Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 7:50:57 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

"Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.


Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business.

Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 7:55:01 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

"Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.


Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business.

Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.

Don't forget we have federally run single payer health care for the elderly and disabled, Medicare, and federally run single payer health care for active duty military and veterans, Tricare.

Kind of odd that no one noticed all that was unconstitutional. I wonder what the for profit medical clinics on the battlefields will charge?

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 7:58:38 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		Things have gotten more complex. Today we have non-profit corporations, collectives, and other small groups of grass roots activists who are incorporated.

If the courts use the '2 or more people' definition, then there is  the current baby and bathwater situation. 



quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I put it this way...the corporation exists only on paper...in the abstract. The creation of the corporation is the first corruption of democracy it existing only so a (real) person could privately profit without...private liability.

It is therefore a complete corruption of business conduct within the very society that so empowers it, for the courts to endow the corporation with anything more at all...than property rights. The rest is merely conversation. The courts are the first refuse of any new tyranny.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 8:38:37 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Things have gotten more complex. Today we have non-profit corporations, collectives, and other small groups of grass roots activists who are incorporated.

If the courts use the '2 or more people' definition, then there is  the current baby and bathwater situation. 



quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I put it this way...the corporation exists only on paper...in the abstract. The creation of the corporation is the first corruption of democracy it existing only so a (real) person could privately profit without...private liability.

It is therefore a complete corruption of business conduct within the very society that so empowers it, for the courts to endow the corporation with anything more at all...than property rights. The rest is merely conversation. The courts are the first refuse of any new tyranny.


I don't think it is complex at all. There are for-profit corporations and non-profit corporations, both of which can and do take in million$ in profit. The only difference are, non-profits cannot distribute any profits and their funding in most cases, is...tax deductible. Still non-profit can gouge as for example the Fairfax Hospital Assoc. (Farifax, Va.) was a non-profit that in 1994 took in $31 million of NON-profit.

No place for that $31 mill. to go hey ? Oh yes, as the hospital administrator made $1 million a year while doctors averaged $200,000. Plus, most well funded non-profits of any stripe, often pay some of the highest salaries and offer Cadillac benefits. The balance is often sucked up with BS bonuses or accumulated funding for their endowment.

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 9:06:36 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		You may have missed my broader point.

2 people who form a corporation to encourage disadvantaged kids to learn music instead of joining gangs, would be covered by the same legislation and court rulings as the extreme wealth and power mongers that you cite. So would groups like Veterans For Peace, or hotlines and shelters for battered spouses.

There isn't a one size fits all solution to the problem of the rich using corporations to buy influence, because the definition of 'corporation' covers much more than the rich.



quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


I don't think it is complex at all. There are for-profit corporations and non-profit corporations, both of which can and do take in million$ in profit. The only difference are, non-profits cannot distribute any profits and their funding in most cases, is...tax deductible. Still non-profit can gouge as for example the Fairfax Hospital Assoc. (Farifax, Va.) was a non-profit that in 1994 took in $31 million of NON-profit.

No place for that $31 mill. to go hey ? Oh yes, as the hospital administrator made $1 million a year while doctors averaged $200,000. Plus, most well funded non-profits of any stripe, often pay some of the highest salaries and offer Cadillac benefits. The balance is often sucked up with BS bonuses or accumulated funding for their endowment.


< Message edited by EdBowie -- 11/30/2013 9:11:49 AM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 5:44:47 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		Your point is really besides the point. Public interest organizations are marginal in political influence compared to the monied ones. In fact if we polled the directors of public interest organizations throughout America, I'm sure they'd be against the Citizen's United decision.

--------

1. On the myth that independent expenditures cannot corrupt

I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of ‘independent expenditures’ expressly advocating the election of defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the ‘quid pro quo´ of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 11/30/2013 5:56:57 PM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 6:28:09 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks for a bunch of irrelevant blather that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, especially after I broke it down for clarity.
This is about the words used by Supreme Court to explain the ruling, not about your imaginary opinion of the imaginary opinions of NFP directors.
 

You can stop trolling anytime now... can't you?


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Your point is really besides the point. Public interest organizations are marginal in political influence compared to the monied ones. In fact if we polled the directors of public interest organizations throughout America, I'm sure they'd be against the Citizen's United decision.

--------

1. On the myth that independent expenditures cannot corrupt

I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of ‘independent expenditures’ expressly advocating the election of defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the ‘quid pro quo´ of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.


< Message edited by EdBowie -- 11/30/2013 6:29:25 PM >

_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 7:27:01 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		Your point is to defend (or explain) the Citizen's United Decision based upon past legal precedents that make the decision look more reasoned and legitimate. Even if the decision is super-reasonable and highly legitimate "legally" it is still bad news for the average American in his endeavor to exercise any influence over the Federal Government and the electoral candidates he has to chose from. It also ties candidates to big money, a very corrupting influence.

You point is the small point: Citizen's United has a legal foundation.

Your detractor's point is that the Supreme Court still got it wrong because it's harmful to the General Welfare of the nation.

Extending this "person-hood" to Corporations as a religious being really is just another "corporate" bias --- this time one that favors managers and owners over workers in the name of "religious freedom."

The Supreme Court now is really, really backing big business in a big way. This would be yet another example. Management and owners should not be able to force their workers to conform to a particular set of religious ideas or codes.



< Message edited by cloudboy -- 11/30/2013 7:34:24 PM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 11/30/2013 8:41:59 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		So explaining how something works (more specifically pointing out that the status allegedly created by CU, actually goes back centuries)  is exactly the same thing as defending it?

Could you even keep a straight face while you typed that?



quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Your point is to defend (or explain) the Citizen's United Decision based upon past legal precedents that make the decision look more reasoned and legitimate. Even if the decision is super-reasonable and highly legitimate "legally" it is still bad news for the average American in his endeavor to exercise any influence over the Federal Government and the electoral candidates he has to chose from. It also ties candidates to big money, a very corrupting influence.

You point is the small point: Citizen's United has a legal foundation.

Your detractor's point is that the Supreme Court still got it wrong because it's harmful to the General Welfare of the nation.

Extending this "person-hood" to Corporations as a religious being really is just another "corporate" bias --- this time one that favors managers and owners over workers in the name of "religious freedom."

The Supreme Court now is really, really backing big business in a big way. This would be yet another example. Management and owners should not be able to force their workers to conform to a particular set of religious ideas or codes.




_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 5:59:01 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.

Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business.
Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.


Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders?

That's what will have to be nationalized.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 7:58:54 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		Fine, I don't know what you are doing, what you support, or what your position is.

We can end this here, and I am fine with that.

Exchanges with you seem to be all about what you "said" and corrections therefrom --- without any expansions or extrapolations allowed. According to you, you have no opinion on Citizen's United.

quote:

So explaining how something works (more specifically pointing out that the status allegedly created by CU, actually goes back centuries) is exactly the same thing as defending it?


We can go back and find precedents in support of slavery, child labor, and how women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property too, so if all you are doing is referring to old precedents because your goal here is nothing more than serving as the CM historian --- well, no wonder others are having problems with you, we care about the present and whether CU made good or bad law.

As the OP had noted, the poisoned apple might now generate offspring. And we can trace this offspring back centuries. Well, thank you for that.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 12/1/2013 8:47:31 AM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 8:54:59 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		In other words, this is a debate club for some, where you practice tactics like making up strawmen and other logical fallacies to 'score points' and prance around with high school popularity contest ad homs like 'well no wonder others are having problems with you'... .   

Limit yourself to that if you wish, I'll continue to look for the handful of posters here that engage in adult discourse.

Your last statement is impossible, anyone who refuses to look at the fundamental facts of an issue, and sticks to flinging polemic soundbites, has automatically excluded themselves from the vector that cares about solutions to issues.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Fine, I don't know what you are doing, what you support, or what your position is.

We can end this here, and I am fine with that.

Exchanges with you seem to be all about what you "said" and corrections therefrom --- without any expansions or extrapolations allowed. According to you, you have no opinion on Citizen's United.

quote:

So explaining how something works (more specifically pointing out that the status allegedly created by CU, actually goes back centuries) is exactly the same thing as defending it?


We can go back and find precedents in support of slavery, child labor, and how women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property too, so if all you are doing is referring to old precedents because your goal here is nothing more than serving as the CM historian --- well, no wonder others are having problems with you, we care about the here and now and whether CU made good or bad law.


_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 10:48:01 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		The question of the OP is the benefit / harm of Citizen's United -- which may now be extended to Religious organizations. You get testy when actually asked to comment upon whether the new law is good or bad or whether not you agree with it.

The fact that Citizen's United relied upon older precedents is pretty much axiomatic of all judicial opinions.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 12/1/2013 10:54:35 AM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 2:38:57 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.

Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business.
Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.


Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders?

That's what will have to be nationalized.

Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it.

Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 4:30:03 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.

Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business.
Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.

Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders?
That's what will have to be nationalized.

Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it.
Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now.


You have got to be fucking kidding me. Even if we went Medicare for all, what makes you think Doctors will be cool with it? And, how is that going to lower costs? Mandating lower reimbursements? Yeah. Fuck that. Doctors, hospitals and providers are already deciding against accepting Obamacare plans. What makes you think they'll accept reduced payments?

They'll be the only game in town? Nope. If there are no, or few, providers accepting Obamacare, those with insurance (Medicare) won't have anywhere (or few places) to go where their insurance is any good. Thus, they'll have lots of coverage for nowhere. Now, what do they do? Where do they go? Cash customers, or private customers, will be the only customers left.

You will have to nationalize the providers, or else there won't be enough providers for Medicare.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 8:19:02 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.

Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business.
Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.

Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders?
That's what will have to be nationalized.

Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it.
Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now.


You have got to be fucking kidding me. Even if we went Medicare for all, what makes you think Doctors will be cool with it? And, how is that going to lower costs? Mandating lower reimbursements? Yeah. Fuck that. Doctors, hospitals and providers are already deciding against accepting Obamacare plans. What makes you think they'll accept reduced payments?

Because they are? These lies about doctors not taking Medicare are without any factual support. I've seen a lot of doctors since I got sick and not a single one has ever not taken Medicare. I've asked other people on Medicare and no one has ever been turned away because the doctor doesn't take Medicare.

The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 8:30:13 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.

Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business.
Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.

Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders?
That's what will have to be nationalized.

Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it.
Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now.


You have got to be fucking kidding me. Even if we went Medicare for all, what makes you think Doctors will be cool with it? And, how is that going to lower costs? Mandating lower reimbursements? Yeah. Fuck that. Doctors, hospitals and providers are already deciding against accepting Obamacare plans. What makes you think they'll accept reduced payments?

Because they are? These lies about doctors not taking Medicare are without any factual support. I've seen a lot of doctors since I got sick and not a single one has ever not taken Medicare. I've asked other people on Medicare and no one has ever been turned away because the doctor doesn't take Medicare.

The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork.


Not according to these sites

http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/when-will-the-government-start-forcing-doctors-to-see-obamacare-patients

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/12/us/physicians-refuse-medicare-patients.html

http://www.todaysseniors.com/wp/medicare/can-my-doctor-refuse-to-accept-medicare-coverage/



_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 8:36:46 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork.


That is sheer delusional horseshit.  The only way it could be considered 'faster' is that Medicare shuts off all appeals on claims after a short time, even if they were responsible for the mistake in the first place.

Getting Medicare to pay what they actually owe the doctor is a  headache for many practices.

_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 9:50:46 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it.



Simply wrong. Currently around 30% of doctors take medicare.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? - 12/1/2013 9:53:23 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork.


That is sheer delusional horseshit.  The only way it could be considered 'faster' is that Medicare shuts off all appeals on claims after a short time, even if they were responsible for the mistake in the first place.

Getting Medicare to pay what they actually owe the doctor is a  headache for many practices.


Additionally delusional:

-That medicare reimbursements are higher than HMO reimbursements.

Feel free to find an authoritative quote on that DomKen.

While you're at it - try googling for "find a doctor that accepts medicare" and you will find out exactly how difficult many people are finding it to find a doctor that accepts medicare.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 12/1/2013 9:54:38 PM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.111