wow

a) Dems could show some balls for once and fillibuster.

b) I don't think it's that easy to just keep flip-flopping between legislation when one party comes into power. Otherwise govt would be even more of a mess than it already is. Maybe someone with more procedural knowledge than me can chime in. But I think there are roadblocks in place to just flat repealing it if the repubs take power. I guess I'm more worried about them starving it of oxygen like they're doing with Dodd/Frank.

The only road block is the normal legislative process (which is a pretty big road block). Congress can repeal or change pretty much any existing legislation with simple majority votes (so long as there isn't a fillibuster).

Some states do a great job regulating Insurance Carriers, others not so good.

That being said to completely deregulate Health Insurance Co.s would be a disaster.

Reconsidering how they're regulated, like getting the Federal Government out of under 65 plans, is a great idea but as much as it appears that I stick up for private insurance carriers and the current system (to a degree) don't kid yourself as to how they will perform given the ability to regulate themselves.

casey you really shouldn't be allowed to keep asserting complete factual falsehoods about health insurance like you have the tiniest clue what you're talking about. At least not until you admit you were wrong about insurance companies denying claims. I mean this basically amounts to trolling.

So he'd be an extension of Obama?

What's that have to do with what I just wrote? It actually would appear you're trolling me.

For the analogy to hold, Obama would have to be seen as caving to the left-wing of his party. Is that what you think has been happening?

Nothing. Just admit that you were wrong about whether or not insurance companies deny claims and we can move on. Otherwise no one should ever listen to a word you say about healthcare.

Also half of the features in the thing you listed yesterday are a direct result of Obamacare, which was the point of the original argument. and are in danger of going away if Obamacare is repealed. Are you going to just ignore that as well?

I mean the point is you make these statements, then just completely ignore everyone when they show you to be completely wrong, then bounce back and make more statements like you're some kind of expert. It's ridiculous.

Some of the features that came up yesterday may have been due to regulations put into place since Obama has been in office.

That does not include insurers being able to cancel insurance due to health conditions nor guarantee issue for small business. (which off the top of my head was 3 of the 5 points I responded to since 2 included the latter)

Deny claims and not provide care are very different arguments. Let's say a Dr. orders an MRI, the insurance carrier may deny that, based on the condition, and counter with approving an x-ray first than if needed the MRI would be approved.

You have to understand that there's a lot of abuse by providers to milk the insurance companies. If you consider my example as denying a claim then I disagree with you.

Look man, nothing is 100% and certainly, for a plethora of reasons people aren't always going to get what a provider says they should eg abuse of the system, requirements of more simple tests being done prior to what was originally ordered, step therapy for Rx, it goes on and on.

I'm simply saying that at the end of the day people are not denied quality health care. (That have quality coverage)

Your approach seems to be to villainize an industry, that provides quality care, with broad stroke examples that are so far from the norm that it becomes to the point of absurd.

Edit
I just looked at my post from yesterday the other two things I commented on is that Medicare provides excellent coverage for seniors and disabled which has been in place long before Obama came in office and the other being the guaranteed issue plan provided by the Government. To the latter I'm almost positive that that was put into place since Obama entered office and there's no doubt in my mind that Medicare provides excellent healthcare.

My head hurts, did you admit you were wrong on the claims thing or not? Keep in mind that as of yesterday you were still claiming that 100s of websites about "What to do if my claim is denied?" were not proof that claims could actually be denied.

Read what I just wrote, if it hurts your head it may be because you just don't want to hear it or goes against your beliefs.

Were you wrong about claims being denied or not? Yes or no question.

National GOP Pew Research Poll Oct 1-4

Romney 22%
Cain 18%
Perry 15%
Paul 13%
Gingrich 7%
Bachmann 5%
Santorum 2%
Huntsman 1%

Regulations regarding insurance companies and the medical industry in general are a huge barrier of entry. All I want is more competition and less crony corporatism.

While we're at it a massive change in the legal system would probably help lower the cost of medical treatments as well (our legal system is far from perfect but the idea that the loser pays the legal fees of the winner seems pretty intuitive for example).

I'd also like to get an answer to the question if she couldn't get any insurance at all or if it was just really expensive.

How likely are Bachmann supporters to switch to Paul once she drops out?

Why would Bachmann supporters switch to Paul?

only those of the delusional variety that think all TP votes belong to RP. The same can be said about how all the rational supporters of Huntsman won't auto switch to RP.

Her religious followers go first to Perry I would suppose. The nutbars back to the Tuesday meetings.

Bachman's endorsement has some value and no way in hell she is going to endorse Paul.

Romney still a lock, always has been. Probably the least interesting primary ever.

Not seeing him as a lock. Still think he needs to have 3-4 candidates in the race for a while to win. If the field gets narrowed down to just 2 candidates quickly he will have a lot of problems. I think over 50% of Reps want someone else they just can't agree on who and if they have no other choice who that person is that is when it will get interesting.

I don't think you understand what a claim is. Patient goes in for a procedure, the provider gets authorization, once that occurs they provide the service.

Maybe you need to define what you think a "claim" is.

lol keep wriggling. This is the first time you've ever characterized it like that. You might want to tell all these sites they are using the wrong word then: http://www.google.com/search?q=what+...fe=images&tbs=

Doctors can't always get explicit approval, and insurance companies can still deny for any number of reasons. I've had a doctor tell me "look we do the best we can, but we never know for sure what the insurance company is going to cover".

Or, you used the wrong word when doing your search.

Regarding the bolded, I disagree, they most certainly can unless it's an emergency.

and no they cannot deny once they've issued an approval.

That's a great talking point and all - but I don't see how it's relevant. You think the current insurance companies are charging high rates for high risk people just to be mean or as part of some massive profit grab? Their rates are high because its expensive to insure a lot of these people. I don't see how some new up-and-coming and innovative insurance company is going to get around that point. It's more likely that they come up with a new and innovative way to avoid covering various procedures.

Sooo the field seemed ripe for a late entry by Chris Christie or Palin but both declined. Anyone feel like conspiratarding why? I'm thinking it's cuz 2012 and **** is ending no matter what but I'm kind drunk

But seriously it seemed like Christie woulda had a shot and him postponing it till he's "ready" just seems... weird. And with him saying no first Palin saying no just seems weirder, tho maybe not because she never really stood a chance.