From: "Glenn Meadows" 

The biggest problem right now, is getting "authorization" to even
INVESTIGATE those that shouldn't be on TnCare.  Major mess.

--
Glenn M.


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:40c66276$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> That sounds like a real mess. Those who do not meet the criteria should be
> off and those who knowingly put them on should have Gov sponsored health
> care (Jail).
>
> Bob Lewis
>
> "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
> news:40c65947$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > To take a look at an example of "socialized medicine"
in the US, just
look
> > at Tennessee's TennCare program.  It's about to bankrupt the state.
> Without
> > proper controls and regulation, the whole TnCare system is wrought with
> > fraud and abuse.  We have more "Unisurables" on the
roles in TN, than
the
> > state of California has.
> >
> > Whenever they try to "clean up the roles", there are
lawsuits filed to
put
> > the people back on. National average for number of prescriptions per
year
> is
> > 3.something.  Those on TnCare AVERAGE 18.  There are well over 100,000
> > people who do NOT have verifiable addresses that they actually LIVE in
TN
> > (P.O boxes), as well as almost that number who re-up every year claiming
> > $0.00 income.
> >
> > Here, it's a big and total mess, and one huge political hot potato, both
> for
> > the Dems and Repubs.  It's become, by far, the biggest chunk of the
state
> > budget.  THIS is not the answer, either.  At least not how this one was
> > done.  TN care was to be the "place of last resort". 
There were people
> > ADVERTISING that you could come and apply for insurance through their
> > office, to get your "Insurance denied" letter, so you
could go enroller
in
> > Tn Care at State Expense.  It was to be the safety net for the
> un-insurable.
> > There are people living in 300k homes, driving Mercedes, who are on Tn
> Care,
> > who obviously can afford private health insurance, but are on Tn Care,
in
> > the FREE category (There is a you-pay your part/premium status as well,
> but
> > everyone goes for the state paid version, and most get it). .
> >
> > --
> > Glenn M.
> >
> >
> > "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> > news:40c6237e{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > There our paths divert sharply.
> > >
> > > I know. 
> > >
> > > >I won't try to change your mind but I
> > > > think socialism itself is a cancer on humanity.  This nation does
not
> > > > stand on such immoral principles.
> > >
> > > Socialism is no more immoral than capitalism, they're both just forms
of
> > > government, one, capitalism favors the haves, the other, socialism,
> favors
> > > everyone else.  To me it's very, very, *VERY* immoral to exclude
people
> > from
> > > getting medical care whether they have the money or not.
> > >
> > > Not that I am note favoring going socialism all the way and there's no
> > need
> > > to do that. And, in fact, we already do it in other instances and term
> it
> > > essential services, basically, government sponsored/regulated
> monopolies.
> > > (cable, water, phone, ...)  Now where have deregulated these services,
> the
> > > cost has gone up and the quality of service hasn't, so guess which I
> like
> > > better...
> > >
> > > - Bob Comer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Richard B."  wrote in message
> > > news:7o7cc0drrjmr26q67nv1i9di9lravoltfe{at}4ax.com...
> > > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:19:51 -0400, "Robert Comer"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I truly wouldn't be averse to socializing
> > > > >the whole health care industry anyway.
> > > >
> > > > There our paths divert sharply.  I won't try to change
your mind but
I
> > > > think socialism itself is a cancer on humanity.  This nation does
not
> > > > stand on such immoral principles.
> > > >
> > > > - Richard
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5