health care
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 25 Feb 2010 15:16 In article <075184a0-df7d-4498-bd4b-be2d77fddb1b(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 25, 1:58�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article > > <0dfbd221-ac35-4e02-91b9-bdefbc96b...(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > �Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 24, 12:04 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 11:45 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >news:66a382e7-477b-4f03-8100-bc74cb52ae96(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com. > > > > >.. > > > > > > > As I said, and you seem to have missed, I thought the original health > > > > > care bill with the public option represented a good solution. It > > > > > would > > > > > have forced some competition into the health insurance industry, > > > > > where > > > > > at present there is none, because the industry is expempt from anti- > > > > > trust laws. Repealing the exemption, as Obama has proposed, would be > > > > > a > > > > > very positive step. But, like everything else, it will probably pass > > > > > the House then get filibustered to death in the Senate, where the > > > > > Republicans' pockets are bulging with insurance industry money. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > So in your mind, there is no competition among health insurance > > > > > companies? > > > > > All are linked together in a massive conspiracy to soak the > > > > > policyholders > > > > > with double digit rate increases, deny claims, and deceive > > > > > regulators. > > > > > No....there isn't an honest one company among them, one who would > > > > > seek to > > > > > expand business by offering benefits at a price that lower than the > > > > > others. > > > > > Instead, they sit in the boardrooms, soaking up their double digit > > > > > profit > > > > > margins, and paying off the politicians. > > > > > > > Is this the scenario the public option would have corrected? > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > Nice picture you've painted here, but it doesn't reflect my views. > > > > There is very little competition in the health insurance industry. If > > > > there were, they would have billion-dollar ad campaigns like the car > > > > insurers do. They wouldn't be able to impose usurious premium > > > > increases while raking in huge profits, as many of them are doing now. > > > > A public option and a recission of insurance companies's anti-trust > > > > exemption would do a lot to prevent this sort of thing. > > > > > How though, is it beneficial for the govt to use tax money to discount > > > health care prices? Why not just give people some sort of rebate? > > > > Why not just use the money to provide the health care directly, and not > > have some middle man skim the pot? > > Exactly! You are developing some sense. You go to the doctor, you pay. > You don't pay an insurance company to pay for you. You don't pay the > govt to pay for you. > > All you need on top of that is some sort of catastrophic insurance. Wrong again - you are really too dense. Take the tax money and use it directly to fund the health care system on the basis that it provides for everyone. That way each pays according to his or her means, and we don't end up spreading the cost of emergency care for the uninsured among all those with health insurance, and so raising their premiums. There just won't be any premiums!
From: John B. on 25 Feb 2010 15:23 On Feb 25, 1:52 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 24, 12:04 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:45 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:66a382e7-477b-4f03-8100-bc74cb52ae96(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > As I said, and you seem to have missed, I thought the original health > > > care bill with the public option represented a good solution. It would > > > have forced some competition into the health insurance industry, where > > > at present there is none, because the industry is expempt from anti- > > > trust laws. Repealing the exemption, as Obama has proposed, would be a > > > very positive step. But, like everything else, it will probably pass > > > the House then get filibustered to death in the Senate, where the > > > Republicans' pockets are bulging with insurance industry money. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > So in your mind, there is no competition among health insurance companies? > > > All are linked together in a massive conspiracy to soak the policyholders > > > with double digit rate increases, deny claims, and deceive regulators.. > > > No....there isn't an honest one company among them, one who would seek to > > > expand business by offering benefits at a price that lower than the others. > > > Instead, they sit in the boardrooms, soaking up their double digit profit > > > margins, and paying off the politicians. > > > > Is this the scenario the public option would have corrected? > > > > -Greg > > > Nice picture you've painted here, but it doesn't reflect my views. > > There is very little competition in the health insurance industry. If > > there were, they would have billion-dollar ad campaigns like the car > > insurers do. They wouldn't be able to impose usurious premium > > increases while raking in huge profits, as many of them are doing now. > > A public option and a recission of insurance companies's anti-trust > > exemption would do a lot to prevent this sort of thing. > > How though, is it beneficial for the govt to use tax money to discount > health care prices? Why not just give people some sort of rebate?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The government is answerable to the people. Insurance companies are answerable to their stockholders. Profit is their No. 1 motivation. They profit by taking money from you, giving as little of it as possible to your doctor, and keeping the rest. Under the current regime, they can raise their premiums however much they want and whenever they want and if you can't afford the increase, well, too bad for you. You can cancel your policy and try to get a better deal from another company, but if you have a pre-existing condition, well, too bad for you again. How can anybody defend this?
From: BAR on 25 Feb 2010 17:12 In article <d0af5a70-8176-4c4d-b74d- ee5f35a12a5d(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Feb 25, 12:42�am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>> So why do people keep bring up cost, if that isn't the objection? > > > > > >>> It is a red herring obviously. > > > > > >> Oh, of course. How can efficiency possibly matter? > > > > > > It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. > > > > > Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? > > > > BAR has related his gov't working experience, which matches my mother's: > > waste, fraud, abuse and dead-weight employees. > > > > -- > > bill-o > > It doesn't match my government experience at all. I saw no waste or > fraud. I saw some employees who didn't carry their weight, but I've > seen those in the private sector too. You pray at the alter of government.
From: BAR on 25 Feb 2010 17:14 In article <6418d41f-7cb5-4c29-a4d0-57c7334ec205 @u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Feb 25, 12:42�am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. > > > > > >>Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? > > > > > > I suppose it depends on whether the government is doing what I think > > > > it should be doing or what you think it should be doing. > > > > > It is ridiculous to claim that government and efficiency are opposites. > > > It may often be true. It may even mostly be true. But it's not always > > > true. Is it? > > > > If all you have is that, then you haven't got much. > > > > -- > > bill-o > > And what do you have, other than the anecdotal experience of your > mother? I have my real life experience working in a Democrat and Republican administrations. Both were fraught with waste, fraud and abuse. How many people did you see get fired over your entire government career?
From: BAR on 25 Feb 2010 17:17
In article <e3ee612a-bb96-4e34-beec- f86b2e143d3b(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > The government is answerable to the people. Insurance companies are > answerable to their stockholders. Profit is their No. 1 motivation. > They profit by taking money from you, giving as little of it as > possible to your doctor, and keeping the rest. Under the current > regime, they can raise their premiums however much they want and > whenever they want and if you can't afford the increase, well, too bad > for you. You can cancel your policy and try to get a better deal from > another company, but if you have a pre-existing condition, well, too > bad for you again. How can anybody defend this? > Where do you think pension funds are invested? |