Yeah well those of us who actually did vote with the majority are now being fucked over by the combined effects of a loud half witted minority run by Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and a group of Dems with all the backbone of my next door neighbor’s kitten.
Thanks a lot.
:rolleyes:
Anyone who doesn’t understand the naked self interest in wanting a system where losing your job doesn’t mean losing your access to health care is, IMO, a complete moron.
It’s natural to see a universal health care program as “you paying for everybody else’s insurance”—right up to the time you get seriously sick, when it becomes everybody else paying for YOUR insurance.
That’s what risk pool means. And a universal health insurance system with not-for-profit management gives us the broadest possible risk pool with coverage for all, as well as lower overhead costs.
Bitch all you like about how inefficient and wasteful government-run programs are, but the fact is that administrative costs for healthcare are much lower in countries that have UHC rather than our patchwork of for-profit insurers.
And by the way, there’s no reason that we the people can’t make a fuss about fraud and waste in existing government programs, without issuing a blanket refusal to consider any new government programs until all existing fraud and waste is eliminated. Hell, there’s plenty of fraud and waste in corporations too (as per the OP, for example), but we don’t refuse to issue any corporate charters to new companies on that account.
So what? There are plenty of other opportunities for you to exercise your choice to be philanthropic.
It’s absolutely ridiculous for us to go on spending more money for less comprehensive and efficient health coverage than other developed nations have, just so that we can go on thinking of health coverage as “philanthropy”. I’ll take a little less sentimentality and a little more common sense, thanks.
Uh…what? That’s a pretty cumbersome sentence.
Where do you get “unfair” use? There’s a process we all agreed to, and went through it. That process regularly results in things “we the other people who are not you” want, and regularly results in things you want and we don’t. This is the agreed-upon social contract.
And what causes you to say “if it were actually questioned?” It has been questioned, and argued over, by all sides, ad nauseam. You guys have already made your case, it’s been considered, and in this particular instance, has not yet been decided…but it might go against you. And if it does, that does not mean you didn’t get to question it, or that you were railroaded. It just means you lost, this time.
The reason you “are being forced to do” what the majority agrees to pass as law is because the only alternative is to settle it with swords in the parking lot. We can either stab each other until the strong guy kills enough of us to intimidate the rest, or agree to abide by majority decisions after reasoned debate. You’re coming across as alarmingly pro-stabbing.
Two things. First, I’m amazed that this seventeen-year-old kid had the foresight to purchase health insurance on his own. When I was seventeen, I was pretty much clueless about such things. (I just relied on my parents to take care of everything.)
Seconds, a few years ago, I read John Grisham’s novel “The Rainmaker” but thought it was unrealistic in how it portrayed the corrupt insurance company. But it seems that he was not far off the truth.
Given that we can’t predict with anything approaching certainty who will cost more than they put in (until they already do, of course) it certainly does.
You do realize that this is the whole point of insurance, right?
There’s more. I was too hopping mad to include it in my original OP, but within the aforelinked article, there is this sidebar:
Excuse me, I have to hurl…
What is really sick now is seeing an Assurant ad at the bottom of the page.
Either that, or the proto-singularity is learning to do some irony.
And that matters how?
I’ve been working in medical billing off & on since 1989 and read it as NON-fiction. I also have contacts who work (or have worked) at insurance carriers and this is COMMON PRACTICE. They’ve just learned not to document it, like Assurant did.
Not that voting has anything to do with it. I voted for the current president. Doesn’t mean I can’t vocally oppose what I disagree with.
I’m not a republican, and I’m not a democrat. There are segments of both parties that I find agreeable. In this same conversation, I could equally offend both sides with my beliefs.
Suppose so. I simply maintain that they shouldn’t have to pay for me. If I become ill beyond my means, it’s not America’s job to come in and save me. I have paid my fair share of costly medical bills when I didn’t have private insurance. I hold nobody accountable but me.
What’s your point? It isn’t something that you pitch into unwillingly as it stands. You choose the provider that gives you the best coverage for what you can afford and you go with them or you don’t. By choosing your insurance you opt in. It’s my entire point. Choosing your battles. When they do something detestable like what is outlined in the OP, it’s up to us as consumers to rescind out patronage and make it clear to them why we are doing it. Not develop some compulsory system that we have no choice but to contribute to.
Want socialized medicine? Fine. Go ahead and make it opt-in. Those of us who do not participate will provide for ourselves or die.
Do you get insurance, or do you get a chance to play Wheel of Coverage? When the insurance providers are revealed to be a bunch of greed-addled scumbags, what then?
They’re just going to replaced by a government mandated set that we can no longer boycott.
Not really. From the OP’s article:
So, they didn’t find a way out of it, because what they did was illegal. I’m assuming it would be fraud. Just like in any business, if you sell someone something, you are obligated to give them that something.
BTW. I do agree with the OP on this. This was a disgusting thing for the company to do.
What do you imagine would be the mechanism by which “government mandated” greed-addled scumbags would divert resources away from the needs of patients and into the coffers of shareholders?
You are aware that the current health bill will use existing insurance companies, correct? They are just having them offer more affordable government plans than can be offered currently because of the increase of the pool of covered individuals.
There are even levels of coverage, just like now, only they range from bottom of the barrel to just up to par.
The same fat cats get paid even with the new bill. It’s just going to create a way for them to work with the government to cover the American people instead of covering much smaller pools of people directly like they are now.
Good point. Better ditch existing insurance companies altogether and just go to single-payer. In the meantime, let’s get this passed.
You’re missing the point here. People have their fair share of bills to private insurers.
And been screwed over completely. Worse, legally.
Do you really think that there’s a free market to cover people with AIDS? Heart disease?
Do you think that in the middle of a heart attack a person is going to go around calling doctors?
Do you?
Oh get over yourself. That’s called taxes. Grown up pay them.
Children, political science students and libertarians whine about them.
Then die. And don’t drive on public roads, use public beaches, attend public schools or go to a public park.
Don’t use the police to report a crime because we have socialized defense or firefighters when your house is on fire because we have socialized firefighting.
That’s not an ideology or a principle. That’s a temper tantrum.
If that’s the case, that’s what our tax-paid justice system is for.
(Removed unfounded snark.)
In fact I think there are many opt-in charities for just such cases. I believe that if all the people who feel that giving to the folks in need did so, we could do some serious good. I just want to maintain that choice for each individual to give where they feel their money would be spent best.
I personally give to leukemia, breast cancer, and AIDS research every year, and don’t plan on stopping unless something else sops up my expendable income.
Yes, and grown-ups also have the right to complain about where exactly their tax dollars are spent. It’s called a Democratic Republic. Debate is welcome here.
Public roads and civic improvement are precisely what I feel my tax dollars should be spent on. I have already mentioned that the police and fire services protect my physical property in a previous post. Those count as relevant services to maintain peace in society, and I do not argue that they are essential. I also believe that the military is a necessary expenditure, but will willingly gripe about the inefficiency of accounting and spending there.
Health care for all is not even in the same park as the above. Again, to clarify, I am not even opposed to an opt-in version that covers those who take part. I just don’t want to take part myself.
Yeah, except that you won’t. Even if a few principled refuseniks like yourself really did reject all health coverage except what you could pay for on your own, and valiantly opted to kick the bucket once your savings ran out and you couldn’t afford any more chemotherapy, the vast majority of non-participants wouldn’t do that.
They’d just be thoughtlessly (or desperately) trying to save a buck in the short term by not paying for health insurance. And then when they got sick and needed health coverage, they’d holler for help. And we as a society would not agree to just deny them help and let them die.
Even principled refuseniks like yourself wouldn’t necessarily be able to avoid accepting help all the time. Suppose you’re limping down the street one day after your coverage has been dropped and you’ve spent all your money on the chemotherapy, and you have a seizure and collapse? The ambulance is gonna come and haul your unconscious and uninsured self off to the emergency room, and you won’t be in a condition to refuse treatment. When they’ve spent seventeen thousand dollars that you don’t have on fixing you up, how are you going to pay that back?
In short, an “opt-in” system would just mean we’d still be spending buttloads of money on universal socialized medicine anyway: the most expensive and inefficient kind, the kind that’s practiced and administered primarily in emergency rooms. It’ll be cheaper and more efficient just to put everybody into the same mandatory risk pool from the get-go. If some of them insist on kicking and screaming all the way, that’s their choice.