Who else got an insurance rate hike?
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: BAR on 11 Apr 2010 09:22 In article <4060dab7-22a0-4891-886d-e182c2a17a88 @i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Apr 10, 12:37�pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> > wrote: > > On Apr 9, 1:55�pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:8f9e8c65-f27d-40ce-974a-aca10aca853d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best > > > > choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's, > > > > having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the > > > > pre-natal and delivery? > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided > > > by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to > > > suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company) > > > employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as > > > much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their > > > employers making those choices. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Employers pay most, if not all, the insurance for the employee, so they > > > ain't complaining. �Their dependents have the choice of buying in or > > > acquiring their own plans, which they often do. �There are no victims in > > > your scenario. �They have choices. > > > > > -Greg > > > > The money allocated to salaries and benefits is a budgeted item. You > > want to be as competitive as possible. If the money were not spent on > > health insurance, it would go to salary. My advocacy is for the > > employee to get the benefit of what they earn and make their own > > decisions with respect to things like health care, as opposed to have > > the salary paid to the employee reduced and some health insurance > > program imposed on the employee by the employer...or the govt..the > > govt would be worse though, IMHO as it is in fact less responsive to > > the employee and far more expensive. > > If a survey were taken of working people who are insured through their > employers, and if they were asked if they preferred the scenario you > favor, those answering yes would be about 5%. People like having > employer-provided health insurance. It's much better than what they That's because the current system is geared towards employer sponsored programs. With the passage of a simple one or two page law or two that could all be changed.
From: BAR on 11 Apr 2010 09:29 In article <82c2ulFo0pU2(a)mid.individual.net>, dene(a)remove.ipns.com says... > > > > The whole Medicare part D plan was the stupidest thing ever implemented. > > In other words, grandma needs to pony up $300 for her meds or suffers or > dies. That was the previous system. You want to return to that? You don't love your grandmother?
From: BAR on 11 Apr 2010 09:33 In article <82cuc1F457U1(a)mid.individual.net>, dene(a)remove.ipns.com says... > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > news:906376a6-c6c2-4ea1-9757-37fea5e6d0b2(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > Really? So no one can buy their own meds? No one? That's an absurd > conclusion. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Rob, > > In 2006, I signed up about 100 seniors on part D plans. Part of the > enrollment was reviewing the cost of their meds, so they could choose how > much coverage they need. Some of these people were easily paying $300 plus > for medicine and didn't have the means to do it. > > You really need to wake up as to how much stuff costs out there, beyond > generic Rx. Enrolling these people was very eye opening to me. Maybe the AARP should turn its membership and resources onto the drug companies and badger them into answering the questions about what the US consumers are paying the research and development costs of the drugs? Why isn't that cost fairly born by all of those who use the drugs throughout the world?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 11 Apr 2010 12:50 On Apr 10, 11:37 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:e30d26b2-dac7-4ef3-b919-718e040459f6(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 3:49 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > >news:73b1da5a-b64d-46e1-9e92-8506b0b2ba4a(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 9, 1:55 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > > >news:8f9e8c65-f27d-40ce-974a-aca10aca853d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best > > > > choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's, > > > > having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for > the > > > > pre-natal and delivery? > > > > > -Greg > > > > People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided > > > by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to > > > suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company) > > > employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as > > > much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their > > > employers making those choices. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Employers pay most, if not all, the insurance for the employee, so they > > > ain't complaining. Their dependents have the choice of buying in or > > > acquiring their own plans, which they often do. There are no victims in > > > your scenario. They have choices. > > > > -Greg > > > The money allocated to salaries and benefits is a budgeted item. You > > want to be as competitive as possible. If the money were not spent on > > health insurance, it would go to salary. My advocacy is for the > > employee to get the benefit of what they earn and make their own > > decisions with respect to things like health care, as opposed to have > > the salary paid to the employee reduced and some health insurance > > program imposed on the employee by the employer...or the govt..the > > govt would be worse though, IMHO as it is in fact less responsive to > > the employee and far more expensive. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > IOW, people buy health insurance like they buy car insurance. Fine with > me. > > You still have to force people to buy it otherwise only the sick will buy > it > > in their time of need. In the scenario you wish for, how do you force them > > to buy? The present system does a fair job of enrolling all, by forcing > the > > employees to particpate. Again, how is this accomplished on an individual > > basis? > > > -Greg > >What happens if you buy car insurance after you have an accident? You > >pay for the accident. > > Not if medical is involved or loss of property. Uninsured people skate > right out of those liabilties. > > >You can pay for your own health care too. One > >thing for sure, there is not enough wealth in the system to have the > >govt pay for everyone's health care. > > Can you honestly pay for a few days in ICU? I can't and I doubt if you can > either! > > There is sufficient wealth to pay claims for all if all are participating in > the plan. That's how insurance works. > > Now answer my question, Rob. If you throw out the employer system, how do > you force everybody to buy health insurance or pay their own claims? > > -Greg Just the premiss that you need to use force to collect the needed revenue is chilling enough for me. Use the same "force" you use to collect from people who get in auto accidents and don't have insurance. *INSURANCE* is no problem for me. Health care is not health insurance though, and we cannot continue to buy routine health care through insurance because everyone is a consumer. The 1970's idea that the healthy pay for the sick is invalid. Everyone is a consumer of health care..so everyone pays for everyone? That's what I see anyways, so we reduce health care to the lowest common denominator, like in the UK; we all pay in according to our ability to pay and receive the same health care. Socialism, plain and simple. FWIW, people like you are toast and don't know it. The collective entities they set up will blow you away because they will be government subsidized, and you won't be able to compete with them. As various needs of various people like grannies on fixed incomes are revealed as not being served by people like you, you will be shoved aside for collectives that will look after granny with the same level of care you get. Not that grannies care will improve a lot, but yours will decline to the point where we all get the same level of care!
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 11 Apr 2010 12:51
On Apr 10, 11:39 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:906376a6-c6c2-4ea1-9757-37fea5e6d0b2(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > Really? So no one can buy their own meds? No one? That's an absurd > conclusion. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Rob, > > In 2006, I signed up about 100 seniors on part D plans. Part of the > enrollment was reviewing the cost of their meds, so they could choose how > much coverage they need. Some of these people were easily paying $300 plus > for medicine and didn't have the means to do it. > > You really need to wake up as to how much stuff costs out there, beyond > generic Rx. Enrolling these people was very eye opening to me. > > -Greg Really? So A guy who pays $6K per year to golf can't pay $300.00 per month for meds? So who is going to pay then? The govt clearly doesn't have the money. People who need help should get it, but those who don't shouldn't. How about people who pay $6K per year to drive a car. Should we buy their meds too? |