health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 2 Mar 2010 20:40 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:58:40 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:n3poo5tf84cgrq3thqfv8si7uj2nvlvnbd(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:18:19 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> >> wrote: >> >> >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 >> entirely. > >And they will..... Businessmen are smarter than politicians.
From: Carbon on 2 Mar 2010 20:45 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:42:55 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <561po5pcb1u5dh3n5umftu1nsiqti5fh07(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net says... >> 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. > > 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. You mean this bunch of individuals? http://goo.gl/3jU9
From: Carbon on 2 Mar 2010 20:51 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:05:14 -0800, dene wrote: >> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:832ab3b9-3f3e-4d77-8744- a04857db0098(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On Mar 2, 1:47 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >>> "Carbon" <nob...(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 <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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? >> >> Aw, poor health insurance companies. I feel terrible for them. > > Yeah....screw them and the millions of responsible, premium paying > people they serve. Where did you acquire this sense of entitlement, > John? Greg, us responsible, premium paying people are the ones getting fucked.
From: Jack Hollis on 2 Mar 2010 21:01 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:41:52 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >There you go. Don't like the message? Malign the source. The AMA is >one of the most powerful and well-heeled lobbying organizations in the >US. But you have to remember that they represent physicians, not the public. The fact that a few insurance companies control a large part of the market in a state is much more of a problem for physicians than it is for the public.
From: Jack Hollis on 2 Mar 2010 21:20
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:01:59 -0800, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote: >>If you don't have the ability to pay then your intent is to steal. > >It ain't stealing if there's a law authorizing it. Your argument >should be with the government bodies throughout the US that have made >it not only legal but mandatory that medical professionals must >provide services for the needy. (And they've nearly always defined >neediness at the same time.) The law is a license to steal. |