What Medical Care Has Come To

MaryJean

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Location
Northern California
I just received the e-mail below from a member of my family.
The case is real!

The Affordable Care Act is REAL!

All prayers will be appreciated!

MaryJean


HI
Katie just left, she has cancer again. starting last week she could not pee, went to the Dr. and he drained her and then a cat scan and found a lump at the top of her vagina where the Dr. sewed her closed, and the lump was also against her bladder, he also took a contrasting ex ray but that was of no help. called her Dr. in Seattle and was told to be up there yesterday to be admitted to the hospital.
Obamacare will not o.k. the surgery because surgery needs to be 30 days apart so she has to wait 30 days to have this second fast growing cancer removed. the Dr wanted to do 3 more contrasting I. V. arm, stomach and drink Obamacare said no and the /Dr. called and argued and the next day they agreed to the test. the growth is the size of a baseball and has already invaded her vagina walls and now they want to do a brain test to see if it has spread to her brain. It seems the brain is where the cancer from the stomach/overall cancer heads for.

the surgeon told her that he will be on the phone as long as the Obamacare office is open to get the o.k. so in the mean time she is wearing a catheter and go's for blood work twice a day and if there is any change [ they are also watching for kidney damage ]. a temporary surgery date is Tuesday if all the o.k.s come in.

now on top of everything else Obamacare will not give her estrogen meds. Obamacare is sure great. tell your friends

I am going to go have a rum and coke. maybe a double.
Pat
 
I just received the e-mail below from a member of my family.
The case is real!

The Affordable Care Act is REAL!

All prayers will be appreciated!

MaryJean


HI
Katie just left, she has cancer again. starting last week she could not pee, went to the Dr. and he drained her and then a cat scan and found a lump at the top of her vagina where the Dr. sewed her closed, and the lump was also against her bladder, he also took a contrasting ex ray but that was of no help. called her Dr. in Seattle and was told to be up there yesterday to be admitted to the hospital.
Obamacare will not o.k. the surgery because surgery needs to be 30 days apart so she has to wait 30 days to have this second fast growing cancer removed. the Dr wanted to do 3 more contrasting I. V. arm, stomach and drink Obamacare said no and the /Dr. called and argued and the next day they agreed to the test. the growth is the size of a baseball and has already invaded her vagina walls and now they want to do a brain test to see if it has spread to her brain. It seems the brain is where the cancer from the stomach/overall cancer heads for.

the surgeon told her that he will be on the phone as long as the Obamacare office is open to get the o.k. so in the mean time she is wearing a catheter and go's for blood work twice a day and if there is any change [ they are also watching for kidney damage ]. a temporary surgery date is Tuesday if all the o.k.s come in.

now on top of everything else Obamacare will not give her estrogen meds. Obamacare is sure great. tell your friends

I am going to go have a rum and coke. maybe a double.
Pat

Sounds rather like the NHS over here. Clinical need taking second place to financial targets. Hospitals have been known to leave their operating theatres idle because they have managed to beat the expected number of operations in the financial year, but instead of being rewarded for this performance, they are told to sit idle till the start of the new financial year, whereas they could be lowering the waiting lists for surgery.

We also have the "postcode lottery" where you can live in one place and get a more effective treatment that preserves quality of life, whereas live elsewhere, and the cost of treatment is considered too great to justify where it can only increase quality and length of life, rather than offer a chance of a cure.

Seems that this Obamacare has also fallen foul of financial considerations taking priority over clinical need. One could face the same problems with private medical insurance, they too will seek to minimise the costs, rather than maximise the quality of life.
 
SCARY

It is not only "greedy" but mean spirited as well.

Sold to us as "Affordable"---"Better than the Junk Policies that we had purchased ourselves" etc. etc.

This lady is not even "old and dispensable"---she is a young mother with two small children!-----But they truly DON'T CARE!

MaryJean
 
Sounds rather like the NHS over here. Clinical need taking second place to financial targets. Hospitals have been known to leave their operating theatres idle because they have managed to beat the expected number of operations in the financial year, but instead of being rewarded for this performance, they are told to sit idle till the start of the new financial year, whereas they could be lowering the waiting lists for surgery.

We also have the "postcode lottery" where you can live in one place and get a more effective treatment that preserves quality of life, whereas live elsewhere, and the cost of treatment is considered too great to justify where it can only increase quality and length of life, rather than offer a chance of a cure.

Seems that this Obamacare has also fallen foul of financial considerations taking priority over clinical need. One could face the same problems with private medical insurance, they too will seek to minimise the costs, rather than maximise the quality of life.
"Obamacare", properly called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not like the NHS. It is not a state run healthcare system. The essence of the law is that individuals not covered by their employer's health insurance or by programmes like Medicare and Medicaid have to buy health insurance and insurers have to provide insurance at the same price regardless of the applicant's pre-existing conditions. The decision not to authorise the operation was not taken by any government agency, but by the health insurer and this is nothing new, in particular, HMOs (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) have always had a reputation for trying to keep costs down at the patients' expense. The point is that the claim "Obamacare will not OK the surgery" is false, it is probably spread deliberately by Republicans.
 
"Obamacare", properly called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not like the NHS. It is not a state run healthcare system. The essence of the law is that individuals not covered by their employer's health insurance or by programmes like Medicare and Medicaid have to buy health insurance and insurers have to provide insurance at the same price regardless of the applicant's pre-existing conditions. The decision not to authorise the operation was not taken by any government agency, but by the health insurer and this is nothing new, in particular, HMOs (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) have always had a reputation for trying to keep costs down at the patients' expense. The point is that the claim "Obamacare will not OK the surgery" is false, it is probably spread deliberately by Republicans.

Very well said GM.

I'm always appalled by how easily US citizens are brainwashed by the political party they follow almost blindly.

It's part of the reason the USA is slipping behind many countries and why it's so hard to get stuff done. Just about every political view I read from US members, and from other sources, is extreme right or extreme left....and it's killing America IMO.
 
Very well said GM.

I'm always appalled by how easily US citizens are brainwashed by the political party they follow almost blindly.

It's part of the reason the USA is slipping behind many countries and why it's so hard to get stuff done. Just about every political view I read from US members, and from other sources, is extreme right or extreme left....and it's killing America IMO.

after holding up the world since ww2 it is getting a little burdensome and one might take the time to hoist its nuts as it still
carries on

don't think the constitution is faulty its not , and we have to put up with our corrupt politics as well as the rest of the world
but we never waiver'd in the face of a foe also the new york stock market rules the world

PS and if it wasen't for the Boston tea party there would still be a debtors prison
 
Last edited:
after holding up the world since ww2 it is getting a little burdensome and one might take the time to hoist its nuts as it still
carries on

don't think the constitution is faulty its not , and we have to put up with our corrupt politics as well as the rest of the world
but we never waiver'd in the face of a foe also the new york stock market rules the world

PS and if it wasen't for the Boston tea party there would still be a debtors prison

Let's not get into the world wars rocky.

It's a fact that the USA waited until the most opportune time for THEM to join both wars, to obtain the best advantage for THEM. It's quite possible that, if the Japs hadn't attacked Pearl, the USA would have allowed Germany to invade the UK, or at least come to terms with Hitler and allow him to control Europe.

If the USA were REALLY about "protecting the free world and democracy" and "never waivering in the face of a foe", then they would have joined France and Britain in declaring war on Germany on September 1, 1939. The fact that they waited over 3 years to get involved cost many many thousands of lives that could well have been saved.

Germany was quite weak on it's Western border with France etc for the first year or so of WW2, as Hitler was amassing his troops in the East and using them to quell the Poles and the other occupied lands. In fact, if the French under their withered old generals had decided to attack Hitler in 1939/40 instead of waiting for him to do so, it could be argued that Hitler would have been defeated and, with the addition of British and Commonwealth troops, could have meant that France was never invaded and Dunkirk would never had happened.

So, if the French and British could arguably defeat Hitlers forces in 1939/40, imagine what would have happened had the US decided to join the Allies in 1939. It's even possible that the holocaust may have been avoided....at least on the scale that it developed into after 1942.

Rocky, let's not hear about how everyone owes the USA over WW2. In my view, they were complicit in the unnecessary deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people and troops. If there was more benefit in the US making a seperate peace with Germany and/or Japan, then they would have made it....regardless of the moral considerations and the status of their "free world allies".

Ok, enough now, as I'm derailing. Sorry.
 
Let's not get into the world wars rocky.

It's a fact that the USA waited until the most opportune time for THEM to join both wars, to obtain the best advantage for THEM. It's quite possible that, if the Japs hadn't attacked Pearl, the USA would have allowed Germany to invade the UK, or at least come to terms with Hitler and allow him to control Europe.

If the USA were REALLY about "protecting the free world and democracy" and "never waivering in the face of a foe", then they would have joined France and Britain in declaring war on Germany on September 1, 1939. The fact that they waited over 3 years to get involved cost many many thousands of lives that could well have been saved.

Germany was quite weak on it's Western border with France etc for the first year or so of WW2, as Hitler was amassing his troops in the East and using them to quell the Poles and the other occupied lands. In fact, if the French under their withered old generals had decided to attack Hitler in 1939/40 instead of waiting for him to do so, it could be argued that Hitler would have been defeated and, with the addition of British and Commonwealth troops, could have meant that France was never invaded and Dunkirk would never had happened.

So, if the French and British could arguably defeat Hitlers forces in 1939/40, imagine what would have happened had the US decided to join the Allies in 1939. It's even possible that the holocaust may have been avoided....at least on the scale that it developed into after 1942.

Rocky, let's not hear about how everyone owes the USA over WW2. In my view, they were complicit in the unnecessary deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people and troops. If there was more benefit in the US making a seperate peace with Germany and/or Japan, then they would have made it....regardless of the moral considerations and the status of their "free world allies".

Ok, enough now, as I'm derailing. Sorry.

nifty do yourself a favor and get a tinfoil hat . your talking like a saloon baffoon
 
nifty do yourself a favor and get a tinfoil hat . your talking like a saloon baffoon

I'm really disappointed you've resorted to playground name calling rocky.

If you didn't have any kind of counter-argument, and you obviously don't, then why not just NOT post? Nobody else, including me, has personally insulted anyone in this thread, so I don't see the need for your reply.

If you're offended by history, then there's nothing I can do about that. Sorry.
 
If the USA were REALLY about "protecting the free world and democracy" and "never waivering in the face of a foe", then they would have joined France and Britain in declaring war on Germany on September 1, 1939.

That's NOT what the USA was all about. Policing the world and playing Superpower came much later. Pre-WW1 USA and what they became after WW2 are two completely different animals.
 
I'm really disappointed you've resorted to playground name calling rocky.

If you didn't have any kind of counter-argument, and you obviously don't, then why not just NOT post? Nobody else, including me, has personally insulted anyone in this thread, so I don't see the need for your reply.

If you're offended by history, then there's nothing I can do about that. Sorry.

you don't present anything worth countering except for a caveat to my fellow members especial from the states :rolleyes:
 
Well, Nifty, yes you did insult some folks on here. Me for one, although I'm not sure you really meant to.

It gets tiresome to have my country dumped on at every turn. It's kinda like I can talk about my relatives, but nobody else can.
 
Well, Nifty, yes you did insult some folks on here. Me for one, although I'm not sure you really meant to.

It gets tiresome to have my country dumped on at every turn. It's kinda like I can talk about my relatives, but nobody else can.

I was absolutely not meaning to personally insult anyone.

How anyone can take personal offence at historical facts from 70+ years ago....well I just don't know.

I totally understand loving ones country and patriotism, but it shouldn't come hand in hand with selective memory or blindness....and it quite often does.

I apologize if I offended you Annie.

Balthazar.....we can debate exactly when the USA decided every country should be a democracy, but the fact remains that they sat on their hands pretty much for 3 years and watched peoples of their own creed and blood die when they needn't have.

The USA was by far the strongest country in the world post WW2, because Europe and Asia had been almost razed by long years of war and the USA was almost entirely intact. If the USA had come to the defence of Poland and France and the UK in 1939, it's quite possible that Britain would have retained most of her empire, and been a major trading competitor....which the USA didn't want.

IMO, what the USA did (or didn't do as it was) during 1939-1941wasnt much different to what the Red Army did when they reached Warsaw.
 
"Obamacare", properly called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not like the NHS. It is not a state run healthcare system. The essence of the law is that individuals not covered by their employer's health insurance or by programmes like Medicare and Medicaid have to buy health insurance and insurers have to provide insurance at the same price regardless of the applicant's pre-existing conditions. The decision not to authorise the operation was not taken by any government agency, but by the health insurer and this is nothing new, in particular, HMOs (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) have always had a reputation for trying to keep costs down at the patients' expense. The point is that the claim "Obamacare will not OK the surgery" is false, it is probably spread deliberately by Republicans.

there we go. Game over. :thumbsup:
 
I was absolutely not meaning to personally insult anyone.

How anyone can take personal offence at historical facts from 70+ years ago....well I just don't know.

I totally understand loving ones country and patriotism, but it shouldn't come hand in hand with selective memory or blindness....and it quite often does.

I apologize if I offended you Annie.

Balthazar.....we can debate exactly when the USA decided every country should be a democracy, but the fact remains that they sat on their hands pretty much for 3 years and watched peoples of their own creed and blood die when they needn't have.

The USA was by far the strongest country in the world post WW2, because Europe and Asia had been almost razed by long years of war and the USA was almost entirely intact. If the USA had come to the defence of Poland and France and the UK in 1939, it's quite possible that Britain would have retained most of her empire, and been a major trading competitor....which the USA didn't want.

IMO, what the USA did (or didn't do as it was) during 1939-1941wasnt much different to what the Red Army did when they reached Warsaw.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home
Sovereignty
Genocide
Treaty
Land Rights
Black GST
Pay the Rent

Home
Rascist Australia - Genocidal Atrocities Overview
An edited version of Australia's Secret Genicide History - By: Dr Gideon Polya

... The reality is that Australia has always been a deeply racist country and continues to be involved in genocidal atrocities. However in recent decades the racism has been covered over publicly by a thin veneer of political correctness. Australia has been involved in all post 1950 US Asian wars that have been associated with Indigenous Asian excess deaths totalling 25 million – yet in politically correct racist Australia, racial vilification and genocide is scarcely even considered.

In 2008 the Rudd Labor Government said "Sorry" to Indigenous Australians for the Stolen Generations (up to 0.1 million Aboriginal children forcible removed from their mothers) – but the Aboriginal genocide continues (9,000 Indigenous Australians die avoidably each year) and the Labor Government continues to apply race-based laws to Northern Territory Aborigines who are forbidden to see, buy, sell, read, consume or transport things that all other Australians can. They have also been removed in a race-specific way from the protection of the anti-racism 1975 Racial Discrimination Act; and can be kicked out of their homes and Homelands without any legal recourse.

... Further, in assessing deaths from particular policies of invasion, occupation and dispossession one notes that deaths can be violent from bombs and bullets, or non-violent, from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease. All of which are avoidable deaths.

Australian Genicide History
The below catalogue of Australian involvement in Genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention – and notably in British and American-imposed genocides - is given in roughly chronological order from 1788, the year of European Invasion and First Settlement, to 2008.

1. 18th -19th century Aboriginal Genocide (the Indigenous Aboriginal population dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million in the first century after invasion in 1788).

2. Tasmanian Aboriginal Genocide (the "full-blood" Indigenous population dropped from 6,000 to zero from 1776 to 1803.

3. British Indian Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 0.6 billion, 1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; 0.4 Billion, 1901-1947.

4. European Chinese Genocide (10-100 million deaths in the European imperialism-driven Tai Ping rebellion period; Australia was involved in suppressing the Boxer rebellion).

5. Maori Genocide (Maori population dropped from 0.1-0.2 million in 1800 to 42,000 in 1893; Australia was involved in the 19th century Maori wars).

6. African Genocide (scores of million perished over 5 centuries of European slavery and colonialism; Australians participated in the Sudan War, 1881-1898).

7. Pacific Genocide (there was a catastrophic population decline due to introduced disease and slavery; thus 40,000 Fijians died from measles out of a population of 150,000 in 1876; "blackbirding" slavery was conducted by Australians in the late 19th century).

8. Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide (1899-1902; 28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps; Australians participated in the Boer War as immortalized in the movie "Breaker Morant").

9. Armenian Genocide (1.5 million killed; the Australian invasion of Gallipoli as part of an Anglo-French force in 1915 helped to precipitate this atrocity; indeed April 24 is Armenian Genocide Day and April 25 is the day of the Australia invasion in 1915 and also a sacred war dead remembrance day for Australians and New Zealanders – it is called Anzac Day after the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) which stormed ashore on that first Anzac Day at Gallipoli in 1915).

10. Bengali Genocide (6-7 million perished in the "forgotten" man-made Bengal Famine atrocity in Bengal and adjoining provinces in British India, 1943-1945; Australians were there and indeed the Governor of Bengal in 1944 was an Australian, R.G. Casey).

11. British post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to British occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era totalled 727 million; Australia has the same Head of State as the UK and continues to be a loyal military ally of the UK in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan).

12. US post-1950 Third World Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to US occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era totalled 82 million; Australia participated in all post-1950 US Asian Wars in Korea, Indo-China, Iraq and Afghanistan with Indigenous Asian excess deaths now totalling 25 million).

13. Australian Colonial Genocide (1950-2005 excess deaths in countries subject to Australian occupation as a major occupier in the post-war era, namely Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands totalled 2.1 million).

14. 20th century Aboriginal Genocide (total excess deaths clearly of the order of 1million; 0.1 million Stolen Generations Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their Mothers in the 19th and 20th centuries; excess deaths in the 11 years of the Bush-ite Coalition Government totalled 90,000 for 1996-2007).

The following Australian genocide involvements in this catalogue of horrors are ongoing.

15. Palestinian Genocide (post-1967 excess deaths 0.3 million, post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million and 7 million refugees; with bi-partisan agreement Australia provides diplomatic, financial and haven support for Israeli state terrorism – even when directed against tens of thousands of Australian citizens as in Lebanon in mid-2006 - and up to life imprisonment for anyone giving support to the Hamas Party that overwhelmingly won the 2006 Occupied Palestinian elections).

16. Iraqi Genocide (4 million excess deaths 1990-2008; 2 million post-invasion excess deaths, 0.6 million post-invasion under-5 infant deaths and 4.5 million refugees; Australia militarily involved since 1990 ).

17. Afghan Genocide (3-7 million post-invasion excess deaths, 2.3 million post-invasion under-5 infant and 4 million refugees; Australia involved militarily since 2001).

18. Ongoing Aboriginal Genocide (9,000 excess deaths annually; 90,000 excess deaths in the last 11 years of Bush-ite Coalition rule; see MWC News).

19. Biofuel Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year but this is increasingly biofuel-impacted as the legislatively-mandated US, UK and EU biofuel perversion forces up global food prices; Australia is a major sugar cane grower and sugar exporter with 60% of sugar going to bioethanol production worldwide; Australia has biofuel-promoting legislation and is a major canola grower, this being a major source for biodiesel; see MWC News).

20. Climate Genocide (16 million die avoidably each year already from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease; Professor James Lovelock FRS says that over 6 million will perish this century die to unaddressed climate change; on a per capita basis Australia is among the very worst greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters – in terms of 2004 figures for "fossil fuel-derived annual per capita CO2 pollution" Australia is about 40 times worse than India and 160 times worse than Bangladesh if you include Australia's world number 1 coal exports; see MWC News).

Yet politically correct racist Australia steadfastly "looks the other way" and its past and present involvements in the above atrocities are overwhelmingly not reported by racist, lying, holocaust-ignoring Mainstream media nor taught in Australia's schools and universities. PC racist White Australia just cannot see the "Elephant in the room" – its continuing involvement in over 2 centuries of horrendous genocide.

Australians are trapped in an Orwellian dream - Australia will only stop doing it when it is informed that it is doing it. Please inform everyone you can.

An edited version of Australia's Secret Genicide History
By: Dr Gideon Polya BSc

Article edited by Bruce Skewes, Sub-editor of Treaty Republic

Key References:
A key reference is the book 'Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950' by Dr Gideon Polya. Other relevant books are Chalk, F. and Jonassohn, K. (1990), The History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies (Yale University Press, New Haven & London); Tatz, C. (2003), With Intent to Destroy. Reflecting on Genocide (Verso, London); and Blum, W. (2006), Rogue State, A guide to the world's only superpower (Zed Books, London).
Other references:
• Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950 (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007).
• Australia's secret genocide history. 'Bundoora Eucalyptus' and Black Crimes of White Australia".
• Stolen Generations. Australian Aboriginal Genocide Aboriginal Genocide.
• Racist White Australian child abuse and passive mass murder
• Australian Aboriginal Genocide
• Australian genocide. Oz ignores Aboriginal Iraqi, Afghan and Climate genocides.

Gideon Polya 'Media wirh conscience'

Login to post comments
Print
 
Balthazar.....we can debate exactly when the USA decided every country should be a democracy, but the fact remains that they sat on their hands pretty much for 3 years and watched peoples of their own creed and blood die when they needn't have.

You need to understand that pre-WW1 USA had a strong isolationist mentality (which goes in line with how and why the country was founded). WW1 was seen as an European civil war and WW2 was basically the continuation of WW1.

It didn't make any sense for them to jump in until they felt threatened.
 
You need to understand that pre-WW1 USA had a strong isolationist mentality (which goes in line with how and why the country was founded). WW1 was seen as an European civil war and WW2 was basically the continuation of WW1.

It didn't make any sense for them to jump in until they felt threatened.

I agree. I'm aware of the isolationist mentality that was popular at the time.

It doesn't change the fact, as you said, that they sat back and watched until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the war (and even that is debatable given that there was only one possible outcome from starving Japan of steel, oil, scrap metal etc). I'm not arguing about the political atmospherebat the time in the US....I'm just stating that US intervention in September 1939 could have saved countless lives....Americans included...and quite possibly avoided the holocaust.

The US did whatever was in their best interests, both politically and commercially/financially. It still does. Actually, it's a country's right to do so....it just shits me to tears when that country claims to be acting to "defend freedom" or in a humanitarian way, when the fact is that the bottom line is always the bottom line I.e. money/resources etc.

We could discuss this whole topic all night, and it could be interesting and stimulating if the personal crap were left out of it, but it probably doesn't belong in this thread, which is about healthcare.
 
it just shits me to tears when that country claims to be acting to "defend freedom" or in a humanitarian way, when the fact is that the bottom line is always the bottom line I.e. money/resources etc.


But they weren't preaching that at the time, that's what I'm trying to say here Nifty. You cannot use WW1/WW2 to prove your point.

I'm not disagreeing with you BTW, the US, just like any other country that ever existed, is acting in its perceived own best interests. Doing otherwise would not be very smart would it?

With that said, back on topic:

Obamacare is, indeed, a big joke destined to failure. It's like he took the worst of both worlds (public and private healthcare) and made something with it. US healthcare is ridiculously expensive because of the middle man taking a big cut (insurance companies) and omnipresent lawsuits.

Obamacare doesn't address these two main issues.

"Everyone will be covered!" Yeah, but who's going to pay for those who couldn't afford it before? Businesses? The insurance companies? LOL!
 
But they weren't preaching that at the time, that's what I'm trying to say here Nifty. You cannot use WW1/WW2 to prove your point.

I'm not disagreeing with you BTW, the US, just like any other country that ever existed, is acting in its perceived own best interests. Doing otherwise would not be very smart would it?

With that said, back on topic:

Obamacare is, indeed, a big joke destined to failure. It's like he took the worst of both worlds (public and private healthcare) and made something with it. US healthcare is ridiculously expensive because of the middle man taking a big cut (insurance companies) and omnipresent lawsuits.

Obamacare doesn't address these two main issues.

"Everyone will be covered!" Yeah, but who's going to pay for those who couldn't afford it before? Businesses? The insurance companies? LOL!

Are you saying politicians in ANY country actually practice what they preach?? :eek2: :D
 
The Affordable Care Act is clearly not the great solution it was marketed to be, part of the reason is because how it was picked apart before it was enacted.

For a long time the citizens have been clamoring for health care reform and past politicians here have been too terrified of insurance lobbyists to do anything. I sincerely believe President Obama is making an effort to help people and I believe his intentions are good.

To the OP, the situation cast upon your family is regrettable but you could just as easily have a family member who is benefiting greatly from the new legislation. Before the ACA there were plenty of stories of insurance companies and HMOs making all kinds of counter intuitive and downright stupid decisions and many families suffered because of it.

While it will provide little solace to families negatively affected, history has shown that major change generally hurts at first and the status quo was clearly failing many Americans.

And as far as the other banter, the United States of America may not be as great as it can be but it is still a very young Country and can still, IMO, be considered a grand experiment. As a citizen here I feel the US is the greatest Nation on our planet. I would expect many citizens of other Nations feel the same about their respective Nations and if they do not they should certainly be involved in some way of trying to improve their situations.
 
Last edited:
The problem is it's a system that allows people to be turned away from health care. That's no better than it ever was. As long as commercial insurance companies are involved people are going to continue to be turned away from coverage.

No person should ever be turned away from health care. It's barbaric.
 
Well Guys and Gals----I didn't mean to start WWIII !

All I wanted was your prayers for my young family member and her small children, who happen to have fallen victim to this new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators.

This lady is not the first and only victim of this new legislation. There have been several families making it known that their previously 'liked' and efficient health care was working for them! People who had been being treated for cancer etc. and now FORCED out of their original policy and into Obamacare--have lost their doctors because the doctor refuses to serve under Obomacare or has not been 'approved' by the government---and their medication (chemo etc) is being refused them, when it was working!

Are all of the horror stories exactly true or are some embellished? I can't answer that, but when I know from my own experience that this lady--when time is of essence--is refused treatment because she has just had surgery that didn't cure the cancer in the first place, simply because it hasn't been 30 days since they did it, and this delay may very well allow the cancer to spread to her brain-----this I know to be a TRUE horror story. A story of the total lack of humanitarionism in legislated medical laws.

There is no bureaucrat that knows a patient like his own doctor.

You can say all you want about those "evil" insurance companies, but there you could buy the kind of policy that you felt was needed for your family----it was your choice---here we are being TOLD what we have to have, and it is obviously inadequate for what we need.

The country was sold a bill of goods---quack medicine if you will--- and as Nancy Pelosi so famously said----"we have to pass it to know what is in it!"

Well now we know---

Again, I am sorry for starting World War III here at CM----I was only asking for your prayers for a very nice young family in trouble.

And I might add---for a world in trouble.

MaryJean
 
Well Guys and Gals----I didn't mean to start WWIII !

All I wanted was your prayers for my young family member and her small children, who happen to have fallen victim to this new obsession started by the latest occupier of the White House and his fellow manipulators.

This lady is not the first and only victim of this new legislation. There have been several families making it known that their previously 'liked' and efficient health care was working for them! People who had been being treated for cancer etc. and now FORCED out of their original policy and into Obamacare--have lost their doctors because the doctor refuses to serve under Obomacare or has not been 'approved' by the government---and their medication (chemo etc) is being refused them, when it was working!

Are all of the horror stories exactly true or are some embellished? I can't answer that, but when I know from my own experience that this lady--when time is of essence--is refused treatment because she has just had surgery that didn't cure the cancer in the first place, simply because it hasn't been 30 days since they did it, and this delay may very well allow the cancer to spread to her brain-----this I know to be a TRUE horror story. A story of the total lack of humanitarionism in legislated medical laws.

There is no bureaucrat that knows a patient like his own doctor.

You can say all you want about those "evil" insurance companies, but there you could buy the kind of policy that you felt was needed for your family----it was your choice---here we are being TOLD what we have to have, and it is obviously inadequate for what we need.

The country was sold a bill of goods---quack medicine if you will--- and as Nancy Pelosi so famously said----"we have to pass it to know what is in it!"

Well now we know---

Again, I am sorry for starting World War III here at CM----I was only asking for your prayers for a very nice young family in trouble.

And I might add---for a world in trouble.

MaryJean

That seems to be the root of the problem. If it worked, why fix it. Surely Obamacare was intended to fix what WAS broken, which was people who could not get healthcare by any other means. It happens here too, parts of the NHS that were working OK get fixed, and then break down. They "fixed" the dentists, and soon it became impossible to get dental treatment on the NHS in some areas as many dentists decided to pull out of the new "fixed" NHS regime. They then managed to make the GP (family doctor) system worse by forcing new contracts on to them, and again this drove some out altogether. Still not satisfied, they kept tinkering with the systems that moved people up the chain to hospital care, every time they tinkered, some people reported the break down of what was a working treatment plan.

If there was too much being taken by "middlemen" then surely the best fix would have been to increase competition in the market, and cut out as many middlemen as possible. Lower prices would then make private health insurance more affordable. They could then have added a safety net system to cover those conditions that are not insurable, such as birth defects and congenital diseases. Insurance companies could also be given tax breaks for covering loss making policies for the social good alongside their profitable policies for the wealthier citizens.

We have private health companies and insurers here too, but they are designed to offer a premium service for those prepared and able to pay, such as more luxurious hospitals, faster treatment of non life threatening conditions, some "cosmetic" treatments not covered by the NHS, etc. The NHS is the basic service that ensures everyone can get care for urgent medical problems.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top