Does this dog deserve to die?

[PLC1]

You decide.

Video here

 

[LooseChange]

Your a bunch of Damn Dogs!

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2009/10/21/am.acosta.insurance.dogs.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

So you get what you deserve America....Enjoy it...you have earned it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Was that a news story or an editorial. Because the two anchors sure ended it like an editorial. Could it be that CNN does not know the difference?

They also said right at the beginning that they were going to present cases from both sides of the debate. Only one case was presented.

And that one does not make a good case for reform at all for these reasons:

The man was not denied coverage because he was disabled. He was denied coverage because everyone in his pool was discontinued. The company has been shrinking and has eliminated coverage in whole states. They did not single that man out for being a dog. (they did weigh the pros and cons of him being in the group they were to discontinue)

The man was not going to loose care. Even if he looses his insurance he is disabled and will still be covered under SSDI. If he should lose his SSDI (which can only happen if one makes too much money) then he could pay for his care or take public aid.

The state, whose job it is to protect people's rights, evaluated his complaint and sided with the insurance company.

One person in that company called people like him "dogs" and the company made it clear that they do not condone language like that.

lastly if we were to have a system like they have in the UK then his medical care would be subject to "quality adjusted life years" and he would be rated and given a score which would determine his chance of getting care. His disability would automatically cause him to lose points and they just might not want to pay the million dollars a year for his care. Do we really want people to have only one choice for health care, with no appeals outside of the state, and have that one choice rate your life on a number system?

 

[chestnut]

Quick. Call Rahm Emanuel and Anita Dunn and let them know that CNN is reporting news with a "perspective".

 

[LooseChange]

Was that a news story or an editorial. Because the two anchors sure ended it like an editorial. Could it be that CNN does not know the difference?

They also said right at the beginning that they were going to present cases from both sides of the debate. Only one case was presented.

And that one does not make a good case for reform at all for these reasons:

The man was not denied coverage because he was disabled. He was denied coverage because everyone in his pool was discontinued. The company has been shrinking and has eliminated coverage in whole states. They did not single that man out for being a dog. (they did weigh the pros and cons of him being in the group they were to discontinue)

The man was not going to loose care. Even if he looses his insurance he is disabled and will still be covered under SSDI. If he should lose his SSDI (which can only happen if one makes too much money) then he could pay for his care or take public aid.

The state, whose job it is to protect people's rights, evaluated his complaint and sided with the insurance company.

One person in that company called people like him "dogs" and the company made it clear that they do not condone language like that.

lastly if we were to have a system like they have in the UK then his medical care would be subject to "quality adjusted life years" and he would be rated and given a score which would determine his chance of getting care. His disability would automatically cause him to lose points and they just might not want to pay the million dollars a year for his care. Do we really want people to have only one choice for health care, with no appeals outside of the state, and have that one choice rate your life on a number system?

Well Damn don't the insurance companies do that already??? you make it sound like insurance companies are like in fallible of making these types of judgments on their own. I'd prefer to let the government tell me no that way the world can see how our system is because at least public pressure to have then change their minds would put a strangle hold on whomever said "NO". With insurance companies they could care less about public opinion and do what ever the hell they want to do with out any repercussion. The idiots who allowed that law in which the insurance companies won by are a bunch of assholes for putting it in the books to begin with....Yeah this is what happens when you let the people decide through their elected representatives on what laws to pass and what laws to use to screw other people over...DEMOCRACY AT ITS FINEST.... Like Socrates used to say "Give the people a voice and nothing gets accomplished"

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Re: Your a bunch of Damn Dogs!

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2009/10/21/am.acosta.insurance.dogs.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

So you get what you deserve America....Enjoy it...you have earned it.

Hey, there...would love to view/read/hear this but can't seem to get the connection to locate correctly do you have the URL link? Http link? Youtube Link

 

[LooseChange]

Re: Your a bunch of Damn Dogs!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/10/21/am.acosta.insurance.dogs.cnn

There you go and it's in another discussion but yeah. Here you go.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Was that a news story or an editorial. Because the two anchors sure ended it like an editorial. Could it be that CNN does not know the difference?

They also said right at the beginning that they were going to present cases from both sides of the debate. Only one case was presented.

And that one does not make a good case for reform at all for these reasons:

The man was not denied coverage because he was disabled. He was denied coverage because everyone in his pool was discontinued. The company has been shrinking and has eliminated coverage in whole states. They did not single that man out for being a dog. (they did weigh the pros and cons of him being in the group they were to discontinue)

The man was not going to loose care. Even if he looses his insurance he is disabled and will still be covered under SSDI. If he should lose his SSDI (which can only happen if one makes too much money) then he could pay for his care or take public aid.

The state, whose job it is to protect people's rights, evaluated his complaint and sided with the insurance company.

One person in that company called people like him "dogs" and the company made it clear that they do not condone language like that.

lastly if we were to have a system like they have in the UK then his medical care would be subject to "quality adjusted life years" and he would be rated and given a score which would determine his chance of getting care. His disability would automatically cause him to lose points and they just might not want to pay the million dollars a year for his care. Do we really want people to have only one choice for health care, with no appeals outside of the state, and have that one choice rate your life on a number system?

Oh please, Hemmer and Kelly make comments about stories all the time on their morning show at Fox.

Sure they didn't single him out when an email that discussed his case brought up the idea to look into wiping out the entire line. He's just a catalyst.

Everyone doesn't use "that kind of language" when they get caught. For once we had insurance company execs being candid, then the back flips come because it makes for bad PR.

 

[Bunz]

threads merged.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Quick. Call Rahm Emanuel and Anita Dunn and let them know that CNN is reporting news with a "perspective".

I'm very curious how you would handle this kind of situation, Chest, since you tend to post as if you embrace the idea that everyone can hoist themselves up by their bootstraps.

On another thread you said that "equal opportunity" wasn't discriminatory, that everyone has the same chance (you gave examples of sports stars and millionaires among others). Where our system lacks equal opportunity is that it requires everyone to play the same game and the people who are smart enough, fast enough, educated enough, or have the flexible morality to win at the game will do very well preying on all the rest. But where do people go who don't wish to play the game? It used to be that there were wilderness areas where people could go and grow their own food and live without being capitalists or communists or whatever. Now there's no place to go, every year the strictures on our behavior get tighter and tighter. We are like a cannibal society preying as we do on everyone else, where do the people go, the gentle souls who don't wish to eat their fellows?

 

[Hanno]

How can one get $1 million worth of goods/services in exchange for a sum 2-3 orders of magnitude lower? Only reason something like that could happen is if there's a contract (or through the magic of violence). If insurance companies get special legal status, it's fascism, if they refuse to compete with one another, it's collusion - there'll be more of both with Obamacare.

Even if such a contract were available, I wouldn't spend a dime I could put to use with an able body to set things up in case I become a gastropod. Given that I've never leased a car, I believe there are tens of millions of people with poorer planning-ability than I - so it doesn't amaze me that there's someone in the above-mentioned fix.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well Damn don't the insurance companies do that already??? you make it sound like insurance companies are like in fallible of making these types of judgments on their own. I'd prefer to let the government tell me no that way the world can see how our system is because at least public pressure to have then change their minds would put a strangle hold on whomever said "NO". With insurance companies they could care less about public opinion and do what ever the hell they want to do with out any repercussion. The idiots who allowed that law in which the insurance companies won by are a bunch of assholes for putting it in the books to begin with....Yeah this is what happens when you let the people decide through their elected representatives on what laws to pass and what laws to use to screw other people over...DEMOCRACY AT ITS FINEST.... Like Socrates used to say "Give the people a voice and nothing gets accomplished"

It would help if you cleaned up the grammar a a bit.

Are you seriously arguing that with gov you have more recourse when you are unhappy.

With a private company you can switch to any one of another 3000 companies. The man in the OP can work for any company in the US with more than 100 employees and cannot be denied insurance. If someone treats him unfairly he can appeal to the courts (like he did) and get a judgement from a third party. He can pay for his own care if he has money or he can apply for SSDI or public aid. He has tons of options.

But were we to have a gov run single payer health care system he would lose almost all of those options and he would be left with "public pressure."

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh please, Hemmer and Kelly make comments about stories all the time on their morning show at Fox.

I have never seen hemmer and kelly. But I did see those two in the vid from the OP. And they were doing an editorial not news.

Sure they didn't single him out when an email that discussed his case brought up the idea to look into wiping out the entire line. He's just a catalyst.

The judge who represents the gov didn't see it as a problem. I do. And I see remedies when other people who do business with that company switch to others.

Everyone doesn't use "that kind of language" when they get caught. For once we had insurance company execs being candid, then the back flips come because it makes for bad PR.

It certainly does make for bad PR. This company will get what they deserve.
How many million will see the video? But lets not focus too much on the inconsequential and ignore the important parts of the story.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

I have never seen hemmer and kelly. But I did see those two in the vid from the OP. And they were doing an editorial not news.

So are you saying the facts of the story were in correct? The add on comments are what the cable market pays for.

It certainly does make for bad PR. This company will get what they deserve.
How many million will see the video? But lets not focus too much on the inconsequential and ignore the important parts of the story.

Yeah, the company is going to get what it deserves alright - continued politician assisted markets.

 

[LooseChange]

It would help if you cleaned up the grammar a a bit.

Are you seriously arguing that with gov you have more recourse when you are unhappy.

With a private company you can switch to any one of another 3000 companies. The man in the OP can work for any company in the US with more than 100 employees and cannot be denied insurance. If someone treats him unfairly he can appeal to the courts (like he did) and get a judgement from a third party. He can pay for his own care if he has money or he can apply for SSDI or public aid. He has tons of options.

But were we to have a gov run single payer health care system he would lose almost all of those options and he would be left with "public pressure."

In all Seriousness...Where is GEICO when you need'em I mean hell let the Auto insurance industry offer health care coverage. They have been in the business a long time and I don't see why they don't offer health care coverage. Hell give me 15 minutes or more to save on health care coverage?!? but I agree with you Dr. Who the government will do a terrible job with it. hell most of our seniors are very happy with their medicare I mean look at them. They may complain but if they didn't then obviously the government wasn't doing something right. As for SSDI you said it yourself. a PUBLIC OPTION?!?