health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 26 Feb 2010 19:39 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:15:57 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. If both families were uninsured then the family with the kid with the pre-existing condition would have to pay more only if they were to purchase individual insurance. If, as is usually the case, one parent gets a job which offers health insurance, then the pre-existing condition doesn't add any cost.
From: William Clark on 27 Feb 2010 09:09 In article <hm9f9p$h3t$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "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? Well, I tend to believe what I read.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 27 Feb 2010 12:45 On Feb 25, 3:23 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? That's pretty naive. With respect to freedom, the reality is that the #1 entity from which you are free is the government. IF you think health insurers can raise premiums any time they want, you are mistaken. The govt, OTOH, can spend money willy nilly, and the people who actually work have to pay the bill. The laws can be changed with respect to interstate competition and pre existing condition issues without a govt takeover of the system. While a biased person can rail against Fox News all they want, but they did a poll asking response to a dichotomous question, does the government spend wisely or is govt spending out of control. 84% chose out of control. They asked does the govt solve problems or create problems; a similar number chose the govt creates problems. Of course no one has to "believe" the poll, but IMHO it accurately reflects how Americans feel about govt right now, and is the problem the dems are having on health care. Stating that "the people" are in favor of various proposals like dealing with pre existing conditions does not overcome the objection people have to govt control of health care. People don't want it, massively, and if the dems pass their bill, it will be their Waterloo, it will be the end of them. Funny thing is, people are so ticked off with the GOP, if the dems moderate, and just pass regulatory reform, they will almost certainly retain control of the senate and house, and maybe even pick up seats...and despite the fact that that is very obvious, they still want to pass the govt takeover bill!
From: John B. on 27 Feb 2010 14:03 On Feb 27, 12:45 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 25, 3:23 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > That's pretty naive. With respect to freedom, the reality is that the > #1 entity from which you are free is the government. IF you think > health insurers can raise premiums any time they want, you are > mistaken. The govt, OTOH, can spend money willy nilly, and the people > who actually work have to pay the bill. > > The laws can be changed with respect to interstate competition and pre > existing condition issues without a govt takeover of the system. > > While a biased person can rail against Fox News all they want, but > they did a poll asking response to a dichotomous question, does the > government spend wisely or is govt spending out of control. 84% chose > out of control. They asked does the govt solve problems or create > problems; a similar number chose the govt creates problems. Of course > no one has to "believe" the poll, but IMHO it accurately reflects how > Americans feel about govt right now, and is the problem the dems are > having on health care. Stating that "the people" are in favor of > various proposals like dealing with pre existing conditions does not > overcome the objection people have to govt control of health care. > People don't want it, massively, and if the dems pass their bill, it > will be their Waterloo, it will be the end of them. Funny thing is, > people are so ticked off with the GOP, if the dems moderate, and just > pass regulatory reform, they will almost certainly retain control of > the senate and house, and maybe even pick up seats...and despite the > fact that that is very obvious, they still want to pass the govt > takeover bill! Insurance cos. based in states with weak insurance regs. can and do raise rates w/impunity. And nobody, repeat NOBODY, has proposed "govt. control of health care."
From: Howard Brazee on 27 Feb 2010 17:43
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:09:27 -0500, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: >Well, I tend to believe what I read. Kind of dangerous. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |