酒井法子を乗せた車の運転手は芸人ですか?サンミュージック所属のお笑い芸人のブッチャーブラザーズという芸人ですが知っていますか?昨日夕方に、如水会館にて酒井法子（38）がサン

We keep talking about how great our health programs are, but the truth is that we have a lot of really stupid healthcare problems that are hard to fathom.

Most of them created by government. So naturally, the solution is more government.

We KNOW what works with diabetes. Yet they constitute a HUGE number of people in ICU.

AnninCA

Primarily because patients refuse to do what is known to work…like lose weight. And, Earth to moron….there is no cure for diabetes. And contrary to the beliefs of the reality-challenged like yourself, what works, in actuality does not always work.

One does not? lose money on a per-person basis but make it up in volume; that line is a joke in the private sector, but policy in the public sector.

The White House is desperate. This is a move they didn’t want to make; they wanted to keep Michelle out of the policy spotlight to avoid the negatives that Hillary racked up. The fact they’re deploying her tells you……

How did Obama research this anecdote? He read it in Slate, and no one on his staff checked to see if the story was accurate. It’s precisely this kind of expertise that Obama wants to put in charge of your health care.

That’s the problem with proof-by-example. On the other hand, had Otto not had some power players in his corner, he might have lost the battle.

At the present time, medical providers can rescind coverage for existing conditions which were unknown to the applicant, and they can do this years after the policy was issued.

Fairness says that if I lie to the insurer, I shouldn’t be covered, but if I don’t lie, I should be covered, even if the insurer reviews records it should have reviewed before issuing coverage and determines that I had a pre-existing condition I didn’t know about:

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

So, I don’t think Obama’s lying in this case — he may have chosen a bad proof-by-example, but he isn’t lying about the fact that some insurers are looking for trivial ways to rescind policies on costly people.

There’s a middle ground. Application forms should be standard in format, the provider can use the application form and the applicant’s medical history to make a coverage decision, but after the coverage is in place the only way out for the provider is if they determine that the applicant suppressed medical history indicating a preexisting condition, and that way out is only applicable within a limited time after the initiation of coverage.

This will allow fairness — the insurer can rid themselves of liars, and the insured can be guaranteed that, if they were honest, they won’t be rescinded should they become costly to the insurer.

Video: Savings are a myth fairy tale

Fixed.

This is right out of the democrat playbook. Slick Willie, HRC, Joey B., they all do it until they get caught.

rjoco1 on September 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I personally think Bill C. was FAR more conservative fiscally than even Bush.

and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete!

PackerBronco on September 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I get razzed her a lot, but I honestly do listen for the nuggets of logic and fact.

I do NOT think all the posts on this blog are brilliant. Neither are mine, so we’re even. *haha

And I am, undoubtedly, going to remain liberal in many respects. I don’t agree with a lot of the “tough” talk against people at all. We’re not living in the 1800′s. We’re not going to go back to building our own log cabins.

So I’m decidedly more moderate than many. (And I HATE the threats of violence, too, btw. *blech*)

But I do listen to the issues. I think that the problem is the approach on healthcare. It’s still event-triggered, which leads to a mirror problem that’s going on in healthcare today. Person A applies for benefits. Insurance company boots them out. Well, imagine if this is the way that gov’t restricts the costs. That is a dangerous system.

It has to be results oriented.

It was nice to finally see an article up today about the individual mandate. I have heard very little discussion on this topic from anyone but this is a big problem for me — How on earth can the federal government tell me that I MUST buy health insurance or be penalized?

I think that the mandates have held, court-wise, in MA. But I question how it will hold nationally, particularly if there is not a low-cost public option available.