For those paying attention to the now cornered tribesman's responses, allow me to translate for you.

Tribesman: Insurance makes too much money from Medicare to ever let reform pass. Thats why they are fighting it with all the money they can!

Captain Haplo: Insurance doesn't make money from Medicare you goof. Medicare IS government insurance - the fraud is at the doctor/hospital level.

Tribesman: Uhm, well, I am going to babble about General Iz Ation. He outranks Private Iz Ation, so we should worry about that General and not about what the subject at hand is. Remember - General Iz Ation is good as long as it works for the liberal cause. Private Iz Ation is bad and should be given KP duty for the rest of eternity. Did I ramble off topic enough to distract everyone from the whole point yet??????


************************************************** **

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by Captain Haplo. Thank you, God Bless America, and good night!

:har::har::har:

wow haplo isn't able to understand the simple fact that the HFCA runs a program that is operated by the health care providers yet jointly administered by medical insurance providers.
The same medical insurance providers that are the topic of discussion .
So the possible options are .
He doesn't know who is involved in the program.
He doesn't understand the program and its administraion.
He does understand but somehow thinks companies work without seeking a profit.
So whichever option is right , it is evident that he simply doesn't understand.


Oh and for those not following Aramikes nonsense.
He delivered an interpretation of a portion of a speech, taken on its own the interpretation of those few words could have been a valid interpretation.
But when examined in the context they were given in it is obvious that the interpretation he deduced can not possibly be correct.
Maintaining that his interpretation was correct shows that he doesn't know what context means.

Well, I guess it falls to me to translate again....

Tribeman: Well your generalizing my generalization so I am going to ramble about that instead of the subject.

Captain Haplo: Your making a fool of yourself by avoiding the topic.

Tribesman: Oh yea. Fine then - take this! I will make up an acronym, say that these made up people are part of the insurance companies and that they administer Medicare. Therefore they are the ones committing all the fraud - and so it IS all the fault of the EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES! HA!
And while I am at it - my interpretation of what Aramike said is that I don't agree with him. Actually, I have no clue what he (or anyone else for that matter) is talking about, but because not everyone here is a political nascar driver like I am (thats go fast and when in doubt, turn left some more), they must be all wrong. Only legislation, ideas, or interpretations that come from me or other good leftists can be given any credit.

Just because I can't deal with the real subject, or because I have to resort to calling people names like "ignorant" or "teabagging wingnut" because they decide to be informed, doesn't mean I have no clue. Well ok, maybe it does, but I am a liberal - that means I must be right after all.

**************************************************

This has been another public service announcement brought to you by Captain Haplo.

**************************************************

The HFCA huh? Which HFCA would that be?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=HFCA

Would it be the:
Hemlock Farms Community Association ?

Or would it be one of these?

http://www.abbreviations.com/HFCA

Hydroxy Fluorene Carboxylic Acid?
Heritage Forest Community Association?
Hexanary Feedback Contention Access?
Helicopter Flight Coordination Area?
Hainault Forest Community Association?
High Fat Cholic Acid?
or perhaps its the:
Hawaii Fire Chiefs Association?

Yep - it must be the fault of all those Hawaiian Fire Chiefs. They are really nothing but health care insurance frauds in disguise right?

If your going to argue a point - at least don't try making up things. Oh wait, I forgot - its habit for you.

Now - after having poked some serious fun at you for what I am actually going to give put down to a dyslexic moment - did you mean the HCFA?

If so, your still in deep error. The HCFA is not run by insurance companies, it is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, its a government run program, which is being defrauded - at the doctor/hospital level.

Anyone who wants to check - just google HCFA - or see here:
http://www.os.dhhs.gov/about/opdivs/hcfa.html

Begin Edit: Just to make it clear - when you see a commercial for Diabetes supplies, or a older citizen goes to the doctor - who processes the paperword? Is it some insurance company? No. Its the firm selling the supplies or its the staff at the doctor's office. Do a check to see - health care providers have staff dedicated to filing claims - and they file those claim with whatever insurance a person has - private - OR Medicare. But they don't file Medicare to an insurance company - they file it with the government. Thats one reason why alot of doctors don't like Medicare and Medicaid - because they have to deal directly with the government and all its red tape. End Edit.

Sorry tribesman, but bluster, doubletalk, innuendo and insults just don't go well in the face of facts.

OK lets take this really slow so perhaps you may be able to understand something very simple .
I suggest that to prove that you are not talking complete rubbish you try and name a private health insurance company that isn't part of medicare.
A single company will be sufficient as I don't want to strain your brain too much .
In fact to ensure you don't strain your brain to much I will offer some handy little hints.
For starters I would suggest that you avoid the company with the biggest share of the business, as proving that a company with the biggest share of the market isn't in the market might be a little difficult.
I would also suggest you avoid the Blue Cross and Blue Shield association as even though one particular branch of that organisation is the company with the third largest market share, due to the complicated nature of the set up the Association has with all its companies you may find yourself getting rather lost.

Then again since you appear completely lost on the subject that won't make any difference.
So lets be really kind and help you out as you re obviously well out of your depth.
Can you demonstrate how an insurance provider like for example http://www.humana.com/ which funnily enough has the 2nd biggest share of the private insurance market in the medicare program really doesn't have a profitable market in private insurance in the medicare program .

It really shows that of the 3 possible options I put forward in the last post the first two happen to be spot on.

Actually you have made a fool of yourself by attempting a topic when you are clueless.:yep:

Classic. :har::har::har:

PS: Anyone want to explain to me why Tribesman is attempting to use his loss in an argument to me as a strawman for healthcare? :doh:

Aramike.... after the drubbing tribesman has gotten already, and his inane attempts to twist the argument or turn it into something entirely unrelated - you even feel a need to ask that?

Oh wait - I just realized - that was a rhetorical question! We shouldn't be suprised.

Tribesman, Tribesman, Tribesman.....

Ok - now I am beginning to understand you. Your not talking about medicare. Your talking about the "supplemental" insurance that is in addition to Medicare.

Lets define Medicare shall we?
I will provide the link at the bottom, though I know your probably not intellectually capable of double checking the fact, so I will post what it says on it.


"Original Medicare is a fee-for-service plan managed by the Federal Government. In general, with Original Medicare:

• You use your red, white, and blue Medicare card when you get health care.
• You can go to any doctor or supplier that accepts Medicare and is accepting new Medicare patients, or to any hospital or other facility.
• You pay a set amount for your health care (a deductible) before Medicare pays its part. Then, Medicare pays its share, and you pay your share (your coinsurance or copayment) for covered services and supplies (unless you have a Medigap policy or other supplemental insurance that may pay for these costs.)
• You may have a Medigap policy or other supplemental coverage that may pay deductibles, coinsurance, or other costs that aren’t covered by Original Medicare. "

Source: http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/...=3&planType=OM

This is what MEDICARE actually is. Its what is often termed Medicare Part A (Hospital) and Part B (Medical) coverage. What your complaining about - is what is known as "Medicare Part C' - defined as the following:


"Medicare Advantage Plans are health plan options that are approved by Medicare but run by private companies. With Medicare Advantage Plans:

• Some of the plans require referrals to see specialists.
• In many cases, the premiums or the costs of services (co-pays and deductibles ) can be lower than they are in Original Medicare or Original Medicare with a Medigap policy. Medicare Health Plans charge different premiums and have different costs of services, so it is important to check with the plan before you join.
• The plans provide all of your Part A (hospital) and Part B (medical) coverage and must cover medically-necessary services.
• They often have networks, which means you may have to see doctors who belong to the plan or go to certain hospitals to get covered services.
• They generally offer extra benefits, and many include prescription drug coverage.
• In many cases, your costs for prescription drug coverage can be lower than in the stand-alone Medicare Prescription Drug Plans.
• Some of the plans coordinate your care, using networks and referrals, more than others. This can help manage your overall care and can also result in savings to you.
• You don’t need to buy a Medigap policy. "

Now - if you pay attention - they are insurance plans simple APPROVED of by the government. The key here - is they are OPTIONS provided to the consumer. The Approval allows the private insurance firms to simply use the term "Medicare" for marketing. Medicare itself is a GOVERNMENT RUN health care plan. Thats why the information comes from the .gov website.

So either you are too stuck on "lets blame the evil companies" - or your just too dense to realize that things like MEDICARE part C are things people choose on their own. I know - its that whole free market vs sucking the government nipple thing your really struggling with isn't it?

Fraud in medicare is dealt with on the Medicare.gov website - here:
http://www.medicare.gov/fraudabuse/Overview.asp

Notice that even there - the fraud is at the doctor/hospital provider/supplier level.

What is marketed as "part c" is private insurance - and that is totally different than actual medicare. Want to say there is fraud there as well - ok. There is fraud everywhere. But the premise of your argument that MEDICARE is being defrauded by private insurance is again proven to be false. If anyone is being defrauded by private insurance - be it "part c" or standard heath firms, that is a different issue than medicare fraud - because the private side doesn't do anything with ACTUAL MEDICARE. Your really not discussing Medicare - whether you realize it or not. Your complaining about people choosing a private insurance.

It seems to me what your real goal in this issue is - corresponds to that which the liberals in congress have in mind - the removal of private CHOICE and forcing everyone into a single payer system. The fact that it is the ORIGINAL MEDICARE that is being defrauded - that same "single payer" system that would come about - just shows how much the government is continuing to fail to correct its own house, and instead wants to build and even bigger, shoddier one for us all.

Of course, you could always resort to just saying that the links provided are nothing more than a right wing hack conspiracy job of real government websites designed to mislead. It about the only option you have left, except maybe accepting that most feared thing: reality. Or, take a mature route - admit that there was confusion about the topic, and then move forward.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath for that one though.

What a classic Haplo realisesd he is wrong so goes on to describe Medicare.
He goes through part A, he goes through part B
Then he goes through part C which he ridiculously claims isn't medicare even though it is Medicare.....
What you are trying to avoid Haplo is that it is a semi-private version of the government run plan where the people choose to buy the insurance and the government pays the insurance companies too, it pays them a fixed fee every month for every customer they have sold policies to.
That is where private insurance companies recieve the government money, money you rather foolishly claimed they don't recieve.



I wonder why you avoid part D entirely, that opens up a whole new can of worms doesn't it.
Face it Haplo you were wrong.

I do notice once again that you decided to make up a ridiculous claims and state that I made them . I particularly like the effort you are expending with "fraud" and "evil corporations" Did you invent them just for the fun of it or did you feel the need to waffle when you realised you were wrong.

Simple summary that even the dumbest person should be able to understand.
Medicare contains a program that is open to private health insurers, those health insurers recieve tax payers money in the form of subsidies, these government subsidies are a matter of contention which some seek to reform or remove.
Some health insurance companies are lobbying to prevent their reciept of tax payers money from being reduced in any reform of Medicare and health insurance


Quote:
PS: Anyone want to explain to me why Tribesman is attempting to use his loss in an argument to me as a strawman for healthcare?
Wow thats a hard one , lets see......errrrr
Oh yeah, you made a post about context and interpretation, that introduces those words to this topic doesn't it . So is that a case of you introducintg a strawman or is it just a silly ad-hominen you chose to introduce.
What is funny though is that you still seem to think your interpretation of a set of words could actually be correct when it cannot possibly be correct.
Would you like to go through the whole Soto speech again to see how many times your interpretation is contradicted?

I bet you looked at a stop sign when you were little and told you mom it was green didn't ya?

Seriously - the fact you can't comprehend the difference between the terms "Run" and "Approved" makes things real clear.

No - Part D does not open up a whole can of worms. Its simply Prescription Medicine coverage that a person can CHOOSE to purchase through a private insurer.

Its really simple Tribesman, though your trying to to INFER its more complicated.

Government runs what is defined as the original MEDICARE. Private insureres can OFFER to individuals plans that meet or exceed certain government requirements. If they do, they can label them "Medicare Part C or Part D" depending on what they cover. These offers are exactly that - options for the consumer. Even the medicare.gov website states that such plans may in fact be lower cost.

So it boils down to this.

#1. The government admits that private insurance would actually be a better deal to the end customer.
#2. The government tells insurers they can use the name "Medicare" in advertising the products if they meet or exceed certain requirements.
#3. Private business then uses its existing leverage with health care providers to negotiate costs in a way that the end user pays less than they would with government insurance.
#4. They label is at "Medicare Part C or Part D" even though its actually nothing to do with Medicare other than the name.
#5. Citizens choosing private insurance with "Part C" or "Part D" save money when compared to those using the government plan.
#6. Tribesman confuses Medicare (as defined by the government's website - a GOVERNMENT RUN INSURANCE PROGRAM) with private insurance marketted with government approval using the same term.
#7. We waste time trying to help him extract his cranium from a specific body orifice, which he unfortunately fights tooth and nail to keep from doing.

Let me see if I can make this REALLY CLEAR.

IF YOU USE THE RED WHITE AND BLUE MEDICARE CARD - YOU HAVE MEDICARE! IF YOU HAVE TO USE A PRIVATE INSURANCE CARD - YOU HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE.

Not sure why you can not grasp that simple fact. Well - ok I can. Your big government, anti business liberal leanings drive you nuts knowing that even the government has to admit that private insurance (which means transactions between the individual, insurer and health providers with no government control) does better than when the government sticks in nose in and tries do the same thing.

THIS is why people don't want government run health care. Medicare is simply one example where even they admit right now that private industry can do it better than they can. Yet you want to claim that private industry is the problem.

IF GOVERNMENT COULD DO IT BETTER - WHY CAN'T IT BEAT PRIVATE INSURERS RIGHT NOW?

Don't try to answer that - you will just end up talking yourself into circles about the context of generalizations made in a speech by a judge that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

What's worse - none of us would be suprised.

In the end - private business blows the crap out of government when it comes to "bang for the buck". Even they admit it. So gnash your teeth, spit at the screen, and despise the American people for wanting to get the most from their money. Dang - there it is again - it shouldn't be "their" money anyway should it. Just keep driving fast and turning left - but watch out and hang on - because your going to be seeing the whole health care liberal agenda blow a tire and go in the wall. Midterm elections - liberals will be wondering why there wasn't a "Saf-r Barrier"!

You really do have reading problems don't you.

Nothing at all about run or approved, all to do with payments and lobbying.
Strange that as a response you came back with
Which is clearly false , in fact it is false on so many levels it is really comic.
But hey you know that don't you , which is why you have gone off on irrelevant rubbish ever since.
Its quite simple, you claim that private health insurance is simply private health insurance.
The reality is that the private health insurance under the medicare program is government subsidised health insurance .

Interesting arguments here. I don't know what's right or wrong about these arguments, but I have to take on the arguments themselves.

Tribesman, are you ever going to actually show anything? So far all you have done in this is to dismiss others' arguments as wrong without actually providing links or evidence of your own. You sound very much like Subman (even to your name) except from the other side of the fence.

I'm certainly waiting for you to say something more useful than that the other guy is an idiot.

I have no knowledge of the government subsidizing private firms to provide part C or D coverage. In fact, a google search on that very question did nothing but provide links to liberal message boards where posters assert that such subsidies exist, but as with the claim above, no proof is offered.

Regarding my earlier post - my meaning I thought would be clear by now - Medicare refers to Part A and Part B - run through the government. Private insurance has no part of this. What is "labeled" part c and part d are seperate entities, and are not - per the government's definition - medicare. They are approved, cheaper OPTIONS for customers. If they were really medicare - a person could use their medicare card for those benefits. They can't. Simple really.

Now, with all that said, I am going to switch gears to prove a point.

Lets assume for a moment that government does subsidize part C or D, or both. While I don't think it does, I have been wrong before. So assuming it does, lets even assume that it subsidizes 75% of the charge it would pay if the person was on government run Medicare. This results in a 25% savings to the government - meaning that all the taxpayers just saved 25%. Add to that that the person recieving care - per the government's own medicare website - will likely also pay less out of pocket.

So even assuming government subsidies - with the example above - private insurance still saves the consumer money, the government money, and thus the taxpayer money.

Yet again it goes back to the initial issue. Private companies - that are saving the government money, saving taxpayers money, saving consumers money - are somehow the evil ones in this whole equation. They are spending money trying to fight reform supposedly - yet they are more efficient than the government - meaning the government program is either completely inept, or it is much more rampant with fraud that private insurers are. If its inept, we should do away with it - and if its filled with fraud, we go back to my earlier question. Why can't the government fix what is visibly broken in a current system, prove it can be a good steward and get something right, and then use that trust and example to then work to improve things further. Refusing to simply work on one thing - and show the people that the government can get it right - instead trying to shove something down our throat that the people can see won't work, especially given past experience, makes it appear as nothing more than a power grab.

No matter how you slice it - private business outperforms government control. Is there fraud out there? Sure there is - in everything. But I once heard a saying that applies here.

"Pointing to the mud on another fish's fins - wont help you swim."

In other words, claiming that private insurance is the problem - when it outperforms the solution being offered just doesn't make sense.

This is why one arguement on health care is based on logic, reason, facts and a willingness to research what we don't know. On the other hand, we have name calling, insults, diversions, claims without verifiability, and simple refusal to even read the changes that are being proposed. I can't speak for anyone but myself on this, but I know which I would prefer when it comes to the decisons that can drastically affect my country - both its economy, and its people.

Really?:har::har::har:

Thats funny, your own link from the government says otherwise, is that a case of shooting yourself in the foot ? Are you perhaps going to try and claim that your own "proof" is wrong?

Actually havn't several studies by various groups , like the national center for policy analysis for example found that the mixed method of private insurance with government subsidies can deliver worse results and higher expenses than the solely government run branches of medicare , like the VA who are able to negotiate bigger deals. Also don't they find more disparity with the semi private policy both on levels of availability and choice , especially in some locations. I believe they cite Alaska as the worst state .

Who claimed that private insurance is the problem ?
Are you making up claims to argue against again ?

Only in certain fields.

#1. Yes really. Thats why I did a quick google search and found nothing but claims like your own without any validation information. Just the same old "it must be true because I said so, or heard it on Oprah".
#2. Hallucinating again?
#3. I dunno - have they? You again infer some study has come to the conclusion you state - but suprise, suprise - we see nothing but a claim without proof. Rhetorical question.... got link? :haha:
#4 - You claimed insurance companies were spending funds to block reform. That would make them the problem. So to answer - YOU did. :har:

Also - you never did give any proof of companies spending such money fighting reform. I can point to BCBS.com for example - that support reform - just not the "let the government run it all" proposals that are being pushed by liberals.