Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: gray asphalt on 29 Sep 2009 21:07 "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message news:4f095c1d-230e-4eaa-8787-f4c027e41939(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... On Sep 22, 7:43 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful > >> thinking to believe that the current insurance > >> companies are going to treat you fairly. > >> If they wanted to be up front about what > >> they do and do not cover there would be > >> a list. > > > Coverage is defined and exceptions listed in every insurance policy. > > How come there are lawsuits, won by individuals, who claim > that they should have been covered and weren't? ... broad terms > like "experimental" are used to deny common sense procedures ... > procrastinating payment until the policyholder is dead ... > Do insurance companies insist that the details of their lost > cases not be revealed? Is there a list of what cases have been > filed and the verdicts and the outcomes for the families? > > How can a doctor who worked for a large insurace company > testify before congress that she deliberately denied care to > people who deserved it, causing death, and was promoted by > the insurance company? > > Obviously coverage and exceptions are listed in a way that > allows for cheating and the effectual murdering of people > who have trusted and continue to trust that they will be > covered by their insurance company in a catastrophic illness. > > How many people died and will die as a result of Madoff's > fraud that stole money from charities? I wonder how it compares > to insurance company greed to the point of people suffering and > dying as a result. Has everyone forgotten the documented court > cases of abuse by health insurance companies? Even if this is somehow widespread, which I doubt, how is setting up a govt plan, who you cannot suue (sic), going to solve the problem? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I'm promoting regulation of Walstreet, not health care, right now. I hate Obama's statement about supporting "creativity on walstreet". Derivatives and default credit swaps are "creative" walstreet frauds. Rush Limbaugh said recently that "This is not a zero sum game ... " a phrase used a lot during NAFTA. It is supposed to mean that just because the rich are getting rich at an alarming rate, it doesn't mean that they are taking it from the middle and lower class. .... that wealth is being created ... Well, apparently it is not a zero sum game because money can just disappear. I'd like to know where the trillions of dollars went that had to be replaced by the bailout. We can even find out who owned what . Things bundled and sold to anonymous companies who rebundled, insured and reinsured their fraudulent bookeeping ... Can you imagine an IRS auditor accepting that you don't know where your money went and the bookeeping is so complicated that no one can figure it out?
From: gray asphalt on 29 Sep 2009 21:11 "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message news:777461b9-e5e8-445e-834e-971df525e134(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... On Sep 22, 12:17 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:885bd0aa-5806-4c97-ae1f-2ca23b054fd3(a)v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 19, 3:36 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > >news:a7ec8d84-295f-4f3f-9b0c-9c00d32894ed(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 12, 2:39 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7_Dgm.54312$sC1.29585(a)newsfe17.iad... > > > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > > > > a. allow individuals to buy out of state insurance (one bill) > > > > > b. require insurance for preexisting conditions (one bill) > > > > Amen to 1a. However, 1b should be limited to individuals being given a > > > one > > > time chance to join an individual plan without regard to pre-ex. If > > > you > > > mandate it beyond that, there will not be an individual plan available > > > to > > > anybody. It's like lending money to somebody who can't afford it. > > > > > c. require portability of insurance between jobs and in the case of > > > > lost jobs. > > > > Amen. > > > > > d. do something about preventative medicine. Stop filling the > > > > emergency rooms with people who could have treated and cured > > > > by simple means before serious consequences occur. Stop giving > > > > primary care to medicaid and uninsured at expensive ERs. > > > > That's helpful but not a cure-all. > > > > > e. Audit insurance company payouts. One doctor testified before > > > > congress that her job was to deny claims and she admitted that her > > > > actions had killed patients and that she was totally unaccountable, > > > > she was promoted as a good employee. This is just sick. > > > > It is....and it's unusual. Most states have robust insurance depts. > > > who > > > guard against this sort of practice. Nonetheless, a federal law > > > banning > > > this wouldn't hurt. > > > > > f. Require payment based on outcomes, not on number of tests and > > > > procedures ... Necessary tests will be done if outcome is taken > > > > into account. > > > > You're getting into rationing and having other people, other than > > > Drs., > > > decide tests and procedures. > > > > -Greg > > > You can't allow every claim, so even a govt plan will have to deny > > claims, and such denials will always correlate with patient deaths, > > these people are ill anyways...in any event the argument that some > > claim was denied and some person died will always be with us. For me, > > it's just a matter of knowing what your insurance actually does > > provide. Most people don't, and get upset when faced with reality! > > Just speaking for myself, I have an organ transplant and a cancer add > > on to my insurance because there are holes in my policy in these > > areas, The add ons are very cheap, BTW. > > > _________________________ > > > This is one of the most important ponts (above). I'd like > > to know how, though, that you found what your policy > > does and does not cover. I'm guessing that you'll say > > "read your policy". Is it that simple? > > Talk to your insurer....instead of just assuming that any old thing is > covered and then blaming the company when it is not. > _________________________ > > To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful > thinking to believe that the current insurance > companies are going to treat you fairly. > If they wanted to be up front about what > they do and do not cover there would be > a list. They've always treated me fairly. I have never had them fail to pay for something that was covered and they have never been late in paying either me or a provider. Everything has always run really smoothly, and in a very timely manner, from service providers and the insurance industry. @@@ I do not doubt your statement, even a little. But, let me ask you what seems like an irrelevent question. Did you see the movie, "Erin Brokovich"? Do you think it was made up? Do you think that PG&E is morally guilty of murder? ... those who approved of PG&E's actions and knew the consequences?
From: gray asphalt on 30 Sep 2009 05:40 "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:9c70c515pot89422dbainli8mqkr1vlg2g(a)4ax.com... > I'm curious. One of the things that increase the cost of health care > in the U.S. is when people wait until the weekend to take their kids > to be treated - at the expensive hospitals - because that's the day > when they have time off. > > Is there any process in places like Canada or the UK to counter this? > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison Saturdays are slow days at ERs. At least that's the it was for years. Not sure now. Apparently people don't have as many problems when they are having fun. I'm not sure if this applies to parents and kids.
From: The moderator on 30 Sep 2009 08:55 "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:m2ywm.236987$0e4.144276(a)newsfe19.iad... > > "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message > news:4aba2934$0$23766$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net... >> >> "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Naeum.49208$JG1.39006(a)newsfe24.iad... >>> >>> >>>>> To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful >>>>> thinking to believe that the current insurance >>>>> companies are going to treat you fairly. >>>>> If they wanted to be up front about what >>>>> they do and do not cover there would be >>>>> a list. >>>> >>>> Coverage is defined and exceptions listed in every insurance policy. >>> >>> How come there are lawsuits, won by individuals, who claim >>> that they should have been covered and weren't? ... broad terms >>> like "experimental" are used to deny common sense procedures ... >>> procrastinating payment until the policyholder is dead ... >>> Do insurance companies insist that the details of their lost >>> cases not be revealed? Is there a list of what cases have been >>> filed and the verdicts and the outcomes for the families? >> >> Do you have any examples? Specifics? >> >> What about those ads on television from lawyers looking for clients to >> sue for health claims? Don't you think we could reduce insurance costs >> if we had some tort reform to limit how these shysters make money >> recruiting "victims?" > > Are you saying that you doubt that insurance companies > intentionally deny legitimate claims, with the outcome > of death and delayed treatment causing permanent injury? > > Did you see the Dr. who testified before congress that did > exactly that and was promoted because she was considered > a company man? She admitted to murder on CSPAN, imo. No, I am saying if lawyers are recruiting victims, do you think they are doing it to help the victims or increase the overall settlement? The lawyers are getting a percentage. The more people the higher their take. Do you think the lawyers are investigating every victim's claim?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 30 Sep 2009 18:03
On Sep 29, 8:11 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:777461b9-e5e8-445e-834e-971df525e134(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 22, 12:17 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > >news:885bd0aa-5806-4c97-ae1f-2ca23b054fd3(a)v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 19, 3:36 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > > >news:a7ec8d84-295f-4f3f-9b0c-9c00d32894ed(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Aug 12, 2:39 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:7_Dgm.54312$sC1.29585(a)newsfe17.iad... > > > > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > > > > > a. allow individuals to buy out of state insurance (one bill) > > > > > > b. require insurance for preexisting conditions (one bill) > > > > > Amen to 1a. However, 1b should be limited to individuals being given a > > > > one > > > > time chance to join an individual plan without regard to pre-ex. If > > > > you > > > > mandate it beyond that, there will not be an individual plan available > > > > to > > > > anybody. It's like lending money to somebody who can't afford it. > > > > > > c. require portability of insurance between jobs and in the case of > > > > > lost jobs. > > > > > Amen. > > > > > > d. do something about preventative medicine. Stop filling the > > > > > emergency rooms with people who could have treated and cured > > > > > by simple means before serious consequences occur. Stop giving > > > > > primary care to medicaid and uninsured at expensive ERs. > > > > > That's helpful but not a cure-all. > > > > > > e. Audit insurance company payouts. One doctor testified before > > > > > congress that her job was to deny claims and she admitted that her > > > > > actions had killed patients and that she was totally unaccountable, > > > > > she was promoted as a good employee. This is just sick. > > > > > It is....and it's unusual. Most states have robust insurance depts. > > > > who > > > > guard against this sort of practice. Nonetheless, a federal law > > > > banning > > > > this wouldn't hurt. > > > > > > f. Require payment based on outcomes, not on number of tests and > > > > > procedures ... Necessary tests will be done if outcome is taken > > > > > into account. > > > > > You're getting into rationing and having other people, other than > > > > Drs., > > > > decide tests and procedures. > > > > > -Greg > > > > You can't allow every claim, so even a govt plan will have to deny > > > claims, and such denials will always correlate with patient deaths, > > > these people are ill anyways...in any event the argument that some > > > claim was denied and some person died will always be with us. For me, > > > it's just a matter of knowing what your insurance actually does > > > provide. Most people don't, and get upset when faced with reality! > > > Just speaking for myself, I have an organ transplant and a cancer add > > > on to my insurance because there are holes in my policy in these > > > areas, The add ons are very cheap, BTW. > > > > _________________________ > > > > This is one of the most important ponts (above). I'd like > > > to know how, though, that you found what your policy > > > does and does not cover. I'm guessing that you'll say > > > "read your policy". Is it that simple? > > > Talk to your insurer....instead of just assuming that any old thing is > > covered and then blaming the company when it is not. > > _________________________ > > > To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful > > thinking to believe that the current insurance > > companies are going to treat you fairly. > > If they wanted to be up front about what > > they do and do not cover there would be > > a list. > > They've always treated me fairly. I have never had them fail to pay > for something that was covered and they have never been late in paying > either me or a provider. Everything has always run really smoothly, > and in a very timely manner, from service providers and the insurance > industry. > > @@@ > > I do not doubt your statement, even a little. But, > let me ask you what seems like an irrelevent > question. Did you see the movie, "Erin Brokovich"? > Do you think it was made up? Do you think that > PG&E is morally guilty of murder? ... those who > approved of PG&E's actions and knew the consequences? It's a movie; it's fake for sure. How much of the fiction is based on actual incidents? I have no idea at all. Assuming the worst, you think government is better? When we conceive of the idea of freedom, what is the #1 thing we are free from? If you don't like your job, you are free to find another. Maybe there is some comeback to that, but consider the cases where you cannot leave your job because to do so would be a violation of the law. You are never going to get a perfect society, never have perfect institutions. No matter what system we put in place, in a country the size of the US, many people will die for want of health care. |