From: dene on 2 Mar 2010 01:58
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:18:19 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
> >It's a knee jerk reaction to the "guaranteed issue" element of Senate and
> >House Bill. Insurance companies are not a charity. They have statutary
> >reserves to protect. I'm worried that Anthem's measure is a prelude of
> >what's coming.
> The companies know that guaranteed issue will mainly effect the
> individual market. The smart companies will get out of the market
And they will.....
From: BAR on 2 Mar 2010 07:36
In article <446ae5dd-e058-41c8-ac72-a73bdcd69e02
@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> On Mar 1, 8:32�pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:32:47 -0800 (PST), "John B."
> > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Which company wants to be the last health care insurance company in
> > >> California? If you are the last one you will effectively be nationalized
> > >> and you will be required to provide insurance for 12% of the US
> > >> population at whatever rates the government decides and also to provide
> > >> insurance for free to however many illegal aliens are in California at
> > >> the time.
> > >How many are there now? Two? In most insurance markets, there are only
> > >one or two carriers.
> > Totally inacurate. �New York State has dozens of health insurance
> > providers.
> I said "most" markets. Read this from the AMA:
The AMA does not represent a majority of the MDs within the USA. They
can be classified as a fringe group. Why are you quoting from a fringe
From: BAR on 2 Mar 2010 07:38
In article <4b8c78a2$0$5117$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:14:42 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > In article <4b8c6e70$0$21448$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR wrote:
> >>> In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> >>> nobrac(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
> >>>>> <frostback2002(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?
> >> Obviously everybody should pay their way. I have never once suggested
> >> otherwise. And once again, you're once again ignoring the fact that
> >> you're already paying for the uninsurance with of ridiculously
> >> expensive health insurance.
> > Get people to pay when services are rendered and health insurance
> > becomes a non-issue.
> What do you suggest? Bouncers at the hospitals?
They have them now. Whenever I have gone to the emergency room I have
been asked about payment and insurance. They want to see my credit card
and my health insurance card.
From: bknight on 2 Mar 2010 07:41
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:54:58 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>> 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
>> >> >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
>> Your analogy was idiotic. Period.
>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?
I don't question that. Bert's analogy is personal theft, where there
is but one victim that has to bear the full brunt. Hyperbole like
this, to bolster an ideology, is idiotic.
From: BAR on 2 Mar 2010 07:42
In article <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
> Its foolishness to even suggest that these people would be looking
> for someone to pay for their illnesses.
The individual has the power to change the system. However, as a lefty
you wouldn't understand that nor do you want that.
You saw, in 2009, how the individual took control and banded together to
form an organization that put the government on notice and had a
dramatic effect on a major piece of legislation.