Am I a scocialist liberal because I want the insurance companies to actually pay contracted medical bills.?

Question

In the last question how Hillary intends to stop the insurance companies from cherry picking. I was accused of not working as hard as the top 1%, I was called a socialist liberal for wanting the checks and balances put back in place as Hillary has proposed to do with out raising taxes.

In the last 4 years the insurance companies have blatantly not paid bill after bill. I have gone to hearing after hearing until I gave up on that. I would win and they still didn't pay.

In the 1st instance Blue Cross Blue Sheild did not pay for my daughters wheelchair resize and support she needed to take the stress off the spinal fusion. Her back broke from the stress in April. They did pay for the 2nd surgery and still not the support in her chair leaving her bed and home bound for a year. They were working in collaboration with the State of Wisconsin Medicaid because no insurance company will insure her completely since birth.

Am I a liberal socialist for wanting them to pay for agreed

Bwana It is my accusation that laws have been put in place by our reps allowing this to happen. I do believe Hillary is aware of what has happened and knows how to fix it. I don't know about any strawman likeness. I worked for this care and the law has allowed them to just not deliver.

Answer 1

no...your a consumer who expects to get what you paid for.

Privitization without regulation has not, and will never work in the healthcare industry.

Answer 2

No, if what you say is true, and according to your plan, the services provided are covered, and they have refused to pay, they are in breach.

This is no different than an ebay customer not getting his money from a winning bidder. A private matter over a private contract is not socialism. It is the apex of capitalism.

However, given Shrillary's position, that government would mandate cetain contracts, and the government itself would hold and/or enforce those contracts, and those benefits are paid with tax dollars, that would be socialism.

It is a tried and true axion that you get what you pay for. When you are spending your own money, you will demand performance and value from it, and the people/services you hire would be obligated to perform, or risk losing your business. With any nationalized/socialized institution, the provider DOES NOT CARE about you, someone else is paying him, regardless whether or not you are satisfied. The interaction between customer/provider no longer exists. You cannot exert influence, you must take what is given and be happy, because you are not providing income to your provider. The government is doing that.

Go to your state Department of Motor Vehicles one day, or a Social Security office....are those the people we actually want running our health care?

Answer 3

No, but then, nobody called you a socialist liberal for expecting another party to conform to their part of a contract.

Nice strawman attempt, but too transparent.

But if you think some other taxpayer should shell out the money for your medical needs, the money taken from their earnings using the coercive power of the state, then that is the essence of socialism / marxism. It is tax slavery imposed by others. It is wrong. And it is against every concept of freedom and liberty this country was founded upon.

Answer 4

You hit the substantial subjects nail on the top. by using regulation, governement-run well-being care courses, inclusive of Medicare, won't be able to negotiate with the drug companies for decrease fees. the end result's that many human beings, particularly decrease earnings ones, won't be able to have adequate money their prescriptions, or they take 0.5 doses. merchandising of prescribed drugs must be banned. It forces docs to coach drugs by using prescription through fact sufferers are available and tell the well-being practitioner what drugs they choose for. The well-being practitioner writes the script to get the affected person to leave through fact he gets so little in charge from the coverage firms that he won't be able to have adequate money to communicate the possibilities to the afvertised drugs the affected person needs. In my city we've 2 substantial hospitals. They each and each have their very own MRI machines, and those machines are high priced! We even have a number of self sustaining MRI amenities. yet once you're in a hospuital and choose an MRI, the well-being practitioner will in basic terms enable you get it interior the medical institution -- which costs a minimum of 5 cases as much because it costs in an self sustaining MRI hospital. the government money quite some the R&D od large pharmas. yet while the examine ends up in a clean and commonly used drug, the drug employer gets the patent(s) and each and all of the sales. So in case you utilize that drug, you pay two times: First, you pay taxes to assist the R&D; 2nd, you pay once you purchase the drug. the government ought to get a expert rata proportion of the income from this form of drug, which ought to pass directly to subsidize government-run well-being care courses. Tort reform would make a large distinction. Malpractice awards are a small area of the subject. the large and expensive concern is shielding drugs, which motives docs to order each attainable attempt to evade the prospect that they are going to get sued. we've the superb well-being care in theworld, yet we don't have the superb well-being care equipment interior the international. we are using many docs out of the profession through fact money to vendors are too low. we've an acute shortage of nurses. How are we going to characteristic 40 six million human beings to the well-being care rolls with out greater docs and nurses?

Answer 5

i work for one of the nations largest and most prestigious hospitals.

i can say with utter certainty that the system in place now can't survive even this decade.

health insurance companies regard even basic treatments as 'experimental' and won't cover them.

basically, health insurance companies don't want to have anything to do with you if you ever get sick.

health insurance companies only want healthy people as customers - i think they are all in the wrong industry.

even just trying to call them on the phone can be quite an experience - and to any who have had to rely on these people for information, it is clear that they do everything they can (including some very transparant things) to avoid ever having claims filed and work very hard to deny those that do get filed.

Answer 6

I don't know enough about you to make that determination off the cuff.

Do you believe in wealth re-distribution?
Should the government provide cradle-to-grave programs for people instead of allowing them to succeed or fail on their own?

If so, then probably yes you are a socialist

Answer 7

no. your just a pissed off customer. what you need to do is file a major suite. take them to court for enough to get public attention. news coverage. they'll pay then, to keep the public image looking good. and change your insurance company immediately.

Answer 8

No, what you described is every Americans beef with HMO's and healthcare altogether.....Being a social liberal requires being like the Health care non payer in reverse- a complete tard and a sucker tobelieve the no new taxes lies.

Answer 9

No, of course not.