posted on August 5, 2001 12:00:05 PM new
I believe you're referring to President Bush being quoted as saying on ABC This Week on 7-25: "I laid out the principles that would allow me to sign a bill and I still stand by those principles."
The short paragraph that was on ABC's URL was not clickable and said the program was scheduled to show today, Aug. 5th.
Either a compromise will be reached, or we'll be seeing a veto by President Bush. Compromise is a good thing. But a veto certainly isn't going to make any democrat think differently about his policies, so why not stand by his principles?
It's my belief that President Bush doesn't want to see the high $$ limits on lawsuits as he feels, and I agree, that to do so is going to mean much higher insurance costs to the end user. That will only result in the lawyers making the money and the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for same, thus more will be less able to afford their insurance.
Then as more and more people lose their insurance, everyone (who doesn't support his policies anyway) will then be blaming that on him.
posted on August 5, 2001 12:15:45 PM new
What a priviledge to have amongst us someone privy to the beliefs of G.W. Bush, but if [i]"my belief that President Bush doesn't want to see the high $$ limits on lawsuits as he feels, and I agree, that to do so is going to mean much higher insurance costs to the end user. That will only result in the lawyers making the money and the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for same, thus more will be less able to afford
their insurance"[/i] is true then how is it that the predicted "much higher rates" have not already been emplaced since the restrictions proposed are not yet in effect?
No, the restrictions are protective mechanisms for the benefit of the HMOs only, and will not serve to restrain or reduce rates or enable any more people who cannot afford insurance to afford it. After all, the prospect of paying for a medical error which is the result of an administrative move by an HMO striving to further protect it's profits at the expense of proper medical treatment could very well exceed the proposed limitations. When payouts do that, profits fall. Even though payouts could be reduced by medical not administrative beancounter decisions concerning allocated care, such a situation would place the onus upon HMOs to do what people expect and pay them to do.
So these restrictions would cut off care to anyone permanently impaired by the irresponsible profiteering of these companies and that is what Dumbya would have for us all.
posted on August 5, 2001 12:44:34 PM new
krs - Of course, that's your opinion. I just see it differently.
We've had the HMO argument here before and I'm not going into all that again.
Seems to me that although Clinton was in office for two terms, he never did get a patient bill of rights passed. I know, blame it on everyone else. Fact is it didn't happen.
Hopefully this time both sides will place the peoples interest above their party lines.
posted on August 5, 2001 01:01:19 PM new
I think that it is appropriate to be extremely concerned for the health, well-being, and life of any person who is dependent upon HMOs for their care, and this will only give them license to continue as they please.
If I had followed the medical regimen prescribed, (which was a we'll do nothing regimen), or rather imposed by the HMO to which I subscribe because of their money saving motivations I would be dead today.
If cost saving to consumers is the prime aim of these insurance companies why were they the second largest contributors to the bush campaign? Because of their political ideals? Don't make me laugh--they gave to bush because they stood to gain, in dollars, tenfold or a hundredfold, or a thousand, actually millions for having done so and there is absolutely no way around that fact.
posted on August 5, 2001 02:11:10 PM new
I don't know how to state it any differently that I already have.
With unlimited $$ limits on lawsuits the HMO users are going to be paying for this. The insurance companies are just telling everyone what's going to happen if there are no limits. They certainly aren't going to take this loss from their profits. And the $$ amounts would be substantial. Many will lose their ability to afford *any* insurance, as costs increase.
President Bush is doing this to pay back his contributors or something along that line.
Well....surprise, surprise....they *all* pay back their contributors in one way or the other.
Personally, I'd rather see some kind patients bill of rights passed, rather than have none as happened under the clinton administration.
posted on August 5, 2001 02:57:06 PM new
Your mixed up. This hasn't to do with patient's bills of rights, it's to do with insurance companies gaining a further ability to steal.
You cite warnings from insurance companies about what will happen to rates? Ridiculous. Does an insurance company make you feel all warm and fuzzy and cared for? The rates have already risen if they will, do you think you're going to get a refund? They make billions upon billions of of people like you and what they want is to not have to return any more than necessary.
If you ever should need their services you WILL find, if you have the ability and legal force, that they continue to pinch pennies by denying to you, without informing you, the full extent of care available. The have statistical models which they will consult first before you are given any needed procedure to determine the likelihood of that procedure being cost effective in terms of extending your life long enough that your premium payments will return their investment in you and hopefully gain them a profit from it.
Every single action by your family health doctor through an HMO is subject to review and approval by the corporate moguls who run the show. If you think it's care you are a fool--it's profit and loss and nothing else.
Now you would support this perversion of a president who will do what he can to assure a safe operating environment for a company that would prefer that you die if you cannot pay their monthly bill, and not only support but believe in blind ignorance that it's for your good or for the good of anyone else? Incredible.
I hope they are paying you well.
Sure, go back to Clinton as you all do. Clinton is not the point--he doesn't matter--bush is the point and the problem.
posted on August 5, 2001 03:21:16 PM new
Linda, if I had meant to quote W from 7/25, I would have used that quote and attributed it to him. Instead, I was referring to the quote I posted, which was made by Mr. Armey this morning, which he made in reference to those who don't see drilling in ANWR as the solution to our alleged energy shortage. Although I must admit that the Armey quote and the W quote make an interesting set of rhetorical bookends.
I have no idea what led you to believe that I was referring to a different statement by somebody else when I explicitly specified the quote and the issuer of same. I assure you I was not trying to be obfuscatory. Please let me know if there's any way I can make this clearer in the future.
-gaffan-
(waiting to find out what I can put in my sig file)
posted on August 6, 2001 12:25:17 AM new
gaffan - I have no idea what lead you to believe.....
Well, your initial post was rather short. Sorry I didn't understand what you were referring to and got off on a different subject.
To explain myself......After reading your post I did a search on ABCs This Week. The only other article where Dick Armey's name was mentioned was the show that was 'to be' on today, but the words you quoted were on the article I was referring to, and had been said by President Bush. So...I put one and one together....and got three. Sooooo sorry.
