Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 24 Sep 2009 11:09 In article <4abb61cd$0$23777$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-DCE9B7.16154023092009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <4aba6901$0$23758$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, > > "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > >> news:clark-1563F9.11265423092009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > In article <4aba2934$0$23766$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, > >> > "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "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?" > >> > > >> > Do you know what percentage of health care spending goes on these > >> > lawsuits? It is about 1-1.5%. In other words, while it is red meat to > >> > the wingnuts, it is almost inconsequential in cutting health care > >> > costs. > >> > >> Really? Does that 1%-1.5% represent actual judgments or does it also > >> include additional cost of insuring against a such a judgment? Does it > >> include defending against those judgments? One and one half percent of > >> health care is still nearly four Billion Dollars. Chump change to a > >> Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can count. > > > > That it may be, but it is still an infinitesimal amount when it comes to > > fixing the bloated health care expenses of the US. The are a hundred > > other places that yu should be looking first. That is, if you really > > want to reduce the cost of healthcare, as opposed to making silly > > politcal points. > > We should be looking at all ways to reduce health care. Last time I checked > four Billion Dollars was not an infinitesimal amount. It is relative to the bloated cost of health care in this country, which is not up to over 12% of the total US GDP.
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Sep 2009 19:17 On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:28:27 -0700, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? > >(snip) > >Do you think people should not feel good about >doing selfless acts? What would be the purpose >of that? It's not human to not have feelings. The point is that if they feel good about them then they're not really selfless. It's like Henry James saying that the only truly moral people are psychopaths because doing good to avoid guilt is not really acting morally.
From: gray asphalt on 24 Sep 2009 22:06 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4abab18d$0$23951$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:52:00 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: >> On Sep 23, 5:15 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:29:07 -0500, The moderator wrote: >>> >>>> Chump change to a Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can >>>> count. >>> >>> Back here on planet Earth, who ran a leaner government over their two >>> terms, Clinton or Bush? It kind of seems like this brainless slur of >>> yours is totally off base, huh? >> >> I'll never understand why Americans lay this on Presidents. Congress >> controls spending. The president can suggest and administer. The >> president cannot allocate funds. Only Congress does that. So the GOP >> Congress under Clinton spent less than the GOP Congress and the Dem >> congress under Bush. The Newt effect, no doubt! > > You're saying the President has no control over the economy or over > Congress? That's an interesting fantasy. I used to live in Arizona. It was kind of cool being in the Ross Perot movement back then. We met with Senator McCain. One of the things he told us was that because of President Nixon's problems, the congress was able to weaken the Presidency and that after that all money that was approved by congress had to be spent. Before Nixon's problems the president could decide to not fund projects and that this was one reason for our larger deficits and growning national debt. Another reason, imo, is that most human beings, including me can not conceive of 1,000,000,000 anything, much less a trillion and the ananlogies that are used, like a stack of one dollar bills would reach to the moon or around the world are useless. Who can have a good idea of how far away the moon is? And the only world I've ever seen is the globe in 5th grade and that wasn't so big. Maybe if we talked about how many pounds an aircraft carrier weighs and allocating one dollar/lb. What's your guess for a billion dollars/lbs. for say the largest aircraft carrier? How many aircraft carriers equals a million lbs .... a billion ... a trillion?
From: gray asphalt on 24 Sep 2009 22:15 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:8eblb55lkma94u0hgs59n6in4tv4jsa10h(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:57:04 -0500, "The moderator" > <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >>> 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? > > I remember hearing that the number of health insurance policies that > are cancelled is around one half of one percent. Even so, considering > that there are hundreds of millions of policies that still a huge > number. > > Insurance companies read an application and as long as there are no > problem, they issue the insurance. However, if there are large claims > made on the policy soon after it's issued, they will investigate. If > they find that the policy holder committed fraud they will cancel the > policy. Most states have a fixed period of one or two years after > which the insurance company can't cancel the policy even if there was > fraud in the application. Other disputes come about when there is a > disagreement over what is, or is not covered. In this case the policy > is still in force but the claim is denied. > > The insurance business is no different from any other business in that > there are some dishonest people who try to get away with as much as > they can. However, every state has an insurance board that will > mediate disputes. For the most part, these boards are consumer > friendly. There are no boards that are consumer friendly. At least none of the ones I have dealt with including Board of Medical Examiners and Whistleblower Board for public employees.
From: gray asphalt on 24 Sep 2009 22:17
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message news:238d23c8-5a78-4e36-9faf-300cdf6fd8ce(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On Sep 23, 5:15 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:29:07 -0500, The moderator wrote: > > Chump change to a Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can > > count. > > Back here on planet Earth, who ran a leaner government over their two > terms, Clinton or Bush? It kind of seems like this brainless slur of > yours is totally off base, huh? I'll never understand why Americans lay this on Presidents. Congress controls spending. The president can suggest and administer. The president cannot allocate funds. Only Congress does that. So the GOP Congress under Clinton spent less than the GOP Congress and the Dem congress under Bush. The Newt effect, no doubt! +++++++++++++++++ Bush didn't veto one single bill until what - the six year in office. That's a fact Jack. |