Notice they only define “social conditions” in financial terms? Hmmmm. Sounds like more Liberal Big
Brother gathering the data to justify redistribution again. Yawn.
If and when you decide to shut the comment forum down for good, not many of us would blame you. I’m sure you have better things to do with your time than worry about who got off topic and offended whom on here.
April 3, 2019 at 2:23 pm
retired risk manager says:
Like or Dislike:
8
2
I sense a nose trying to get under the tent flap. The idea sounds so caring. How could anyone be against it? Simple, it is just an effort to collect more info on people. To what end? That is the real question. I believe it was Medicare that wanted Dr’s to ask if the patient had any guns. The idea is pure “Big Brother”.
Good comment, Rob. Liberals would love to continue to post Lefty propaganda without any contrary opinion. Hey, maybe you can get a job at a university protecting safe zones and denying conservative speakers on campus! Or maybe a job with Google or Facebook looking for “hate” speech (wink wink, we know what that means). Heck, maybe you could help Andrew delete any accurate and fair criticism of Obama.
This article is another liberal joke: the only “social conditions” mentioned are financial conditions that impact the poor. Those are important, of course, but stress comes in tons of other varieties that for some reason doctors aren’t being asked to track: have a dying parent? lose your job? breaking up with your spouse? kid addicted to meth? The list goes on and on and on for everyone, not just people with money problems.
But not in LiberalVille: the only things that matter are the Agenda Pushers: you know, race, gender, and class. “Inequality!” “More redistribution to improve health outcomes!”
“OCTOBER 18, 2018 AT 7:51 PM Andrew G. Simpson says:
We are trying to clean up the forum and would welcome your cooperation along with that of all other regular posters. Please help us by setting an example.
First, please stay on topic….
Not every article, news item or argument is political. This comment section is not a place for you to repeatedly flex your partisan political muscles or engage in tit-for-tat exchanges with a handful of others.
We seek commentary from an insurance perspective from insurance professionals wanting to educate, clarify, contextualize or counter a story or other opinion.
We respectfully request that all commenters refrain from insults towards one another, avoid profanities and show respect for others at all times. If you or anyone else can’t make your point without insulting another person’s intelligence, morals, ethnicity, character or other trait, then please don’t post it. Those who engage in such behaviors ruin the forum experience for the majority who follow the rules of civil discourse.
…
Andrew Simpson
Chief Content Officer
Wells Media Group
Quiz Time: Quick, Rosenblatt, name a “social condition” beyond money problems? Can you do it? I doubt it, but maybe you can surprise me with original thought that isn’t PC-approved!
Coming from a guy who doesn’t know an island from an estuary.
April 4, 2019 at 8:38 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
MARCH 12, 2018 AT 4:31 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Boring, boring, boring Planet. Your act is getting very old. Take a hike. No one wants to read your total rubbish.
Reply
Also, Agent – try to stay on topic, bud.
April 5, 2019 at 7:53 am
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I must be missing something here. The article mentions “feeling unsafe” and “unable to count on family and friends”. Those aren’t financial.
Don’t think this is Leftist Propaganda? Check out the last paragraph:
“Society also needs to properly finance the social-service system because inadequate funding contributes to high health-care costs, Abrams said. “The health-care sector has had a blind eye to it.”
Ah, yes. It isn’t enough to have Medicare for All. Now we need much more money for the “social service system”. Guess whose tax dollars pay for that?
Awesome, good to know you are throwing in the towel. I was simply answering your question about tax dollars. Imagine what we might be able to do for the health and well-being of our citizens if we had those tax dollars not being collected due to corporate welfare. I know, I know, I’m not supposed to be thinking about being my brother’s keeper. I’m supposed to be saying FYIGM.
You mean the government could waste even more money if we punished those profit-hogs in silicon valley (see Apple, Amazon, etc.) with higher taxes? (See War on Poverty, abject total failure for poor people.)
Man, we are REALLY off track again. Good job.
April 4, 2019 at 9:13 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I’m so old, I remember when you wrote:
APRIL 4, 2019 AT 3:06 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 0Thumb down 2
…You aren’t even worth replying to anymore. Congrats.!
Those were all “financial” reasons and not “social” reasons, good point there, but my question is, what if they kept it optional for those who want to utilize that system? Instead of butting in on everyone’s business, interview patients who have recurring issues or who have mentioned that they’re struggling with something and offer those people help? Maybe advertise it on pamphlets or with a sign so that people can be aware that those types of services might be available at clinics or facilities that offer assistance to the less fortunate?
Notice they only define “social conditions” in financial terms? Hmmmm. Sounds like more Liberal Big
Brother gathering the data to justify redistribution again. Yawn.
Scared your doctors will find out you smoke pot?
Twice I pointed out that the Social Conditions mentioned in the article were all – and only – financial conditions.
Twice Andrew deleted same comments. Why, Andrew? Can you read the report? Does it say something different than what I stated?
Hey, maybe a third person can mock my dead son in the IJ comments and you can leave that up again! After all, you have your standards.
Your post will probably get deleted again based on how you ended it. Maybe try posting your question without attacking or mocking Andrew’s standards?
Craig- None of your comments on this story have been deleted. One other is still showing. Perhaps there was an error in posting the other?
It says 5 comments. It only shows 3. The other two were posted yesterday, before these. Your website: you tell me.
Did you click on See All Comments?
Andrew–
If and when you decide to shut the comment forum down for good, not many of us would blame you. I’m sure you have better things to do with your time than worry about who got off topic and offended whom on here.
I sense a nose trying to get under the tent flap. The idea sounds so caring. How could anyone be against it? Simple, it is just an effort to collect more info on people. To what end? That is the real question. I believe it was Medicare that wanted Dr’s to ask if the patient had any guns. The idea is pure “Big Brother”.
Good comment, Rob. Liberals would love to continue to post Lefty propaganda without any contrary opinion. Hey, maybe you can get a job at a university protecting safe zones and denying conservative speakers on campus! Or maybe a job with Google or Facebook looking for “hate” speech (wink wink, we know what that means). Heck, maybe you could help Andrew delete any accurate and fair criticism of Obama.
This article is another liberal joke: the only “social conditions” mentioned are financial conditions that impact the poor. Those are important, of course, but stress comes in tons of other varieties that for some reason doctors aren’t being asked to track: have a dying parent? lose your job? breaking up with your spouse? kid addicted to meth? The list goes on and on and on for everyone, not just people with money problems.
But not in LiberalVille: the only things that matter are the Agenda Pushers: you know, race, gender, and class. “Inequality!” “More redistribution to improve health outcomes!”
“OCTOBER 18, 2018 AT 7:51 PM Andrew G. Simpson says:
We are trying to clean up the forum and would welcome your cooperation along with that of all other regular posters. Please help us by setting an example.
First, please stay on topic….
Not every article, news item or argument is political. This comment section is not a place for you to repeatedly flex your partisan political muscles or engage in tit-for-tat exchanges with a handful of others.
We seek commentary from an insurance perspective from insurance professionals wanting to educate, clarify, contextualize or counter a story or other opinion.
We respectfully request that all commenters refrain from insults towards one another, avoid profanities and show respect for others at all times. If you or anyone else can’t make your point without insulting another person’s intelligence, morals, ethnicity, character or other trait, then please don’t post it. Those who engage in such behaviors ruin the forum experience for the majority who follow the rules of civil discourse.
…
Andrew Simpson
Chief Content Officer
Wells Media Group
Quiz Time: Quick, Rosenblatt, name a “social condition” beyond money problems? Can you do it? I doubt it, but maybe you can surprise me with original thought that isn’t PC-approved!
Your level of education is a Social Condition
Coming from a guy who doesn’t know an island from an estuary.
MARCH 12, 2018 AT 4:31 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Boring, boring, boring Planet. Your act is getting very old. Take a hike. No one wants to read your total rubbish.
Reply
Also, Agent – try to stay on topic, bud.
I must be missing something here. The article mentions “feeling unsafe” and “unable to count on family and friends”. Those aren’t financial.
Don’t think this is Leftist Propaganda? Check out the last paragraph:
“Society also needs to properly finance the social-service system because inadequate funding contributes to high health-care costs, Abrams said. “The health-care sector has had a blind eye to it.”
Ah, yes. It isn’t enough to have Medicare for All. Now we need much more money for the “social service system”. Guess whose tax dollars pay for that?
Ummm, corporations’ tax dollars?
No, no, of course not. We have an abundance of corporate welfare in this country. They aren’t going to pay for it. We pay them, duh!
That doesn’t make any sense; it has nothing to do with the article at all.
You aren’t even worth replying to anymore. Congrats.!
Awesome, good to know you are throwing in the towel. I was simply answering your question about tax dollars. Imagine what we might be able to do for the health and well-being of our citizens if we had those tax dollars not being collected due to corporate welfare. I know, I know, I’m not supposed to be thinking about being my brother’s keeper. I’m supposed to be saying FYIGM.
You mean the government could waste even more money if we punished those profit-hogs in silicon valley (see Apple, Amazon, etc.) with higher taxes? (See War on Poverty, abject total failure for poor people.)
Man, we are REALLY off track again. Good job.
I’m so old, I remember when you wrote:
APRIL 4, 2019 AT 3:06 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 0Thumb down 2
…You aren’t even worth replying to anymore. Congrats.!
And yet you still do….
And yet you still do…
Those were all “financial” reasons and not “social” reasons, good point there, but my question is, what if they kept it optional for those who want to utilize that system? Instead of butting in on everyone’s business, interview patients who have recurring issues or who have mentioned that they’re struggling with something and offer those people help? Maybe advertise it on pamphlets or with a sign so that people can be aware that those types of services might be available at clinics or facilities that offer assistance to the less fortunate?