Redistribution of wealth

S

smartorl

Guest
I may have misunderstood his post but I think he is referring to the people who are getting government funded healthcare, not those in the private sector. Which, by the way, I totally agree with.
In the past, I had a co-worker who was eligbile for gastric by-pass and although insured, couldn't afford her share while the "wife" of one of our laborers, because she claimed three children but not the husband, got hers covered by our government. Between her government handout and his weekly paycheck coupled with section 8 housing and food stamps, not to mention health care for her and their children, they had 75% percent more disposible income than myself.
Covering more people for a broader range of services, many of them considered elective by many insurances, like breast reduction, and gastric bypass, will make every paying person's insurance go up and range of services go down.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartorl http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315394
I may have misunderstood his post but I think he is referring to the people who are getting government funded healthcare, not those in the private sector. Which, by the way, I totally agree with.
In the past, I had a co-worker who was eligbile for gastric by-pass and although insured, couldn't afford her share while the "wife" of one of our laborers, because she claimed three children but not the husband, got hers covered by our government. Between her government handout and his weekly paycheck coupled with section 8 housing and food stamps, not to mention health care for her and their children, they had 75% percent more disposible income than myself.
Covering more people for a broader range of services, many of them considered elective by many insurances, like breast reduction, and gastric bypass, will make every paying person's insurance go up and range of services go down.
I don't think I've ever had an insurance policy that covered elective surgery, unless it was deemed necessary due to an underlying health condition. I know that Lypo, gastric bypass, and breast reductions aren't covered. Are you saying the ObamaCare plan will pay for these services? If so, then I'm in total agreement the bill needs amended to eliminate these unnecessary services.
 
deejeff442

deejeff442

Active Member
a friend of mine had his gastric bypass covered.i dint know the details of the co-pay but he has now lost over 80 lbs.i do know it took a while for the insurance to ok the surgery.just like most insurance he must have a better plan.now my wife works at a hospital i have great coverage.dental pays 50% of work,opthamologists and i believe i have chiropractic also.i think she pays $350 a month for the two of us.oh yea we have a $10 co-pay in system and $25 out of system.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth#post_3315381
What's wrong with providing more coverage for more things? Isn't that what insurance is for? Why shouldn't you be able to have the comfort knowing your insurance will pay for that heart valve replacement when you have no family history of that type of illness? So what, you want some cookie-cutter health insurance that only pays for specific illnesses? Cancer isn't only contracted by people with family histories of that disease. No one really knows how someone contracts a specific form of cancer. If they knew that, they'd erradicate the disease. Yea, people can begin to live healthier lifestyles to avoid certain diseases, but again, you have just as many detractors out there saying you have the same risk of getting a heart attack by living off a Tofu diet than you do a Big Mac diet. You want insurance companies to "make their margins"? Give me a break. Tell that to the Katrina and Ike victims. People along the Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi coast paid BILLIONS in insurance premiums for years to protect their homes from damage from hurricanes. The Big One hit their areas, and the insurance providers refuse to rebuild their homes because "The hurricane force winds didn't damage your home, the floods did. You insurance only provided for wind damage, not flood damage. SORRY." Same thing with health insurance. How many people have had claims denied because the insurance company claimed the injury or disease was from a "pre-existing condition"? "Oh you had clogged arteries because of your fatty diet. That's what caused your heart attack, so your claim is denied." I have absolutely no sympathy for insurance companies. They have no problems raking in the premiums during the "good times". But when it comes time to use your insurance, they all of a sudden find ways to 'dissallow this' and 'disallow that'. Then add insult to injury, they cancel your insurance due to excessive claims.
Another nice attempt at the redirect. You said you'd wait and see if your costs go up. Then this post which is touting the benefits of of giving more coverage which makes my point, costs are going up.
As far as the coverage itself wouldn't it be MUCH more far to allow those with pre existing conditions to be charged a slightly higher premium or higher copay when they receive treatment for a pre existing condition rather than hit everyone with the added costs? Shouldn't the insurance companies be allowed to add a slight amount to the premiums of those who use more medical services like they do to folks with bad driving records? My whole point is the Obamites demand insurance companies provide more coverage to more people, including those already sick but did NOTHING to address the cost of the care itself. I don't have a lot of sympathy for insurance companies either but I do know stupid regulations like Obama care is going to lead to my insurance premiums going up, that I don't like.
By the way, There isn't "hurricane insurance". Typical insurance covers storm damage but doesn't cover floods. If you cover your car for liability only and it gets stolen you wouldn't expect the insurance to replace it would you? Why would a insurance company pay for flood damage when the policy doesn't cover flood damage?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315395
I don't think I've ever had an insurance policy that covered elective surgery, unless it was deemed necessary due to an underlying health condition. I know that Lypo, gastric bypass, and breast reductions aren't covered. Are you saying the ObamaCare plan will pay for these services? If so, then I'm in total agreement the bill needs amended to eliminate these unnecessary services.
Gastric Bypass is covered by most insurance companies now, including medicare. They figure the cost of the surgery, about 25K is cheaper in the long run than the long term medical costs of being morbidly obese. Unfortunately they are also finding out the bypass surgery isn't wonder cure they thought it was. Breast reduction surgery is also covered if the woman claims it is causing back pain, guess I should say they

Also things like fertility treatments and birth control procedures are covered. I'd say those are elective.
 
deejeff442

deejeff442

Active Member
we went through fertility treatments 6 or 7 yrs ago .nothing was covered.spent around eight grand .seems to me it is a medical condition not elective surgury since it didnt work and gastric for losing weight works everytime.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by deejeff442 http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315406
we went through fertility treatments 6 or 7 yrs ago .nothing was covered.spent around eight grand .seems to me it is a medical condition not elective surgury since it didnt work and gastric for losing weight works everytime.
Gastric bypass doesn't work every time and I don't know about your particular situation but many fertility treatments are covered by insurance.
 
deejeff442

deejeff442

Active Member
well it wasnt covered then,maybe now dont know.fine by me anyway i dont have the patience for kids.my nephews drive me nuts.i havent heard of anyone where gastric didnt work.i have heard of them breaking though.anyway i am happy with the coverage we have and hope obama dont f with it.i will tell you my parents and aunt are having a hard time keeping their health insurance.my aunt cannot afford to retire to lose her insurance and my parents pay over $800 a month plus their prescriptions.something does have to be done but i dont think something extreme like obama wants.first thing the gov't can do i stop all the free care they give to illegals the offset of that would give an abundance of money for helping retired people pay for their coverage.my wife sees it everyday .we are paying for illegalls having more babies on our dime.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by deejeff442 http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315414
well it wasnt covered then,maybe now dont know.fine by me anyway i dont have the patience for kids.my nephews drive me nuts.i havent heard of anyone where gastric didnt work.i have heard of them breaking though.anyway i am happy with the coverage we have and hope obama dont f with it.i will tell you my parents and aunt are having a hard time keeping their health insurance.my aunt cannot afford to retire to lose her insurance and my parents pay over $800 a month plus their prescriptions.something does have to be done but i dont think something extreme like obama wants.first thing the gov't can do i stop all the free care they give to illegals the offset of that would give an abundance of money for helping retired people pay for their coverage.my wife sees it everyday .we are paying for illegalls having more babies on our dime.
I personally know one person the bypass didn't help and their have been contestants on the biggest loser who have had them, one on the current show.
Why can't your aunt afford to retire? She would be eligible for medicare which has never had any pre existing condition prohibitions.
 
deejeff442

deejeff442

Active Member
i dont know why she cant retire thats just what she said.she said she is working one more year. maybe she needs one more year for something?i know she is old eneough.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315403
Another nice attempt at the redirect. You said you'd wait and see if your costs go up. Then this post which is touting the benefits of of giving more coverage which makes my point, costs are going up.
As far as the coverage itself wouldn't it be MUCH more far to allow those with pre existing conditions to be charged a slightly higher premium or higher copay when they receive treatment for a pre existing condition rather than hit everyone with the added costs? Shouldn't the insurance companies be allowed to add a slight amount to the premiums of those who use more medical services like they do to folks with bad driving records? My whole point is the Obamites demand insurance companies provide more coverage to more people, including those already sick but did NOTHING to address the cost of the care itself. I don't have a lot of sympathy for insurance companies either but I do know stupid regulations like Obama care is going to lead to my insurance premiums going up, that I don't like.
By the way, There isn't "hurricane insurance". Typical insurance covers storm damage but doesn't cover floods. If you cover your car for liability only and it gets stolen you wouldn't expect the insurance to replace it would you? Why would a insurance company pay for flood damage when the policy doesn't cover flood damage?
If the insurance companies can raise rates based on pre-existing conditions, you essentially wipe out the retirement funds of anyone over 65. The problem is how they define "pre-existing" conditions. As you age, you have more illnesses. Organs start breaking down, bones get brittle, and pains are more severe. So basically you get penalized for getting old.
The problem with the individuals that got hit with Katrina and Ike was the hurricane ripped of their roofs (storm/wind damage). After the roof was gone, the rains came into the house and destroyed everything. Insurance companies denied claims because they said the major damage to their homes was due to flooding, not wind damage. Uh, if you have no roof, wouldn't you expect flooding to occur?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315487
If the insurance companies can raise rates based on pre-existing conditions, you essentially wipe out the retirement funds of anyone over 65. The problem is how they define "pre-existing" conditions. As you age, you have more illnesses. Organs start breaking down, bones get brittle, and pains are more severe. So basically you get penalized for getting old.
The problem with the individuals that got hit with Katrina and Ike was the hurricane ripped of their roofs (storm/wind damage). After the roof was gone, the rains came into the house and destroyed everything. Insurance companies denied claims because they said the major damage to their homes was due to flooding, not wind damage. Uh, if you have no roof, wouldn't you expect flooding to occur? Other people lost their homes to storm surge. The hurricane high winds caused the tides to roll in higher into the coast. Cause and effect. Insurance companies didn't see it that way.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315487
If the insurance companies can raise rates based on pre-existing conditions, you essentially wipe out the retirement funds of anyone over 65. The problem is how they define "pre-existing" conditions. As you age, you have more illnesses. Organs start breaking down, bones get brittle, and pains are more severe. So basically you get penalized for getting old.
The problem with the individuals that got hit with Katrina and Ike was the hurricane ripped of their roofs (storm/wind damage). After the roof was gone, the rains came into the house and destroyed everything. Insurance companies denied claims because they said the major damage to their homes was due to flooding, not wind damage. Uh, if you have no roof, wouldn't you expect flooding to occur?

The only way you could get hit for a pre existing is if you had changed insurance companies. Very few seniors change insurance plans and if they are on Medicare it doesn't matter anyway, there are no pre existing condition under medicare.
If flowing water causes the damage it's flood. If the roof gets torn off and rain damages the home its not flood. Any insurance company that denied a claim under those conditions would get skewered in court. There were some cases where homeowners were trying to make the claim that wind pushed water inland which damaged their homes which they were too cheap to buy flood insurance for. I don't know how those cases turned out. It was an interesting argument but I don't think it held water Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by deejeff442 http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315484
i dont know why she cant retire thats just what she said.she said she is working one more year. maybe she needs one more year for something?i know she is old eneough.
Could be a lot of reasons. She might get a better pension if she works longer or might not be at the age to earn full social security but insurance shouldn't be an issue. I know a friend of my wife is still working because she needs to pay off a couple loans before she can afford to live on her social security.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315639
The only way you could get hit for a pre existing is if you had changed insurance companies. Very few seniors change insurance plans and if they are on Medicare it doesn't matter anyway, there are no pre existing condition under medicare.
If flowing water causes the damage it's flood. If the roof gets torn off and rain damages the home its not flood. Any insurance company that denied a claim under those conditions would get skewered in court. There were some cases where homeowners were trying to make the claim that wind pushed water inland which damaged their homes which they were too cheap to buy flood insurance for. I don't know how those cases turned out. It was an interesting argument but I don't think it held water Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk.
Well, I've seen reports where people living in the New Orleans area to this day are still in their FEMA trailers sitting on their lots because the insurance companies wouldn't honor their claims. My brother-in-law has two friends that had beach homes in Galveston with similar situations. One even had flood insurance and their insurance company still hasn't paid.
So you have no problems with Medicare covering pre-existing conditions, but you do have a problem with ObamaCare or some insurance company denying those claims? What's the difference?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380834/redistribution-of-wealth/20#post_3315686
Well, I've seen reports where people living in the New Orleans area to this day are still in their FEMA trailers sitting on their lots because the insurance companies wouldn't honor their claims. My brother-in-law has two friends that had beach homes in Galveston with similar situations. One even had flood insurance and their insurance company still hasn't paid.
So you have no problems with Medicare covering pre-existing conditions, but you do have a problem with ObamaCare or some insurance company denying those claims? What's the difference?
If they had flood insurance their own insurance company wouldn't or shouldn't pay, that's what the flood insurance is there for.
I don't have an issue with insurance companies having to cover pre existing conditions, I just object to them not being able to charge even a modest amount more for having to cover the pre existing conditions. I don't think it's unreasonable that if someone with say cancer signs up for insurance which will in turn have to pay for a lot of expensive treatments, that the insurance company can make them pay a little extra co pay on the treatments for their pre existing condition.
Part of this stems from the same flaw in the system we have with flood insurance. People sign up for flood insurance every year just before the storm season then cancel it one the threat is over. Flood insurance is a government program an is a huge money loser for the government because they only collect a few months worth of premiums from the majority of those who collect on it. If insurance companies are forced to cover someone with pre existing conditions you will have people go without insurance until they do get sick then run down and sign up. Not a good idea.
 
coral keeper

coral keeper

Active Member
I hate people who think they should take all the money away from the rich and redistribute it to the poor, rich people are the ones who make jobs you nut cakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top