From: dene on

<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
news:561po5pcb1u5dh3n5umftu1nsiqti5fh07(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:51:15 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:
>
> >
> >On 1-Mar-2010, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >getting insurance after you get sick is not buying insurance, it is
getting
> >someone to pay for your illness.
>
> A rare double Non Sequitur from you. Do you actually think that those
> who might not have the wherewithal to continue with WellPoint/Anthem
> want to make a change? They don't, but could be forced to do so. A
> family who is paying $500 a month, will now have to pay $700, or go
> without, if there are pre existing conditions. That's a pretty hefty
> increase.
>
> Its foolishness to even suggest that these people would be looking
> for someone to pay for their illnesses.
>
>
> BK

That's one of the tragic elements of this whole mess. Most likely, the
existing clients will be forced to raise their deductible to offset the
premium increase. Both options stinks.

-Greg


From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b8c6a22$0$5085$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:37:36 +0000, assimilate 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.
>
> You don't seem to have thought this "random nature of the world"
> justification through very well. It would seem to permit every crime
> ever conceived of by man. Not to mention that there is absolutely
> nothing random about getting fucked by your health insurance provider.

Ever occured to you that there are key portions of the Senate and House bill
that are screwing the health insurance companies?

But what does that matter. It's not your money, is it?

-Greg


From: dene on

"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26455639-3205-4bf7-a0f6-760e4098a190(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 8:47 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <lgqoo5plbuimmmsfl95n852l6kfcg2v...(a)4ax.com>,
> bkni...(a)conramp.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > >nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> > >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:09:19 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> > >> > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >>> 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.
>
> > >> > Who pays for it now?
>
> > >> > (We do).
>
> > >> The ideologues seem to be ignoring this obvious fact with all their
>
> > >Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay you
> > >should go to jail for stealing.
>
> > >If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and
> > >your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you call
> > >the police? Would you just let them steal from you?
>
> > Bert, you really need to do some studying on analogies. This one was
> > so far off it isn't even funny.....even for you.
>
> Stealing is stealing. When you got to a place of business and you have
> have no intention of paying for the services you receive you are
> stealing.

There's a difference between intent and ability. You refuse to accept
that anyone might be unable to pay for medical care.

------------------------------------------------------------

The oft repeated scenario Bert is referring to are the throngs of uninsured
people who have the means to buy insurance but refuse to, knowing that
others will ultimately pay their medical bills.

Isn't that stealing?

-Greg


From: dene on

<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
news:jv0po5tpu9o8csea3brsi83lug8gumasiu(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:47:03 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <lgqoo5plbuimmmsfl95n852l6kfcg2vik7(a)4ax.com>,
> >bknight(a)conramp.net says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and
> >> >your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you
call
> >> >the police? Would you just let them steal from you?
> >> >
> >> Bert, you really need to do some studying on analogies. This one was
> >> so far off it isn't even funny.....even for you.
> >
> >Stealing is stealing. When you got to a place of business and you have
> >have no intention of paying for the services you receive you are
> >stealing.
> >
> >
> Your analogy was idiotic. Period.
>
> BK

Specify the idiocy, Bobby. Bert's analogy seems dead on. You know as well
as I do that there are plenty of unisured people out there who can afford
health insurance. They refuse to buy because it isn't a priority. When
they utilize services and don't pay for them, is this not stealing?


-Greg


From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b8c6e70$0$21448$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...

> The simple fact is that the uninsured already get healthcare. In
> Emergency wards, where it costs the earth. And you and I are paying for
> them. Maybe you don't care, but I personally would like the financial
> hit to be as small as possible. Since the bureaucracy to weed them out
> costs more than just giving them health insurance in the first place, my
> vote is to just give them insurance and be done with it. That way,
> they'd be able to go to normal doctors, they'd be able to get treatment
> before serious (expensive) diseases develop, etc. My healthcare costs
> would go down. And so would yours.
>
> But I guess for you true believers clinging to some ideology is more
> important than being pragmatic and saving money.

In principle, I agree with everything you say sans one verb....... "give"

The notion of my country borrowing money to "give" health insurance to those
who can afford it, but refuse to, absolutely sickens me.

-Greg