> anyway, the mammogram recommendation was a federal one and I know you want
>> the govt. out of healthcareI figured you'd be happy with this.
>
> I'm confused.
>
The insurance companies were being forced to pay for mammograms because the
sugges
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> really, so the hc bill has been passed and ratified already? I must be out of
> the loop :)
Sneaky shit happens while you sleep.
> anyway, the mammogram recommendation was a federal one and I know you want
> the govt. out of healt
really, so the hc bill has been passed and ratified already? I must be out of
the loop :)
anyway, the mammogram recommendation was a federal one and I know you want the
govt. out of healthcareI figured you'd be happy with this.
This leaves the insurance companies and doctors able to make m
waaa?
Health care is being socialized as we type.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> so, in the end, it's capitalism that has created the death panels.
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> Death panels are real and they are already fast at work.
>> Mam
them. That means death to women under
> 50 with breast cancer.
> It's started already.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>>
>> The votes are in and the results are obvious and don't need a recount,
>> Sara Palin h
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
