So you're saying that in the policy for the friend of TB&G it said "we will/can drop you with 2 cancer treatments left????"

 

Companies can not have uncapped liabilities. So formally they must have a cap. For such a circumstances as above or any circumstance a company could wave the cap. But it would be a unique waiver.

 

I know of co-worker who son had recurring brain cancer. Multiple surgeries and treatments. His comment was - "I quit counting at $2M". And his son is well today. That was years ago.

 

But now - post Sarbaines-Oxly - companies have to have specific policies and hold to those policies or risk failing an audit. So the limits are harder to wave. Companies and the people that run them are now required by law, at the risk of jail time to certify their audits and findings. Thus, the well intended SBX law, that is to protect INVESTORS and STOCKHOLDERS, may have the effect of making companies 'heartless' to their CUSTOMERS. The damage of Enron and overreaction.

 

If the government wants to become the 'insurer of last resort' for catastrophic cases - have at it. Only the government can do this. Florida has set up such an entity for property insurance after the 4 hurricanes forced out insurers in the state. Its called Citizens. So it is not an unknown concept.

Like my friend who has breast cancer and was dropped by her insurance company with 2 treatments left.

Not sure it's fair to use this example without knowing the details of why she was dropped.

I always enjoy the "blood from a turnip" line. Good one.

 

You make a fair point. Let me re-phrase and leave "welfare" out. Many of the uncovered today go to the emergency room for care. As you know that means that we are paying for their coverage. So now that we are going to require more and more of them (estimate says 96% overall) to be covered shouldn't we be saying that's a positive?

Question, why is it costing you and I anything for a middle class uninsured person to visit the emergency room? If I make $40,000 a year and I choose not to take insurance, I get sick and go to the emergency room the hospital doesn't send my bill the federal government. They send me a bill. If I don't pay they turn me over to a collection agent.

These four steps you list are socialist in nature, but I meant that the passing of the healthcare bill, assuming it passes in the Senate, will set a standard for socialism not seen since the New Deal.

These four steps you list are socialist in nature, but I meant that the passing of the healthcare bill, assuming it passes in the Senate, will set a standard for socialism not seen since the New Deal.

And the same was being set about the four items I listed.

Because so many insurance companies are going bankrupt.

 

The reason they're not is because they have stop limits, otherwise with their margins as low as they are we would see this more.

And the same was being set about the four items I listed.

 

Are Medicare & Medicaid things that are mandated? Are we punished, fined or jailed for not using them?

Are Medicare & Medicaid things that are mandated? Are we punished, fined or jailed for not using them?

No, but you are missing the point. Just about every time there has been a major change proposed In the last 60 years or so the claim of socialism or communism has been made. On a side note, this is one of the major reasons there have been claims of racism because the same charges were made against the civil rights movement.

No, but you are missing the point. Just about every time there has been a major change proposed In the last 60 years or so the claim of socialism or communism has been made. On a side note, this is one of the major reasons there have been claims of racism because the same charges were made against the civil rights movement.

 

With all due respect nWo, IMO it's you missing the point. Every time our government imposes demands, increases it's size, creates more entitlement (wealth distribution) programs or becomes more involved in our personal lives and family decision making...It is disregarding the constitution and quite frankly, looks a lot like socialism.

With all due respect nWo, IMO it's you missing the point. Every time our government imposes demands, increases it's size, creates more entitlement (wealth distribution) programs or becomes more involved in our personal lives and family decision making...It is disregarding the constitution and quite frankly, looks a lot like socialism.

If that is the case then this has been a socialist country since 1865. The ending of slavery and the constitutional amendments that followed made it so long before Obama or any of us were even though of.

If that is the case then this has been a socialist country since 1865. The ending of slavery and the constitutional amendments that followed made it so long before Obama or any of us were even though of.

 

While claims of communist influence were utilized by the government to investigate civil rights leaders it was never the foundation of any broad resistence.

 

The vast majority of the civil rights advances resulted in eliminating a fail society view that 'seperate but equal' was viable and acceptable. It was not. Brown vs. BoE, CRA and Bussing ripped away a long held belief by the American society that could not last in free society. These acts and action did not expand government or bring forth fundamental economic changes as a whole.

 

Medicare/medicade/Social Security, etc. are somewhat fundemental changes in political/economic structure. But at their core, these are merely well named and well marketed welfare programs. The funding is paid as a mandatory tax - on earned income. They are not paid for via mandatory fee that not tied to enconomic activity. These do make us more of a welfare state and are certainly a wealth redistribution program.

 

The equating of opposition to the current healthcare bill passed by the House to opposition of the Civil Rights movement is race baiting. The two are different and opposed for different reasons. If anyone advocates the return to 'seperate but equal' they are fair game to be labled a racist. When someone opposes the current healthcare bill as passed with the house it probably has absolutely 0% to due with race. It is about the federal government taking over a function that it has no constitutional right to do. And a government that will use the threat of jail to force you to pay a minimum tax completely unrelated to your income or economic activity. As I stated in a previous post. This act, as is, if passed would turn the public into surfs to a king.

 

Lets put the race card back in the deck on this issue. This is from a bussing participant in the late 70s.

While claims of communist influence were utilized by the government to investigate civil rights leaders it was never the foundation of any broad resistence.

 

The vast majority of the civil rights advances resulted in eliminating a fail society view that 'seperate but equal' was viable and acceptable. It was not. Brown vs. BoE, CRA and Bussing ripped away a long held belief by the American society that could not last in free society. These acts and action did not expand government or bring forth fundamental economic changes as a whole.

 

Medicare/medicade/Social Security, etc. are somewhat fundemental changes in political/economic structure. But at their core, these are merely well named and well marketed welfare programs. The funding is paid as a mandatory tax - on earned income. They are not paid for via mandatory fee that not tied to enconomic activity. These do make us more of a welfare state and are certainly a wealth redistribution program.

 

The equating of opposition to the current healthcare bill passed by the House to opposition of the Civil Rights movement is race baiting. The two are different and opposed for different reasons. If anyone advocates the return to 'seperate but equal' they are fair game to be labled a racist. When someone opposes the current healthcare bill as passed with the house it probably has absolutely 0% to due with race. It is about the federal government taking over a function that it has no constitutional right to do. And a government that will use the threat of jail to force you to pay a minimum tax completely unrelated to your income or economic activity. As I stated in a previous post. This act, as is, if passed would turn the public into surfs to a king.

 

Lets put the race card back in the deck on this issue. This is from a bussing participant in the late 70s.

I didn't bring up the 4 items to play the race card. Far from it. Communism was used just as some are using it today to turn people against the proposed change.

 

Also when I did mention racism I was trying to let people know how some feel about Obama being labled a socialist or communist.

Rockmom has made the best post on here. This is the Houses plan and will not pass the Senate. Will be interesting to see the version from the Senate.

Rockmom has made the best post on here.

 

 

I hope you don't mind... I had the above part of your post engraved in goldleaf and framed.

While claims of communist influence were utilized by the government to investigate civil rights leaders it was never the foundation of any broad resistence.

 

The vast majority of the civil rights advances resulted in eliminating a fail society view that 'seperate but equal' was viable and acceptable. It was not. Brown vs. BoE, CRA and Bussing ripped away a long held belief by the American society that could not last in free society. These acts and action did not expand government or bring forth fundamental economic changes as a whole.

 

Medicare/medicade/Social Security, etc. are somewhat fundemental changes in political/economic structure. But at their core, these are merely well named and well marketed welfare programs. The funding is paid as a mandatory tax - on earned income. They are not paid for via mandatory fee that not tied to enconomic activity. These do make us more of a welfare state and are certainly a wealth redistribution program.

 

The equating of opposition to the current healthcare bill passed by the House to opposition of the Civil Rights movement is race baiting. The two are different and opposed for different reasons. If anyone advocates the return to 'seperate but equal' they are fair game to be labled a racist. When someone opposes the current healthcare bill as passed with the house it probably has absolutely 0% to due with race. It is about the federal government taking over a function that it has no constitutional right to do. And a government that will use the threat of jail to force you to pay a minimum tax completely unrelated to your income or economic activity. As I stated in a previous post. This act, as is, if passed would turn the public into surfs to a king.

 

Lets put the race card back in the deck on this issue. This is from a bussing participant in the late 70s.

 

:thumb:Thanks Bluegrasscard, I could not have replied in such an articulate way.