Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.

[LunarRay]

Did JFK, on Oct 6 1963 sign an executive (NSAM 263) that provided for the removal of 1000 troops in December 1963 and the vast majority of troops to be out by 1965? Only advisors and green beret were in country until.. 1965, or real late 1964.
And did Johnson issue NSAM 273 - I think it was - that essentially reversed 263? As I recall in any event... .

(NSAM =National Security Action Memorandum)

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Svnla

Hey Harvey, will this so called "Teddy Care" make me wait overnight or at least 12 hours before I can see a doctor?

That depends on whether you're too drunk or stoned to figure out that you need to call for help. The ATPS (Advanced Telepathic Patient Sensing) system will have to wait for awhile.

I have a better idea, let call it "Chappaquiddick Care" in memory of Mary Jo.

I have a better idea. Let's call you a Chappaquid DICK for being such an off topic prick.

Me off topic? Let see, in your op, you called healthcare single payer option as Teddy Care. Since Teddy is forever associated with Mary Jo's death/Cappaquiddick scandal, therefore it is very much on topic to say so...and I am not the only one say it <plenty of others in this thread and in other threads in OP and P&N>. Oh, thanks for the name calling, and only two? I expect nothing but the best of name calling from Harvey.

I rarely drink and never done any drugs, ever. When I said wait overnight or at least 12 hours, I was refered of how Teddy waited that long to contact the authority. Let see, someone was dead, a person with famous family name got off scott free, not one day in jail. ...I thought only evil Republicans or Bush family were able to pull a stunt like that......right????? :disgust:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Thanks for the reminder Harvey, I'm going to write both my senators and my house rep to remind them that any support for the massive government healthcare disaster will cause them to lose my vote and cause me to contribute to the campaign of whoever is running against them in the next election.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I wrote mine:

Dear Senator,

In memory of Ted Kennedy, please pass a single payer health care bill. Name it Teddy-Care or Tedi-care.

You need Republicans like a fish needs a pogo stick. To hell with bloated insurance company execs and their mega-buck bonuses and golden parachutes.

You have your single payer health care. Please honor the memory of Ted Kennedy, and pass "Teddy-Care" to grant the same right to the citizens of the United States of America.

Sincerely,

Harvey Rubens

Maybe we can use Ted Kennedy's passing to inspire our all too reluctant Congressional representatives to represent US, for a change.

Is that you Al, Rahm? Exploit, exploit! You can never let a crisis or death go to waste.

 

[OCGuy]

I hope this blows up in the face of the exploiters.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Except no one is actually being denied healthcare.

Prove that, but you might want to know, CNN begs to differ, citing sources more authoritative than you. :Q

Study: 86.7 million Americans uninsured over last two years

By Jennifer Pifer-Bixler
CNN Senior Medical Producer

(CNN) -- One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday.

The study, commissioned by the consumer health advocacy group Families USA, found 86.7 million Americans were uninsured at one point during the past two years.

Among the report's key findings:

? Nearly three out of four uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.

? Almost two-thirds were uninsured for nine months or more.

? Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.

? People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.

The huge number of people without health coverage is worse than an epidemic," Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said in a press release. "Inaction on health care reform in 2009 cannot be an option for the tens of millions of people who lack or lose health coverage each year ... the cost of doing nothing is too high."

The study came out the day before President Obama plans to hold a health care summit at the White House. The President says reforming health care is one of his top priorities.

The number of Americans without health insurance reported by Families USA is much higher than those reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the census numbers, in 2007 there were 45.7 million uninsured Americans.

Families USA says those numbers tell only part of the story. The Census bureau counts only people who were uninsured for the full calendar year. For its own study, Families USA commissioned The Lewin Group to analyze data from the Census Bureau and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Its study includes people who did not have health insurance for all or for part of the past two years.

Critics say the number of uninsured Americans cited in the Families USA report is misleading. "No one disagrees we have a problem with the uninsured," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who advised Sen. John McCain on domestic and economic policy during the 2008 election.

But Holtz-Eakin thinks Families USA is exaggerating the numbers to make a political point the day before the White House summit. "They are simply choosing to report over a two-year window a measure that always gives you a larger number."

Then, there's this small conflict of interest where insurance execs' bonuses are tied to how many claims they can deny from paying policy holders. :roll:

Maybe I missed it....but where does this state that these people are denied health care?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Well it can be said that anyone that supports the Teddy-Care plan now is a dumb ass as well. Someone died so you should support this political ploy now. That's the problem with liberals. You think with emotions, not facts.
What in the world makes you think that some shmuk that won't work and is slinging crack to children should get free health care on mine or your dime. Because that's what's going to happen when "universal health care" is passed.
Fuck them. If they can't make it in the world then they don't make it. It's not my job or anyone elses job except their parents to pull their asses out of the mud and set them on the right track in life. It is definitely not the governments role to do that.

Is that the conservative straw man these days? A "shmuk slinging crack to children"?

There are plenty of decent hard-working Americans who would benefit from universal single-payer.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Did JFK, on Oct 6 1963 sign an executive (NSAM 263) that provided for the removal of 1000 troops in December 1963 and the vast majority of troops to be out by 1965? Only advisors and green beret were on land until.. 1965, or real late 1964.
And did Johnson issue NSAM 273 - I think it was - that essentially reversed 263? As I recall in any event... .

(NSAM =National Security Action Memorandum)

Your history is right, but its a lot more complicated - on both sides of the issue.

Basically, Kennedy was in a very sensitive position, between the line of being determined to prevent war, while having enormous pressures the other direction.

You have to sort through carefully to find his 'real' position - and there are things not known for sure.

One good resource for a start is "JFK and Vietnam" by John Newman. It was one of the first efforts to carefully review the evidence - and it concluded JFK planned to exit.

Note that doens't mean he did everything right. When Robert Kennedy took a stand against the Vietnam war in a major speech - putting him in opposition to his brother's successor, effectively making it a LBJ versus JFK proxy war - he did it by saying that he had been in an administration (JFK's) that made a mistake on Vietnam. He didn't point the finger at the history, only at the policy gong forward.

You need to get informed, to reach an opinion on this, about the situation Kennedy faced, what pressures he had, and who had power and their positions, and the public's opinion and how it affected his re-election campaign, and other factors including Kennedy's preference to delay a choice like this.

Kennedy was carefully giving messages in speeches about his plans, but presented in a way that had minimal political impact. In one important statement, he talked firmly about the US commitment ro provide aid to the South Vietnamese government in its war, and our desire for victory - all things that worked politically - but then put in a comment that doesn't fit unless he wanted out, that 'in the final analysis the war is theirs to win or lose'.

That's creating a record and laying the groundwork for his position that when push came to shove - the US had to go to war or they lose - his choice was they lose.

After one such official mission of two officials, one military and one civilian, upon hearing their conflicting reports, he asked them if they had gone to the same country.

Ted Sorensen, his closest aide beside Robert Kennedy (and a conscientious objector, making him a suspect figure with the hawks, and an opponent of war in Vietnam all along), had a long history of conspiring with JFK on JFK's more anti-war policies having to be carefully dealt with among his more militant advisors, much less the public and the world. wrote both the nearly contradictory messages that Kennedy was determined to avoid war in Southeast Asisa, and that he can't say for sure what Kennedy would have decided.

He writes:

In the end, all we can conclude with certainty is what he did not do. Despite a steady flow of recommendations from missions to Saigon headed by Vice President Johnson, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Taylor, and Deputy National Security Advisor Rostow, that he should send combat troop divisions to fight in South Vietnam and U. S. Air Force planes to bomb North Vietnam and the troop trails heaidng south. Kennedy never did... He was determined not to precipitate a general land war in Asia.

As a new Senator, in 1954 six years before being elected president, Kennedy gave a speech on Vietnam saying the US could not replace the French as occupiers, and that US ground forces could not win a conflict there in what was a war for independance from occupation, and troops should not be sent. And he "was determined" not to send them.

 

[LunarRay]

Craig234,
Yes I think I've picked up along the way what you've said excepting I don't like Newman's work very much.. Chomsky seems to not take too kindly to either Newman's account nor Galbraith's... but that is another story. Nixon - (don't know if published) but I heard an interview - said Kennedy was some kind of Cold warrior and would have followed Max Taylor and [can't recall his name... but very supportive of anything Taylor said] were pretty good at convincing JFK and had him about to invade Cuba in '62 as per the dialog I either heard (WH tapes) or read.
I suppose you could see JFK in both lights.. I think, however, Bobby's comment is most revealing.. he said your quote quite a few times or what amounted to that in questions from College students he visited in '68. Not sure he was fully stating his or JFK's position... Seemed self serving although I believe him. Mac's position in his book was both he and JFK wanted out...What strikes me as odd is folks linking Ball to the war.. as soon as I see that I cringe when at the same time Bundy is seen as a peacenic... I do get confused.
At the end of the day which has yet to end we do have the 263 memo... and the odd bits and pieces of truth wrapped up in 25$ books..

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Craig234,
Yes I think I've picked up along the way what you've said excepting I don't like Newman's work very much..

Anything specific you can point out? I don't recall a problem with it.

More controversial perhaps is the Pulitzer-Prize winning and one-time official JFK biographer William Manchester rpeorting in "One Brief Shining Moment" the conversation Mansfield reported to him about JFK privately commiting to withdrawal after the election - a conversation similar to others reported, but not believed by Sorensen or Schlesnger, who say JFK was not so calculating, a claim I'm not so sure about.

But he had along history of standing firm against ground war in Southeast Asia, and he had toughtened from the time he gave in on the Bay of Pigs. He had no respect for most of the brass generally later, and while his favorite was his appointee Maxwell Taylor - Robert names his son Maxwell after him - Kennedy was skeptical of his reports from Vietnam and had always rejected his recommendations for sending ground troops. I think JFK could easily resist Taylor.

He was clearly laying the political groundwork for the option of withdrawing, and he was doing that for a reason, given the political price.

Chomsky seems to not take too kindly to either Newman's account nor Galbraith's... but that is another story. Nixon - (don't know if published) but I heard an interview - said Kennedy was some kind of Cold warrior and would have followed Max Taylor and [can't recall his name... but very supportive of anything Taylor said] were pretty good at convincing JFK and had him about to invade Cuba in '62 as per the dialog I either heard (WH tapes) or read.

You really can't believe a thing Nixon said. He was obsessed with JFK in a negative way - rememver, he tried to plant phony documents showing JFK to be more militant than he was and got caught when he 'found them' in a White House safe and they were detected as frauds. I don't know what all Nixon was up to - there's a remarkable fact about how he twisted the CIA's arm to help coverup Watergate by threatening the exposure of something related to the assassination - but he can't be taken at face value.

Chomsky sometimes is off on his own tangents, and I'd have to look at the specifics to comment.

I suppose you could see JFK in both lights.. I think, however, Bobby's comment is most revealing.. he said your quote quite a few times or what amounted to that in questions from College students he visited in '68. Not sure he was fully stating his or JFK's position... Seemed self serving although I believe him. Mac's position in his book was both he and JFK wanted out...What strikes me as odd is folks linking Ball to the war.. as soon as I see that I cringe when at the same time Bundy is seen as a peacenic... I do get confused.

Ya, Ball was more the dove and Bundy the hawk who helped misrepresent JFK to LBJ.

BTW, McNamara concluded in his book that JFK would probably not have gone to war in Vietnam.

I'm not sure what you mean about RFK's statement self-serving - it was a clear admittance of error.

At the end of the day which has yet to end we do have the 263 memo... and the odd bits and pieces of truth wrapped up in 25$ books..

Most of which I probably have. The 263 memo is of some use for direction - it was confidential for along time, not for the public - but he did have to be careful and it was a memo to the security agencies who were largely at odds with his relatively dovish approach to a variety of foreign pllicy issues and could be used against him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I haven't a lot of time right not Craig, but while JFK selected Johnson, it was largely because of Joe. The feud was between Bobby and Johnson, and that was because Joe was trying to get Johnson (who emerged in essence as the party leader in 1956) to help him and he refused Joe. Bobby never forgave him for that. Joe never could be President, but he was going to get one of his kids in the WH if at all possible. Regarding Johnson not being afraid of Joe- it's not like the two had met during Johnson's Presidency. Their relationship went back long before that.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
What in the world makes you think that some shmuk that won't work and is slinging crack to children should get free health care on mine or your dime.

If he's slinging crack to children for a profit, isn't that technically "working" (whether it's legal or not)?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But regarding healthcare as a right- The problem with approaching important issues as "rights" is one thing, how it's implemented is another. People were "entitled" to an income. We have entitlements now in the form of medicaid, where people (and I work where I can see this in action) have babies because they are free, and it gets them more money. When their children grow up they two will have it. If not then some claim that they will run around and attack others like animals. The whole flaw in the thinking wasn't that people should have a means to fall back on if needed, however that if you give people enough fish they will learn to fish. Rather than tying economic incentives to work (like the old WPA) and having to perform satisfactorily in school, just hand them money and pay lip service to opportunity.

People can and do abuse the system, and they in turn produce children who do the same. Why do people in poverty have so many children? Because they can. Now there is this sick symbiotic relationship between Democrats (at least in NY state) where the poor vote for them because the Dems will give them money. You have effectively enslaved them economically. That check is their drug and heaven forbid the dealer should mess with their supply.

Now specifically regarding health care, the "rights" card came into play with HIPPA. It took years to get off the ground, but there was little thought put into the consequences of the legislation. In fact it wasn't until the 11th hour that the language of the regulations would forbid parents from knowing why their children are sick. Violation of HIPPA.

In their zeal to provide "rights" they effectively legislated the ethics of medicine and it was a cluster to get it sorted out. It was supposed to save money, but the requirements were such that it cost far more money to implement that it has ever saved.

That's the problem with this whole philosophy. To wait is to deny rights, so we can't figure out first what needs to be done and then craft considered legislation. Instead we need to do anything, because anything is better even if in fact it isn't.

That's not promoting rights, that's stupid.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Except no one is actually being denied healthcare.

Prove that, but you might want to know, CNN begs to differ, citing sources more authoritative than you. :Q

Study: 86.7 million Americans uninsured over last two years

By Jennifer Pifer-Bixler
CNN Senior Medical Producer

(CNN) -- One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday.

The study, commissioned by the consumer health advocacy group Families USA, found 86.7 million Americans were uninsured at one point during the past two years.

Among the report's key findings:

? Nearly three out of four uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.

? Almost two-thirds were uninsured for nine months or more.

? Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.

? People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.

The huge number of people without health coverage is worse than an epidemic," Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said in a press release. "Inaction on health care reform in 2009 cannot be an option for the tens of millions of people who lack or lose health coverage each year ... the cost of doing nothing is too high."

The study came out the day before President Obama plans to hold a health care summit at the White House. The President says reforming health care is one of his top priorities.

The number of Americans without health insurance reported by Families USA is much higher than those reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the census numbers, in 2007 there were 45.7 million uninsured Americans.

Families USA says those numbers tell only part of the story. The Census bureau counts only people who were uninsured for the full calendar year. For its own study, Families USA commissioned The Lewin Group to analyze data from the Census Bureau and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Its study includes people who did not have health insurance for all or for part of the past two years.

Critics say the number of uninsured Americans cited in the Families USA report is misleading. "No one disagrees we have a problem with the uninsured," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who advised Sen. John McCain on domestic and economic policy during the 2008 election.

But Holtz-Eakin thinks Families USA is exaggerating the numbers to make a political point the day before the White House summit. "They are simply choosing to report over a two-year window a measure that always gives you a larger number."

Then, there's this small conflict of interest where insurance execs' bonuses are tied to how many claims they can deny from paying policy holders. :roll:

Maybe I missed it....but where does this state that these people are denied health care?

Harvey is a student of the Argumentum Verbosium department at Logical Fallacy University. Who needs facts when you can just throw a book at someone and bury them in bullshit?

(of course, there's always the possibility that Harvey just didn't understand ProJo's assertion )

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TruePaige
This is exactly what we need:

* Every resident of the US will be covered from birth to death.Illeg]als also? ID cards?
* No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.
* No more expensive deductibles or co-pays. Who makes that determination - some bureaucrat?
* All prescription medications will be covered. Approved list? - Viagra for example?
* All dentabl and eye care will be included. Elective also?
* Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.(1)
* Long term and nursi[ng home services will be included.At $100-$1000/day - who determines ho gets in? Family or professionals?
* You will always choose your own doctors and hospials.
* Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis. Robbing Peterfor Paul?
* Tremendously simplified system of medical admin For patient, not provider. Look at the recent Cash/Clunker fiasco for the dealers?
* Total portability ? your coverage not tied to any job or location. When out of country?
* Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will be vastly improved. Why needed?
* No corporate bureaucrat will ever come between you and your Doctor to deny your care. - everything covered, elective or not?
HR676!

Great start, but the devil is in the details.

I'd rather the illiegals stop clogging up the ER's and causing a resurgence of long banished disease than worry about paying for preventative and essential care. Deport them when they get out of the hospital or when they arrive if they are stable if you want.

Why not Viagra? It isn't expensive and treats ED. That's like saying "Restasis?"

Why would elective surgery be covered? Elective surgery isn't covered by any national health care plan. It's elective because it isn't necessary.

Nursing homes would have to accept the government pay rate, like in every modern nation.

Sliding scale is generally pretty basic in modern nations, usually determines whether your co-pay is free or if you pay up to $100.

Comparing a temporary program to a permanent program is apples to oranges in terms of Admin setup.

Most likely for essential services, for others travel insurance could remain a premium service, would be up for debate.

Because they shouldn't have to pay a dime for prescriptions.

Once again, electives are not medically needed by nature. I don't know why you throw that in.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TruePaige
This is exactly what we need:

* Every resident of the US will be covered from birth to death.Illeg]als also? ID cards?
* No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.
* No more expensive deductibles or co-pays. Who makes that determination - some bureaucrat?
* All prescription medications will be covered. Approved list? - Viagra for example?
* All dentabl and eye care will be included. Elective also?
* Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.(1)
* Long term and nursi[ng home services will be included.At $100-$1000/day - who determines ho gets in? Family or professionals?
* You will always choose your own doctors and hospials.
* Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis. Robbing Peterfor Paul?
* Tremendously simplified system of medical admin For patient, not provider. Look at the recent Cash/Clunker fiasco for the dealers?
* Total portability ? your coverage not tied to any job or location. When out of country?
* Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will be vastly improved. Why needed?
* No corporate bureaucrat will ever come between you and your Doctor to deny your care. - everything covered, elective or not?
HR676!

Great start, but the devil is in the details.

I'd rather the illiegals stop clogging up the ER's and causing a resurgence of long banished disease than worry about paying for preventative and essential care. Deport them when they get out of the hospital or when they arrive if they are stable if you want.

Why not Viagra? It isn't expensive and treats ED. That's like saying "Restasis?"

Why would elective surgery be covered? Elective surgery isn't covered by any national health care plan. It's elective because it isn't necessary.

Nursing homes would have to accept the government pay rate, like in every modern nation.

Sliding scale is generally pretty basic in modern nations, usually determines whether your co-pay is free or if you pay up to $100.

Comparing a temporary program to a permanent program is apples to oranges in terms of Admin setup.

Most likely for essential services, for others travel insurance could remain a premium service, would be up for debate.

Because they shouldn't have to pay a dime for prescriptions.

Once again, electives are not medically needed by nature. I don't know why you throw that in.

Define elective.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TruePaige
This is exactly what we need:

* Every resident of the US will be covered from birth to death.Illeg]als also? ID cards?
* No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.
* No more expensive deductibles or co-pays. Who makes that determination - some bureaucrat?
* All prescription medications will be covered. Approved list? - Viagra for example?
* All dentabl and eye care will be included. Elective also?
* Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.(1)
* Long term and nursi[ng home services will be included.At $100-$1000/day - who determines ho gets in? Family or professionals?
* You will always choose your own doctors and hospials.
* Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis. Robbing Peterfor Paul?
* Tremendously simplified system of medical admin For patient, not provider. Look at the recent Cash/Clunker fiasco for the dealers?
* Total portability ? your coverage not tied to any job or location. When out of country?
* Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will be vastly improved. Why needed?
* No corporate bureaucrat will ever come between you and your Doctor to deny your care. - everything covered, elective or not?
HR676!

Great start, but the devil is in the details.

I'd rather the illiegals stop clogging up the ER's and causing a resurgence of long banished disease than worry about paying for preventative and essential care. Deport them when they get out of the hospital or when they arrive if they are stable if you want.

Why not Viagra? It isn't expensive and treats ED. That's like saying "Restasis?"

Why would elective surgery be covered? Elective surgery isn't covered by any national health care plan. It's elective because it isn't necessary.

Nursing homes would have to accept the government pay rate, like in every modern nation.

Sliding scale is generally pretty basic in modern nations, usually determines whether your co-pay is free or if you pay up to $100.

Comparing a temporary program to a permanent program is apples to oranges in terms of Admin setup.

Most likely for essential services, for others travel insurance could remain a premium service, would be up for debate.

Because they shouldn't have to pay a dime for prescriptions.

Once again, electives are not medically needed by nature. I don't know why you throw that in.

Define elective.

Not medically necessary.

Liposuction, tummy tuck, etc...

It's not like the difference between a lumpectomy and a mastectomy.

It's obvious to anyone who gives 30 seconds worth of thought.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Unless the definition of elective is put in the bill and prohibited; some one will find a way to slide elective into it.

And what one patient may consider elective, another may feel it is mandatory - and go shopping until they can find a doc that will work around the system.

If being flat chested is a serious physological trauma that is covered under mental health; then having implants is critical to the patients well being. It can be argued that it is no longer elective, but essential.

To the layman, it may be clear that it is not needed; but to the medial professional and some paper pusher, it could be worded/argued otherwise.

 

[StageLeft]

This was posted in another thread, interview with a top Cigna PR exec. I have to say it's a superb interview. Quite antagonistic, too. I swear to God lobbyists are a sickness this country needs to do away with. I do hope some heavy legislation comes in to hack at the knees these insurance companies, to be frank.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This was posted in another thread, interview with a top Cigna PR exec. I have to say it's a superb interview. Quite antagonistic, too. I swear to God lobbyists are a sickness this country needs to do away with. I do hope some heavy legislation comes in to hack at the knees these insurance companies, to be frank.

Thank you for posting that... very informative.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Unless the definition of elective is put in the bill and prohibited; some one will find a way to slide elective into it.

And what one patient may consider elective, another may feel it is mandatory - and go shopping until they can find a doc that will work around the system.

If being flat chested is a serious physological trauma that is covered under mental health; then having implants is critical to the patients well being. It can be argued that it is no longer elective, but essential.

To the layman, it may be clear that it is not needed; but to the medial professional and some paper pusher, it could be worded/argued otherwise.

And that's what I was trying to get at.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This was posted in another thread, interview with a top Cigna PR exec. I have to say it's a superb interview. Quite antagonistic, too. I swear to God lobbyists are a sickness this country needs to do away with. I do hope some heavy legislation comes in to hack at the knees these insurance companies, to be frank.

Can't see vid .. was it the Potter guy? He has some very interesting perspectives on this subject.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So... the best way to honor Ted Kennedy is to create a healthcare system that he would have never used for himself... makes sense to me :roll:

The "system" being advocated entails the current private insurance component, medicare, medicaid, and (hopefully) a public option as well.

So, yes, Teddy would have used EXACTLY the services he actually used, since those would be a part of the adocated system.

Why can't you low-IQ righties keep this straight?

 

[LunarRay]

Craig234,
You, no doubt, are much more aware of JFK than I am... I can't really argue any aspect beyond the basics. I don't have every published bit of data on JFK that might point to the truth of his plans for us in Vietnam so I'll happily defer to your analysis. What I did do was to try and see a nexus to 11/22/63 more so than try to define his intended policies across the broad range of issues.. although most were/are probably relevant.

Reading what Hayabusa is saying - and I've just a few scraps of Joe/LBJ interaction - sorta fits with what I surmised. I questioned why McNamara was kept on by LBJ being he was sort of dovish about Vietnam then the turnaround. RFK said of Johnson, which causes me to think anything he ever felt about Johnson was almost hate.. perhaps cuz of Joe.. "How do you tell if Lyndon is lying? If he wiggles his ears, that doesn't mean he's lying. If he raises his eyebrows, that doesn't mean he's lying. But when he moves his lips, he's lying.''

Regarding Newman; I FELT that he considered a conspiracy from outside the WH motivated the WH advisers to push when they might have pulled or visa versa for the VN war... that is my feeling. It is just what I took away from the reading... that little 'itch' that don't get scratched. I may never know why or how I reached that... think I read the book 10 or 12 years ago..

I wonder if there exists a writing that in some unbiased way takes all the bits of actions and ties them to statements by all the players... then looks to the player written books and ties their explanation to the analysis etc.. I've not found a publication that seems consistent with all of this.

Bobby's statements of mistakes seems self serving.. I sort of think he was trying to paint the picture that he was fully against VN until maybe early '67 or so... then ok with it after that until the Tet in '68... I also gleamed that.. it is the feeling I get.. I can't see any reason for the change (assuming there was). MLK was RFK's biggest supporter, me thinks..
I read an account by Schlesinger of what Jackie said to him regarding Bobby's 'strong' feelings about ending the VN war.... She is reported to have said to him... "You know what is going to happen to Bobby?... The same thing that happened to Jack..."... So... I think Bobby was always against the war... IF I fully accept Jackie's belief that she "knew" Bobby.



I apologize for continuing to derail this very important thread...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This was posted in another thread, interview with a top Cigna PR exec. I have to say it's a superb interview. Quite antagonistic, too. I swear to God lobbyists are a sickness this country needs to do away with. I do hope some heavy legislation comes in to hack at the knees these insurance companies, to be frank.

Can't see vid .. was it the Potter guy? He has some very interesting perspectives on this subject.

It was.