From: John B. on
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
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
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
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
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.