Our Speaker of the House on Insurance Companies

[Knun]

So the Speaker of the House weighs in on the evil health care insurance companies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 22&sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.

"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

Just laughable,,,but sad. How dare they disagree!

But of course ther's more. There always is with true ASSHATS.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/notepad/200 ... s-mon.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called health insurers "the villains" in the unfolding story of the health care overhaul on Thursday, ratcheting up an anti-insurer theme trotted out by President Obama earlier this month and encouraged by other Democratic leaders in Congress.

Nancy Pelosi at a news conference on health care legislation last week.
"It is somewhat immoral what they are doing. Of course, they have been immoral all along how they have treated the people that they insure," MSNBC's Luke Russert quoted her as saying. "They are the villains in this."

Pelosi, of course, has accepted campaign contributions from said villains this year and in the past, as have most of her Democratic colleagues. Pelosi's campaign committee, for example, took $2,500 from AFLAC's political action committee on April 13. But she's not giving the money back just because she thinks the sources are immoral and villainous.
"As the Speaker's opposition to the health insurance companies being in charge of American's health care shows, there is no link between political contributions and positions on policy," said her spokesman Brendan Daly.
Besides, a quick look at her records suggests that health insurers make up a fraction of the money she accepts from the broader insurance industry and place her fairly low on the list of recipients -- particularly given her longtime spot atop the Democratic Party -- according to a study released earlier this year by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Pelosi ranked 55th among members of the 111th Congress in contributions from health insurers since the 1989-1990 election cycle, according to CRP, having taken in $186,750 (less than $20,000 per two-year cycle).
The real trick -- as Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., has shown -- is to turn your entire enemies list into your fundraising pool.
The targeting of insurance companies is a political natural, as Americans view them with great skepticism in polls. In one recent Gallup survey, only 4 percent of respondents chose insurers over doctors and hospitals, Obama and congressional Democrats, and congressional Republicans as the entity they most trust to reform the health care system.

They must not have "contributed" enough. Or they didn't pay appropraite tribute to her highness.

I wonder what would happen if it was illegal to give anyone a political contribution and no one could spend more than the registration fee to campaign for any office? Would snake oil saleman still run the Country?

[lbj]

knun, are you questioning only the democrats being bought off or is you post more general and questioning the whole american lobby system where big money owns our political leadership - democrat AND repbulican?

[Knun]

I've never said this to you before but you seem to have a lucid and rational moment.

Great question!

Of course the whole basis of your question is to try and point out misguided leadership as a whole to distract from the present....rule #4. Nice try but you get the booby prize for being clumsy and a tool. If you actually want to talk about that I would be willing but first you have to finish this one rationally.

But alas my question was about Nancy Pelosi....as is clearly written. Of course I can easily post some of her statements concerning this type of activity but there is no need.

So LBJ....what are your thoughts on Nancy Pelosi and what I posted about her actions? Do you agree with her stayements and actions or do you disagree and find it rather....."misleading."

[Knun]

See how this works.....

Your civil. I start to be civil.

If your civil twice in a row I will be completely civil.

Just as I was the first two years I was posting here. The name calling and childishness needs to end. If you want to move up from the kids table to the Adult table your going to have to start acting like one.

So let's move past this and have a reasonable conversation.

[lbj]

knun

Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior

of course i agree that the insurance companies are unethical. dont you???

lets take a quick look at the american health care system. from birth to 65 private insurance will cover you as long as you are not sick. once you reach 65 and are no longer profitable they hand you over to the government's social health care system (medicare).

because of the anti-democratic tactics the insurance industry is using to kill the health are bill i would be among the first to donate to the legal defense fund of anyone who used their second amendment right and shot an insurance executive.

[Knun]

LBJ,

of course i agree that the insurance companies are unethical. dont you???

You sidestepped the entire point of the topic. The point of discussion is that while Pelosi says the insurance companies are unethical she willingly accepts money from those unethical companies.

I will address your question in a moment but first, how is it that a representative can say something like "they are unethical" yet still take money from them? It's pretty obvious to me what that says about the ethics of that representative.....they have none.

But I asked you what YOU thought about her actions. Do you agree? Disagree? The question was about Pelosi's actions nothing else.

As for your question. I beleive unethical behavior is a factor in our health care and the same goes for the socialist programs. It's an easy claim to make. Of course the concept of "unethical" is rather obscure. What is unethical to me may be perfectly fine to someone from Saudi Arabia for example. To me, when I get a ticket from a camera that is unethical. To others maybe not so much. So your question gets us no where.

lets take a quick look at the american health care system. from birth to 65 private insurance will cover you as long as you are not sick.

I don't understand this statement. The healthcare I have takes care of me regardless of wether I'm heathy or sick. Where did you come up with that idea? The people I know are covered for sickness. You lost me on that one.

once you reach 65 and are no longer profitable they hand you over to the government's social health care system (medicare).

I guess you could look at it that way. But that is the socialist blanket that was put in place in the thirties so companies adapted to the coverage provided by the state.

Actually I'm not sure why you socialists want to upset the apple cart. We already have socialized medicine with a capitalist slant. Companies provide health insurance and the state takes over at 65. Why not fix the portions that are not working not change the whole thing?

The reason the gov wants to change the whole thing is for the power the gov can have at that point. Is that not unethical?

[lbj]

knun,

You sidestepped the entire point of the topic. The point of discussion is that while Pelosi says the insurance companies are unethical she willingly accepts money from those unethical companies.

open your eyes. what politician does NOT take money from lobbyists???? or are you telling me its ok for republican politicians to take lobbyist money because we all know they sold their souls to the corporate devils long ago and democratic politicians should be pure and not take corporate money?

until we have electoral reform i dont trust any politician and dont have use for any of them.

obama campaigned on health care reform and now he is backing down even though democrats control the white house and congress. i voted for him because he promised universal health care and i dont see it in the current legislation. and no, i am not surprised.

I don't understand this statement. The healthcare I have takes care of me regardless of wether I'm heathy or sick. Where did you come up with that idea? The people I know are covered for sickness. You lost me on that one.

its called pre-existing conditions. if you are not healthy you cant get coverage. take your head out of the sand for a minute.

Actually I'm not sure why you socialists want to upset the apple cart. We already have socialized medicine with a capitalist slant. Companies provide health insurance and the state takes over at 65. Why not fix the portions that are not working not change the whole thing?

no wonder you want me to fund your new business venture. you got no clue on how to fund it yourself. for a capitalist you dont understand capitalism and insurance at all. the idea of insurance is to spread the risk. in health care the highest risk and cost is in the over 65 group. by dumping them on the govt you are giving the low risk, profitable group to private insurance and taking the high risk population out of that pool. if you have some spare cash i have a profitable toll bridge to sell, give me a call.

[NeedleMan]

Hey guys just want to weigh in here..

I employ about 11 people and if you have a pre-existing condition the Insurance company (Blue Cross, Blue Shield) has to take you into the group regardless after the first ninety days of employment. This is the law now. If you have a group plan that's what it's for to spread the risk around and cover the pre-existing sickness of a new employee. Other insurance companies do offer over 65 coverage for those that don't want or like medicare or medicade. Or just a supplimental to off set the government program.

So this argument Pelosi is making is dumb. Just about as dumb as all the rest of congress on the Democratic side of the isle. Remember they have the majority in teh house and senate but they don't have the majority of the people. They ahev lost that in just six short months.

This morning in Florida the Democrats used Big Union Thugs to silence any dissent in a twon hall meeting.

They Violently ejected the entire group simply because they had an opinion different from their own pre set ideology and massive health care agenda.

This is not the way to win over americans.


Needleman

[lbj]

needleman,

from arizona blue cross:

If you are accepted, certain medical conditions may be waived (excluded from coverage).

and

Waiting period for pre-existing conditions - 11 months

insurance regulations vary state to state and NO american health insurance plan is portable. when your employees no longer work for you they cannot take their plan with them.

[JIM HAMRICK]

I may think that our insurance policies could use some tunning but what is being expoused is the most stupid approach. It has had to be dreamed up by a madman. Someone is trying to rob the American people of common sense and I believe that this is an example.

I have insurance that provides me what I believe I need. I pay approxamately 2/3 and my past employer (I am retired) pays the other 1/3 of the cost. This covers myself and my wife. I am very satisfied with it and do not want anyone messing with it. This policy picks up most of the things that the goverment does not pay for or only pays a percentage of. This not an inexpensive policey but I have turned down less expensive and more costly ones because I felt that the policy I choose more nearly fits my needs.

In the USA it is said that we have 40 million, 30 milliom, 20 million, 15 million, take your pick, uninsured people. Now, in a country as weathly as we are (were) there is no excuse for citizens with out someway of obtaintin acess to health care. The challenge is to provide this care without destroying the smooth running system that most of the people prefer.

Why don't we start by controlling the law suites that costs all of us. Then we allow insurance polices to be nation wide. Then we should investigate missspent monies and punish the filling of false claimes.
If any of our citizens can not afford insurances(strict guidlines on who is eligable) then they should be covered by a basic policey.

I realise that there will be many problems with what I suggest but it would not be the nightmare that our socialist/fascist government wants to saddle us with.

I am not inpuming the beliefs of most of our legislators but who would believe that in my life time we would see so many of our leaders abandond the capitalist system and ape the nazis right down to the brown shirts.

I am 71 years old and my time is getting close, hopefully another 10 years or so but you young ones will have to live many years under what laws are inacted, please pick carefully who writes the laws


jim hamrick













american

[lbj]

jim,

This policy picks up most of the things that the goverment does not pay for or only pays a percentage of.

i am glad to hear that you are happy with your government run socialist health care and have private insurance to cover the extras not found in your socialist policy (medicare). why is it so wrong for the younger ones to want the same socialist health care that your are enjoying?

can you make up your mind. is obama a socialist or is he a fascist?

the only brown shirts i am seeing is the right wing nuts storming health care town hall meetings and shouting so no reasonable debate can take place.

[don]

Any working class people (in my opinion) who vote against ,or disagree with, health care for all,regardless of the ability to pay are like turkeys voting for an early christmas. What on earth is there to complain about? As for it being free..of course it isnt.....the government funds it,and of course the government-any government does not have any money of its own,it only has tax revenues....i.e your money.Now taxes will always be levied,its all a question of what your tax payments are used for.What more noble cause can the revenues be spent on than decent health care for ALL? How a country treats, cares for,looka after its old,infirm,disadvantaged and the obviously sick within its society defines in large part what kind of society it is.Is nothing sacred? Corporate greed has infiltrated into every level of our lives,including the medical world,its a shame that there is a two tier medical system,one for those that have,and one for those that have not.......Iyts indicative of the far larger issue of personal worth....or value......In our society where an actor,or a pop singer or whatever,who in their occupation do nothing meaningful whatsover are paid a thousand times more than someone who does.
Im not an Obama fan,but if he acheives his health care objectives and nothing else,then his presidency will have been more than worth it...........Its time we should all shed this "im allright Jack" attitude,time to get rid of this silly patriotic nonsense,whether its regarding politics or ones own country,and see the world for what it is,but more importantly to see what this world requires..........before its too late.

[JIM HAMRICK]

It looks like my use of the english language is not very good. I thought I said that there is "no reason for any American citizen to be with out medical care". My Ideal would have all who could not afford the cost of insurance having their insurance paid for (or partialy paid for due to need)by you and me. Using the most pessimistic counts we have about 25%+/-of the citizens uninsured and by the latest polls on satisfaction of the American citizens with their insurance 70%+/- were happy or very happy. When you try to solve 25% of the populous problem by denying 75%+/- of whom 70%+/- are happy with their insurance.

I have to think that those of you who oppose intelligent ways of solving the uninsureds problem to only be intrestred in socalizing the medical system in thr U.S.A. not for an alcruistic intrest in the plight of the unsured.

jim hamrick

[JIM HAMRICK]

Please ignore all of my spelling and grammer errors in my last post. I can only plead diminished brain capacity and rushing through it.

jim hamrick

[don]

It looks like my use of the english language is not very good. I thought I said that there is "no reason for any American citizen to be with out medical care". My Ideal would have all who could not afford the cost of insurance having their insurance paid for (or partialy paid for due to need)by you and me. Using the most pessimistic counts we have about 25%+/-of the citizens uninsured and by the latest polls on satisfaction of the American citizens with their insurance 70%+/- were happy or very happy. When you try to solve 25% of the populous problem by denying 75%+/- of whom 70%+/- are happy with their insurance.

I have to think that those of you who oppose intelligent ways of solving the uninsureds problem to only be intrestred in socalizing the medical system in thr U.S.A. not for an alcruistic intrest in the plight of the unsured.

jim hamrick

The insurance companies dont insure individuals because they are concerned about those individuals health.They do it to make money..pure and simple.....if those companies could make money by legally letting every patient die -then they would. Health care is too important to be left soley in the hands of corporate institutions. And if,as by your suggestion the 70% of the "satisfied" pay for the 30% that arent,some would say that that in of itself constitutes the "socialising of the medical system"
And of course the main issue should be,that the insured will be covered...up to a point,or a limit under the private health insurance system......then what?
I have to think that some are only interested in kicking the ""political football" around and have even less concern for the plight of the"uninsured" or those not "fully insured"(though that phrase is a contradiction in terms)
By the way who organised the polls you speak of? the chairman of the private health industries?

[Knun]

no wonder you want me to fund your new business venture. you got no clue on how to fund it yourself. for a capitalist you dont understand capitalism and insurance at all. the idea of insurance is to spread the risk. in health care the highest risk and cost is in the over 65 group. by dumping them on the govt you are giving the low risk, profitable group to private insurance and taking the high risk population out of that pool. if you have some spare cash i have a profitable toll bridge to sell, give me a call.

LBJ,
You know darn well the last great american socialist put medicare in place. Try to stay with me a bit. I'm tired of slowing down for you. The evil capitalist adjusted accordingly.

Don,
One thing you seem to not understand. The poor and infirm are covered by health insurance in this country. Yes, it's paid for by the Government. The folks that actually are not covered are those folks that are working but cannot afford insurance. Another aspect is the rising costs. In Britain they just start cutting coverage. Here we pay more. (Of course there are more details but for an internet forum a broad stroke seems appropriate.)

These are the things that need to be addressed....NOT changing the whole system. Our system (for those covered) works much better than any socialized system. I cannot imagine waiting 14 months for gall bladder surgery. Yet you did. Mine would be done within days. Just an example.

The majority of Americans are happy with what they have regardless of what LBJ spews. He's been given an agenda to promote and the truth matters not to him. That's why he never agreed Pelosi's actions were and are frightening. When one of his masters is challenged he will always try and divert to another group...in this case the republicans. He is incapable of agreeing with anything that defies his handlers. Sad really.

As for the majority here. If the majority like what they have why must it be changed? Couldn't it be fixed? Of course it could. But there is an agenda here. It is the socialization of American at a faster rate than ever before. That has quite a few folks here very concerned about our collective future.

That's why you see all these folks angry at these townhalls. By the way don't buy into the bullcrap line these are organized by a political party. The majority are just average folks. Are they organized. Some are but they are much more of a grassroots movement than the media is willing to portray.

[lbj]

knun,

You know darn well the last great american socialist put medicare in place. Try to stay with me a bit. I'm tired of slowing down for you. The evil capitalist adjusted accordingly.

sure i know it was the last great socialist who brought us medicare. he also took down the whites only signs. no wonder you hate him.

i make no apologies for slowing you down. you are tied to a conservative leash and it does not matter how fast or how slow you run your circle. you aint going nowhere bubba.

[Knun]

sure i know it was the last great socialist who brought us medicare. he also took down the whites only signs. no wonder you hate him.

You don't even have a clue as to who I was referring to. "took down the whites only signs" your kidding right?

What about Woodrow Wilson? Another ASSHAT warmonger.

With a Democratic majority in Congress, Wilson pushed through many reforms, including the graduated income tax, a lower tariff, laws restricting child labor and the Federal Reserve Act. However, he proved to be less decisive on other reform issues. He had little confidence in the ability of women to vote and participate in politics, but for political reasons he was slow to oppose the determined suffragettes. Similarly, he fought for the child labor law with obvious reluctance and supported the Adamson Act only to head off a threatened strike by railroad workers. Wilson’s most obvious failure at reform was his policy toward blacks. Segregation had never been the custom in federal government offices in Washington, D.C. However, faced with strong pressure from his fellow Southerners, Wilson allowed segregation in the capital. Challenged with his vague promises before election that he would treat blacks with fairness, he could only say that the new policy of segregation was in the best interests of blacks and he would angrily end the interview when he was disputed.

Did you know that he segregated the military? Of course not because you a mindless tool.

This from an ASSHAT who was the only Doctorate ever to serve as President and a Nobel winner. In the end his actions allowed the holocast to happen and the majority of Europe to be destroyed. His League of Nations failed from the beginning.