health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 26 Feb 2010 12:39 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:22:05 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. As long as both families had the same insurance to begin with, the one with a kid with epilepsy wouldn't pay any more than the one without it.
From: Carbon on 26 Feb 2010 13:31 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:16:18 -0800, John B. wrote: > 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. >>> >>> 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. > > 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. According to the resident free market market ideologues, your situation problem is your fault due to choices you must have made in your life. For example, getting a medical condition.
From: John B. on 26 Feb 2010 14:15 On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:22:05 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. > > As long as both families had the same insurance to begin with, the one > with a kid with epilepsy wouldn't pay any more than the one without > it. I thought the point of the study you cited was that uninsured individuals or familes at poverty x 2.5 could afford to buy health insurance. So, if both families have no insurance, the cost of buying it would be more for family B than for family A. Or, the cost would be the same, except that family B would get no coverage for the epileptic child.
From: John B. on 26 Feb 2010 14:25 On Feb 26, 1:31 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:16:18 -0800, John B. wrote: > > 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. > > >>> 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. > > > 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. > > According to the resident free market market ideologues, your situation > problem is your fault due to choices you must have made in your life. > For example, getting a medical condition.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, fortunately, no one who is actually involved in trying to fix the health insurance system has ever said, or would ever dream of saying, any of the preposterous things that the far-right ideologues on this NG have been saying.
From: Moderate on 26 Feb 2010 16:43
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-A5E4C7.09482426022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <MPG.25f189ac613eff07989c6c(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> >> 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. He just said he didn't make the claim. How is that deflecting? Who should we believe? |