Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Silence of the Left (0care)
American Thinker ^ | November 3, 2013 | Clarice Feldman

Posted on 11/03/2013 9:52:49 AM PST by jazusamo

There is widespread fury at the lies which were used to sell ObamaCare, a more than 2,000-page piece of legislation no one read before it was passed, a law opposed by the majority of voters which was crammed down our throats without a single Republican vote. The law essentially was a mishmash blank slate which left it to the administration's HHS head, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to write as she pleased and the president to -- by Executive order -- pay off with exemptions and special treatment those cronies and rent seekers not already paid off in the legislative and regulatory process.

Whether this law will continue to pass judicial scrutiny remains to be seen, but what is obvious at this early date is that the press and the public figures who promoted it are lying low as the tsunami of voter rage builds.

If your only source of news is the major media, here are some facts they've kept from you:

1. Since July 2010 the Administration knew that at a minimum 40-67% of private health insurance owners would not be able to keep their insurance.

NBC's Lisa Myers broke the story, but both on air and in its published account NBC went to great lengths to bury her account of events that makes the president's repeated pre-election promise that if you liked your insurance you'd be able to keep it an outrageous bald-faced lie.

Here was her original report:

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; cgifederal; claricespieces; corruption; deathpanels; democrats; lies; michelleobama; msm; obama; obamacare; sibelius; valeriejarrett; zerocare

1 posted on 11/03/2013 9:52:50 AM PST by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"...what is obvious at this early date..."

Early date? Really? early?

2 posted on 11/03/2013 9:55:14 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I am surprised how Leno has mocked Obamacare. BTW, one Obama supporter actually blamed the GOP for the disaster, said by opposing it, they made those involved “nervous.” What an idiotic comment.


3 posted on 11/03/2013 9:56:17 AM PST by Jane Austen (Boycott the Philadelphia Eagles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen
I think the end of this article sums it up with Fournier's statement.

Ron Fournier reports the White House is getting incoming from party officials:

"Dem Party is F****d." That was the subject line of an email sent to me Sunday by a senior Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill.

4 posted on 11/03/2013 10:03:00 AM PST by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen

Oh, yeah. Radical republicans engineering a denial of service attack, that is unbelievably the best they can do. The real antagonizers are probably still in shock. lol

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/01/republicans-deliberately-sabotaged-aca-website-hoping-implode.html

FOR WEEKS, I’VE BEEN wondering why no one is talking about how Republicans sabotaged the ACA rollout by refusing to implement state run marketplaces, and thus unexpectedly forcing all of that additional burden on to the federal website.


5 posted on 11/03/2013 10:04:50 AM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

6 posted on 11/03/2013 10:13:11 AM PST by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

More people have LOST health insurance coverage, than were ever supposed to be helped by enacting this monstrosity. How many did not have coverage before? “46 million uninsured” was the number being bandied about.

That means, then, that some 264 million, or so, already had some coverage, at a level acceptable to themselves. If 40% get knocked off their current coverage, that would be about 105 million or so, who have now either lost coverage, or are on a much reduced and unsatisfactory plan, underinsured, so to speak.

As a plan to “provide health insurance coverage”, Obamacare is a miserable failure, as the quality of care must in turn be negatively affected by two factors - there were already not enough doctors to cover what almost surely would be a much increased demand, and as a part of the “bargaining”, medical professionals would be given a MUCH smaller compensation for services rendered. A young prospective medical student might just say, to blazes with this, I could do better as an auto mechanic. And even older established medical professionals would be inclined to say, time to change careers, I have done the humanitarian thing.

The whole corps of medical professionals will decline at rates which may only be expressed as a “negative exponential” rate, declining in real numbers at an accelerating rate over time, as the few remaining either die off, or the applications to medical schools dry up completely.

Doctors are people too, they are not just some automatons who will practice medicine regardless, like some kind of worker bee.

Have at least as much regard for the medical profession as this regime has been willing to shower upon SEIU.


7 posted on 11/03/2013 10:18:08 AM PST by alloysteel (Men may not always be capable of evil, but they are always capable of incompetence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

You must like Obama lying to you?


8 posted on 11/03/2013 10:21:34 AM PST by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

I would start running, “do you really want these idiots to control your healthcare? “ ads. Put the picture of the democrat who voted for it on the picture. Run them all over the country.

For the primaries, modify it a bit and put the RINO’s picture on the ad.


9 posted on 11/03/2013 10:21:35 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz ("Senator Cruz basically made the Democrats fight for a whole bunch of things that they already had.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

YOU must like Obama’s lies?


10 posted on 11/03/2013 10:22:41 AM PST by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I am so looking forward to Thanksgiving dinner with my liberal relatives. If anyone complains about their health insurance vanishing, I’m going to tell them to shove a turkey leg up their you-know-what and this is what they voted for.

I do not suffer idiots.


11 posted on 11/03/2013 10:23:52 AM PST by bushbuddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; erlayman

Sorry, thought you were a liberal.

My Bad.


12 posted on 11/03/2013 10:26:01 AM PST by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bkaycee

Really ? That excerpt was from an article I came across on a liberal site to illustrate the point. 1,000% removed from my views personally.


13 posted on 11/03/2013 10:26:31 AM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Doctors are people too, they are not just some automatons who will practice medicine regardless, like some kind of worker bee.

If you look at the comments from most Canadians online, they don't want doctors to be in it "to get rich." They want their salaries to be cut so that they'll know their doctors really care about helping them and aren't just in it for the money. Great socialist logic, isn't it? Reward someone for, say, bagging your groceries but make sure you don't reward people for doing the most important jobs. They don't understand capitalism and have things completely backwards. And I think our domestic socialists see things the same way.

14 posted on 11/03/2013 10:31:20 AM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bushbuddy

I hear you and think that may be happening at many holiday gatherings this year.


15 posted on 11/03/2013 10:35:06 AM PST by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: erlayman
I’VE BEEN wondering why no one is talking about how Republicans sabotaged the ACA rollout by refusing to implement state run marketplaces, and thus unexpectedly forcing all of that additional burden on to the federal website.

In the 26 GOP states they can say they never wanted Obamacare so why on earth would they build an exchange?

And now they will be vindicated because everyone sees what a boondoggle it is.

16 posted on 11/03/2013 10:37:16 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bushbuddy
I am so looking forward to Thanksgiving dinner with my liberal relatives

Be prepared for them to be be fully armed with stock replies:

1. It's the evil insurance companies' fault
2. It's the evil TEA party's fault
3. It's the evil Republicans' fault
4. Only the crappy plans are being cancelled
5. Almost everyone is getting better, more affordable plans now
6. You can't believe everything Fox News tells you
7. I'm not talking to you any more because you're racist

17 posted on 11/03/2013 10:41:36 AM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

Yeah, Sorry, My Bad. Read the post to quickly.


18 posted on 11/03/2013 10:42:29 AM PST by bkaycee (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bushbuddy

Liberals use the homosexual clap trap play book and they will get the AIDS of health care as a result.

the claim of the homosexual to his partner is love while in fact it is self alienation, jealousy and hate of anyone around their lust prizes that is attack. Thus it loves AIDS in the end and passing it.

Liberals, in their childlish little girl hate, are going converted and falling in the snares of communism. They will rationalize it away like Saul, cursing all the inheritence altogether.


19 posted on 11/03/2013 10:45:46 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bushbuddy

Liberals use the homosexual clap trap play book and they will get the AIDS of health care as a result.

the claim of the homosexual to his partner is love while in fact it is self alienation, jealousy and hate of anyone around their lust prizes that is attack. Thus it loves AIDS in the end and passing it.

Liberals, in their childlish little girl hate, are going converted and falling in the snares of communism. They will rationalize it away like Saul, cursing all the inheritence altogether.


20 posted on 11/03/2013 10:45:47 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
King Barry said "You can keep your health care plan" and "You can keep your doctor"..

Definition of FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION:

Instance of false statement where (1) the party making the statement is aware that it is false or disregards the possibility of it being false, (2) the party making the statement does so to induce another party to enter into a contract, and (3) the other party enters the contract as a result of the statement and consequently suffers a loss.

Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one makes representation with INTENT TO DECEIVE and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly.

So, when is class action lawsuit going to be filed against King Barry for FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION or 'BAIT AND SWITCH"????

21 posted on 11/03/2013 10:48:51 AM PST by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushbuddy

I don’t envy your holiday. Maybe best to have a back-up plan — unless you are hosting - as then there is no escape.


22 posted on 11/03/2013 10:50:43 AM PST by bunster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Lying ain’t no way to govern.


23 posted on 11/03/2013 10:54:18 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Though you’re correct I won’t hold my breath for a suit to be filed, I do think it may be reflected in the 2014 vote.

I am so looking forward to what 0bama will have to say if our majority increases in the House and we should take the Senate. That will be payback.


24 posted on 11/03/2013 10:57:55 AM PST by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Amen to that.


25 posted on 11/03/2013 10:58:36 AM PST by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

You and I have the same Thanksgiving dinner. But I refuse to discuss politics with anyone at that dinner. I simply repeat “I disagree” over and over. Never argue with a leftist relative over Thanksgiving. Just turn on the football and keep it stupid.


26 posted on 11/03/2013 11:04:16 AM PST by BlueStateRightist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

The “New Yorker” cover was PRICELESS!


27 posted on 11/03/2013 11:19:34 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Personally, I think those who voted for obama should be FORCED onto obamacare.


28 posted on 11/03/2013 11:21:39 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Kansas Insurance Regulations
(Of course Obamacare TRUMPS all State laws)

Section 4. Method of Disclosure of Required Information

All information, exceptions, limitations, reductions and other restrictions required to be disclosed by this regulation shall be set out conspicuously and in close conjunction to the statements to which the information relates or under appropriate captions of such prominence that it shall not be minimized, rendered obscure or presented in an ambiguous fashion or intermingled with the context of the advertisements so as to be confusing or misleading. This regulation permits, but is not limited to, the use of either of the following methods of disclosure:

A. Disclosure in the description of the related benefits or in a paragraph set out in close conjunction with the description of policy benefits; or

B. Disclosure not in conjunction with the provisions describing policy benefits but under appropriate captions of such prominence that the information shall not be minimized, rendered obscure or otherwise made to appear unimportant. The phrase “under appropriate captions” means that the title must be accurately descriptive of the captioned material. Appropriate captions include the following: “Exceptions,” “Exclusions,” “Conditions Not Covered,” and “Exceptions and Reductions.” The use of captions such as the following are prohibited because they do not provide adequate notice of the significance of the material: “Extent of Coverage,” “Only these Exclusions,” or “Minimum Limitations.”

Drafting Note: In considering whether an advertisement complies with the disclosure requirements of this regulation, the regulation must be applied in conjunction with the form and content standards contained in Section 5.

Section 5. Form and Content of Advertisements

A. The format and content of an advertisement of an accident or sickness insurance policy shall be sufficiently complete and clear to avoid deception or the capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive. Format means the arrangement of the text and the captions.

B. Distinctly different advertisements are required for publication in different media, such as newspapers or magazines of general circulation as compared to scholarly, technical or business journals and newspapers. Where an advertisement consists of more than one piece of material, each piece of material must, independent of all other pieces of material, conform to the disclosure requirements of this regulation.

C. Whether an advertisement has a capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive shall be determined by the commissioner from the overall impression that the advertisement may be reasonably expected to create within the segment of the public to which it is directed.

Advertisements of Accident and Sickness Insurance Model Regulation

Drafting Note: These subsections must be applied in conjunction with Sections 1 and 4. These subsections refer specifically to format and content of the advertisement and the overall impression created by the advertisement. This involves factors such as the size, color and prominence of type used to describe benefits.

D. Advertisements shall be truthful and not misleading in fact or in implication. Words or phrases, the meaning of which is clear only by implication or by familiarity with insurance terminology, shall not be used.

Drafting Note: This subsection prohibits the use of incomplete statements and words or phrases that have the tendency or capacity to mislead or deceive because of the reader’s unfamiliarity with insurance terminology. Therefore, words, phrases and illustrations used in an advertisement must be clear and unambiguous and, if the advertisement uses insurance terminology, sufficient description of a word, phrase or illustration shall be provided by definition or description in the context of the advertisement. As stated in Subsection C, distinctly different levels of comprehension of the subscribers of various publications may be anticipated.

E. An insurer shall clearly identify its accident and sickness insurance policy as an insurance policy. A policy trade name shall be followed by the words “insurance policy” or similar words clearly identifying the fact that an insurance policy or health benefits product (in the case of health maintenance organizations, prepaid health plans and other direct service organizations) is being offered.

F. An insurer, agent, broker, producer, solicitor or other person shall not solicit a resident of this state for the purchase of accident and sickness insurance in connection with or as the result of the use of advertisement by the person or any other persons, where the advertisement:

(1) Contains any misleading representations or misrepresentations, or is otherwise untrue, deceptive or misleading with regard to the information imparted, the status, character or representative capacity of the person or the true purpose of the advertisement; or

(2) Otherwise violates the provisions of this regulation.

G. An insurer, agent, broker, producer, solicitor or other person shall not solicit residents of this State for the purchase of accident and sickness insurance through the use of a true or fictitious name that is deceptive or misleading with regard to the status, character or proprietary or representative capacity of the person or the true purpose of the advertisement.

Section 6. Advertisements of Benefits Payable, Losses Covered or Premiums Payable

A. Covered Benefits.

(1) The use of deceptive words, phrases or illustrations in advertisements of accident and sickness insurance is prohibited.

Drafting Note: This broad provision may be deleted if your state has enacted an Unfair Trade Practices Act that contains the same prohibitions.

(2) An advertisement that fails to state clearly the type of insurance coverage being offered is prohibited.

Model Regulation Service—April 1999

(3) An advertisement shall not omit information or use words, phrases, statements, references or illustrations if the omission of information or use of words, phrases, statements, references or illustrations has the capacity, tendency or effect of misleading or deceiving purchasers or prospective purchasers as to the nature or extent of any policy benefit payable, loss covered or premium payable. The fact that the policy offered is made available to a prospective insured for inspection prior to consummation of the sale or an offer is made to refund the premium if the purchaser is not satisfied, does not remedy misleading statements.

(4) An advertisement shall not contain or use words or phrases such as “all,” “full,” “complete,” “comprehensive,” “unlimited,” “up to,” “as high as,” “this policy will help fill some of the gaps that Medicare and your present insurance leave out,” “the policy will help to replace your income,” (when used to express loss of time benefits), or similar words and phrases, in a manner that exaggerates a benefit beyond the terms of the policy.

Drafting Note: An advertisement shall not state or imply by word, phrase or illustration that the benefits being offered will supplement any other insurance policy, health benefit plan, or governmental plan if that is not the fact.

(5) An advertisement of a hospital or other similar facility confinement benefit that makes reference to the benefit being paid directly to the policyholder is prohibited unless, in making the reference, the advertisement includes a statement that the benefits may be paid directly to the hospital or other health care facility if an assignment of benefits is made by the policyholder. An advertisement of medical and surgical expense benefits shall comply with this regulation in regard to the disclosure of assignments of benefits to providers of services. Phrases such as “you collect,” “you get paid,” “pays you,” or other words or phrases of similar import may be used so long as the advertisement indicates that it is payable to the insured or someone designated by the insured.

(6) (a) An advertisement for basic hospital expense coverage, basic medical-surgical expense coverage, basic hospital/medical-surgical expense coverage, hospital confinement indemnity coverage, accident only coverage, specified disease coverage, specified accident coverage or limited benefit health coverage or for coverage that covers only a certain type of loss is prohibited if:

(i) The advertisement refers to a total benefit maximum limit payable under the policy in any headline, lead-in or caption without also in the same headline, lead-in or caption specifying the applicable daily limits and other internal limits;

(ii) The advertisement states a total benefit limit without stating the periodic benefit payment, if any, and the length of time the periodic benefit would be payable to reach the total benefit limit; or

Advertisements of Accident and Sickness Insurance Model Regulation

(iii) The advertisement prominently displays a total benefit limit that would not, as a general rule, be payable under an average claim.

(b) This paragraph does not apply to individual major medical expense coverage, individual basic medical expense coverage, or disability income insurance.

(7) Advertisements that emphasize total amounts payable under hospital, medical or surgical accident and sickness insurance coverage or other benefits in a policy, such as benefits for private duty nursing, are prohibited unless the actual amounts payable per day for the indemnity or benefits are stated.

(8) Advertisements that include examples of benefits payable under a policy shall not use examples in a way that implies that the maximum payable benefit payable under the policy will be paid, when less than maximum benefits are paid in an average claim.

(9) When a range of benefit levels is set forth in an advertisement, it shall be clear that the insured will receive only the benefit level written or printed in the policy selected and issued. Language that implies that the insured may select the benefit level at the time of filing claims is prohibited.

(10) Language in an advertisement that implies that the amount of benefits payable under a loss-of-time policy may be increased at the time of claim or disability according to the needs of the insured is prohibited.

(11) Advertisements for policies with premiums that are modest because of their limited coverage or limited amount of benefits shall not describe premiums as “low,” “low cost,” “budget” or use qualifying words of similar import. The use of words such as “only” and “just” in conjunction with statements of premium amounts when used to imply a bargain are prohibited.

(12) Advertisements that state or imply that premiums will not be changed in the future are prohibited unless the advertised policies expressly provide that the premiums will not be changed in the future.

(13) An advertisement for a policy that does not require the premium to accompany the application shall not overemphasize that fact and shall clearly indicate under what circumstances coverage will become effective.

(14) An advertisement that exaggerates the effects of statutorily mandated benefits or required policy provisions or that implies that the provisions are unique to the advertised policy is prohibited.

Drafting Note: For example, the phrase, “money back guarantee” is an exaggerated description of the free look right to examine the policy and is prohibited.

(15) An advertisement that implies that a common type of policy or a combination of common benefits is “new,” “unique,” “a bonus,” “a breakthrough,” or is otherwise unusual is prohibited. The addition of a novel method of premium payment to an otherwise common plan of insurance does not render it new.

Model Regulation Service—April 1999

(16) Language in an advertisement that states or implies that each member under a family contract is covered as to the maximum benefits advertised, where that is not the fact, is prohibited.

(17) An advertisement that contains statements such as “anyone can apply,” or “anyone can join,” other than with respect to a guaranteed issue policy for which administrative procedures exist to assure that the policy is issued within a reasonable period of time after the application is received by the insurer, is prohibited.

(18) An advertisement that states or implies immediate coverage of a policy is prohibited unless administrative procedures exist so that the policy is issued within fifteen (15) working days after the insurer receives the completed application.

(19) An advertisement that contains statements such as “here is all you do to apply,” or “simply” or “merely” to refer to the act of applying for a policy that is not a guaranteed issue policy is prohibited unless it refers to the fact that the application is subject to acceptance or approval by the insurer.

(20) An advertisement of accident and sickness insurance sold by direct response shall not state or imply that because no insurance agent will call and no commissions will be paid to agents that it is a low cost plan, or use other similar words or phrases because the cost of advertising and servicing the policies is a substantial cost in the marketing by direct response.

(21) Applications, request forms for additional information and similar related materials are prohibited if they resemble paper currency, bonds, stock certificates, etc., or use any name, service mark, slogan, symbol or device in a manner that implies that the insurer or the policy advertised is connected with a government agency, such as the Social Security Administration or the Department of Health and Human Services.

Drafting Note: Illustrations that depict paper currency or checks showing an amount payable are deceptive and misleading.

(22) An advertisement that implies in any manner that the prospective insured may realize a profit from obtaining hospital, medical or surgical insurance coverage is prohibited.

(23) An advertisement that uses words such as “extra,” “special” or “added” to describe a benefit in the policy is prohibited. No advertisement of a benefit for which payment is conditioned upon confinement in a hospital or similar facility shall use words or phrases such as “tax-free,” “extra cash,” “extra income,” “extra pay,” or substantially similar words or phrases because these words and phrases have the capacity, tendency or effect of misleading the public into believing that the policy advertised will, in some way, enable them to make a profit from being hospitalized.

29 posted on 11/03/2013 11:38:15 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateRightist
Never argue with a leftist relative over Thanksgiving.

I agree. Or anyone else.

30 posted on 11/03/2013 11:39:59 AM PST by steve86 (Some things aren't really true but you wouldn't be half surprised if they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Well, the true believers are glad to give more so the poor can have; perhaps those types will be martyrs about it, given the Lib propensity for self-righteousness. Also, another reason why it doesn’t matter if the site works or not is intentions. Intentions are all that matter in Libworld.


31 posted on 11/03/2013 11:44:24 AM PST by hulagirl (Mother Theresa was right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Complicit media.. I guess they didn’t want to lose their invitations to the WH for easter egg hunts and pin the tail on the TEA Party events.

Chumps.Enjoy your BMWs and Benz,, CUba , here we come..


32 posted on 11/03/2013 11:45:21 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"I was all for Obamacare," wrote a young woman complaining about a 50 percent rate hike related to the health care law, "until I found out I was paying for it."

First they came for the Tea Party...

33 posted on 11/03/2013 11:46:04 AM PST by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

The same silence when their messiah failed miserably securing Chicago for the Olympics or the respect of Putin after telling us the world loves liberal Americans.


34 posted on 11/03/2013 11:46:28 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

Um, I went over there. Those people are literally INSANE.


35 posted on 11/03/2013 11:49:09 AM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

No Simple Se-bilious did not write it, the evil minded brother of Rahm Emmanuel wrote the monstrosity


36 posted on 11/03/2013 12:13:55 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

doctors are part of the problem, getting rich off outrageous prices paid by insurance companies for popular “procedures”


37 posted on 11/03/2013 12:15:54 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
doctors are part of the problem, getting rich off outrageous prices paid by insurance companies for popular “procedures”

You agree with the President, then? Doctors recommend and conduct unnecessary amputations so as to profit.

Have you ever seen a surgeon's bill -- or, for that matter, a bill for any procedure -- as submitted to an insurance company? Or Medicare? Are you aware of the relationship between what is billed and what is actually paid?

Obviously, you have not.

38 posted on 11/03/2013 12:30:18 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Agree with your post.
I had a 60 grand surgery last year for cancer.
The knife man got about 3 grand.
Hospital is where all the costs are.
Was surprised that the guy who really had “skin in the game” got such a small amount.


39 posted on 11/03/2013 12:33:46 PM PST by nascarnation (Frequently wrong but rarely in doubt....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle; bushbuddy

bushbuddy, you should write down CJ’s stock liberal replies and date it and stick it in you pocket. When the reply come, pull out the paper and show your relatives that you predicted t responses. That’ll really get under their skins:-)


40 posted on 11/03/2013 12:54:21 PM PST by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
I had a 60 grand surgery last year for cancer. The knife man got about 3 grand.

I'm a dialysis patient. My wife is an accountant.

As a consequence, I generate medical bills every week (dialysis 3x). Plus, about six to eight related procedures per year. And I've got a heart condition, thus, a cardiologist.

I'm on Medicare and have a supplemental policy.

Yes, I'm one of those guys that everybody else is paying for. I'm sorry...but it wasn't my idea and that's the way it is.

The point is, though: My wife carefully reviews the detailed status of every medical bill I have. And what she's found is that a $60K medical bill might result in, say, around $30K of payments. Medicare pays an arbitrary amount that can range from 20% to 70% of an individual supplier's billing, the supplemental insurer will kick in exactly 25% of what Medicare authorizes.

As a consequence, the intrusion of government into the market has destroyed the concept of pricing to cost. Medical care is now priced to the proportion that the government will pay -- regardless of its actual cost or real profit margin.

The healthcare economy is a totally artificial construct.

41 posted on 11/03/2013 1:44:06 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: okie01

please ask your accountant wife........

what happens to the unpaid but invoiced amount?

how does the provider account ? it is an unpaid receivable . Is it then written off as a bad debt? How doees it effect the bottom line on the P& L?

Is the written off amount somehow a tax advantage?


42 posted on 11/03/2013 1:52:57 PM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Travon... Felony assault and battery hate crime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

Great comments from my fellow Freepers.

Actually, it may never come up. At least when I’m around. Several years ago, at Thanksgiving dinner, someone started spouting off about global warming and we had to change our ways. I calmly questioned why the polar icecaps on Mars melted. “Was it because of all the factories and SUVs up there?” They never said another word.

Just have your facts and express them CALMLY. If they continue to harass you, then CALMLY tell them to stick the turkey leg where the sun don’t shine. And ask them to pass the cranberries.


43 posted on 11/03/2013 2:25:51 PM PST by bushbuddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: okie01

oh bull crap

I have negotiated those bills down for clients


44 posted on 11/03/2013 3:03:45 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

There is no medical bill that can’t be negotiated down — especially if you agree to pay cash; even over time.


45 posted on 11/03/2013 3:50:07 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bert
You would have to ask somebody who is familiar with medical accounting. My wife is not.

But I imagine there are some rather large "adjustments".

46 posted on 11/03/2013 3:54:18 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: okie01
My sister worked billing and insurance in a doctor's office for years. This is what so infuriates me. Insurance companies and medicare negotiate a payment schedule with the docs based on an agreed amount billed. As I understand it, if the doc charges less and the insurer or medicare gets wind of it, they reduce their payments to the doc to a percentage of that new lower charge. Docs can treat for free, but cash customers have to pay an inflated billing amount or all insurance payments to the doc are in jeopardy. I have never understood why this isn't racketeering or something. And fixing that alone would have gone a long way to helping the poor and uninsured.
47 posted on 11/05/2013 3:11:31 AM PST by JustSurrounded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson