It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Used Taxpayer Money To Send Healthcare Spam Emails

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoptics
 


Too true. We get into near riots now if anyone mentions ACORN, cap and trade, or healthcare.

I look at my 6 year old and think about what he is being saddled with. They are treating taxpayer money like they won the lottery.

Just another example of government abuse.

How much though, are we the people going to take, until we stand up and say NO MORE! -sadly- Probably alot more. . . .




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by mental modulator
GOD you guys do have double standards

Obama is not proposing or pursuing a single payer system, so who on EARTH does
this take away the choice of what works best for you?
I would say the dropping of coverage after a serious illness is discovered takes away
"THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY CHOOSE WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY".
it is like only referencing one portion of reality, you negate the fact the current system
is inefficient, over priced and is in effect is a tick to the lifeblood of the economy.


Obama is endorsing a single payer system. Call it public option, call it co-ops, it's all government mandated healthcare.
Read HR3200. If you are going to actually argue the bill, I recommend reading it.

Dropping of coverage is not a good thing. I do agree. But read what you wrote. "Dropping of coverage" implies that someone HAD coverage. Obama won't help you if your coverage is dropped. Explain how. Convince me otherwise.

I have read the bill. I will agree to argue the salient points. But if you are going to just regurgitate talking points then we have nothing else to discuss.



What talking points are those?

Please find me one thread where I posted or even quoted liberal, source or entity in regards the Healthcare. I speak from personal experience, having lost two family member in the past year and a half. Its sounds to me you have not had such an up close look at a slow death as of recent. WE had to fight for piss bags and for tests just the same. They deny at every turn hoping you will give up and give in to death.

I am talking about people who HAVE coverage, I am talking about the debate at large.
You guys have singled out one portion of the debate and properly derailed the whole goddamned thing. I remember being like you guys, carefree, not my problem, so I didn't care about the particular issue at large. Unfortunately ONE DAY it will be you or a family members turn, sure as the sun shines.

There is much that COULD be ACHIEVED that would help ALL of us outside of any government run program, sadly you guys have framed the entire issue as a BIG GOVERNMENT DEBATE exclusively. In fact in same cases I think it is a get OBAMA
effort above all else. ALL to the detriment of any talk that is pertinent to fixing
the problems of an out of control industry that is a drain on SMALL BUSINESS and CITIZEN alike.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Beleive him...Mike has read the bill. By the way Mike is that thread still going on reading and understanding the Healthcare/insurance or whtever bill? I haven't checked it lately....


It should be, yup, right here. . . www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Then you should be someone shouting louder than the rest of us. This bill would not have helped you or your family. Sorry. But it's true.

Does the current system need reform? Hell yes! But you don't fix a broken light bulb by shooting the family dog. This reform that they are pushing for, gives no measure to what you went through. In fact, it will probably make it worse.

I have read the bill BECAUSE I have family members that are elderly and will suffer under this program.

The single thing that would bring about some of the change that you so desperately need, is tort reform. And ironically enough, in the 1017 pages of this damn bill, not one word is said about that.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I want to see an impeachment for the blatant lying the regime is displaying and admitting to. I know, just as back in Clinton's perjury phase, the left will totally ignore that.


I want impeachment based on his circumventing the Cabinet system an appointing more Czars than Russia



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I want to see an impeachment for the blatant lying the regime is displaying and admitting to. I know, just as back in Clinton's perjury phase, the left will totally ignore that.


I agree, but it will never happen.

Impeach the first black president? Racism! Riots!


Clinton was the first black president.. so its' already been done.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I want to see an impeachment for the blatant lying the regime is displaying and admitting to. I know, just as back in Clinton's perjury phase, the left will totally ignore that.


I want impeachment based on his circumventing the Cabinet system an appointing more Czars than Russia


Senator Byrd actually looked into that. And he's a democrat, but this news issue died a rather quick and decisive death.

www.judicialwatch.org...



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 




SEC. 162. ENDING HEALTH INSURANCE RESCISSION ABUSE.
(a) Clarification Regarding Application of Guaranteed Renewability of Individual Health Insurance Coverage- Section 2742 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended--
(1) in its heading, by inserting ‘and continuation in force, including prohibition of rescission,’ after ‘guaranteed renewability’; and
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘, including without rescission,’ after ‘continue in force’.
(b) Secretarial Guidance Regarding Rescissions- Section 2742 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended by adding at the end the following:
8
‘(f) Rescission- A health insurance issuer may rescind health insurance coverage only upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection (b)(2). The Secretary, no later than July 1, 2010, shall issue guidance implementing this requirement, including procedures for independent, external third party review.’.
1
(c) Opportunity for Independent, External Third Party Review in Certain Cases- Subpart 1 of part B of title XXVII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘SEC. 2746. OPPORTUNITY FOR INDEPENDENT, EXTERNAL THIRD PARTY REVIEW IN CASES OF RESCISSION.
1
‘(a) Notice and Review Right- If a health insurance issuer determines to rescind health insurance coverage for an individual in the individual market, before such rescission may take effect the issuer shall provide the individual with notice of such proposed rescission and an opportunity for a review of such determination by an independent, external third party under procedures specified by the Secretary under section 2742(f).
‘(b) Independent Determination- If the individual requests such review by an independent, external third party of a rescission of health insurance coverage, the coverage shall remain in effect until such third party determines that the coverage may be rescinded under the guidance issued by the Secretary under section 2742(f).’.
2
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply on and after October 1, 2010, with respect to health insurance coverage issued before, on, or after such date.


This would have help on of my two experiences...

www.opencongress.org...

WHAT IS THE EVIL IN THIS PORTION OF THE TEXT?



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


There is none.

But, it is the government mandating these rules. It is the government telling private businesses how to operate. I can't say that every item in the bill is bad, but what you did not post was that if there was to be any change in the policy, then the individual would have to automatically switch to the government plan under a penalty of 2,800.00/year until they did switch. Once switched, they would be under government mandate then to resubmit their claims and have the governemnt determine if someone should be treated. Notice how I say treated.

Under conventional plans, they will determine whether or not to pay for such treatment. You still have the option (in most cases) but you may end up paying for it yourself.

Under the government plan, you lose that option. They will not determine whether or not to pay for the treatment, they will determine whether or not to TREAT.

Good reference though.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 


There is none.

But, it is the government mandating these rules. It is the government telling private businesses how to operate. I can't say that every item in the bill is bad, but what you did not post was that if there was to be any change in the policy, then the individual would have to automatically switch to the government plan under a penalty of 2,800.00/year until they did switch. Once switched, they would be under government mandate then to resubmit their claims and have the governemnt determine if someone should be treated. Notice how I say treated.

Under conventional plans, they will determine whether or not to pay for such treatment. You still have the option (in most cases) but you may end up paying for it yourself.

Under the government plan, you lose that option. They will not determine whether or not to pay for the treatment, they will determine whether or not to TREAT.

Good reference though.



AH, the core of the the argument "BUSINESS"

Mike, why can't you guys just SAY that?
It sound to me that the implications many of you worry about is interfering with business as it relates to capitalism.

But I will say what can be done about the systems if it is not thru legal channels?

Do you think KAISER will change its business model in a fashion that will undermine its own profits? What is the compelling force to remedy any thing?

TAX BREAKS?

Will that compel any such entity to change their questionable business models?

If the goal is to keep government OUT then what implement is left to square up to
giants amongst giants?

PLEASE show me the text of your last instance?



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


I've said it before. Tort reform first off. Stop those lawyers from the zillion dollar lawsuits.

Second, expose how big pharma and hospitals can charge 50 bucks for an asprin.

Third, allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It is the government that is creating these outrageous costs by federal mandates that they place on insurance companies. And restrictions in where they can compete.

Actual competition will drive down costs. Promote business. Government run? Prices will stay high and get higher. Look at the post office, look at medicaid/medicare.

I never said that it didn't have problems. I've just had issue with how government wants to solve these problems.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Then you should be someone shouting louder than the rest of us. This bill would not have helped you or your family. Sorry. But it's true.

Does the current system need reform? Hell yes! But you don't fix a broken light bulb by shooting the family dog. This reform that they are pushing for, gives no measure to what you went through. In fact, it will probably make it worse.

I have read the bill BECAUSE I have family members that are elderly and will suffer under this program.

The single thing that would bring about some of the change that you so desperately need, is tort reform. And ironically enough, in the 1017 pages of this damn bill, not one word is said about that.



Why is it that modern Conservatives believe that stripping individual power and ability is the answer to everything? Tort reform is not an answer to the healthcare solution, and if you would enlighten yourself as to the true cost of medical malpractices, you'd know that shifting the attention from the actual problem to the legal system is just another tactic of the insurance companies to keep you unwittingly playing their side.



Proponents of damage caps fabricated a liability crisis in Texas earlier in the decade to push through tort reform. Yet malpractice premiums continued to rise, and didn't decrease until many of the Texas politicians who had supported tort reform began taking heat and demanded that the malpractice insurers lower their premiums. They're lower today, yet patients haven't seen any reduction in health care costs, and there's no evidence that the rise in costs has been slowed by tort reform. Doctors are still practicing defensive medicine.

Meanwhile, thousands to tens of thousands of Texans with meritous claims are unable to find lawyers to take their cases because it's no longer financially feasible for the lawyers to do so. If a child dies, there's no economic damages, and that child's life is worth $250,000 maximum. If a retired person dies, they're worth little more. As someone who lost their father to malpractice, I have trouble deciding whether it's hilarious or infuriating that the "death panel" crowd, who likely all support tort reform, apparently have absolutely no problem legislating the value of someone's life.


Source

Tort reform is not the answer, you can clearly see that in the facts reported by states that's out there for everyone to see. I live in Texas and my health insurance has continued to rise as well as the cost of seeing a doctor and receiving tests - far faster than inflation.

The answer is not tort reform - you're just being played by the medical industry and Conservative pundits when you say this. The answer is, unfortunately, government oversight. There are some things that should never ultimately be up to the free market, and human health and well being is one of them.

You shouldn't be afraid that your child might grow up in a ridiculous national debt. Why are you guys always completely fixated on fears that might be instead of fears that are?

You should be afraid that your child will grow up paying 40% of their taxes on the current healthcare programs and then another 30% of their personal income on private healthcare that can deny him for whatever reason they deem fit and will fight him tooth and nail to pay for expensive procedures.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


Here's a response to your article. . .www.tortreform.com...

Government is not the answer. I'm sorry if you think it is. Tort reform does work. WHy would the ABA fight it so much if it wasn't effective.

Any cost, any where is too much. You were correct in calling me a conservative, however. I just can't see paying anyone that much.

Answer me this. What goverment program has/is working right now? Name me one government run model of efficiency and cost savings and I will jump off this thread with an apology.

You want corrupt? Just look at how this administration is trying to sell this package.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
(Sorry Ferris if I've hijacked this thread a bit), but when you have a corrupt government trying to sell this plan full of sunshine and roses, well it just doesn't make sense.

If you have finite resources and infinite needs, someone has to say nope, you're not getting treated. Under government care this will happen.
If you have agencies "competing" for those resources, you stand a better chance of getting them.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
Like wasting $1,000,000,000,000.00 in Iraq?



You're Barney Frank, aren't you?

If not your stealing his material.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 

But, it is the government mandating these rules. It is the government telling private businesses how to operate.


Every government does that, pretty much all the time. One could go as far as to say it is their job.

Why do you think you can't buy opium and heroin (anymore) at the local drugstore? Because the demand is too small? Why can't a 6 year old buy a gun? Or a beer?

communism failed. But so did laissez faire capitalism. It just wasn't as spectacular.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 


I've said it before. Tort reform first off. Stop those lawyers from the zillion dollar lawsuits.

Second, expose how big pharma and hospitals can charge 50 bucks for an asprin.

Third, allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It is the government that is creating these outrageous costs by federal mandates that they place on insurance companies. And restrictions in where they can compete.

Actual competition will drive down costs. Promote business. Government run? Prices will stay high and get higher. Look at the post office, look at medicaid/medicare.

I never said that it didn't have problems. I've just had issue with how government wants to solve these problems.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by mikerussellus]


Well from my view TORT reform is kicking our legal system in the nutz.
I understand being anti lawyer, but that is a slippery slop. In fact that is very similar
the government meddling in BUSINESS affairs, but turned on its head. That is like
PATIENT "TREATMENT" rationing, the GOVERNMENT in this case uses its sway to penalize the lowly individual based on what is good for business. FIXED SETTLEMENTS

It is a very funny concept because it is contrary to strong INDIVIDUAL based persona of the conservative movement. The implications of such means that business is placed on a higher social tier than an individual.

This does not make sense to me because individuals are already "slaves" to the monthly call of corporate billing in one form or another. Certainly most of all of OUR money is utilized paying for things that directly fund the business sectors of the world.
Business does not have an allegiance to the United States of America, business only has allegiance to its own interests. Therefore I put more faith and trust in my flag and my countrymen, then I do ANY BIG BUSINESS. I will think about my neighbors needs first and that is what separates us.

TORT REFORM and HEALTHCARE are part and parcel for both of us. Unfortunately I look
at government as a implement that allows us to evolve as a society. It is the equalizer
between the single voice and the POWERFUL, RICH and INFLUENTIAL tiers of society.
By very definition a modern government is intended to make and enforce the rules, laws and boundaries of an organization of people. Why you think deferring the well being of the lowest common denominator to an already powerful entity (big business) is beyond me. This applies to TORT REFORM AND HEALTHCARE -



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by mental modulator
Like wasting $1,000,000,000,000.00 in Iraq?



You're Barney Frank, aren't you?

If not your stealing his material.


YES BARNEY IS THE ONLY MAN ON EARTH WHO CAN COUNT TO A TRILLION...

I SUPPOSE YOU DIRECTLY BENEFITTED FROM THIS METHOD OF INVESTMENT?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Then you should be someone shouting louder than the rest of us. This bill would not have helped you or your family. Sorry. But it's true.

Does the current system need reform? Hell yes! But you don't fix a broken light bulb by shooting the family dog. This reform that they are pushing for, gives no measure to what you went through. In fact, it will probably make it worse.

I have read the bill BECAUSE I have family members that are elderly and will suffer under this program.

The single thing that would bring about some of the change that you so desperately need, is tort reform. And ironically enough, in the 1017 pages of this damn bill, not one word is said about that.



Why is it that modern Conservatives believe that stripping individual power and ability is the answer to everything? Tort reform is not an answer to the healthcare solution, and if you would enlighten yourself as to the true cost of medical malpractices, you'd know that shifting the attention from the actual problem to the legal system is just another tactic of the insurance companies to keep you unwittingly playing their side.

.


What you and I fail to recognize is that he thinks business should get more of the benefit in the social contract of our society. I think he believes that business will address the issues that concern citizens IF they are left completely to their own devises. But for the life of me I do not get where anyone gets the idea that insurance companies will willingly reduce their profit models and outlooks. It is in their best interest to make MORE profit, yet many of the things that are dysfunctional about
healthcare are that way because it is profitable.

I mean we might as well go fishing... and the lawn does not mow itself...



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 

Sorry, mental modulator, I gotta call 'deflection' on this.
Just because someone else screwed up bigger doesn't mean
Obama's screw ups are any less important.

reply to post by mental modulator
 

Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harrassment case.
That's serious.
But perhaps men don't see it as serious as women do ???


Ya'll are way off topic.

We are in a financial crisis and yet the White House wastes money by hiring a company to shill for it. Shill for it by sending partisan, uninivited, and intrusive emails to unsuspecting American citizens.

The 'transparent' White House LIED and COVERED UP the fact that it was doing this. FOX news (yes ... FOX) started to uncover this by asking questions at the press conference. Gibbs (who reminds me of the Pillsbury Dough Boy) blathered and sputtered and finally moved on to another questioner and refused to consider what was being asked about unsolicited emails.

Now before someone starts yelling about right v left ... the Bush white house also did some things like this. It's true. However, Obama said he was different. He campaigned on it. People bought into the lie.

Obama offers No hope. No change. No unity. No transparency.
He's just another typical lawyer-politican who lies and is self serving.
Are we clear on that yet?


[edit on 8/23/2009 by FlyersFan]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join