Is Pelosi On Drugs Or Naturally Confused?

Or does she think we are stupid?

Nancy Pelosi is working hard to pass the health care takeover that Obama wants even though it looks like she is currently a few votes shy of the needed number of Democrats to pass it. The House and Senate have been working on this health care stuff for about a year and both chambers have a bill. They could have passed anything they wanted without Republican support because they had large enough majorities in both chambers.

The Democrats could not agree on the legislation and it is they who are at fault for this not passing. If it is so wonderful that they are going to ram it through now whether we like it or not then it was just as wonderful when they had enough votes to get it done on their own. They did not get it done because some of their own did not like it.

This is important because the Democrats keep blaming Republicans for obstructing. Republicans could not obstruct, they could only delay the inevitable, as long as all the Democrats were on the same sheet of music. They were not.

Plus, they know that if they are the only party to vote for it then they own it. If it turns out good then they will look like heroes and if it turns out bad it will be entirely their fault. They must know that it is not as wonderful as they say because they do not want sole ownership of it.

But what about Pelosi and her drug problem? She must be on drugs. Read this portion of a transcript from an interview she had this weekend with Candy Crowley of CNN:

CROWLEY: When we looked at our polling numbers just from yesterday, we had almost three-quarters of Americans who said they need to drop this bill, just stop talking about health care and move on to something else or they need to start new. So don’t the Republicans have a point?

PELOSI: The point is, is that we have a responsibility here, and the Republicans have had a field day going out there and misrepresenting what is in the bill, but that’s what they do. That’s what…

CROWLEY: So it has been messaging thing?

PELOSI: … they do. No…

CROWLEY: You think people don’t understand the bill?

PELOSI: No, I don’t think — there isn’t a bill. When we have a bill, which we will in a matter of days, then that is the bill that we can sell. Our bill, the House and the Senate bill, had some major differences which we’re hoping now to reconcile. [emphasis mine]

Nancy Pelosi starts off by saying that Republicans have had a field day misrepresenting what is in the bill. We could argue all day as to whether this is true and whether things were misrepresented but that is not important. Pelosi and her minions tell us this is wonderful and people just don’t understand it. They had enough votes (provided they all voted for it) to pass it. If things were misrepresented then they could have passed it and let America find out how wonderful it really is.

They did not do that for a reason. It stinks and they know it. They do not want to own it so they blame Republicans. Let me be clear for the moonbats who have trouble with this, Republicans did not obstruct because they could not block passage.

Next, Pelosi goes on to say that there is no bill. She said there is no bill now but when they have a bill they will be able to sell it. If this is true then how did Republicans misrepresent what was in the bill? You cannot misrepresent what is in a bill if there is no bill (her words were technically there is not a bill).

Maybe Pelosi is defining bill as the reconciled product from the Senate and House. If that is her definition of “the bill” then Republicans could not have misrepresented what is in “the bill” because “the bill” does not yet exist.

This is all misdirection and deliberate confusion created to make it appear as if Republicans had anything to do with the Democrats being unable to pass their health care takeover. They do not want to own up to the fact that they had enough votes and could have rammed it through at any time and still could not get it done. Now that they do not have a filibuster proof majority they want to ram it through with reconciliation and claim they had to because Republicans obstructed the process.

This is a lie and they should be called on it every time.

I do not agree with the health care process going on and would not have been happy if they had passed it when they had the chance, especially since a lot of people oppose it and I know it will be bad for this country. But, they should have the integrity and honor to admit that they hold all the responsibility for that failure.

No matter what, Pelosi is out lying about the process (or should I say misrepresenting) and whether or not they have a bill and trying to paint Republicans as obstructionists.

Republicans showed at the summit that they had ideas and were willing to work but like I said before, Obama’s idea of bipartisan is when Republicans do what he wants. He said it before and he intimated it at the summit, he won.

Fine, but man up and admit your own failures and the failures of your party. You blew your chance to pass it when you were unobstructed and now you might not have the votes to ram it through even with little used and inappropriate procedures. You can’t admit to your base that you could not get it done when you were completely unobstructed so now you need to blame it on Republicans to try and salvage the November elections.

It is your fault Mr. Obama and the fault of your Democrats.

Keep this in mind America as they use “obstructionist Republicans” as their reason for ramming it through (or at least trying) with reconciliation.

It really is too bad the Democrat party lacks men and women of honor and integrity.

Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

41 Responses to “Is Pelosi On Drugs Or Naturally Confused?”

  1. Adam says:

    Unlike the GOP there are actually liberal and conservative Democrats with differing agendas and concerns. This is the primary problem.

    Mix that with the liars like Palin who have talked about death panels and death doctors and forced sterilization and evil commie takeovers of medicine and the erosion of rights and you start to see why the public opposition in an election year has some of the less liberal Democrats in a bind.

    The Democrats can take a page from the GOP on this one though. They were elected to lead and they should do what they think is right on health care and if they suffer in November so be it. That’s the price of leadership sometimes but the Democrats as a party rarely show the spine they need to actually lead.

    This isn’t a subject the Democrats took up last year because it’s a fad though. It’s something they have been working on for decades and they’ll probably never have a strong enough majority to pass it than they have right now. They’ll find incremental changes much easier in the future if they get this first piece passed and that’s probably what worries your side most of all.

    • In on it not says:

      Very true, Adam; the GOP has no liberal or conservative Democrats with differing agendas.
      You as such a Nancy.

      My side? Your side? You don’t have side; you have a coalition of the damned. A confederacy of dunces. One big black ass and all you demo-fagots are trying to nail it.
      Democrats as a party rarely show the spine they need to actually lead? Oh they lead! Down every wrong road that can be imagined.

  2. Adam says:

    The Democrats had to start at 60 for a reason and it was because of the GOP threat of filibuster. Then there was the media campaign the GOP waged against the bill is what eroded that 60 count and derailed it.

    You like to brag about Fox News’s success but they’re really just the media mouthpiece of the GOP and the talking heads there spread fear about the bill day and night.

    To boil it down and say it’s all the fault of the Dems and none the fault of the GOP ignores reality in a big way.

    • In on it not says:

      Conservatives have 1/2 of Fox and that scares you, eh. You have every other news outlet, and Fox scares you because they are fair and balanced. What a prick.

      To boil it down and say it’s all the fault of the Dems sums it up neatly. You can’t blame GOP; they didn’t sponsor this “bill.”
      If it didn”t exist, GOP wouldn’t have to waste time trying to stop it!
      You meat-head.

  3. victoria says:

    Dream on Adam. I don’t know about you Dog but I am so sick of listening to this healthcare thing. According to the Treasury Department the US is now 11 1/2 trillion dollars in the red and the Dems are just like thats OK–we’re going to ram healthcare through anyway.

    • Adam says:

      “Dream on Adam.”

      Which part is a dream?

      “…Dems are just like thats OK–we’re going to ram healthcare through anyway.”

      Never mind the fact that the CBO says the bill will save us money, right?

      • Mike Radigan says:

        Adam said, “Never mind the fact that the CBO says the bill will save us money, right?”


        July 29, 09:

        Current from the CBO director:

        • Adam says:

          Your first link is way out of date and came long before the final House and Senate versions.

          As for your second link you are correct. I should have been more careful when talking about the final piece of legislation. What I should say is the CBO has up to now found the House and Senate bills would save us money. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          I dated the first link.

          As far as the 2nd link is concerned I challenge you to prove it would save us money. The Director offers no such proof and states it currently cannot be done. Let’s see, the Director or Adam?

        • Adam says:

          “The Director offers no such proof and states it currently cannot be done.”

          The director is talking about the release of the health care bill from Obama right before the summit. They’re saying it hasn’t been long enough yet, not that it can’t be done.

          “Let’s see, the Director or Adam?”

          Well, how about I quote the Director for you?

          Senate version saves money:

          CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager’s amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

          House version saves money/a>:

          According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

          Of course the CBO admits that amendments and other factors alter their projections but for the record both the House and Senate bills have been found by the CBO to reduce the deficit, not grow it.

          • Big Dog says:

            I have told you before and I will tell you again. The CBO can only grade what is put before it. They get the shell without all the bells and whistles and other things that are int he bill. They rate what they are given and skilled politicians can manipulate the bill to get whatever number they need. Look at all the past CBO estimates and tell me which program they evaluated has come in at the number they said. You won’t find them (and don’t give me something the CBO did for self evaluation).

            So what the CBO says about cost is not relevant. You could write a bill spending 2.5 trillion dollars and several organizations that can do what the CBO does can grade the bill, the entire thing, and tell you it will cost 2.5 T. The CBO will say it costs under a trillion because they have to grade what they are given and nothing more.

            So, the CBO estimates that show the deficit will shrink are based on parlor tricks and bills graded to get the number and not the truth. This is how things work no matter what you believe.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “CBO estimates that show the deficit will shrink are based on parlor tricks and bills graded to get the number and not the truth.”>>

              I know it’s hard Bigd but do try to learn something new. Again:

              CBO FAQ page:

              “How accurate are CBO’s budget projections?

              By statute, CBO’s baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO’s baseline projections.”

              The CBO has to do it’s calculations based upon the law in question. Regarding their economic forecasting accuracy, they have:

              “How accurate are CBO’s economic forecasts?

              CBO regularly evaluates the accuracy of its economic forecasts and publishes the track record. Those evaluations help guide the agency’s efforts to improve its forecasts and help Members of Congress and others in their use of CBO’s estimates. Historically, the accuracy of CBO’s two-year forecasts and five-year projections has been very similar to the accuracy of those by the Blue Chip consensus (an average of private-sector forecasters) and the Administration.”

              Regarding the cost of healthcare, we already pay more than enough to cover everyone (all our peer countries do it for less than we spend). It just gets wasted feeding the multi-trillion dollar greed machine.

              So obviously it IS possible to expand coverage as Obama wants to do, while at the same time saving money. Every other grown up country on the planet already does it.

              Email from my sister this morning after I told her about a friend who got a bill for $87,000 for three days in the hospital for a minor surgery (she is in school to be a nurse assistant in Canada):

              “Holy sh-t, I’m going to share this with my class tomorrow… I can’t even fathom this… My friend a fellow student had her daughter’s apendix burst in September, right when we started school. She was in the hospital for 5 days, it cost nothing… maybe some prescription costs for painkillers when she was released. and I was choked because I’m getting medicare bills for 108 a month for the 4 of us, basic coverage for a family who doesn’t have a coverage through work, but I will probably get that back when I do my taxes because I’m a student… Some of us have no concept,… but wow.”

            • Big Dog says:

              Darrel, you try to learn. If they say how much it will cost over ten years then they are saying what the impact is. The CBO ONLY gives an estimate on what they are given and the politicians only put the minimum in to be graded.

              The guy who use to run the place said that. They can only grade WHAT THEY ARE GIVEN and they are not given all of it.

              It is a fact. And I told you not to tell me how well the CBO says it is doing. I do not care what their estimate of their work is. They are never on target and that is because they can ONLY grade what they are given and they are not given it all. This explains why independent places score spending bills much higher. They are not restricted by law on what they can grade.

              Just a fact.

            • Big Dog says:

              She was in the hospital for 5 days, it cost nothing

              Oh it cost something. Some other poor schmuck paid for it.

              It is wrong and misleading to say it cost nothing.

            • Big Dog says:

              What minor surgery. I think there are a lot of people inventing stories here. Seems Darrel is the only one who knows all these people going to the hospital.

              Both my kids had their appendix out and it did not cost very much.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “What minor surgery.”>>

              Growth on a saliva gland. Supposed to be an overnighter. Catheter complications made it a three nighter. $87k. (non-profit hospital)

              Bigd: “Both my kids had their appendix out and it did not cost very much.”>>

              My friend’s was an emergency. It cost about a years wages. He’s a school teacher.

              When it costs 18x as much to get an appendectomy here as it does in France, I think we probably have some room for improvement in the area of cost reduction.

            • Big Dog says:

              We can work on cost. Remove all unions from the medical field. Allow competition across state lines. Stop having government regulate how much a doctor can make on a procedure. They do more procedures to make money because of the reimbursements.

              Stop frivolous lawsuits that force doctors to do defensive medicine.

              Of have all the people who want government run care go to France or Canada and let the rest of us stay here.

            • victoria says:

              Dar:She was in the hospital for 5 days, it cost nothing… maybe some prescriptions….

              It didn’t cost nothing–it cost something and it had to paid for somehow. It isn’t free. Darrel just can’t get it through his thick brain that things aren’t free. The money has to come from somewhere.

            • Darrel says:

              VIC: “It didn’t cost nothing”>>

              The context makes it clear that she was referring to it costing the person who received the procedure “nothing.”

              Just as it cost me nothing to drive on 90 miles of road today (even though I pay for it indirectly).*

              Some things it just makes sense to fund and pay for in a collective manner. We’ve learned this regarding roads, police, prisons, libraries, schools, sanitation, parks, fire protection, court systems. Maybe we’ll learn this regard to our medical system as our peer countries already have.

              Actually, about 60% of our medical spending already goes through the government, so we are most of the way there already. Time to go all in an FIX those prices. Time for the Doc’s to take it in the shorts and the insurance companies to go bye bye.

              *I’ve already put 5,500 miles on my Prius, saving over 200 gallons of gas and almost 4,000 pounds of Co2 in the air.

            • victoria says:

              “Time for the Doc’s to take it in the shorts”
              You don’t live in Canada do you Darrel, nor anyone of the other socialized countries that you keep touting here. Why is that–huh? Since you love it so much. When the docs start taking it in the shorts–as you put it–so do we in the number of doctors available to us and in the quality of healthcare available to us. That is a little factor that you just can’t quite understand either. And you know I am happy for you and your Prius but the govt. better not start telling me that I have to drive one or any other kind of car for that matter. And the 4000 pounds of CO2 your car saved has been more than made up for on this site with all your hot air bloviating and arrogant pompous rhetoric.

            • Darrel says:

              VIC: When the docs start taking it in the shorts–as you put it–so do we in the number of doctors available to us…”>>

              Try again. Physicians per 1,000:

              US comes in #52.

              VIC: and in the quality of healthcare available to us.>>

              Many of our peer countries have better quality (as in better outcomes and less errors) and they pay their doc’s less. Being a doctor doesn’t need to be a license to be a millionaire and there is no reason to think a doctor does a better job because he is rich.


            • victoria says:

              My reply ended up way back up there somewhere for some reason.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “have all the people who want government run care go to France or Canada and let the rest of us stay here.”>>

              But when you concentrate all of you silly bunnies in one area it makes it even worse and you end up with something like… Texas (25%, 5.8 million uninsured).

              Bigd: “Stop frivolous lawsuits that force doctors to do defensive medicine.”>>

              That’s what hearings are for.

              Hey, I’ve got a question for you. You like to talk about tort reform being a big cost savings. That’s controversial and I tend to think that while it certainly is a factor, there are a lot larger cost drivers (for some reason, our peer countries have 1/10th to 1/100th of our malpractice insurance costs).

              Anyway, how do you deal with the fact that having BIG Government step in on a civil matter and limit redress is actually UNconstitutional? Shouldn’t it be? Isn’t the right to sue for redress of grievances specifically delineated in the Constitution? Does it say anything about caps in there? No I don’t think so.
              So when a poorly designed hot tub suction jet sucks my childs guts out when they leaned up against it and it was made too powerful and a jury finds them negligent, who are you to have your Big Government come in, contra the Constitution, and have some paltry $250k limit put on the amount my permanently damaged child can receive? (or use any number of medical examples).

              Upon what Constitutional basis do you use Big Government in this most intrusive way?

              Just wondering.


            • In on it not says:

              TORT does not bring the kid back to health.
              The constitution does not give the right to maliciously sue a doctor. Not in the constitution anywhere.

              Your kid got his guts sucked out? Well, that explains your anger, but it is misdirected. Instead of being anger at logic and rationality, try to understand you had a kid with your DNA, meaning, a stupid kid that got his guts sucked out. Not everyone deserves to live and your kid obviously didn’t.
              How is an increase in everyone’s medical bill, because of your lawsuit, going to make your kids any smarter?

            • Darrel says:

              INON: “Not everyone deserves to live and your kid obviously didn’t.”>>

              Ah, conservative compassion in action.

              It was an “example” grasshopper.


            • Big Dog says:

              How many of the folks in Texas that are uninsured are illegals? Obama says we will not cover them (wink, wink) so they would be uninsured anyway. Let’s send them home and that will reduce the number.

              I am not sure the Constitution addresses civil cases but tort reform does not have to involve caps on punative matters. The caps would be on pain and suffering which are subjective and open to interpretation.

              I prefer tort reform where the cases are decided on the established ideas that prove negligence in medical cases. I also prefer that rather than limiting the award a victim (a real victim) can receive the law limit what a lwayer can get. Some lawyers get 25-35% of the award. They get a fee and that should be their pay. Limit or eliminate any part of the award going to lawyers and that will reduce the huge payouts lawyers look for.

              You ability to sue a manufacturer of a hot tub is not medical tort unless the doctor taking care of your child was negligent. There is no limit on damage from the company that sold you the poorly designed item BUT it must be shown that someone knew it was poorly designed before it was marketed. If the first time we find out about the poor design was your kid’s injury how can we hold the company accountable for neglect? Neglect has to do with knowingly doing something wrong. It is also important to avoid allowing people like John Edwards to say he heard kids from the grave or to define risks associated with medicine. A lawyer should not be able to get away with defining medicine as in that kid has cerebral palsey because he was not born by cesarean section or some such nonsense.

              There are standards for what constitutes neglect and they should be followed.

              There is a doctor in MD who placed cardiac stents in people who probably did not need them. The airways are filled with lawyer commercials talking about the right to sue. He did something wrong and should lose his license but if there was no harm to these people and they had heart disease (just not bad enough to get a stent) should they get millions of dollars? Or should they be reimbursed for medical expenses and be awarded a sum that covers the wrong done to them? Unless one could show harm then millions of dollars is not appropriate.

              Perhaps the other countries have lower malpractice costs because patients can’t sue the doctors who are working under the national health system. What is the malpractice rate for doctors employed by our government. Probably real low because lawsuits against government doctors are limited in nature and the Federal Tort Claims Act bars jury trials and punitive damages and limits economic damages to those allowed under state law. The government allows itself tort reform so the number would be smaller.

              When we live in a society where people get awarded a lot of money for their own negligence (spilling hot coffee, drinking too much booze, smoking cigarettes) then it is not hard to see that doctors will get sued needlessly and for frivolous things. There need to be clear rules.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “How many of the folks in Texas that are uninsured are illegals?”>>

              27% of the uninsured in Texas are non-citizens. Note, this doesn’t mean they are illegal, many of those will be legal residents. And also note that even without the non-citizens considered, Texas still remains the highest in uninsured citizens.

              “Foreign Born Residents and Non Citizens in Relation to Uninsured Population

              Non-citizens are almost three times as likely to be uninsured as are native US citizens. Over 60 percent of non-citizens went without insurance in 2003, compared to 20 percent of US native citizens and 28 percent of naturalized citizens. In Texas, 27 percent of the uninsured are non-citizens. (TDI, 2005) In addition, almost 3 million Hispanics in Texas are uninsured; this accounts for 40 percent of the uninsured population (Families USA, 2003).”


              Other than that, I think we could a agree a lot on the overly litigious nature of the US. The page after page of lawyers in the Yellow Pages is quite extraordinary. When America isn’t fighting with someone else, it’s fighting with itself!


            • Darrel says:

              I understood it to mean, cost her nothing.

            • Big Dog says:

              I am sure she meant that but it did cost someone…

            • In on it not says:

              But Adam and Dar don’t care that the other guys pay for it. It gives them a warm fuzzy feeling! They have helped humanity!
              Note the Yahoo article about the crop of ghost-towns spring up across America?
              Ever read Atlas Shrugged, Adam?
              See anything that looks familiar?

              I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; you are the problem, not anyone else.

            • In on it not says:

              Exactly. Two points BD.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          Per February 22, 2010 the Director states:

          This morning the Obama Administration released a description of its health care proposal, and CBO has already received several requests to provide a cost estimate for that proposal. We had not previously received the proposal, and we have just begun the process of reviewing it—a process that will take some time, given the complexity of the issues involved. Although the proposal reflects many elements that were included in the health care bills passed by the House and the Senate last year, it modifies many of those elements and also includes new ones. Moreover, preparing a cost estimate requires very detailed specifications of numerous provisions, and the materials that were released this morning do not provide sufficient detail on all of the provisions. Therefore, CBO cannot provide a cost estimate for the proposal without additional detail, and, even if such detail were provided, analyzing the proposal would be a time-consuming process that could not be completed this week.

      • Big Dog says:

        Ignore the CBO, as explained, they did not grade the ENTIRE bill.

  4. Adam says:

    Mike: “Per February 22, 2010 the Director states”

    What is your point again?

    • Mike Radigan says:

      He doesn’t know!

      • Adam says:

        As I said above, I should have been more careful when talking about the final piece of legislation. The CBO clearly has not had time to rate what Obama released last week and it’s already being changed again anyway.

        Victoria’s argument that the US is 11 1/2 trillion dollars in the red so we should not pass health care reform does not hold up against the reality that the CBO has found the House and Senate versions of the bill would have both reduced the deficit.

        • In on it not says:

          And who controls these august political houses that shot that lie across your bow? You believe anything a Democrat tells you! But when have they ever told the truth when a lie will create a better image for themselves?

          Adam, you are tiresome.

  5. victoria says:

    The average tuition for the first year of medical school is $25,000. Additionally, there are fees for books, housing, meals, student fees, traveling, etc. Public Schools are about $10,000 if you’re an in state student. Out of state students can expect to pay well over $22,000 for a public medical school. It takes approximately 12 years to become a doctor. You will have 4 years of undergraduate school, which is normal college everyone thinks about. There you will be required to take classes in chemistry, biology, anatomy, math, and possibly others related to core classes like history, english, a foreigh language etc. Then you will apply to medical school. That is another four years of schooling and working as an intern. After you graduate four years of medical school you will spend 4 more years (usually) doing a residency someplace, usually a hospital or larger practice. Then you are officially a doctor if you make it through residency. If you are looking to do a specialty in a certain field, like cardiology that is additional time and training on top of the education already mentioned.

    “Being a doctor doesn’t need to be a license to be a millionaire and there is no reason to think a doctor does a better job because he is rich.”

    No but they have to pay for their training right now. But then “OH I know what your answer to that will be then “Lets Let the govt pay for it.”

    • Darrel says:

      VIC: “…they have to pay for their training right now. But then “OH I know what your answer to that will be then “Lets Let the govt pay for it.”>>

      Thanks for the info Victoria. Last I checked, the government already had about $200,000 invested in a doctor by the time they are finished school. So I don’t have to say “let’s let the gov pay for it” because they largely already are paying for it.

      All countries have to deal with this. Do we pay more of the costs to make a doctor or do we have them graduate with huge debts which they then have to charge higher rates in order to pay off. Our peer countries often carry much more of the cost up front. I am not sure which is better but it seems pretty clear that our method has not resulted in lower costs!


  6. Big Dog says:

    But many more will be illegal and illegals consume a huge amount of resources.

    Texas also had a huge inflow of people moving from places like California. Since the way they count uninsured is bogus it i quite likely that some of them had no insurance for a short period of time while moving or changing jobs.

    Since they count you uninsured for the year if you are uninsured for one day the stats are skewed.

    Get rid of illegals and count accurately and that number goes down.

  7. Big Dog says:

    But we need to ask, who is the government or Darrel to decide what a doctor can make.

    Remove the government restrictions on reimbursement and doctors can compete with each other and would not have to charge so much to get a small part back.

    There are more and more doctors who are not accepting insurance and allow people to pay a certain amount each year. Then they get seen and taken care of without all the paperwork or government and insurance rules.

    People like it and the doctors get more of their money because they do not waste time with regulations and paperwork.