From: John B. on 26 Feb 2010 09:22 On Feb 25, 8:08 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:08:08 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The 43% were individuals or familiy units that had enough disposable > >> income (2.5 times the poverty level) to buy insurance but didn't. =A0You > >> also have to remember that around another 20% of the uninsured are > >> illegal aliens. =A0Then there are people who actually qualify for > >> Medicaid or their kids qualify for SCHIP but have not applied. > > >> In then end there are about 12 to 15 million people in the US who want > >> insurance but can't afford to buy it and don't qualify for any > >> government program. =A0Overall, you're talking about 5% of the > >> polulation. =A0 > > >>http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf > > >It's awfully subjective to say that people at 2.5 times the poverty > >level have enough disposable income to pay for health insurance. That > >kind of depends on how much the insurance is going to cost them, > >doesn't it? > > There are many people below the 2.5 level who do have health > insurance, so the authors used that level as a cutoff and found that > 43% of the uninsured have incomes at or above 2.5 times the poverty > level. Perhaps not 100% of those people are voluntarily uninsured, > but you can also assume that there are people below the 2.5 level who > are voluntarily uninsured.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - OK, but the authors seem to assume that all people at poverty x 2.5 are equal. One family of four at that level may have no health problems while another may have a kid with epilepsy. Obviously, the cost of insurance for each would be dramatically different.
From: John B. on 26 Feb 2010 09:25 On Feb 26, 1:30 am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 25-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > You know next to nothing about economics and nothing about business. > Companies are answerable to their customers. It is they who choose to pay > for their products. W/o the customers money, which they are free to give to > a competitor if said gives them sufficient reason (lower price, better > claims service, etc), the stocker holders get bupkiss. > > -- > bill-o How many "customers" do you suppose WellPoint/Anthem is going to lose to its "competitors" due to its unconscionable premium increase of 39%?
From: bknight on 26 Feb 2010 09:46 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:25:35 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 26, 1:30�am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: >> On 25-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> You know next to nothing about economics and nothing about business. >> Companies are answerable to their customers. It is they who choose to pay >> for their products. W/o the customers money, which they are free to give to >> a competitor if said gives them sufficient reason (lower price, better >> claims service, etc), the stocker holders get bupkiss. >> >> -- >> bill-o > >How many "customers" do you suppose WellPoint/Anthem is going to lose >to its "competitors" due to its unconscionable premium increase of >39%? That's an interesting question. The customers that they are sure not to lose are those that have had payments from WellPoint for some illnesses. They're now " pre-existing", and since other insurance companies won't cover those illnesses its somewhat of a captive client base for them. BK
From: William Clark on 26 Feb 2010 09:48 In article <MPG.25f189ac613eff07989c6c(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-89ECDC.21285825022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.25f0c60d3f7c8b85989c65(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <clark-E52FC8.17330925022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > > In article <MPG.25f0c2002c29cf9e989c63(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <clark-B0A746.09511025022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > > > > > > Hint: if you don't make them, no one will embarrass you > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like posting to USENET at the turn from your iPhone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like lying about the "proof" that Dino "provided" of his > > > > > > > > > > materials > > > > > > > > > > science "publications"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I did was make reference to terms. You as usual assumed > > > > > > > > > facts > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you claimed he had provided you with "proof", when he had > > > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > Don't > > > > > > > > try to change the script after the fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Billy, you are lying. I never said he had provided me with proof. > > > > > > > Check > > > > > > > the record and show me the posting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, back to the old "you find the cite" tactic. It had to come out > > > > > > sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > You are too funny, I suppose you want me to pass judgment on myself > > > > > and > > > > > escort myself to jail too. > > > > > > > > > > Your allegation, you provide the evidence. > > > > > > > > No, you claimed he provided "proof", you back it up. > > > > > > You've changed from he provided proof to me to he provided proof. > > > > No, you claimed that he had given you "proof". Therefore, where it came > > from is irrelevant - the fact is that you claimed you had something you > > simply did not. > > Time to put up or shut up Billy. I never said that he had given me > proof. If you believe I did then it is incumbent upon you to provide the > evidence. No, you are simply trying to deflect again. You made the claim - you back it up.
From: John B. on 26 Feb 2010 11:16
On Feb 26, 9:46 am, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:25:35 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 26, 1:30 am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > >> On 25-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > 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. > > >> You know next to nothing about economics and nothing about business. > >> Companies are answerable to their customers. It is they who choose to pay > >> for their products. W/o the customers money, which they are free to give to > >> a competitor if said gives them sufficient reason (lower price, better > >> claims service, etc), the stocker holders get bupkiss. > > >> -- > >> bill-o > > >How many "customers" do you suppose WellPoint/Anthem is going to lose > >to its "competitors" due to its unconscionable premium increase of > >39%? > > That's an interesting question. The customers that they are sure not > to lose are those that have had payments from WellPoint for some > illnesses. > > They're now " pre-existing", and since other insurance companies > won't cover those illnesses its somewhat of a captive client base for > them. > > BK- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Right. If you have a pre-ex condition, you either pay the increase or you're s**t out of luck. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Americans - insured or uninsured - have what insurance companies call pre-existing conditions. I do. So do my wife and our two daughters. |