www.ditl.org

To be perfectly honest I've not run into students with either so far. I'm not sure if that means they're sent to seperate schools, or I've never encountered them. I'll have to check that out.

From the LA Times: Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coverage.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

The committee's investigation found that WellPoint's Blue Cross targeted individuals with more than 1,400 conditions, including breast cancer, lymphoma, pregnancy and high blood pressure. And the committee obtained documents that showed Blue Cross supervisors praised employees in performance reviews for rescinding policies.

One employee, for instance, received a perfect 5 for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

If this is the free market, then fuck the free market.

As I said, this is the problem with having companies, whose only desire is to make as large a profit as possible (and thus provide the least amount of actual care possible), decide who lives and who dies.

Sure this sucks. No doubt. But it's still not enough to say that one way is perfect, and the other is absolutely awful. While there are stories like this, there are also stories of people unable to get necessary treatment in a nationalized healthcare system.

To true, my Dad was on a 5 year waiting list for a new hip. 5 Years for something he needed now (he literally could hardly walk) so us 5 kids went in together and got him private. So not only has he been paying for public health care for 40 years that failed him, his 5 kids are also paying into a system that non of them have used and most likely wont.

So yeah, public health care can suck me. I need help now, not in 5 years you useless fucks.

Yeah, I imagine they wouldn't do jack sh*t about my knees either, or my wisdom teeth. I could sure use some enamel repair before two of my front teeth fall out, though.

Which makes me wonder, will this new "public" medical care cover dental? Normally, that's separate insurance.

Also, I keep hearing about "making" people pay for insurance, or they'll be fined. Unless it's going to be $5 a month, I can't afford it.

How about a compromise; public insurance for emergency care only? You already have to wait 8 hours in the emergency room, so I don't see that getting any worse. I just would prefer it to not ruin my credit if I get into a car accident.

One of the uglier sides of Nationalized health care, rationing.

How about a compromise; public insurance for emergency care only? You already have to wait 8 hours in the emergency room, so I don't see that getting any worse. I just would prefer it to not ruin my credit if I get into a car accident.

I could certainly accept that, though I'd expect my insurance company to refigure my premium if they no longer have to pick up the tab for emergency care.

Tyyr wrote:I could certainly accept that, though I'd expect my insurance company to refigure my premium if they no longer have to pick up the tab for emergency care.

Agreed.

Wow. Two people with radically different political views just came to a consensus on national health care. And, problem solved...

Too bad the so-called "professionals" can't do the same.

Well, first you have to be rational...

Remember: the fact that one wants a public office goes hand-in-hand with the fact that one is uniquely unqualified for it...

Precisely. Anyone who actually wants to be President, Senator, Congressman, Dog Catcher, should never be allowed anywhere near the office.

So our leaders should be kidnapped off the streets and forced to work?

Lighthawk wrote:So our leaders should be kidnapped off the streets and forced to work?

Just like the rest of us, yeah.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Lighthawk wrote:So our leaders should be kidnapped off the streets and forced to work?

Just like the rest of us, yeah.

I doubt we could do worse.

There was this one government in a book I read, fictional of course, and while I'm sure there would be plenty of problems with it, I loved the idea of it.

Basically, leadership is choosen by mass public vote, but no one wants the position. Nominees are selected and votes held to widdle down the selection until someone gets the majority vote. He/she becomes the leader, at which point they are basically placed under arrest. All their personal assets are seized and become government property. At the end of their term, they get back a percentage of their assets based on how well the economy did. If the economy did well and they had a positive turn over, then they not only get everything back, but a bonus as well. If the economy suffered though, they could lose everything and leave office a begger.

Interesting, but since the government has no real control over the economy it becomes almost like a lottery.