Maybe an "Insurees bill of rights" would clear up some of the more blatent abuses by the insurance companies. Tort reform is a no brainer. I simply don't trust a Govt. takeover of health care. They have a proven track record of screwing everything they touch all the way up. This Govt. doesn't give a sh!t about anyones health. It is simply a tax and power grab. Eventually the other side will have control of this fiasco. That should scare the sh!t out of the left.

That's about the only thing in this forum that I think I have ever agreed with you on!

Naw. Better would be consumer protections so that I don't have to sue an insurance company I've had for years because they told the doctor and hospital that I was covered for a procedure, then six months later they changed their minds and told the hospital they wouldn't pay for it.

My procedure wouldn't be scheduled by either the doctor or the hospital until they got approval from my insurance company that it was covered. The insurance company approved it prior to the procedure.

Tort reform has nothing to do with it. I'm not trying to recover damages for anything.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your health insurance is with Anthem.

I don't, either. I sent the case to the State Insurance Board as an insurance company fraud complaint, and the final answer was, "nothing we can do about it".

Here is a good chart that was around in the newspapers this past week, comparing specific provisions within the three health reform bills out there approved by House/Senate:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6709715.hmtl

The Republicans offered up a very reasonable plan, that addressed all the issues that people are concerned about. Tort reform, opening up competition, providing a hardship safety net for people who fall through the cracks, regulating industry the industry for pre-existing conditions, etc. The CBO scored the plan and found it actuall reduced costs. Their plan wouldn't raise taxes and punish businesses and explode the deficit like Obama/Pelosi would. Of course this plan was dead on arrival and was shot down in a hot minute.

the Democrats main focus isn't on solving problems. their first mission is to take over the system, that to them solves the problem. they only know one approach, total central command and control, that way it consolidates more power in Washington and guarantees that they will be able to meddle in ours lives forever.

they'll pass some hideous bill, but I'm not too worried about it because I'm pretty confident it will be scrapped by the next congress.

The point is the same in all the situations I listed. If you don't want to talk about people who don't control their potential to get diabetes by having a proper diet, exercise, etc, then talk about prenatal care. Talk about someone with a carpentry or interior improvement hobby that involves a saw that cuts off their finger on accident.

The latter two are certainly "lifestyle choices" that lead to people needing insurance companies to pay for them, but if you ask me, the care involved in having a baby and getting your finger reattached is totally elective.

Politico reports that the Republican National Committee employee health insurance through Cigna has offered elective abortion since 1991. The company says they could of opted out, but chose not to.

The RNC is rushing to ... change that now.

Isnt this the answer that we get all the time when we as a consumer have a complaint?

The Republican plan most certainly did NOT address "all the issues that people are concerned about."
One of the issues people are concerned about - for example - is the 17% of Americans who currently have no health insurance. According to the CBO evaluation, the Republican plan....would make zero impact on that number over the next decade. That's right, they came up with a health care plan that doesn't provide people who don't have coverage with coverage.
I think that qualifies as an issue that at least some people are concerned about.
Read for yourself:
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/127463
or read the CBO review itself:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10705

The direct quote from them is:
"The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share."

Listen, I'm not a big fan of this half-assed measure that the House passed (or the cowardly Democrats who passed it) but lets not pretend for one second that John Boehner has all the answers.