From: gray asphalt on 1 Oct 2009 23:12
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message
On Sep 29, 8:07 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message
> 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
> 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?
I agree with most of you say. The only regulation we need on Wall St
is no bailouts. They players get the money when they win, and they
should be the ones to lose it when they lose. No way they should get
the money both ways, as bailouts facilitate.
How do we handle the 'too big to fail' thing?
Break up monopolistic large banks ... return
to the time when investment and regular banks
were not allowed to mix ... stop all of the
derivitives, short sales, credit default swaps
.... or are we just wasting our time because
those guys are just smarter and more connected
than we will ever comprehend and they will
find another way to cheat with the help of a
corrupt government on both sides of the aisle.
My apology to wedding planners.
From: gray asphalt on 1 Oct 2009 23:17
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message
On Sep 29, 8:11 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message
> On Sep 22, 12:17 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message
> > 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
> 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.
There is no good system, imo, either. Some philosophers
wrote that the best government was a benovolent king and
the worst was an evil king ... maybe that's true ...
For me, the only answer to evil governments is whistleblowers.
I've got some experience with that and it could work a lot
better in govt and business and in the public sector.
From: Jack Hollis on 2 Oct 2009 10:30
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 19:59:56 -0700, "gray asphalt"
>Well, that same data is what PG&E believed to be true and
>what they ignored when using chromium. PG&E started buying
>up property to cover themselves, an obvious attempt at covering
>their own asses.
They did contaminate the land and should be responsible to clean it
up. If they own the property, the clean up can be considerable less
expensive because they don't have to return it to its original
In any case, this doesn't mean that PS&G should have to pay for the
illnesses of every person in the area.
From: Jack Hollis on 2 Oct 2009 10:31
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:12:21 -0700, "gray asphalt"
>How do we handle the 'too big to fail' thing?
>Break up monopolistic large banks ... return
>to the time when investment and regular banks
>were not allowed to mix ... stop all of the
>derivitives, short sales, credit default swaps
>... or are we just wasting our time because
>those guys are just smarter and more connected
>than we will ever comprehend and they will
>find another way to cheat with the help of a
>corrupt government on both sides of the aisle.
>My apology to wedding planners.
Business men are smarter than politicians. No matter what the
government does, they adjust.
From: William Clark on 2 Oct 2009 13:56
In article <sk3cc5h736urjgh6j7ck12t11rn9s0qm4q(a)4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:12:21 -0700, "gray asphalt"
> <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >How do we handle the 'too big to fail' thing?
> >Break up monopolistic large banks ... return
> >to the time when investment and regular banks
> >were not allowed to mix ... stop all of the
> >derivitives, short sales, credit default swaps
> >... or are we just wasting our time because
> >those guys are just smarter and more connected
> >than we will ever comprehend and they will
> >find another way to cheat with the help of a
> >corrupt government on both sides of the aisle.
> >My apology to wedding planners.
> Business men are smarter than politicians. No matter what the
> government does, they adjust.
You mean "smart", as in as "smart" as the businessmen who ran Lehmann
Brothers, Bear Stearns, GM, Chrysler, etc., etc. into the ground?
Believe me, politicians do not have the market cornered when it comes to
dumb, incompetent, arrogance