Turn in your neighbor, be a good citizen

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3109981
The curiosity about the whole healthcare debate to me is this:
If the private insurance system is the best way to go, then why are the insurance companies the most vocal opposition to government COMPETITION? (Hello - competition. Y'know - Capitalism n shite.)
If gov't sponsored insurance is so abysmal what, exactly, do they feel threatened by?

Originally Posted by uneverno

http:///forum/post/3110003
How?
The idea isn't to replace private insurance. It's to provide an affordable alternative.
If private insurance can't compete, then they deserve to die.
That's capitalism.
At least that's what the insurance companies tell the clients they deem "unworthy" of treatment.
Where is the gov't a check? Seriously. Last I looked the SEC gives a crap about morality.
As it stands now, nobody keeps the insurance companies in check. The bean counters get to decide who's worthy of health care. Long as the books work and the stockholders are happy....
This argument drives me up a wall. 2 things flip your argument, if you think this is just "competition" then why bother spending the money entering an already flooded market.
2nd, this isn't a market based solution, at all. There is several reasons, first the house bill is written to create conditions in the market where the only solution for the average consumer would be the public plan.
Also Aflac has to post a profit. The government doesn't. It can charge a premium, then tax everyone for the rest. Heck it can go down to the fed and print the money it needs. It isn't a level playing field. And anyone who believes this will be revenue neutral is insane. Nothing the government does is revenue neutral.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3111203
Sorry, I forgot - Money talks, BS walks. That is part of the problem, big money makes the rules.

That's why 'specialists' make the big bucks. But then again, to obtain that specialty, they have to go into debt for almost a half million dollars in some cases. You want to make tests like these available to anyone? Then you need to either figure out how to cut medical costs across the board, or go to the Socialized Medicine that you think Obama wants to create, and everyone despises.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3111148
NOT- It is Preventive Maintenance on the revenue stream...
analogies aren't working... By these comparisons, Black Mold, and Terminate damage should be covered under Homeowners - a disease. Neither are....
Neither of those are a sudden, unforeseen event. Routine inspection and maintenance will prevent those.
I think the companies covering the catastrophic coverage would be willing to cover yearly exams and screenings, it's to their advantage. Let the folks pay for stuff like a twisted ankle or a sliced finger out of pocket. If an exam turns up a serious issue like a clogged artery or something then let the coverage kick in. I also think taking away the extra steps of dealing with insurance companies for the small office visit bills would give more savings as well. Medical billing is a huge business. What percentage of that work is for bills of less than 50 bux?
 

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/3107750
oscarduece and the rest of you politiheads this pics for you!!!

That picture gave this thread some merit. These threads are pointless, everyone is just pushing a brick wall, your only get tired.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3111839
Neither of those are a sudden, unforeseen event. Routine inspection and maintenance will prevent those.
I think the companies covering the catastrophic coverage would be willing to cover yearly exams and screenings, it's to their advantage. Let the folks pay for stuff like a twisted ankle or a sliced finger out of pocket. If an exam turns up a serious issue like a clogged artery or something then let the coverage kick in. I also think taking away the extra steps of dealing with insurance companies for the small office visit bills would give more savings as well. Medical billing is a huge business. What percentage of that work is for bills of less than 50 bux?
I would have no problems at all paying out of pocket for basic services and non-critical emergencies. Problem is, that it's not cost effective. Walk into any ER, and you're out $300 minimum just to get an X-Ray on that ankle to make sure it isn't broke, and to get a bandage wrapped around it. My doctor charges $275 just for an annual physical. That doesn't include blood work.
I will back you 100% if you can get Congress to address outrageous medical billing practices before they address providing affordable healthcare coverage for all Americans. But that will never happen until that stop letting the medical industry and insurance comapnies lines their pockets.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3111705
This argument drives me up a wall. 2 things flip your argument, if you think this is just "competition" then why bother spending the money entering an already flooded market.
Fallacy # 1. The market is hardly flooded. There are between 20 and 45 million uninsured people in this country, depending on whose statistics you believe. That's not close to saturation, let alone a flood.
2nd, this isn't a market based solution, at all. There is several reasons, first the house bill is written to create conditions in the market where the only solution for the average consumer would be the public plan.
Also Aflac has to post a profit. The government doesn't. It can charge a premium, then tax everyone for the rest. Heck it can go down to the fed and print the money it needs. It isn't a level playing field. And anyone who believes this will be revenue neutral is insane. Nothing the government does is revenue neutral.
Fallacy # 2. Who says the playing field needs to be level? Under what form of Capitalism is that the case?
Do you think for a moment that a large business doesn't intentionally lose money for a time when a smaller competitor, who's less capitalized, tries to garner a share of its market? Please - are you that naive, or just idealistic?
The arguments against: rationing, denial of coverage based on merit, death eaters, whatever, already exist within the private system.
The solution is far from ideal. So is the current situation.
 

socal57che

Active Member
Did anybody decide whether it's ok for the white house to start a list of nonconformists?

My gut instinct tells me that this is a bad thing, but I had Filipino food for lunch and Chinese food for dinner.
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/3123168
Did anybody decide whether it's ok for the white house to start a list of nonconformists?

My gut instinct tells me that this is a bad thing, but I had Filipino food for lunch and Chinese food for dinner.
Someone has to support the illegal aliens. Your secret is safe with me. I won't tell Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs on you...
BTW - HB
 

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3123170
Someone has to support the illegal aliens. Your secret is safe with me. I won't tell Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs on you...
Those darned Canadians are going to ruin everything. Always crossing the border without papers....eh.
I like Lou. Beck can be a tad extreme. He loses credibility by going too far. I abhor that Limbaugh guy.
I am an American funded by my willingness to work and I don't like the idea that the white house doesn't want any free thinkers. This affects everyone...not just conservatives. Our Gov't doesn't need to make lists of people that disagree with it.
Thanks for the HB...
 

reefraff

Active Member
This administration believe that CIA agents who might have tortured terrorists need to be re investigated. Maybe they do, maybe it is BS. However the same administration doesn't believe two thug looking characters from the new black panther party, one holding a club that were standing in front of a polling place don't deserve to be prosecuted for violations of the voting rights act.
Do you really want these people keeping tabs on your thoughts and words?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/3123772
I'm considering sending a link to this thread.
Sorry, unless you forward your Paypal account with a 'check' with several zeros behind it, they wouldn't even bother looking at it.
 

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3123868
Sorry, unless you forward your Paypal account with a 'check' with several zeros behind it, they wouldn't even bother looking at it.
So it's settled. The Obamites accept bribes.

You have no problem with the fact that the federal government is compiling a list of the people who oppose their plan?
When it's your turn for a heart or liver transplant the list is checked for your name. If you are on the list, you get bumped to last in line. What does the White House need with such a program, but to use it against it's citizens. They do bother. That's why the program exists.
 
Top