health care
in [Golf]
|
From: bknight on 1 Mar 2010 14:12 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:37:36 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > >On 1-Mar-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. > >you so don't understand, choices combine with the random nature of the world >to produce consequences. You can't eliminate the luck of the draw, you can >choose to deal with it, but many here would rather run to the nanny state. Non Sequitur Bill. Read that to which you responded without adding your feelings from other posts that Carbon has made. This post has nothing to do with anything but how insurance companies would respond to those with pre-existing illnesses that leave WellPoint/Anthem. That's not luck of the draw, it borders on coercion. BK
From: assimilate on 1 Mar 2010 13:34 On 26-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > How many "customers" do you suppose WellPoint/Anthem is going to lose > to its "competitors" due to its unconscionable premium increase of > 39%? this affects maybe 3% of Californians, so not many, but it will most likely lose them all. For those that don't understand business, this looks like a prelude to getting out of Cali altogether. One way to get out of a bad market is to price yourself out of it. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 1 Mar 2010 13:37 On 1-Mar-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> 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. you so don't understand, choices combine with the random nature of the world to produce consequences. You can't eliminate the luck of the draw, you can choose to deal with it, but many here would rather run to the nanny state. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 1 Mar 2010 13:39 On 27-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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." you assume their are no external constraints on them other than government, and you are, as usual, wrong. -- bill-o
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 1 Mar 2010 14:57
On Feb 28, 6:32 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 4:06 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:37:10 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Health insurance is already one of the most regulated businesses in > > >> the US. =A0What the US needs is less government interference with the > > >> free market, not more. > > > >Health insurance is heavily regulated in some states and lightly > > >regulated in others. What the industry needs is a single regulatory > > >regime for all companies. And that, by the way, is exactly what the > > >insurance industry wants. > > > The insurance industry would be very happy to get out from under > > having to comply with 50 different sets of regulations. > > > The biggest mistake that the regulators made is mandating coverage. In > > some states, it's impossible to buy cheap insurance. In NY you have > > to have coverage for acupuncture, massage therapy and coverage if you > > have an autistic child. So if someone loses their job and wants to go > > down to coverage for major medical only with a large deductible, they > > can't do it. > > > It would be a lot better if people were allowed to buy what coverage > > they want. > > Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and needs > to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't be allowed > to turn them down because of the state of their health. No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay too much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, they want to pay less. So you can wail away about people who need this or that, but if you aren't willing to pay for it yourself, you really need to shut up about it already. Why don't people have a right to what they earn? Why do people who don't earn the income working people earn have a right to the income working people earn? Why bother, if you have free housing, free food, free medical care, free education...why knock yourself out with working? As far as being an urban deadbeat, I've been there FWIW. An excuse for everything and the world owes you something...not that you have to earn anything...you should get something just because of the fact the great you (ie the urban deadbeat) exist. Other people should have to go out and work and earn income to support the great an all knowing you...the urban deadbeat! |