From: Jack Hollis on
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:58:40 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)>

>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)> wrote in message
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:18:19 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)>
>> 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
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:42:55 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <561po5pcb1u5dh3n5umftu1nsiqti5fh07(a)>,
> bknight(a) says...
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:51:15 GMT, assimilate(a) wrote:
>>> On 1-Mar-2010, bknight(a) 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?
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:05:14 -0800, dene wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505(a)> wrote in message
>> news:832ab3b9-3f3e-4d77-8744-
>> On Mar 2, 1:47 am, "dene" <d...(a)> wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:4b8c6a22$0$5085$9a6e19ea(a)
>>>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:37:36 +0000, assimilate wrote:
>>>>> On 1-Mar-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)> 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
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:41:52 -0800 (PST), "John B."
<johnb505(a)> 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

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
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:01:59 -0800, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)>

>>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.