Dolemite wrote:
] As Bredesen was quoted earlier saying, "I don't see why some
] people would rather have no loaf than half a loaf [of bread
] when they are freakin' starving]." We can't afford unlimited
] health insurance for everybody that falls into that category
] of uninsurable, but we certainly did try to soften the fall,
] so to speak.

First, nothing about Tenncare is "unlimited." All this hyperbolic talk of people getting treated in hospital ERs for colds and the like is mostly absolute bullshit, and to the degree that its not, it will still be a problem under Medicade. This is not a "vegas buffet," and it is disingenuos to suggest that it is.

The primary problem with the "consent decrees" appears to be that people are allowed to get a medicine perscribed by their doctor for 15 days in the event that coverage is denied by Tenncare while they appeal the denial. While that seems unreasonable to me, it also doesn't fall under the category of "unlimited." I have a hard time understanding why Doctors and Tenncare are so opposed to each other on what medicines to perscribe that the differences of opinion cost enough to sink the entire healthcare program.

If this is true, THAT is where the problem lies. We have a presumption of innocence on the part of doctors. That makes sense, as you'd expect doctors to know more about a patient then the insurance company. If doctors are wrong THIS MUCH one has to wonder if you really don't need to penalize doctors in certain cases where they are perscribing too much.

You seem to be baiting me to defend the lawsuits. I can't, simply because I do not know enough about them. I haven't read them. Nor do I know any of the specifics behind the scenes. It is possible that they are indefensible. Its also possible that Bredesen is finger pointing. There are lots of questions to ask. Why can't the solution I suggest above work? Why do federal laws require more of Tennessee per enrollee then other states?

I think that this "half a loaf when they are starving" business is questionable.

One might point out that dropping 30% of the enrollees in a 2.7 billion dollar (the rest is federally funded) program causes its cost to rise by 100 million instead of 600 million. That 500 million dollar difference is about half of 30% of the overall cost of the program, so you're certainly not dropping people who are contributing the most to the problem.)

These insurance companies had no problem covering my mother as part of my father's employers health care plan. If they used the same standards of acceptance for individuals that they use for corporate employees who have bargained collectively there wouldn't be 400,000 people on these roles.

I don't even want coverage for her pre-existing condition!!! Is it socialist to expect to be treated fairly? To be evaluated under the sames standards that YOU get evaluated under? To be charged the same relative rates that YOU would be charged?

The reason my mother isn't covered isn't because her health problems are a burden, but because the insurance companies really have no incentive to cover people who are unemployed unless they are nearly guaranteed to make money on it because they evaluate those people on an individual basis, whereas most people in this country get evaluated collectively through their employer.

People actually NEED health care. All healthcare in the world is "socialized." Thats what insurance is! Most people pay more then their share and some pay less. If we're going to tie it to employment then there ought to be a reasonable mechanism to deal with people who aren't employed. Tenncare was Tennessee's way of handling the problem. Most states have a solution. They all work differently. They all cost money. Now Tennessee has no solution.

] So, what *do* you think about a national "fair tax" proposal?

I think its a scam to shift the tax burden onto the middle and lower classes which no substantial economic benefit. I think it will make the federal government look like Tennessee, with perpetual budget problems, constantly shutting down programs because it has no power to raise revenue, even when revenues are very small. I think that most of the people who support it blindly beleive that its going to lower their taxes because they heard about it on Rush Limbaugh. They haven't actually put any critical thought into it. Most of those who are advocating it seem high on rhetoric and short on hard data.

I can be convinced otherwise on this stuff, but I would like to see something with bipartisan support and real data behind it.

RE: YEAH FU@#$ING REPUBLICANS!!@!@!@!#$