Question For Obamacare Supporters

[red states rule]

Why would you expect the Federal government to be more caring, and more compassionate then private insurance companies?

I am looking for honest answers and not the usual talking points

[BoogyMan]

The cold hard light of truth on this one is going to be ugly, but our liberal friends want this one so bad that all reason has been tossed out the window. Do we need some kind of reform of the health care system? I think we do. Do we need a stepping stone to single payer AS that reform? Certainly not.

[red states rule]

The cold hard light of truth on this one is going to be ugly, but our liberal friends want this one so bad that all reason has been tossed out the window. Do we need some kind of reform of the health care system? I think we do. Do we need a stepping stone to single payer AS that reform? Certainly not.

Considering Dems are now openly BRIBING Dems to get their vote to bring Obamacare to the floor of the Senate

How do liberals feel watching their party leaders laugh and grin about BUYING the votes?

At least with the Mafia, with they bribe politicans they are using their money - and not taxpayer money

Some Dems were not going to support this tax bill - but once they got their bribe they were all for it

[Trigg]

Considering Dems are now openly BRIBING Dems to get their vote to bring Obamacare to the floor of the Senate

How do liberals feel watching their party leaders laugh and grin about BUYING the votes?

At least with the Mafia, with they bribe politicans they are using their money - and not taxpayer money

Some Dems were not going to support this tax bill - but once they got their bribe they were all for it

seems no one wants to defend politics as usual. Bambam's doing a great job getting rid of that isnt' he :lame2:

Of course he could always do a line item veto if he ever gets this bill........but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Joe Steel]

Why would you expect the Federal government to be more caring, and more compassionate then private insurance companies?

I am looking for honest answers and not the usual talking points

Money.

Health insurance companies make money by denying claims. They focus on denying claims because it's very profitable and American capitalists demand profits. Governments don't have to do that because governments are focused on service not profit.

[Trigg]

Money.

Health insurance companies make money by denying claims. They focus on denying claims because it's very profitable and American capitalists demand profits. Governments don't have to do that because governments are focused on service not profit.

MEDICARE (GOVERNEMENT RUN HEALTHCARE) DENIES MORE CLAIMS THAN ANY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

It's been shown here before, it's undeniable.

[Nukeman]

Money.

Health insurance companies make money by denying claims. They focus on denying claims because it's very profitable and American capitalists demand profits. Governments don't have to do that because governments are focused on service not profit.HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!:lol::lol:

YOU have got to be kidding. Actually Joe YOUR right "governments" are not for profit but the POLITICIANS SURE AS HELL ARE!!!!!!!!! You forget that little tidbit when you talk about the wonders of government, it is run by man!!!!!!!

[Binky]

A government is only as good as the people running it....If you have controlling and corrupted individuals managing it, then you will have an oversized government snatching more control, creating a larger debt, and where an abundance of corruption abounds....

[Joe Steel]

MEDICARE (GOVERNEMENT RUN HEALTHCARE) DENIES MORE CLAIMS THAN ANY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

It's been shown here before, it's undeniable.

It's also irrelevant.

Medicare isn't a comprehensive health insurance organization. It deals almost exclusively with persons 65 or more years old. Its claims mix reflects some extremely expensive procedures and Medicare demands claims be documented in great detail. It rejects claims which clerical errors or which lack the proper documentation. When the claims are appealed and the errors are fixed, they are approved over half the time.

[Joe Steel]

A government is only as good as the people running it....If you have controlling and corrupted individuals managing it, then you will have an oversized government snatching more control, creating a larger debt, and where an abundance of corruption abounds....

Politicians have to face the voters. Health insurance executives don't. A bad politician won't be reelected. A bad health insurance executive will be give a big bonus.

[MtnBiker]

Big Government will deny even more claims, uncompationate big government with bloated bureauracies will focus on their own line item budgets. Service will go out the window.

[MtnBiker]

Politicians have to face the voters. Health insurance executives don't. A bad politician won't be reelected. A bad health insurance executive will be give a big bonus.

Corzine must have been a bad politician, he was just voted out of office. No worries he will just go back to banking and make big bonuses, like he did before.

[Nukeman]

It's also irrelevant.

Medicare isn't a comprehensive health insurance organization. It deals almost exclusively with persons 65 or more years old. Its claims mix reflects some extremely expensive procedures and Medicare demands claims be documented in great detail. It rejects claims which clerical errors or which lack the proper documentation. When the claims are appealed and the errors are fixed, they are approved over half the time.

Your right Joe they do!!!! but they also CHANGE THE GUIDELINES EVERY YEAR so how is one to keep up with all the changes they make.

One year they will bundle the next everything is unbundled. One year they will include drug with procedure the next they will not. One year they will approve a particular drug for a procedure the next deny it. They have NO rhyme or reason to how they change things.

The reason for the changes is for the sole purpose of denial!!!! As long as they can string you along they stand a better chance of the health provider saying just write it off.

Oh by the way Joe Medicare reimburses at 22 cents on the dollar right now and Medicaid is at 4 cents on the dollar. Tell me Joe how the hell are hospitals and clinics to stay in business if the provider pays only that much. Your such a bright guy tell me how you will get skilled people to work in these fields and take care of the aging population of the US. Come on tell us Joe how are they going to do it???? Got any ideas?????

[Trigg]

It's also irrelevant.

Medicare isn't a comprehensive health insurance organization. It deals almost exclusively with persons 65 or more years old. Its claims mix reflects some extremely expensive procedures and Medicare demands claims be documented in great detail. It rejects claims which clerical errors or which lack the proper documentation. When the claims are appealed and the errors are fixed, they are approved over half the time.

Have you ever worked in healthcare???? Have you ever submitted medicare forms????

If not, and I'm sure the answer is no, than you have no experience to base your oppinion on.

Inform yourself on Medicares double dealings and look up CMS (centers for medicare/medicade services), you might learn something.


No Nukeman......he has no ideas, he's just regurgitating what he's told.

[bullypulpit]

Why would you expect the Federal government to be more caring, and more compassionate then private insurance companies?

I am looking for honest answers and not the usual talking points

Given your own experiences with private health insurance...$12,000 in debt for your cancer treatments is it?...you'd be singing a different song. Oh, you better hope you don't lose your job because, as things currently stand, your pre-existing condition will assure you of never being able to get health insurance again.

But to your point, in neither case can one expect caring and compassion from either the government or private health insurers. The former is interested in containing costs, the latter in making money.

Cost can be effectively contained by a realistic assessment of a patients condition. A 93 year old man with terminal cancer does not need an AICD. Working in critical care as I do I see...every day...the results of unrealistic expectations on the part of patients and/or their families...who want "everything done", never really understanding how far "everything" goes these days. We can, and regularly do, maintain a pulse and respiratory rate on someon who has long since checked out, with nothing more than the lizard brain maintaining their autonomic functions. The families in these cases doften don't want to here that there is no hope for their loved one, and expecting a miracle. They never realize that if a miracle is going to happen, it will happen regardless of what we do medically.

Those on the right accuse anyone who advocates for a realistic approach to end of life care of "playing God" in what is nothing more than proper patient advocacy in the face of real futility of care. They refuse to accept that it is really they who are playing God in the face of what would have already come to pass absent extraordinary measures.

For an education on end of life care...

<embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737138n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel&releaseURL=http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf&videoId=50079888&partner=news&vert=News&si=254&autoPlayVid=false&name=cbsPlayer&allowScriptAccess=always&wmode=transparent&embedded=y&scale=noscale&rv=n&salign=tl' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed><br/><a href='http://www.cbsnews.com'>Watch CBS News Videos Online</a>

That stupid canard of "death panels" is just that...a canard. At poor attempt to push emotional buttons on an issue which, while it tears at the heart, can only be dealt with rationally.

If any such thing as "death panels" exist, they would properly be attributed to private health insurers. Estimates as to the number of deaths resulting from denied claims range as high as 22,000 per year, but are difficult to pin down as the health insurance industry doesn't make those figures public.

One can only wonder if those on the right, who claim to be devoutly Christian, ever ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" on this issue. I don't recall ever reading where Jesus asked for a co-pay before rendering care, or denied care on the basis of a pre-existing condition. After all, death is a pretty significant "pre-existing condition" as it was in the case of Lazarus.

[bullypulpit]

Have you ever worked in healthcare???? Have you ever submitted medicare forms????

If not, and I'm sure the answer is no, than you have no experience to base your oppinion on.

Inform yourself on Medicares double dealings and look up CMS (centers for medicare/medicade services), you might learn something.


No Nukeman......he has no ideas, he's just regurgitating what he's told.

And you have? You are the one regurgitating the talking points...dearie.

[red states rule]

Given your own experiences with private health insurance...$12,000 in debt for your cancer treatments is it?...you'd be singing a different song. Oh, you better hope you don't lose your job because, as things currently stand, your pre-existing condition will assure you of never being able to get health insurance again.

But to your point, in neither case can one expect caring and compassion from either the government or private health insurers. The former is interested in containing costs, the latter in making money.

Cost can be effectively contained by a realistic assessment of a patients condition. A 93 year old man with terminal cancer does not need an AICD. Working in critical care as I do I see...every day...the results of unrealistic expectations on the part of patients and/or their families...who want "everything done", never really understanding how far "everything" goes these days. We can, and regularly do, maintain a pulse and respiratory rate on someon who has long since checked out, with nothing more than the lizard brain maintaining their autonomic functions. The families in these cases doften don't want to here that there is no hope for their loved one, and expecting a miracle. They never realize that if a miracle is going to happen, it will happen regardless of what we do medically.

Those on the right accuse anyone who advocates for a realistic approach to end of life care of "playing God" in what is nothing more than proper patient advocacy in the face of real futility of care. They refuse to accept that it is really they who are playing God in the face of what would have already come to pass absent extraordinary measures.

For an education on end of life care...

<embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737138n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel&releaseURL=http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf&videoId=50079888&partner=news&vert=News&si=254&autoPlayVid=false&name=cbsPlayer&allowScriptAccess=always&wmode=transparent&embedded=y&scale=noscale&rv=n&salign=tl' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed><br/><a href='http://www.cbsnews.com'>Watch CBS News Videos Online</a>

That stupid canard of "death panels" is just that...a canard. At poor attempt to push emotional buttons on an issue which, while it tears at the heart, can only be dealt with rationally.

If any such thing as "death panels" exist, they would properly be attributed to private health insurers. Estimates as to the number of deaths resulting from denied claims range as high as 22,000 per year, but are difficult to pin down as the health insurance industry doesn't make those figures public.

One can only wonder if those on the right, who claim to be devoutly Christian, ever ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" on this issue. I don't recall ever reading where Jesus asked for a co-pay before rendering care, or denied care on the basis of a pre-existing condition. After all, death is a pretty significant "pre-existing condition" as it was in the case of Lazarus.

1) Why should you or anyone else be forced to pay my medical expenses BP? From my personal experiences, every Doctor and medical center is willing to make arrangements. Every medical bill I have encountered has been taken care of, without the government takig money from someone else to pay them

2) With Obamacare I am more worried about my employer paying the 8% "tax" dumping their medical plans, and dropping me in the "public option". The last thing I want is the government deciding when, where, and how I will get medical care

3) The ONLY way the government can contain costs is to ration care. BP, there is no way to contain costs on the healthy. Perhaps with most liberals they would not mind the Federal government telling people what they can eat, how much they can weigh, how they live their lifesyles, what sports play - all in an attempt to "contain" medical costs - but I am. The libs would love the added power and control

4) Seems you agree with Dr Esekiel Emanuel, Obama's medical advisor, has written several articles on who, how, and more scary - whose life should be saved. He has also soad Doctors should more interested in the greater good then one patients needs

This is the beginning of death panels. I posted the VA Handbook that Obama brought back - and the book encourages our sick and wounded vets to end their own lives for the sake of their families - and I suspect the government's bottom line

5) BP, MEDICARE has a higher claimes rejection then any other medical ins plan. With all the claimes I had, I never had a SINGLE claim rejected. All were paid and paid in a timely fashion

6) This is another myth the left floats. Most people are happy with their coverage

7) Finally, this tax bill will add trilions to the debt. 17 news taxes in the Senate version alone. The Dems try to hide the cost by starting the tax increases, fines, and jail time at once - while waiting 3 years to out Obamcare in place

So yea, the first ten years see a drop in the deficit. Then you look at the next ten years - and the deficit soars

We already owe $33 TRILLION to Medicare - and you want to pile on more with Obamacare?

[red states rule]

And you have? You are the one regurgitating the talking points...dearie.

BP, I have talked to Dr's and nurses about Obamacare while I am in the various medical centers. So far, not ONE has likied what they have seen

They worry about the quality of care that will be provided, they say they see more government control over their medicaldecisions, they do not like the government taking profit incentive out of the healthcare industry, and they are worried about the taxes and deficits that will result

So far, the polls show the voters share the same lack of support

Like one nurse told me, when you have a leaky pipse under the kitchen sink, you do not bulldoze the house to fix it. This is what Obama wants to do to fix the "problems" with healthcare in America

[Joe Steel]

The reason for the changes is for the sole purpose of denial!!!!

Where's the proof?

[Joe Steel]

Have you ever worked in healthcare???? Have you ever submitted medicare forms????

If not, and I'm sure the answer is no, than you have no experience to base your oppinion on.

Inform yourself on Medicares double dealings and look up CMS (centers for medicare/medicade services), you might learn something.


What's your point?

[Nukeman]

Where's the proof?
Prove its not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They change for no other reason than to confuse otherwise why change when everyone figures out what they want???????

[Nukeman]

What's your point?I think her point is, how many claims for medicare have you submitted, have you EVER had any dealings with CMS? If not you have no experience with them and have nothing to back up YOUR claims of the wonders of medicaid/medicare

[Nukeman]

And you have? You are the one regurgitating the talking points...dearie.
yes bully she has!! She has worked in health care for most of her adult life.

[red states rule]

This is nothing mroe then a TAX BILL

Here is breakdown of the new taxes in the Senate verison of Obamacare

snip




Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil/Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule (capped at 8 percent of income):

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil/Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil/Jan 2011): Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil/Jan 2011): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/ $22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil/Jan 2010): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.

Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil/Jan 2010): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.

Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil/Jan 2011)

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Page 2044/Sec. 9016/$0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Page 2045/Sec. 9017/$5.8 bil/Jan 2010): New 5% excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery to be paid by the surgery patient.

http://www.atr.org/breaking-full-list-tax-hikesbr-senate-a4227

[Joe Steel]

1) Why should you or anyone else be forced to pay my medical expenses BP? From my personal experiences, every Doctor and medical center is willing to make arrangements. Every medical bill I have encountered has been taken care of, without the government takig money from someone else to pay them

Because that's the way insurance works and government-run insurance provider is the best possible source of insurance.



2) With Obamacare I am more worried about my employer paying the 8% "tax" dumping their medical plans, and dropping me in the "public option". The last thing I want is the government deciding when, where, and how I will get medical care

Why? The government would do a better job than a clerk in a profit-seeking health insurance company.



3) The ONLY way the government can contain costs is to ration care. BP, there is no way to contain costs on the healthy.

Nonsense. If nothing else, the government could prohibit unnecessary testing. That would reduct costs.



Perhaps with most liberals they would not mind the Federal government telling people what they can eat, how much they can weigh, how they live their lifesyles, what sports play - all in an attempt to "contain" medical costs - but I am. The libs would love the added power and control

Commercial insurers already do that.



4) Seems you agree with Dr Esekiel Emanuel, Obama's medical advisor, has written several articles on who, how, and more scary - whose life should be saved. He has also soad Doctors should more interested in the greater good then one patients needs

Doctors already do that.



5) BP, MEDICARE has a higher claimes rejection then any other medical ins plan. With all the claimes I had, I never had a SINGLE claim rejected. All were paid and paid in a timely fashion

Medicare deals with a much sicker population than common health insurers. They have to be much stricter with their technical requirements for claim. This a prudent course of action for public entity. When rejected claims are appealed, though, half of them are approved.



6) This is another myth the left floats. Most people are happy with their coverage

First of all, that's irrelevant. We're talking about a national health care policy to serve everyone. Secondly, most persons are happy with their coverage until the have to use it. Then they find-out it's not so good.



7) Finally, this tax bill will add trilions to the debt. 17 news taxes in the Senate version alone. The Dems try to hide the cost by starting the tax increases, fines, and jail time at once - while waiting 3 years to out Obamcare in place

We're already paying almost twice as much as is necessary for health care. The net effect of implmenting a national health care will be a reduction in cost.

[Joe Steel]

Prove its not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They change for no other reason than to confuse otherwise why change when everyone figures out what they want???????

OK, then you'll have no trouble proving it.

Give me a link.

[Nukeman]

OK, then you'll have no trouble proving it.

Give me a link.Tell me Joe WHY do they change the bundling and unbundling almost every year? why do they change what they pay for every year.

If it is not for confusing the providers why change?? If a system is working and providers figure out what they need to do to get payed than CMS changes its guidlines. Prove to me that it is for some altruistic reason!!! priove to me it is for the betterment of the populace they serve? prove to me that it is not to keep from paying claimes. They have one of the highest denial/rejection claims in the business and you can spuut that half are payed upon review but that isn only HALF that they allow review on they flat out deny a number of others and the give no reason. A huge number are just written off and those NEVER go for review.......

[red states rule]

Because that's the way insurance works and government-run insurance provider is the best possible source of insurance.




Why? The government would do a better job than a clerk in a profit-seeking health insurance company.




Nonsense. If nothing else, the government could prohibit unnecessary testing. That would reduct costs.




Commercial insurers already do that.




Doctors already do that.




Medicare deals with a much sicker population than common health insurers. They have to be much stricter with their technical requirements for claim. This a prudent course of action for public entity. When rejected claims are appealed, though, half of them are approved.




First of all, that's irrelevant. We're talking about a national health care policy to serve everyone. Secondly, most persons are happy with their coverage until the have to use it. Then they find-out it's not so good.




We're already paying almost twice as much as is necessary for health care. The net effect of implmenting a national health care will be a reduction in cost.

Joe all your posts point to the same desire - for the Federal government to takeover the healthcare industry - put the private ins compaines out of business - and tax the hell out of everyone to try and cover the cost

It is clear Dems have no desire to lower the cost of healthcare, and make it more effective

Their goal is to take the industry over

As proof I offer the various bills offered by Republicans that actually attempt to attain the goals Obama says are the goals

Where government run helathcare has been put in place, the results are the same. Lack of quality care, rationed care, and excessive high costs

The more people learn what Dems are putting in their Obamcare bills, the more the opposition grows






snips

Arizona Republican Rep. John Shaddeg's bill (H.R. 3217) to allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines, and therefore to dramatically step up competitive forces in the insurance market, has idled in the Energy and Commerce Committee since July. Perhaps committee leaders should speed up consideration, given that the President's "guiding principle" includes relying on market forces and increased competition to mitigate problems in the health care sector.

Democrats killed an amendment in committee that would ensure the President's no-deficit pledge actually happens. The amendment, offered by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., would have prohibited any health care legislation from going into effect unless it were deficit neutral. The Dems didn't like that.

The GOP also tried to lend a hand to President Obama in helping him to keep his campaign pledge of not raising taxes for individuals making less than $200,000 per year. An amendment offered by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would exempt all individuals making less than that from all taxes contained in the bill. It was killed in the Ways and Means Committee. A similar amendment, offered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers in the Education and Labor Committee, was shot down by panel Democrats, with Chairman Miller leading the charge.

Republicans agree with Obama that no health care plan should slash Medicare benefits for seniors. "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how [seniors' Medicare] benefits will be cut," he said in his address to the Joint Session. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., tried to ensure the President's promise would be kept when she offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee that would strip the bill of language that cuts funding for Medicare Advantage. One quarter of seniors get their health care through the program, and according to independent fact-checkers slashing funding would not be able to prevent cuts in coverage, but Chairman Rangel and committee Democrats defeated the amendment.

President Obama has also touted the economic necessity of his health care proposals, indicating that reform would be a boon for the American economy. Republicans have tried to help the President form legislation that would improve its impact on the economy--and strip economically damaging provisions.

The employer mandate, according to some analyses, would, within five years of its enactment result in 1.6 million fewer jobs, a $200 billion contraction in GDP, 1.2 million fewer work hours per week, and an annual decline in wages of $71 billion.

Republican amendments offered in separate committees by Reps. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Wally Herger, R-Calif, would suspend the employer mandate if unemployment reaches 10 percent. Both amendments were killed in committee.

To address the objections of lawmakers who rejected that the employer mandate would be economically detrimental, Reps. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., offered amendments in two separate committees that would exempt from the employer mandate any business that claims (and whose claims are certified by the Secretary of the Treasury) that the mandate has imposed financial hardships that have forced those businesses to lay off workers or cut salaries, or prevented them from hiring additional workers. Both of these amendments were defeated by Democrats on the respective panels.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif, took an even more conciliatory approach, offering an amendment that would have created small business-specific plans that would minimize the financial burden on the employer mandate and allow them to band together with other businesses to buy health care coverage at a lower cost. This amendment was also defeated in Ways and Means.

The President also tried on Wednesday to put to rest conservative concerns that tax dollars could be used to fund abortions. "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," the President claimed. But congressional Democrats don't seem to share the President's aversion to taxpayer funded abortions.

Three Republican lawmakers, Reps. Sam Johnson, Tex., Eric Cantor, Va., and Mark Souder, Ind., offered separate amendments to remove this language from the legislation. All three amendments were killed in committee.

An amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., attempted to strike language from the legislation that would allow the federal government to withhold funding from states that refuse to use tax dollars to fund abortions. The amendment was defeated in committee on a party-line vote.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/09/13/media-myth-gop-has-no-health-care-ideas

[Joe Steel]

Tell me Joe WHY do they change the bundling and unbundling almost every year? why do they change what they pay for every year.

I don't know that they do. All I have is your assertion. Give me link so I can validate it.

[Nukeman]

I don't know that they do. All I have is your assertion. Give me link so I can validate it.
Go to CMS's web site this may take you a while to look up historic bundling and unbundling and how they reimburse for thier procedure but I am not going to do your leg work for you. I don't even know if they keep the plans from previous years on thier web site.

Or you could order a new CPT code book for 2009 and 2010 and look at the differences and while your at it order a new HCPCS code book as well. these are only a couple of hundred dollars a piece but they contain "most" of the the changes CMS has made to their guidlines/coding procedures.

Like I said I am not going to do your leg work for you, I deal with this group on a daily basis and I have FIRST HAND experience with them for 20+ years! can you say the same??

[Nukeman]

tell ya what joe here is one website that may help you, Now this is the last bit of help I wil give you. i will treat yo like yo treat everyone else by telling you to "DO YOUR OWN LEG WORK"!!!!!


http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/

[crin63]

Considering Dems are now openly BRIBING Dems to get their vote to bring Obamacare to the floor of the Senate

How do liberals feel watching their party leaders laugh and grin about BUYING the votes?

At least with the Mafia, with they bribe politicans they are using their money - and not taxpayer money

Some Dems were not going to support this tax bill - but once they got their bribe they were all for it

I'm still amazed at this one. A US Senator openly selling their vote and hasn't been run out of town by their constituents. There should outrage and cries for a recall election. Apparently Jindal supports Senator Mary Landrieu's vote so he is off my list of potential presidential candidates.

[Trigg]

And you have? You are the one regurgitating the talking points...dearie.

I've worked in healthcare for 20 years, for private doctors, clinics and hospitals in 4 different states.

Where does your experience come from.

[red states rule]

I've worked in healthcare for 20 years, for private doctors, clinics and hospitals in 4 different states.

Where does your experience come from.

MSNBC, NY Times, Daily Kos, Dem Undergorund, and Media Matters

[Joe Steel]

tell ya what joe here is one website that may help you, Now this is the last bit of help I wil give you. i will treat yo like yo treat everyone else by telling you to "DO YOUR OWN LEG WORK"!!!!!


http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/

Sorry. I'm not doing your research.

You made an assertion. Either support it or be quiet.

You must prove CMS changes its requirements frequently for the sole and exclusive purpose of denying claims.

That's what you said. That's what you have to prove.

[Nukeman]

Sorry. I'm not doing your research.

You made an assertion. Either support it or be quiet.

You must prove CMS changes its requirements frequently for the sole and exclusive purpose of denying claims.

That's what you said. That's what you have to prove.

I don't have to prove shit to you joe. You constantly come on here and make assertions and tell the rest of us to look it up well I at least provided you with the reference page for CMS and the pdf files are the list of changes and the corresponding article take a look and see just how many changes there are in ONE YEAR 75 pages worth of "REFERENCE ARTICLES".

I will concede that you will not find "changed to deny claims" any where on their web site. I have first hand accounts and knowledge of dealing with them for 20 years!! Can you say the same???????

Tell me Joe why would they change their way of paying so frequently??? If they are for the people as you say why do they change their standards EVERY YEAR? Why do they change so often??? Tell me joe what rational do they have to pay one year and then deny the next?? why do they accept a daignosis one year then deny the next due to changes in policy??? Tell me Joe please tell me why you think that is????

[red states rule]

I'm still amazed at this one. A US Senator openly selling their vote and hasn't been run out of town by their constituents. There should outrage and cries for a recall election. Apparently Jindal supports Senator Mary Landrieu's vote so he is off my list of potential presidential candidates.

I'd say she is nothing more then a high priced political hooker. She got paid to to screw the nation

[HogTrash]

What in the hell were you thinking when you voted for this inexperienced socialist moron in time of war and with a tanking economy?

[bullypulpit]

1) Why should you or anyone else be forced to pay my medical expenses BP? From my personal experiences, every Doctor and medical center is willing to make arrangements. Every medical bill I have encountered has been taken care of, without the government takig money from someone else to pay them

Ummm...Red, That's how private insurance works. Lemme 'splain it to ya. You pay your premiums. THe INsurance company pools YOUR premiums with those of all their other victims...er, customers...They invest this pooled money. They use some of the proceeds from those investments to pay claims. The rest goes into the pockets of investors, executives and lobbyists.


2) With Obamacare I am more worried about my employer paying the 8% "tax" dumping their medical plans, and dropping me in the "public option". The last thing I want is the government deciding when, where, and how I will get medical care

There is nothing in either the House or Senate bill which dictates "when, where, and how" you will recieve medical care.


3) The ONLY way the government can contain costs is to ration care. BP, there is no way to contain costs on the healthy. Perhaps with most liberals they would not mind the Federal government telling people what they can eat, how much they can weigh, how they live their lifesyles, what sports play - all in an attempt to "contain" medical costs - but I am. The libs would love the added power and control

Ummm...Red, care is already rationed by the current system in the form of haves and have nots. The Haves can afford, for the moment, to pay for their insurance coverage. The Have Nots are dependent on ER's for health care, which drives up costs for the Haves, eventually forcing employers to raise premiums or drop coverage entirely. This, in turn, forces more and more Haves into the ranks of the Have Nots.


4) Seems you agree with Dr Esekiel Emanuel, Obama's medical advisor, has written several articles on who, how, and more scary - whose life should be saved. He has also soad Doctors should more interested in the greater good then one patients needs

It's not about saving lives or not Red. It's about a concept called "futility of care". I see it every day and have a discussion with docs and patients and their families about what they want as far as their health care choices, especially in the face of , multiple co-morbidities which are leading to multiple organ failure which leads to death soon there after despite whatever means we might take to forestall said death. The needs of the patients and their families are ALWAYS foremost. We abide by whatever their wishes may be.


This is the beginning of death panels. I posted the VA Handbook that Obama brought back - and the book encourages our sick and wounded vets to end their own lives for the sake of their families - and I suspect the government's bottom line

Then you didn't really read it. It's a rational discussion about advance directives. Something which most of us never give much thought. It's not about self-immolation as you and your right wing-nut fellow travelers falsely claim.


5) BP, MEDICARE has a higher claimes rejection then any other medical ins plan. With all the claimes I had, I never had a SINGLE claim rejected. All were paid and paid in a timely fashion

<center><a href=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf>2008 National Health Insurer Report Card</a></center>

Medicare is comparable to most private insurers in terms of claims rejection.


6) This is another myth the left floats. Most people are happy with their coverage


7) Finally, this tax bill will add trilions to the debt. 17 news taxes in the Senate version alone. The Dems try to hide the cost by starting the tax increases, fines, and jail time at once - while waiting 3 years to out Obamcare in place

So yea, the first ten years see a drop in the deficit. Then you look at the next ten years - and the deficit soars

We already owe $33 TRILLION to Medicare - and you want to pile on more with Obamacare?

Sorry Red, but you're wrong (SURPRISE!) again. The CBO projects continued deficit reduction of around $650 billion in the second decade of health care reform.

B'bye now. Gotta go save lives.

[red states rule]

BP, you really do follow the party talking points so well. Let me try to counter your spin with more facts

If the government doesn't have to compete for people's business, what is their incentive to provide decent care? Snce several Dems have openly admitted this is the first step to single payer - and putting private ins companies out of business

The government be deciding what treatments people can get and who gets them. The government be doing the same thing the Obamacare supporters are accusing the insurance companies of doing now, but with NO COMPETITION and nowhere else to go.

Basically the government will have control over who lives and who dies.

Which is what Dems want anyway

What we will see is reduced quality of health care

Rationed health care (no pap smears or mammograms till 50 as already dictated by the Obama administration)

Doctor shortage/health care professional shortage. Who wants to go into a profession where the government has taken profit potential out of the industry?

Destruction of the health care and insurance industries as we know it -- increased unemployment in the service sector as a result

BP, It is a power grab by the government that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy

Once the bill is signed into law, its a tax you will start paying right now even though Socialized medicine doesn't kick in till 2013 - meanwhile we pay all the new taxes and fines while we are paying for the health care you need for the present time. (Plus you pay for Obamacare or go to jail)

The deficit reduction claim is a bold face LIE

Plus, Medicare denies the most claims of any health care insurance plan

Botom line is BP, Dems gave America Section 8 housing now they want to give America Section 8 health care as well as SUB PRIME health care

[Joe Steel]

I will concede that you will not find "changed to deny claims" any where on their web site.

That's right. That reason exists only in your imagination.

[Nukeman]

That's right. That reason exists only in your imagination.
Why don't you explain the rest and answer MY questions to you JOE? Is that because your incapable of doing so?? Are you too stupid to look things up and make a rational statement on WHY all the changes take place on a yearly basis??? come on joe you can do it just look it up and tell me why they change so often!!!!


Ohh by the way Joe no one on here would actually expect to see the gov't listing that they are doing something for the sole purpose of denial. Thats like the banks saying they raise rates just to take more of your money to give to stock holders it isn't written but you know damn good and well why they do it!!!!!!!

[Joe Steel]

Why don't you explain the rest and answer MY questions to you JOE? Is that because your incapable of doing so?? Are you too stupid to look things up and make a rational statement on WHY all the changes take place on a yearly basis??? come on joe you can do it just look it up and tell me why they change so often!!!!

Ohh by the way Joe no one on here would actually expect to see the gov't listing that they are doing something for the sole purpose of denial. Thats like the banks saying they raise rates just to take more of your money to give to stock holders it isn't written but you know damn good and well why they do it!!!!!!!

The issue is your unsupported assertion and I'm not competent to judge CMS claim requirements. Link some research to support your opinion.

[red states rule]

I am sure Joe and BP will supply numbers showing Obamacare is as successful as Obama's Stimulus Bill

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/11/24/varv11192009_t756.jpg?362c89b9f4298c1f7d888d4fceb4 6698f5dfcc26

[red states rule]

More bad news for Obama - but good news for America





Health Care Reform
Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low

Monday, November 23, 2009


Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

[crin63]

I'd say she is nothing more then a high priced political hooker. She got paid to to screw the nation

I have to agree. I also will not forget that Jindal by the accounts I have read supported her getting the money for their state. He's a sellout and we have to remember that. Every time her name comes up, Jindal's name needs to be hung around her neck linking them together on this.

[red states rule]

I have to agree. I also will not forget that Jindal by the accounts I have read supported her getting the money for their state. He's a sellout and we have to remember that. Every time her name comes up, Jindal's name needs to be hung around her neck linking them together on this.

Spot on

Jindal has his price as well

The majority of American don't want ObamaCare, yet Dems are going to ram it down our throats no matter what, and at the same time they exempt themselves from it.

How's that change working out for everyone?

[bullypulpit]

I'd say she is nothing more then a high priced political hooker. She got paid to to screw the nation

So if Senator Landrieu is a political whore, does that mean Sarah Palin is a media whore?

Just askin'.

[red states rule]

So if Senator Landrieu is a political whore, does that mean Sarah Palin is a media whore?

Just askin'.

It must depress you BP that Ms Palin's book is #1 on may of the best sellers lists

Once agin your double standards are showing. A Dem can be openly bribed and you quickly change the subject and attack someone else who has nothing to do the bribe - or Dems desperation to buy votes with money the government does not have

[bullypulpit]

BP, you really do follow the party talking points so well. Let me try to counter your spin with more facts

If the government doesn't have to compete for people's business, what is their incentive to provide decent care? Snce several Dems have openly admitted this is the first step to single payer - and putting private ins companies out of business

The government be deciding what treatments people can get and who gets them. The government be doing the same thing the Obamacare supporters are accusing the insurance companies of doing now, but with NO COMPETITION and nowhere else to go.

Basically the government will have control over who lives and who dies.

Which is what Dems want anyway

What we will see is reduced quality of health care

Rationed health care (no pap smears or mammograms till 50 as already dictated by the Obama administration)

Doctor shortage/health care professional shortage. Who wants to go into a profession where the government has taken profit potential out of the industry?

Destruction of the health care and insurance industries as we know it -- increased unemployment in the service sector as a result

BP, It is a power grab by the government that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy

Once the bill is signed into law, its a tax you will start paying right now even though Socialized medicine doesn't kick in till 2013 - meanwhile we pay all the new taxes and fines while we are paying for the health care you need for the present time. (Plus you pay for Obamacare or go to jail)

The deficit reduction claim is a bold face LIE

Plus, Medicare denies the most claims of any health care insurance plan

Botom line is BP, Dems gave America Section 8 housing now they want to give America Section 8 health care as well as SUB PRIME health care

As usual, Red, you gotten it ass-backwards. You are the one drinking the right wing-nut kool-aid as if it were aqua vitae. You have nothing to support your assertions beyond the foetid, rank hot air the right wing punditocracy belches forth on a daily basis, and you reliably, mindlessly regurgitate on cue like some bizzare iteration of Pavlov's dog.

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/research/200911130002>Myths and falsehoods about health care reform</a></center>

<center><a href=http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/>Seven Falsehoods About Health Care</a></center>

Follow the links, and you'll find annotated, linked and fact-checked refutations of right wing-nut spew on health care reform.

[red states rule]

As usual, Red, you gotten it ass-backwards. You are the one drinking the right wing-nut kool-aid as if it were aqua vitae. You have nothing to support your assertions beyond the foetid, rank hot air the right wing punditocracy belches forth on a daily basis, and you reliably, mindlessly regurgitate on cue like some bizzare iteration of Pavlov's dog.

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/research/200911130002>Myths and falsehoods about health care reform</a></center>

Follow the link, and you'll find annotated, linked and fact-checked refutations of right wing-nut spew on health care reform. But you won't.

And as usual BP, you do what you do best - when you can't have a civil debate you attack

More and people are opposing this Demcorat attempt at hijacking the healthcare industry

Like your party leaders you smear those who point out the facts, the huge cost, the ever increasing tax increases the bills contain, and the logical result of government interference

It is hard to see what is falling faster - Obama's poll numbers or support for Obamacare

Both are starting to get to you as your anger is on the rise

[bullypulpit]

What in the hell were you thinking when you voted for this inexperienced socialist moron in time of war and with a tanking economy?

Damn man...go back to huffing carb cleaner and stop stinkin' up the board with your spew.

[red states rule]

Damn man...go back to huffing carb cleaner and stop stinkin' up the board with your spew.

So you approve of bribes when Democrats do the bribing BP?

Only a hard core power hungry liberal would approve of taxpayer money being used to buy Democrat votes for a bill a majority of voters oppose

[bullypulpit]

So you approve of bribes when Democrats do the bribing BP?

Only a hard core power hungry liberal would approve of taxpayer money being used to buy Democrat votes for a bill a majority of voters oppose

Actually, the Blue dogs should have been given a simple ultimatum...one that the GOP bosses are very familiar with. Support the President on this or you will find yourself swinging in the breeze next election. No bribes necessary when you can effectively end the political careers of your political opponents.

[bullypulpit]

And as usual BP, you do what you do best - when you can't have a civil debate you attack

More and people are opposing this Demcorat attempt at hijacking the healthcare industry

Like your party leaders you smear those who point out the facts, the huge cost, the ever increasing tax increases the bills contain, and the logical result of government interference

It is hard to see what is falling faster - Obama's poll numbers or support for Obamacare

Both are starting to get to you as your anger is on the rise

What was uncivil about the post you quoted? Is imply chided you for being wrong-headed and offered links to independently verified sources which refute your points.

[red states rule]

Actually, the Blue dogs should have been given a simple ultimatum...one that the GOP bosses are very familiar with. Support the President on this or you will find yourself swinging in the breeze next election. No bribes necessary when you can effectively end the political careers of your political opponents.

and the Blue Dogs could have correctly replied - we will not support Obamacare because we do not want to be unemployed. Look at the polls showing the OPPOSITION to this bill

It is very telling when the Dems can't even get their own to vote for this tax bill BP

Nice dodge on a simple queston - so I guess you do support bribes as long as it is Dems doing it

[Nukeman]

Actually, the Blue dogs should have been given a simple ultimatum...one that the GOP bosses are very familiar with. Support the President on this or you will find yourself swinging in the breeze next election. No bribes necessary when you can effectively end the political careers of your political opponents.Bully, if they are doing the will of their constituents than they don't have to worry about going along with the president. The president doesn't elect a member of the house or senate, that my friend is done by the people in their states and if they are happy with the way they voted they stay in office. If they think that they are wrong by sticking party line or appeasing the president for "bribe money" they will be kicked out by their own people NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!!

[red states rule]

What was uncivil about the post you quoted? Is imply chided you for being wrong-headed and offered links to independently verified sources which refute your points.

You left out the "You are the one drinking the right wing-nut kool-aid as if it were aqua vitae" part of your post BP

Only you would consider Media Matters an "independently verified source" - while I go by what the Dems put in the bill

[red states rule]

Bully, if they are doing the will of their constituents than they don't have to worry about going along with the president. The president doesn't elect a member of the house or senate, that my friend is done by the people in their states and if they are happy with the way they voted they stay in office. If they think that they are wrong by sticking party line or appeasing the president for "bribe money" they will be kicked out by their own people NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!!

Harry Reid is so desperate to get the votes he has said several times if he can't them he will change the rules of the Senate, and pass Obamacare like it was a budget bill - then all he needs is 51 votes

[BoogyMan]

Money.

Health insurance companies make money by denying claims. They focus on denying claims because it's very profitable and American capitalists demand profits. Governments don't have to do that because governments are focused on service not profit.

How profitable is it Joe? Lets see the figures that support your claim of this kind of activity being "very profitable."

[red states rule]

How profitable is it Joe? Lets see the figures that support your claim of this kind of activity being "very profitable."

Try a profit margin of 3.3%. In the world of pelosi, Reid, and Obama that is considered "excessive"


http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html

[Joe Steel]

How profitable is it Joe? Lets see the figures that support your claim of this kind of activity being "very profitable."

Very profitable.

Every dollar not paid out to claimants increases net income by a dollar. It's not like selling a dollar more of insurance which might result in only $.04 more net income. It's dollar for dollar.

[red states rule]

Very profitable.

Every dollar not paid out to claimants increases net income by a dollar. It's not like selling a dollar more of insurance which might result in only $.04 more net income. It's dollar for dollar.

3.3% is very profitable?

[bullypulpit]

You left out the "You are the one drinking the right wing-nut kool-aid as if it were aqua vitae" part of your post BP

Only you would consider Media Matters an "independently verified source" - while I go by what the Dems put in the bill

Pointing out the facts of the matter can hardly be considered an attack.

Secondly, Media Matters sources ALL of its information and provides links. By any rational definition, that is "independently verifiable".

You've come up short in the battle of wits...again.

Nighty nite...Gotta save lives tomorrow.

[Joe Steel]

3.3% is very profitable?

Depends.

Why do you ask?

[red states rule]

Pointing out the facts of the matter can hardly be considered an attack.

Secondly, Media Matters sources ALL of its information and provides links. By any rational definition, that is "independently verifiable".

You've come up short in the battle of wits...again.

Nighty nite...Gotta save lives tomorrow.

Media Matters is a George Soros hate and attack site BP. The bottom line is, there is little support for Obamacare with the voters - and that supports is shrinking

More and more people are getting pissed at Dems who appear to be more interested in taking over the healthcare industry then putting people back to work

They are seeing the polices of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are hurting the economy. How the hell will 17 tax increases (they are in the Senate version of Obamacare) help the US economy?

It the nations healthcare industry is so damn bad - why are Dems waiting until after the 2012 election to enact Obamacare?

Why do the tax increases kick in right away and not when Obamacare kicks in?

If Obamacare is such a great deal why did Congress exempt themselves from the plan and vote down 11 bills from Republicans for Congress to take Obamacare? Dems think it is fine for us - why not them?

These are questions YOU and your party leaders have failed to ask BP - and why support for this insane tax bill is dropping

[red states rule]

Depends.

Why do you ask?

Because of all the liberal "outrage" for a industry that is 86th on the list of profit margins by industry

[Joe Steel]

Because of all the liberal "outrage" for a industry that is 86th on the list of profit margins by industry

The outrage is directed toward particular practices of the health care industry rather than industry profits. For instance, the 3D strategy (delay, deny, defend) is an outrageous attempt to generate huge profits by refusing to pay claims.

[red states rule]

The outrage is directed toward particular practices of the health care industry rather than industry profits. For instance, the 3D strategy (delay, deny, defend) is an outrageous attempt to generate huge profits by refusing to pay claims.

No Joe, the Dems have called theri profits "excessive" and they have tagged them as greedy

Again, and 3.3% profit margin does not support those baseless charges

And the Feds reject more claims then any of the major ins companies

[Joe Steel]

No Joe, the Dems have called theri profits "excessive" and they have tagged them as greedy

Again, and 3.3% profit margin does not support those baseless charges

And the Feds reject more claims then any of the major ins companies

Medicare claims are rejected for technical reasons and almost half of the rejected claims are allowed on appeal. Health insurance companies reject claims for no reason whatsoever in order to increase their profits.

[Joe Steel]

No Joe, the Dems have called theri profits "excessive" and they have tagged them as greedy

Again, and 3.3% profit margin does not support those baseless charges


Nonsense. "Excessive" is a subjective term. As I have shown, the profits are excessive.

[Nukeman]

Medicare claims are rejected for technical reasons and almost half of the rejected claims are allowed on appeal. Health insurance companies reject claims for no reason whatsoever in order to increase their profits.

I would like to see your proof of that. You know that stuff you ask others for but NEVER supply yourself.

Show me where the private insurance companies said they denied due to wanting to increase profit and not for "technical reasons"

Your such a dumb ass it is very hard to argue with someone who refuses to educate themselves first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!