The quandary for libs

[neoplacebo]

Big Insurance and the government are vastly different in what they can and can't do. The government's actions can serve to limit rights. As citizens, if the government takes an action it has the weight of law. If an insurance company does something, it has the weight of a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party and no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too.

Ahoy mate, there be pigs flying


"no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too"


Let me guess, you're 16 and just finished reading some ayn rand bullshit.

Peaceful Partier must work for Microsoft. Writes stuff that is technically correct but totally irrelevant to real life. Of course, a person can indeed refuse to do business with an insurance carrier - but then they have to go somewhere else, who will treat them the same or worse. Or they don't get coverage at all.

Yeah, it's sort of like backward from real life; in my experience, the government is more likely to enforce rights than limit them although it does limit them at times. And a citizen can more easily break a law than a contract. And a corporate entity can even more easily break the law and does so because it's generally cheaper than following it in many cases. I myself break laws with pretty much total abandon with no consequence, but if I stop paying my credit card bill, that would be a different story. After all, a contract is executed, but a law is merely enforced.

[O Really]

Not all, but most of the fear of government is fear of what they might/could do.
Most fear of corporations, like big insurance, big pharma, etc. usually comes from what they've actually done already.

[PeacefulPartier]

I really wish you'd learn how to use quotes.

As you well know, cons name call all the time. Plus, YOU were not called any names and "idiot" here is an adjective, not even a name. Please limit your whining to real stuff.

Uhhh...name calling usually takes the form of an adjective. What point do you think you are making here? But, that bad argument aside, I have not resorted to any name calling. So why are you justifying using derogatory terms towards me? Because another person claiming to be conservative once called you name? Is that your logic?

Just like Big Insurance.

There is a huge difference between an insurance company denying you and the government. If an insurance company denies you, you can spend cash, you can take them to court, you can find a charity...you have options. If the government denies you, you don't have options.

That's not how medical fraud works. If the procedure was done, is billed accurately and is then denied, it's just denied, NOT "fraud".
-- ER RN

For crying out loud, I wasn't laying out every step of a fraud investigation or the commission of fraud. But, you do understand that there will be fraud investigations based on nothing more than a medical record...right? The government will have access to all of your medical information. If you, or anyone else, tries to list a bunion treatment as a heart scan because the former isn't covered, they'll know.


Just like Big Insurance already does, and you ignored what I posted about government being limited by enabling legislation.

Insurance isn't violating rights by verifying the information they are provided for payment is valid. Willingness to enter into an agreement is a very important factor in determining if an individual's rights are being violated. You entered into a contract with them. They have every right to enforce the contract as you do. But, if you are forced into a government run system, you have no choice.

[PeacefulPartier]

Big Insurance and the government are vastly different in what they can and can't do. The government's actions can serve to limit rights. As citizens, if the government takes an action it has the weight of law. If an insurance company does something, it has the weight of a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party and no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too.

Ahoy mate, there be pigs flying


"no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too"


Let me guess, you're 16 and just finished reading some ayn rand bullshit.

Peaceful Partier must work for Microsoft. Writes stuff that is technically correct but totally irrelevant to real life. Of course, a person can indeed refuse to do business with an insurance carrier - but then they have to go somewhere else, who will treat them the same or worse. Or they don't get coverage at all.

Your assumption is your assumption.

[PeacefulPartier]

Big Insurance and the government are vastly different in what they can and can't do. The government's actions can serve to limit rights. As citizens, if the government takes an action it has the weight of law. If an insurance company does something, it has the weight of a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party and no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too.

Ahoy mate, there be pigs flying


"no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too"


Let me guess, you're 16 and just finished reading some ayn rand bullshit.

Peaceful Partier must work for Microsoft. Writes stuff that is technically correct but totally irrelevant to real life. Of course, a person can indeed refuse to do business with an insurance carrier - but then they have to go somewhere else, who will treat them the same or worse. Or they don't get coverage at all.

Yeah, it's sort of like backward from real life; in my experience, the government is more likely to enforce rights than limit them although it does limit them at times. And a citizen can more easily break a law than a contract. And a corporate entity can even more easily break the law and does so because it's generally cheaper than following it in many cases. I myself break laws with pretty much total abandon with no consequence, but if I stop paying my credit card bill, that would be a different story. After all, a contract is executed, but a law is merely enforced.

You mean like England did with Charlie Gard? Or Canada does with denying cancer care if you have a recurrence?

[Vrede too]

Are you drunk?

I really wish you'd learn how to use quotes.

I really wish you'd learn that colors serve the exact same purpose. The ease with which you get befuddled is your problem, not mine.

As you well know, cons name call all the time.

You're cowering from your hypocrisy on this point, no surprise.

Plus, YOU were not called any names and "idiot" here is an adjective, not even a name. Please limit your whining to real stuff.

Uhhh...name calling usually takes the form of an adjective.

Uhhh...by definition a name is a noun, NOT an adjective. Once again, the only hangup here is your poor literacy.

What point do you think you are making here?

That you whined about something nonexistent, duh.

But, that bad argument aside, I have not resorted to any name calling. So why are you justifying using derogatory terms towards me? Because another person claiming to be conservative once called you name? Is that your logic?

Uhhh...you were not whining about YOU being called a name. You were whining about Ulysses posting: "idiot conservative majority in Congress". It's a hoot that you're screeching about you being called a name when it wasn't a name and wasn't directed at you. How your goofy opinions are shaped is becoming more clear.

Why are you so triggered by this? Are you claiming that you've never said worse things about congressional Dems? Wow. I have.

Just like Big Insurance.

There is a huge difference between an insurance company denying you and the government. If an insurance company denies you, you can spend cash, you can take them to court, you can find a charity...you have options. If the government denies you, you don't have options.

Again, your fallacy has been exploded by all of us. You cower.

The really funny thing here is that there are thousands of arguments for and against single payer. You think you’re special and that you’ve come up with a killer case when in reality it’s all just a goofy movie playing in your head, easily corrected with legislation if anyone ever shares your delusion. That’s why no one else is making the case.

You've been shown many different ways why it's goofy, but your ego just can't handle it.

Still. You're obsessing about an argument that NO ONE else is making in this debate. That's a lot of hubris to think you've magically discovered something new. It's only "new" because it makes no sense.

That's not how medical fraud works. If the procedure was done, is billed accurately and is then denied, it's just denied, NOT "fraud".
-- ER RN

For crying out loud, I wasn't laying out every step of a fraud investigation or the commission of fraud.

Now you're desperately lying about your own post when you've been busted screwing up. Sad.

If you go to a doctor and the doctor performs a procedure, even if it is covered, the government will look at whether or not it was covered. If it was not covered, it could be fraud.

That is NOT fraud, period.

But, you do understand that there will be fraud investigations based on nothing more than a medical record...right? The government will have access to all of your medical information. If you, or anyone else, tries to list a bunion treatment as a heart scan because the former isn't covered, they'll know.

True for Big Insurance or government, does NOT change with single payer. Again, this is an imaginary flaw that you're so self-important as to think you've revealed.

Just like Big Insurance already does, and you ignored what I posted about government being limited by enabling legislation.

Insurance isn't violating rights by verifying the information they are provided for payment is valid. Willingness to enter into an agreement is a very important factor in determining if an individual's rights are being violated. You entered into a contract with them. They have every right to enforce the contract as you do. But, if you are forced into a government run system, you have no choice.

O Really, billy.pilgrim and neoplacebo have already made mincemeat out of you on this. Pointless for me to restate what you refuse to read and/or understand. Your inability to comprehend just is not my problem, but it is my entertainment. Thank you.

[O Really]

"Government run" healthcare is not what has been seriously proposed by anyone. "Single payer" or, if you prefer, "government paid" healthcare provides an insurance plan, designed much like current commercial plans, but paid for through taxes and has a close-to-universal eligibility. But even if the plans proposed were called "government run", we'd have a couple of real-life examples of how the government might "run" them. We have current Medicare, and we have TriCare. Both run quite well. In any serious proposal for universal healthcare, the basic plan is not intended to pay for every single medical cost that might be incurred. It would be intended to provide a basic level of care for essential services. Like for Medicare, private supplementary policies would be available, but nobody would be left out of the basics. Medical providers would not "work for the government" but would remain independent professionals, although most of their revenue would be paid through the publicly funded plan.

There are numerous examples of single payer medical coverage in developed countries. Not all the systems are identical, and perhaps none of them would work for everyone. I'd like be be sure that a person actually understood the systems in other countries and, for example, Canada, before making broad and dire predictions of how awful a single payer system would be in America. F'rinstance, think there is one Canadian plan for the entire country. Nope, each province has it's own plan, and coverage varies among them. Not entirely different from state-based Medicare in the US, although US Medicare is actually a bit more standardized. Some might even say patently ridiculous things like that "Canada" denies coverage for recurring cancer. Those ummm, "beliefs" usually come from reading about some anecdote of horribleness that may or may not be typical, and may or may not have actually been resolved. Like the headline "Stage IV colon cancer patient in Ontario denied standard Erbitux treatment." True enough - at the time, around 2007, Erbitux was accepted as a covered treatment in the US, but not yet in Ontario. But even so, the Ombudsman process available for denied claims resulted in her treatment being paid.

There are some things that could be improved in the Canadian system, but what's the worst that could happen if it - warts and all - was brought to the US? More cost to patients? Nope. More cost overall to the country? Nope. Worse level of professional care? No evidence to support that. IMNVHO, people who want to discuss healthcare policy ought to understand the current American system, understand alternate systems and, if they find no alternate system satisfactory, or have no ideas for change, then be prepared to affirmatively defend the current ummm, "system".

[neoplacebo]

I remain unable to see how any violation of privacy issue exists with regard to government administered health care; the administrators of that system act no differently than the administrators of private insurance act; both entities look at what was done, if it is covered under the plan, and pay, or not pay the bill. And in both those cases, your medical records may or may not be used to make those decisions. Where is the invasion of privacy?

Also, in both cases above, if a procedure is denied, one is free to spend money to have it performed anyway. One is also free to sue in court or appeal through an appellate process in each case.

The concept of a "contract" is also identical in both cases; when I got a Medicare card in the mail shortly before turning 65 it plainly states on the paper the card is attached to that if you don't want Medicare, just return the card to them and by doing so you won't have Medicare. If an insurance agent is sitting in a chair at my place and goes through his spiel, he will give me a paper to sign, which means I've entered into a contract with that company. By keeping the Medicare card, I did the same thing. Another example: being a senior citizen, I sometimes get these checks in the mail that say right on them "this is a check" but it's a loan at something like a 92% interest rate. If I were to cash the check, I've entered into a contract (that I should be beaten severely for agreeing to).

Furthermore, when one applies for a job, the employer can get access to your credit history, criminal history, and work history, or at least what you tell them is your work history; they will be able to confirm this information by contacting those former employers to see if you're lying. Although they cannot, as far as I know, get access to your medical records, your credit history will tell them if you have or have not paid medical bills in the past. If you have a large unpaid medical bill, that in itself tells them you had a major medical expense, and when that expense initially was incurred. Why is that (much more of an invasion of privacy in my view) not an issue with you. Oh, not to mention peeing in a cup. This can not only be used to check for pot or opioids, but should the lab desire, can determine virtually any drug you take, legal or not. Why are you not jumping up and down over that?

There really is no "privacy" anymore other than what you do in your house when not hooked up to some electronic device or when you're out in the woods. Even what you buy, unless you pay cash, is information that is gathered by entities that figure they can make use of it. This is why I buy things like tampons, pantyhose, and baby food.....not in an effort to protect my privacy but just to skew the system.

I just think peaceful partier is trying to make an issue of something that isn't one. I'm gonna go tomorrow morning and have one of my legs whacked off just above the knee; there's no reason for it, and it won't be covered by any medical insurance, but by god, I sure will keep my privacy. Plus they may give me some good drugs.

[billy.pilgrim]

Big Insurance and the government are vastly different in what they can and can't do. The government's actions can serve to limit rights. As citizens, if the government takes an action it has the weight of law. If an insurance company does something, it has the weight of a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party and no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too.

Ahoy mate, there be pigs flying


"no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too"


Let me guess, you're 16 and just finished reading some ayn rand bullshit.

Peaceful Partier must work for Microsoft. Writes stuff that is technically correct but totally irrelevant to real life. Of course, a person can indeed refuse to do business with an insurance carrier - but then they have to go somewhere else, who will treat them the same or worse. Or they don't get coverage at all.

Your assumption is your assumption.

As your naivety is your naivety.

Remember the next time you are bleeding out after an accident, it's prime time to get estimates and negotiate price with several ambulance services, doctors and hospitals.
There are many such procedures where we could so simply rein in prices by standing up and demanding our artistic talents to shape the Deal.

I'm still curious about the flying pigs. Do you use them for travel or are they just used to explain things like trickle down, deregulation, being greeted as liberators and that sort of thing?

[billy.pilgrim]

Abortion is legal in this country because the SCOTUS decided that reviewing all medical records for allowed and disallowed abortions violates the right to privacy of women. In essence, the government cannot view your medical records to see if you violated the law. Ok, I can understand that logic.

I'm not sure how you or anyone could understand "that logic", but then there is the fox quandary

So now, libs want to require everyone to be on Medicare. Obviously, the government can't cover every procedure. Once they have compiled a list of allowed and disallowed procedures and the circumstances that those procedures are allowed, they will have to confirm the patient was eligible for that procedure. To make that confirmation, the government will have to look at the patient's medical records to confirm the patient and the doctor are not committing Medicare fraud.

as they do now

And there is the problem. If we make Medicare the required
did anyone (other than your strawman) say "required" system for paying for medical procedures, we will be violating the right to privacy of the 14th amendment as defined in Roe v Wade. So, we would have to amend the constitution to eliminate that right and make it constitutional to ban abortions. Or we would have to abandon the medicare for all policy because it violates the 14th.
just imagine their terror when all those evil muslims see the sky blackened by flying pork

So what do you want? Medicare for all and banned abortions or legal abortions with zero chance of ever having government run health care?

Sounds better than a world devoid of logic/color]

[PeacefulPartier]

Are you drunk?

I really wish you'd learn how to use quotes.

I really wish you'd learn that colors serve the exact same purpose. The ease with which you get befuddled is your problem, not mine.

As you well know, cons name call all the time.

You're cowering from your hypocrisy on this point, no surprise.

Plus, YOU were not called any names and "idiot" here is an adjective, not even a name. Please limit your whining to real stuff.

Uhhh...name calling usually takes the form of an adjective.

Uhhh...by definition a name is a noun, NOT an adjective. Once again, the only hangup here is your poor literacy.

What point do you think you are making here?

That you whined about something nonexistent, duh.

But, that bad argument aside, I have not resorted to any name calling. So why are you justifying using derogatory terms towards me? Because another person claiming to be conservative once called you name? Is that your logic?

Uhhh...you were not whining about YOU being called a name. You were whining about Ulysses posting: "idiot conservative majority in Congress". It's a hoot that you're screeching about you being called a name when it wasn't a name and wasn't directed at you. How your goofy opinions are shaped is becoming more clear.

Why are you so triggered by this? Are you claiming that you've never said worse things about congressional Dems? Wow. I have.

Just like Big Insurance.

There is a huge difference between an insurance company denying you and the government. If an insurance company denies you, you can spend cash, you can take them to court, you can find a charity...you have options. If the government denies you, you don't have options.

Again, your fallacy has been exploded by all of us. You cower.

The really funny thing here is that there are thousands of arguments for and against single payer. You think you’re special and that you’ve come up with a killer case when in reality it’s all just a goofy movie playing in your head, easily corrected with legislation if anyone ever shares your delusion. That’s why no one else is making the case.

You've been shown many different ways why it's goofy, but your ego just can't handle it.

Still. You're obsessing about an argument that NO ONE else is making in this debate. That's a lot of hubris to think you've magically discovered something new. It's only "new" because it makes no sense.

That's not how medical fraud works. If the procedure was done, is billed accurately and is then denied, it's just denied, NOT "fraud".
-- ER RN

For crying out loud, I wasn't laying out every step of a fraud investigation or the commission of fraud.

Now you're desperately lying about your own post when you've been busted screwing up. Sad.

If you go to a doctor and the doctor performs a procedure, even if it is covered, the government will look at whether or not it was covered. If it was not covered, it could be fraud.

That is NOT fraud, period.

But, you do understand that there will be fraud investigations based on nothing more than a medical record...right? The government will have access to all of your medical information. If you, or anyone else, tries to list a bunion treatment as a heart scan because the former isn't covered, they'll know.

True for Big Insurance or government, does NOT change with single payer. Again, this is an imaginary flaw that you're so self-important as to think you've revealed.

Just like Big Insurance already does, and you ignored what I posted about government being limited by enabling legislation.

Insurance isn't violating rights by verifying the information they are provided for payment is valid. Willingness to enter into an agreement is a very important factor in determining if an individual's rights are being violated. You entered into a contract with them. They have every right to enforce the contract as you do. But, if you are forced into a government run system, you have no choice.

O Really, billy.pilgrim and neoplacebo have already made mincemeat out of you on this. Pointless for me to restate what you refuse to read and/or understand. Your inability to comprehend just is not my problem, but it is my entertainment. Thank you.

I stopped after the first sentence. If you can't abstain from name calling and the like then you aren't worth talking too.

[Vrede too]

I stopped after the first sentence. If you can't abstain from name calling and the like then you aren't worth talking too.

"Are you drunk?" is NOT a name, liar (that is a name).

I get it, you're using your supposed hurt feewings as an excuse to cower from being owned on point after point, awww. Fine then, I can easily avoid being roped into responding when you're going to be such a child. It's not like you've been capable of being intellectually stimulating, anyhow. Muted. Buh-bye.

[neoplacebo]

I stopped after the first sentence. If you can't abstain from name calling and the like then you aren't worth talking too.

"Are you drunk?" is NOT a name, liar (that is a name).

I get it, you're using your supposed hurt feewings as an excuse to cower from being owned on point after point, awww. Fine then, I can easily avoid being roped into responding when you're going to be such a child. It's not like you've been capable of being intellectually stimulating, anyhow. Muted. Buh-bye.

I remember reading a story Hunter Thompson wrote for Rolling Stone years ago about the Roxanne Pulitzer divorce trial; he was in his hotel bar talking with the bartender and during the conversation, Hunter told the bartender that he was a doctor of torts; the bartender said "what's a tort?" and Hunter slapped him on the side of the head and said "THAT'S a tort."

[neoplacebo]

I stopped after the first sentence. If you can't abstain from name calling and the like then you aren't worth talking too.

That should be ......aren't worth talking to, not too. But never mind that; I'm still in a savage brain fog trying to glean any rational reason as to how government administered universal health care presents an invasion of privacy and more particularly what abortion has to do with that subject.

I remember when I had a fifth grade comprehension of things; I think it was when I was in the third or fourth grade.

[O Really]

But never mind that; I'm still in a savage brain fog trying to glean any rational reason as to how government administered universal health care presents an invasion of privacy

Paranoia: An instinct or thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality.

[neoplacebo]

But never mind that; I'm still in a savage brain fog trying to glean any rational reason as to how government administered universal health care presents an invasion of privacy

Paranoia: An instinct or thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality.

No doubt about it; the angst and fear could be overwhelming, especially to anyone engaged in massive Medicare fraud, in which case that angst and fear would not be totally irrational.

[PeacefulPartier]

I remain unable to see how any violation of privacy issue exists with regard to government administered health care; the administrators of that system act no differently than the administrators of private insurance act; both entities look at what was done, if it is covered under the plan, and pay, or not pay the bill. And in both those cases, your medical records may or may not be used to make those decisions. Where is the invasion of privacy?

Ok, then banning abortion is just hunky dory, right?

Also, in both cases above, if a procedure is denied, one is free to spend money to have it performed anyway. One is also free to sue in court or appeal through an appellate process in each case.

Really? Read this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537990/

The concept of a "contract" is also identical in both cases;

Oh, it absolutely is not. I don't know why you refuse to delineate between private entities and the government.

...when I got a Medicare card in the mail shortly before turning 65 it plainly states on the paper the card is attached to that if you don't want Medicare, just return the card to them and by doing so you won't have Medicare.

Completely irrelevant. As I have stated numerous times above, Medicare today is nothing like what is being proposed. Comparing Medicare today to the general goals of the various Medicare for all plans.

If an insurance agent is sitting in a chair at my place and goes through his spiel, he will give me a paper to sign, which means I've entered into a contract with that company. By keeping the Medicare card, I did the same thing. Another example: being a senior citizen, I sometimes get these checks in the mail that say right on them "this is a check" but it's a loan at something like a 92% interest rate. If I were to cash the check, I've entered into a contract (that I should be beaten severely for agreeing to).

Furthermore, when one applies for a job, the employer can get access to your credit history, criminal history, and work history, or at least what you tell them is your work history; they will be able to confirm this information by contacting those former employers to see if you're lying. Although they cannot, as far as I know, get access to your medical records, your credit history will tell them if you have or have not paid medical bills in the past. If you have a large unpaid medical bill, that in itself tells them you had a major medical expense, and when that expense initially was incurred. Why is that (much more of an invasion of privacy in my view) not an issue with you. {sic] Oh, not to mention peeing in a cup. This can not only be used to check for pot or opioids, but should the lab desire, can determine virtually any drug you take, legal or not. Why are you not jumping up and down over that?

You have no obligation to work for a company. You have no obligation to give them your work history or permission to view your credit report. You consent to that. Under any of the Medicare for all plans, you won't have the luxury of choice.

There really is no "privacy" anymore other than what you do in your house when not hooked up to some electronic device or when you're out in the woods. Even what you buy, unless you pay cash, is information that is gathered by entities that figure they can make use of it. This is why I buy things like tampons, pantyhose, and baby food.....not in an effort to protect my privacy but just to skew the system.

I just think peaceful partier is trying to make an issue of something that isn't one. I'm gonna go tomorrow morning and have one of my legs whacked off just above the knee; there's no reason for it, and it won't be covered by any medical insurance, but by god, I sure will keep my privacy. Plus they may give me some good drugs.

Good luck with that!

[neoplacebo]

Ok, I give up.

[billy.pilgrim]

I remain unable to see how any violation of privacy issue exists with regard to government administered health care; the administrators of that system act no differently than the administrators of private insurance act; both entities look at what was done, if it is covered under the plan, and pay, or not pay the bill. And in both those cases, your medical records may or may not be used to make those decisions. Where is the invasion of privacy?

Ok, then banning abortion is just hunky dory, right?

Also, in both cases above, if a procedure is denied, one is free to spend money to have it performed anyway. One is also free to sue in court or appeal through an appellate process in each case.

Really? Read this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537990/

The concept of a "contract" is also identical in both cases;

Oh, it absolutely is not. I don't know why you refuse to delineate between private entities and the government.

...when I got a Medicare card in the mail shortly before turning 65 it plainly states on the paper the card is attached to that if you don't want Medicare, just return the card to them and by doing so you won't have Medicare.

Completely irrelevant. As I have stated numerous times above, Medicare today is nothing like what is being proposed. Comparing Medicare today to the general goals of the various Medicare for all plans.

If an insurance agent is sitting in a chair at my place and goes through his spiel, he will give me a paper to sign, which means I've entered into a contract with that company. By keeping the Medicare card, I did the same thing. Another example: being a senior citizen, I sometimes get these checks in the mail that say right on them "this is a check" but it's a loan at something like a 92% interest rate. If I were to cash the check, I've entered into a contract (that I should be beaten severely for agreeing to).

Furthermore, when one applies for a job, the employer can get access to your credit history, criminal history, and work history, or at least what you tell them is your work history; they will be able to confirm this information by contacting those former employers to see if you're lying. Although they cannot, as far as I know, get access to your medical records, your credit history will tell them if you have or have not paid medical bills in the past. If you have a large unpaid medical bill, that in itself tells them you had a major medical expense, and when that expense initially was incurred. Why is that (much more of an invasion of privacy in my view) not an issue with you. {sic] Oh, not to mention peeing in a cup. This can not only be used to check for pot or opioids, but should the lab desire, can determine virtually any drug you take, legal or not. Why are you not jumping up and down over that?

You have no obligation to work for a company. You have no obligation to give them your work history or permission to view your credit report. You consent to that. Under any of the Medicare for all plans, you won't have the luxury of choice.

There really is no "privacy" anymore other than what you do in your house when not hooked up to some electronic device or when you're out in the woods. Even what you buy, unless you pay cash, is information that is gathered by entities that figure they can make use of it. This is why I buy things like tampons, pantyhose, and baby food.....not in an effort to protect my privacy but just to skew the system.

I just think peaceful partier is trying to make an issue of something that isn't one. I'm gonna go tomorrow morning and have one of my legs whacked off just above the knee; there's no reason for it, and it won't be covered by any medical insurance, but by god, I sure will keep my privacy. Plus they may give me some good drugs.

Good luck with that!

really, Charlie? sad story, but the kid had zero chance

next you'll be giving us Terri Schiavo


there comes a time when realistic people understand that it's time to stop torturing these people for politics and let them go peacefully

children understand - not so much

Do you know if you have been exposed to the ATCV-1 virus?
I'm betting that you believe with heart and soul that fox is "fair and balanced"

[PeacefulPartier]

I remain unable to see how any violation of privacy issue exists with regard to government administered health care; the administrators of that system act no differently than the administrators of private insurance act; both entities look at what was done, if it is covered under the plan, and pay, or not pay the bill. And in both those cases, your medical records may or may not be used to make those decisions. Where is the invasion of privacy?

Ok, then banning abortion is just hunky dory, right?

Also, in both cases above, if a procedure is denied, one is free to spend money to have it performed anyway. One is also free to sue in court or appeal through an appellate process in each case.

Really? Read this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537990/

The concept of a "contract" is also identical in both cases;

Oh, it absolutely is not. I don't know why you refuse to delineate between private entities and the government.

...when I got a Medicare card in the mail shortly before turning 65 it plainly states on the paper the card is attached to that if you don't want Medicare, just return the card to them and by doing so you won't have Medicare.

Completely irrelevant. As I have stated numerous times above, Medicare today is nothing like what is being proposed. Comparing Medicare today to the general goals of the various Medicare for all plans.

If an insurance agent is sitting in a chair at my place and goes through his spiel, he will give me a paper to sign, which means I've entered into a contract with that company. By keeping the Medicare card, I did the same thing. Another example: being a senior citizen, I sometimes get these checks in the mail that say right on them "this is a check" but it's a loan at something like a 92% interest rate. If I were to cash the check, I've entered into a contract (that I should be beaten severely for agreeing to).

Furthermore, when one applies for a job, the employer can get access to your credit history, criminal history, and work history, or at least what you tell them is your work history; they will be able to confirm this information by contacting those former employers to see if you're lying. Although they cannot, as far as I know, get access to your medical records, your credit history will tell them if you have or have not paid medical bills in the past. If you have a large unpaid medical bill, that in itself tells them you had a major medical expense, and when that expense initially was incurred. Why is that (much more of an invasion of privacy in my view) not an issue with you. {sic] Oh, not to mention peeing in a cup. This can not only be used to check for pot or opioids, but should the lab desire, can determine virtually any drug you take, legal or not. Why are you not jumping up and down over that?

You have no obligation to work for a company. You have no obligation to give them your work history or permission to view your credit report. You consent to that. Under any of the Medicare for all plans, you won't have the luxury of choice.

There really is no "privacy" anymore other than what you do in your house when not hooked up to some electronic device or when you're out in the woods. Even what you buy, unless you pay cash, is information that is gathered by entities that figure they can make use of it. This is why I buy things like tampons, pantyhose, and baby food.....not in an effort to protect my privacy but just to skew the system.

I just think peaceful partier is trying to make an issue of something that isn't one. I'm gonna go tomorrow morning and have one of my legs whacked off just above the knee; there's no reason for it, and it won't be covered by any medical insurance, but by god, I sure will keep my privacy. Plus they may give me some good drugs.

Good luck with that!

really, Charlie? sad story, but the kid had zero chance

What was the statement I was rebutting? That the government would never deny care when the patient had the desire and ability to seek alternative care. The case of Charlie Gard is proof that even in first world countries, the government can and will deny care. Would Charlie have lived? Highly doubtful. That isn't relevant. What is relevant is that the government prevented him the opportunity (and thus denied his right) to live. This reinforces the statement that under universal/single-payer health care systems you don't have a right to live. You have the privilege to health care and that privilege is at the whims of the bureaucracy and the voting public.

next you'll be giving us Terri Schiavo



there comes a time when realistic people understand that it's time to stop torturing these people for politics and let them go peacefully

children understand - not so much

Nope. Completely different circumstances that had nothing to do with the government.

Do you know if you have been exposed to the ATCV-1 virus?
I'm betting that you believe with heart and soul that fox is "fair and balanced"

Why? Why can't you just discuss the topic at hand? If you want to fling insults like monkeys flinging feces, don't expect me to fling it back. Stick to the topic or I won't respond.