Insurance companies are there to help us. Yeah, right.
in [Golf]
|
From: dene on 19 Oct 2009 03:12 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:tmnmd55md6hla4c6qq02shjs0em1dmeon8(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:21:05 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > >My post had nothing to do with politics or health plan revisions. I > >merely passed on a happening about an insurance company that fucked > >over a slew of people for money's sake. "Money's sake." Easy for you to say when it isn't your money that's on the line, Knit. Ever notice how easy it is for liberals, like Knit, to spend other people's money?? > The article did mention that what the company did was legal. Perhaps > the fault lies with the state law that allows them to do a thing that > really is unfair. I can see the company being able to stop issuing > insurance that is unprofitable, but to be able to retroactively cancel > existing policies of that type, should be against the law. Agree Jack....and there is a sure fire way of making sure it doesn't happen to you. Buy insurance from domiciled companies, i.e. ones that are based in the state you live in. If they withdraw, then they are essentially going out of business. I make it a business practice not to represent national companies like Guardian, Assurity, Cigna, etc. for individual business, nor will I buy such a plan for myself. -Greg > while.
From: bknight on 19 Oct 2009 07:20 On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:12:44 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > >"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:tmnmd55md6hla4c6qq02shjs0em1dmeon8(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:21:05 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >> >My post had nothing to do with politics or health plan revisions. I >> >merely passed on a happening about an insurance company that fucked >> >over a slew of people for money's sake. > >"Money's sake." Easy for you to say when it isn't your money that's on the >line, Knit. Ever notice how easy it is for liberals, like Knit, to spend >other people's money?? What a fool. You think that what they did was ok, because it was their money. >> The article did mention that what the company did was legal. Perhaps >> the fault lies with the state law that allows them to do a thing that >> really is unfair. I can see the company being able to stop issuing >> insurance that is unprofitable, but to be able to retroactively cancel >> existing policies of that type, should be against the law. > >Agree Jack....and there is a sure fire way of making sure it doesn't happen >to you. Buy insurance from domiciled companies, i.e. ones that are based in >the state you live in. If they withdraw, then they are essentially going >out of business. > >I make it a business practice not to represent national companies like >Guardian, Assurity, Cigna, etc. for individual business, nor will I buy such >a plan for myself. > >-Greg Typical. First you foolishly give a nod to Guardian by defending their money, then you take the high road and say that you wouldn't represent them, nor buy their product. That's our Dene the hypocrite. BK
From: Howard Brazee on 19 Oct 2009 07:58 On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:12:44 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >"Money's sake." Easy for you to say when it isn't your money that's on the >line, Knit. Ever notice how easy it is for liberals, like Knit, to spend >other people's money?? Notice how easy it is for politicians to spend other people's money?? That's why the deficit gets larger no matter which party is in power. -- "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
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 19 Oct 2009 12:58 On Oct 17, 4:36 pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 17, 12:31 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > > Guardian life insurance company of America issued a policy to a > > resident of the state of New York with muscular dystrophy. Their > > annual payout to keep him alive is more than a million dollars. > > The Washington Times reported that since it would be illegal to cancel > > this one person's policy, Guardian legally cancelled the whole line > > of coverage that insured everybody like him in the state of New York, > > which wiped out an entire class of policy holders to avoid paying out > > for one person. > > > The Washington Times also reported that, "in an email one Guardian > > life insurance co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. > > Pearl, 'Dogs' that the company could 'get rid of.' " > > > Guardian's net income for 2008 was $437 million. > > > BK > > This is unfortunate, but the sad reality is that there are only so > much financial resources out there. The goal of a private insurance > company is to make a profit, or meet their costs at the very least, > while at the same time please as many policyholders as they can. The > needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. This is > unfortunate, I do not endose this, but that is just the way it is. > > If the government takes over these payments, do you think they will > readily assume the annual payment of $1 million + dollars?. There is > not enough money there either, you can only tax people so much, tax > the insurance companies so much, and cut Medicare and reimbursements > to physicians. So, while the insurance company is rationing, the > government will find a way to ration also. There is simply not > enough money to go around, and physicians and hospitals will not do > the work for nothing, their overhead is alarming and without revenue > they cease to exist. We are seeing Darwinism in action here, the > weak will perish, the strong will survive. That is very unfortunate, > but society does not have unlimited resources to do custodial care as > this for millions of patients, they may just have to die. And while > that is very sad, it breaks my heart, that is they way it will > probably be. Because we have a government that has set its > priorities. There is always money it seems to conduct false wars, > bail out banks and brokerage houses, bail out failed industries, give > favors to prized political contributors, fund stupid pork projects, > and help foreign nations rebuild their infrastructures, but it seems > there is never enough to take care of the weak and sick. A good > example, New Orleans is still a mess, will remain a mess, but > there is always money to rebuild elsewhere. This President promised > change, he is a bigger liar and panderer than any before when it comes > to enabling big business and handing out political favors. It is sad, > but the people who supported Obama the most and bought into this BS > line of hope, are the ones at the front of the line to get screwed. > Bush was a fool, we now have a bigger fool in place. He could not > care less about the sick and weak, all he cares about is political > power. This has nothing to do with health care, anyone that buys > into anything else is just plain stupid. And these stupid people will > be the first in line to play the victum card when this all passes and > they find themselves taxed to death, and with less to show for all > these taxes. He caught you hook, line and sinker! Firstly, what would cause DMD to cost a million bucks in a year? It's absurd. There is no cure for it. All you can do is alleviate the symptoms. Secondly. I heard the same company doled out $4 million to treat a woman with a rare form of breast cancer when they didn't have to. They just comped it to her. I've also heard of many pharmaceutical companies comping expensive cancer drugs to people who lack financial resources.
From: bknight on 19 Oct 2009 13:14
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:58:18 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >On Oct 17, 4:36�pm, The Hammer <GaGolfer2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 17, 12:31�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >> >> >> > Guardian life insurance company of America �issued a policy to a >> > resident of the state of New York with muscular dystrophy. �Their >> > annual payout to keep him alive is more than a million dollars. >> > The Washington Times reported that since it would be illegal to cancel >> > this one person's policy, �Guardian �legally cancelled the whole line >> > of coverage that insured everybody like him in the state of New York, >> > which wiped out an entire class of policy holders to avoid paying out >> > for one person. � >> >> > The Washington Times also reported that, "in an email one Guardian >> > life insurance co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. >> > Pearl, 'Dogs' that the company could 'get rid of.' " >> >> > Guardian's net income for 2008 was $437 million. >> >> > BK >> >> This is unfortunate, but the sad reality is that there are only so >> much financial resources out there. � The goal of a private insurance >> company is to make a profit, �or meet their costs at the very least, >> while at the same time please as many policyholders as they can. �The >> needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. �This is >> unfortunate, I do not endose this, but that is just the way it is. >He caught you hook, line and sinker! Firstly, what would cause DMD to >cost a million bucks in a year? It's absurd. There is no cure for it. >All you can do is alleviate the symptoms. Caught him? All I did was pass on an article from the Washington Times. As far as the disease, it matters not what the payout is for, alleviation or cure. They owe it to anyone who has paid their premiums. > >Secondly. I heard the same company doled out $4 million to treat a >woman with a rare form of breast cancer when they didn't have to. They >just comped it to her. > Great. Cite where you heard this. I've been involved with a lot of insurance payouts, but never one that they didn't have to give. >I've also heard of many pharmaceutical companies comping expensive >cancer drugs to people who lack financial resources. That is true, but they aren't insurance companies. BK |