From: Jack Hollis on 22 Sep 2009 10:37
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:32:36 -0700, "gray asphalt"
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:34:25 -0700 (PDT), DenaliDuffer
>> <denaliduffer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Please answer just this one question. What value do insurance
>>>companies add to health care?
>> They pool risk.
>A simple task. I wonder what percentage of your
>premiums you are willing to pay to have somone
>"pool risk". Aftermarket auto warranties do the
>same thing. Warranties on electronics do the same
>thing. The insurance on registered mail does the
>same thing. Big deal.
If these things didn't add value why do people buy them?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Sep 2009 11:51
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
> > 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 will treat us as fairly as we allow. It's a two way street, and
both the customer and the provider are in on the discussion. With
government, they decide, and they assume they speak for 'the people";
what they think are the "best interests of the people". Doesn't have
to be a power issue in the end, but it always works out that way for
governments. Doesn't have to result in the massive numbing
bureaucracy, it just always does; that's the way of governments.
You can't have something for nothing either. There is no such thing as
free health care. When you pay for it, you know how much it really
costs you. When the government pays for you, you don't know what you
pay and you wind up paying more for less.
A great example is the pig flu we are supposed to be worried about.
They are to produce hundreds of millions of doses of the vaccine...and
distribution is to be regulated by the government...and who is lowest
on the totem pole....people over 65! The government just can't allow
the vaccine to be distributed by the public...and the panel...not a
death panel I suppose, is not some forum of MDs or something like
that...government regulators. Just a glimpse of what they do.
There is no such thing as "private" health insurance anyways, it's a
distortion. When people provide for themselves they have a say; when
government provides, we get panels and the public has no say...except
that the government represents the public and thus what they say is
necessarily in the public interest, according to the government!
One can imagine and speculate on how a government can efficiently
provide health care, but in reality, it just doesn't work that way.
While having the public provide the health care for themselves is
hardly perfect, it is still far better than having the government
control health care.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Sep 2009 11:54
On Sep 22, 9:00 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:22:14 -0700, "gray asphalt"
> <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You see, when it comes down to it, there's nothing like a little
> >> bourgeois self-indulgence, even if that means buying a Cuban cigar
> >> once in a while.
> >The evidence of soldiers dying for their country,
> >mothers and fathers struggling through their lives
> >for the benefit of their children, people choosing
> >public service instead of self-interest ... can't be
> >explained in terms of limited self-interest.
> Some people get a sense of great satisfaction from doing "selfless"
> acts. Feeling good about yourself is self-interest. Are there any
> truly selfless acts?
> >Imo, communism lost in Russia because it was
> >perverted. Socialism seems to be working in
> >Sweden, France and other countries, no?
> The Social Democracies of Western Europe have socialist elements to
> them, but they are capitalist at heart. They all have a private
> sector and private property. The trend over the past twenty years in
> Europe has been towards privatization.
It's national socialism; govt/business consortiums to run your
life...in conjunction with big labor. Individuals can run bakeries or
things like that...maybe a family farm...but the big business is left
to the govt and big business...and they are not allowed to
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Sep 2009 12:13
On Sep 22, 12:25 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "DenaliDuffer" <denaliduf...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Aug 12, 10:18 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote:
> > On 12-Aug-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm an Obama supporter but ...
> > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill?
> > Because the real purpose is not reform in the true sense of the word, but
> > expanding gov't control?
> > --
> > bill-o
> Please answer just this one question. What value do insurance
> companies add to health care?
> Beats me. I can't wait to read the responses.
The question has been answered, so now it's your turn. What value does
government offer here..so they take your health care money and tell
you what your health care is going to be, and the advantage of this is?
From: gray asphalt on 22 Sep 2009 20:43
>> 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?