Article

2010-01-30 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2010-01-30 13:49|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 Note that the inverse of this has never been well discussed and is just as important.

if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor i

But what about some one (gov't) getting between my insurance company and me? IE right now I have a certain coverage for a certain price, my understanding of this was that gov't would gain many powers over what the insurance company would be able to offer me and at what price. That's as big a problem as telling me what I have to have and from whom I have to get it.

We need to a) get malpractice reform b) get cross state lines insurance and c) allow virtually any coverage combination in a policy.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a policy that only covers things I want to be covered for, rather than the buffet mandated by gov't? e.g. latest requirements for mental health coverage.

Posted by AlanC 2010-01-30 14:07|| 2010-01-30 14:07|| Front Page Top

#2 And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. [emphasis added]

But this would likely involve only the last 2400 pages.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-01-30 14:11|| 2010-01-30 14:11|| Front Page Top

#3 "got snuck in"

Blaming others as usual. That got old a loooong time ago, Bambi.

"Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a policy that only covers things I want to be covered for, rather than the buffet mandated by gov't?"

Or pregnancy coverage for those of us who definitely can't get pregnant (and can prove it).

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-01-30 15:06|| 2010-01-30 15:06|| Front Page Top

#4 My insurance goes so kids can get pregnant, while their insurance premiums pay for my old-age meds. That's insurance, and it's both good news and bad news, now that i think of it...

Posted by Bobby 2010-01-30 15:21|| 2010-01-30 15:21|| Front Page Top

#5 True Bobby, but, it's dishonest in either case.

That's one of the biggest things driving the Tea Party movement and Scott Brown's election.

People are fed up with the lies and corruption.

Posted by AlanC 2010-01-30 15:28|| 2010-01-30 15:28|| Front Page Top

#6 Oh, the things you learn when TOTUS isn't around to control the agenda.
Is it me, or didn't he seem to be more arrogant than usual during the questioning and answering by the 'Pubs, yesterday??

Posted by Tom- Pa 2010-01-30 16:40|| 2010-01-30 16:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Judging by the slobbering reaction from my friends way out on the far left wing I'd say he was more arrogant than normal and that it had the intended effect on the intended audience.

Posted by AzCat 2010-01-30 17:02|| 2010-01-30 17:02|| Front Page Top

#8 Judging by the slobbering reaction from my friends way out on the far left wing

Not to mention practically the entire news-monger class. Skimming the related stories on GglNws, I am left wondering if we saw the same video.

Posted by Free Radical 2010-01-30 17:59|| 2010-01-30 17:59|| Front Page Top

#9 I am left wondering if we saw the same video.

You saw the same video, but not through the same filter. Your filter is based on reality, their filter is variable and always returns what they want to see or believe.

To paraphrase an old saying: "You can't fix Liberal!".

Posted by Herman Slusoter6686 2010-01-30 21:41|| 2010-01-30 21:41|| Front Page Top

23:47 AzCat
23:44 ed
23:25 Grens McCoy3284
23:12 ed
23:06 USN, Ret.
23:01 ed
22:36 Barbara Skolaut
22:34 Barbara Skolaut
22:30 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 Barbara Skolaut
22:22 phil_b
22:14 49 Pan
21:57 ed
21:56 Procopius2k
21:46 ed
21:41 Herman Slusoter6686
21:37 ed
21:34 Frank G
21:30 James Carville
21:30 tu3031
21:26 tu3031
21:23 tu3031
21:21 tu3031
21:13 ed