Curlcoat, does your husband work in the insurance industry? Do you or your husband own health insurance stock? Do you have a personal financial stake in this debate?
Shrug. It could be that it did go to waste, or it went to someone in Canada. I don’t know because that is a detail that I wasn’t all that interested in the time, much less now. It is also completely minor to the point, but of course that is the way you all try to - er - deflect attention from anything you don’t have an answer for.
Which of course is one of the many differences between us - I have no interest in “getting” anyone.
What am I being set up for here? I mean, I cannot believe that you don’t understand being reduced to stealing napkins and condiments from fast food places for food isn’t an example of extreme poverty. And yes, I ate the napkins - would hadn’t be called a napkin sandwich if we hadn’t, eh?
So what you have here is -
-
An insurance company didn’t want to pay for the treatment of someone who they thought had AIDS prior to coverage and when proven wrong they were fined $10 million. Since there are zero details there, I have no way of knowing if the company truly thought the patient had lied or not;
-
Insurance companies have a habit of denying pre-existing conditions, and yes anything that is the result of a rape would be pre-exist;
-
An insurance company didn’t want to pay for an experimental surgery;
-
The fat baby one has so few details that there is no way to make a comment on it, tho I’m sure it is well documented that obese babies tend to have health issues;
-
A kid maxed out on his coverage;
-
The lymphoma one sounds like another pre-existing issue, but of course - no details;
-
Domestic violence as pre-exist sure isn’t surprising - many policies would deny it as not covered for many reasons;
-
Another case of pre-exist that the insurance company didn’t know about;
-
The baby with MD - again, surprise!, no details;
-
The acne treatment one sounds suspicious - that one I would be interested in following up;
-
and, the back problem one didn’t make a lot of sense.
So, out of these 11 cases, one appears to be malfeasance and the rest look like insurance companies trying to stay in business. It looks like all of them are individual policies and companies that write those have much stricter guidelines about things like pre-exist and maxes due to the fact that they don’t have the cushion of people in group policies that don’t submit claims. Would you rather than these companies go out of business, so that no one who can’t get a group policy will have coverage?
Didn’t you notice how sensational these stories were and how few real facts were in them? It’s all about insurance companies being evil and nothing else - is your world really that black and white? Do you let the people writing these stories make up your mind for you?
Of all the arguments you all make for a UHC, this one makes the least sense. Yes, I imagine that insurance for those who either cannot get it now or have to pay a high premium will be cheaper, but over all this is not going to make health care itself cheaper. Things are still going to cost the same (or more as inflation keeps going up), there will still be people who will have to handle the “claims” from the doctors, hospitals, labs, etc, there will still be people who will handle signing people up and collecting premiums and on and on. It isn’t the insurance companies that are driving the cost of health care, so eliminating them isn’t going to make much if any difference in what people pay overall. Either you will be the lucky ones who profit from this because your tax base is low, or you will be one of the ones who get to pay more in taxes as well as an insurance premium, but overall health care is going to cost the same, it will just be someone else paying for it.
Delivering too damn little?
Which one of the proposed variations was designed to cut costs for everyone?
In that case, you SHOULD NOT HAVE LIED in post #777 where you said:
YOU told us that the kidney went to “someone in the States”. Now you say you don’t know.
Your past posts are still visible. Let me put it in bold for you:
If you don’t know the facts, don’t make them up and then later claim that you are “not interested in the details” (which you supplied)
ETA: Napkin sandwich.
Nope, nope, and nope. I used to work for Aetna, Kaiser and then United Healthcare, but I was treated extremely badly by the last two (esp United) and we own none of their stock. So the only thing I have from that is experience in how (group) insurance companies work and knowledge of the (group) insurance laws, as well as a smattering in individual policies.
OTOH, maybe I do have a personal financial stake in this debate, since the US has a habit of taxing folks like me every time they create a new social program.
Huh, haven’t needed this one recently:
:rolleyes:
You understand the difference between a lie and simply misremembering a detail? Particularly a detail that has nothing to do with the subject?
I didn’t make anything up. Either he told me wrong, I remember it wrong, or Broomstick is wrong. And yes, that was a detail, an immaterial one but obviously the best you can do in response is to make a big deal out of whether or not something that has zero to do with the gist of what I said is correct or not. Allow me to reiterate -
:rolleyes:
Jesus fucking Christ. How mind-numbingly stupid are you? Admit it - you don’t even listen to what you’re saying, do you? In a paragraph chock full of idiocy, the bolded section takes the freaking cake. Evidently, you’re not even aware that collecting premiums is a function of private insurance, not UHC. Your aggressive imbecility is breathtaking in its scope.
I have a friend with lymphoma. He has had a stem cell transplant, chemo and radiation. He has has to gather enough energy to fight the insurance company who has several times refused to pay for some procedures. He has had to spend a day on the phone and try to get to somebody high enough to authorize payment. he has had to do that again and again. I suppose if he were alone and weaker, he would not have been able to do anything about it. Then they would have escaped paying and increased profits. Obviously the lower etchelon employees are supposed to deny payment. They might get away with it. His insurance is through his wife who works at a hospital.
My brother has brain cancer. He is getting chemo and radiation. He is very sick. Several times his insurance company has refused payment. Sometimes resubmitting the claim a few times has worked. Other times, his wife has been on the phone fighting the insurance company. He was in the Pharma industry.
Insurance companies will eat their own.
Look, I know you are extremely slow, but let me try to explain this in words you can understand. When one hears a story that is difficult to believe, it is natural for one to be suspicious. When, upon enquiring after further details, one discovers that the teller of the story either deliberately or intentionally obscured some of the details of the story, it is also natural to become even more suspicious. In other words, even though it is not the crux of the story, the fact that you made parts of the story up and now claim you’re not even sure what happened makes the whole story very hard to swallow.
I’d like to add that I love that you actually ate the napkins. You must be the stupidest person in existence - clearly that has no nutritional value! You’re an idiot. Did it ever occur to you and your retarded friends to get a job?
That argument only holds for a single-payer form of UHC, which is not what has been proposed by any plan that has actually been worked on. In fact, every plan that has actually been worked on involves the currently-operating health insurance carriers continuing to operate. And yes, that does include continuing to collect premiums.
Which is the whole problem, of course. But for the moment, that’s beside the point.
The point is, that yes, curlcoat is one hundred percent wrong in her opposition to health-care reform, even the entirely inadequate proposals that have been discussed, and her opposition is imbecilic. But if you’re going to take her to task for it, it behooves you to not talk past her (or to let her talk past you). It’s important to make it clear that you’re pointing out the imbecilic wrongness of what she’s actually saying. Otherwise, you leave an opening for her to sieze on the “error” in your own argument, and harp on that instead of addressing actual issues.
Your aggressive imbecility is breathtaking in that you apparently think you can see the future and will know exactly what sort of UHC we will end up with, should it happen. Or perhaps you truly are capable of seeing the future and if so, you should be doing better things that posts drivel to a message board.
So like you to just decide that one error was a deliberate or intentional attempt to obscure a detail, and then even tho the detail has almost nothing to do with the point, to continue to hammer on it. Remember that word “deflect”?
Uh, speaking of making things up, that isn’t true and this is - what? - the seventh or eighth time I’ve called you on making things up.
At 14? Actually, we did have jobs, but only summer ones picking berries.
You are the idiot - the nutritional value of the whole thing was close to nil, but since that wasn’t what was concerning us it didn’t matter. As for “stupidest person in existence”, you really should quit making strong statements about things you know nothing about. I’ll give you a hint - when you haven’t eaten all day, the nutritional value of potential food is not exactly a priority.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
When was the last time any of you actually addressed the issues?
Snort.
The sound of a napkin sandwich working its way through the large bowel.
I’m not making things up - you did say the kidney ended up going to the US. When we said that was impossible, you changed your story. The detail does have something to do with the point, because if you actually knew this mythical person, you would know the detail. It’s not totally extraneous, like knowing the exact date or which specific hospital in Toronto the surgery was refused by. Anyone who told you this sob story would have mentioned if the kidney just went to waste or not - it’s quite an important point.
You can keep ‘calling me’ on making things up all you want, it still isn’t true. You’ll notice that nobody else is calling me on making things up (because I’m not), but lots of people are calling you on it.
Oh, you have given me plenty of evidence to declare you the stupidest person in existence. And I’ll give you a hint - when you haven’t eaten all day, you don’t go to a hamburger stand, you go to the grocery store, dumbass. And if you do go to the hamburger stand, it seems to me that you would eat lots of ketchup, say, rather than a paper napkin. I mean, why go to the hamburger place at all? Why not just eat a newspaper?
Why, my dear, that would be me, back a couple of pages ago, futilely trying to steer the thread back to the point raised by the OP, of someone expecting the insurance they paid for to pay for a covered procedure. After , I might add, about ten pages of your holding forth on the subject of why the wonderful, precious, private insurance industry would never do anything so evil, and it’s all people trying to get poor old martyred you and husband to fork over your hard-earned money for things those other people don’t deserve. (I note in passing that you workd for United Healthcare, a company that has been documentd as having a policy of routinely denying valid claims, and reaching for any pretext in order to do so. Was or was not that policy in place when you worked for them?)
And is there a point to what you’ve continued to post about here, other than (a) you think most of the world is out to cheat you out of your savings, (b) you don’t like UHC or health care insurance reform in any manner, and (c) you have an obsessive need for attention?
For all of that, what would happen if (a) you or your husband contracted a chronic, incurable ailment and your insurance consistently denied coverage (presuming your policy included that coverage among what it covered), or (b) your home was destroyed in a natural disastr, and the insurance you’ve paid for refused to cover it?
A natural disaster in Southern California? 
We had confirmation she actually ate the napkin?! Which post?
Post #802. I don’t blame you for missing it, it was hidden in a long post full of the usual pointless curlcoat drivel.
So, yeah, apparently she ate the napkin. Although now she claims she only did it at 14, despite the fact that she originally brought up napkin sandwiches when asked why she didn’t bother going to college. And she still claims extreme poverty, even though she has said her parents were middle class at that point, and she had a normal minimum wage job after she left home. She also said the couple of months she was unemployed she had plenty to live on so she didn’t need help. So I’m not to clear on where the extreme poverty fits in now. I’m also not clear on whether or not she was familiar with the existence of grocery stores during this time.
Clear as mud, right?
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave!” - Sir Walter Scott
“When first we practice weaving webs.”
Actually, what would currently be working its way thru the bowels would be eggs and cheese. Haven’t needed to eat napkin sandwiches for, oh, almost 40 years now!
I was referring to your saying that I made parts of the story up. For one thing, you have only been able to find one detail that I’m unsure on, so that isn’t “parts”, and for the other, I didn’t make it up. But, you go right ahead believing whatever makes you feel good.
Now why in the world would you believe that? Where the kidney went after he wasn’t able to use it would not have been all that important to my friend. It may even be that he doesn’t know and I just assumed at the time it went back to the States, and then remembered it as fact now. Besides, you all haven’t, and probably can’t establish for sure that the kidney didn’t go back to the States.
Important to you, not necessarily important to someone else. If he even knew - how likely would it be that anyone told him?
Look I’m perfectly willing to indulge in your desire to ignore the point since I don’t really care what you want to discuss. But, if nothing else, if I were lying I wouldn’t have admitted to being wrong on that little point so easily.
Oh please. Do you really think that the lack of a pig pile on you means that you aren’t deflecting, making shit up and just generally acting like a jerk, as long as you stay with the party line?
OK, either you are actually without brain, or you haven’t bothered to read. Tho even if it’s the latter, the fact that you post something like this still seems to indicate no brain. Poor person, remember? Stealing stuff from a fast food joint? What part of that indicates to you that there was any money to buy food from a grocery store? As for the napkin part, it served two purposes - to hold the ketchup, mustard and relish and to provide bulk. The condiments by themselves weren’t particularly filling. Newspapers were not available at the fast food joint, and I imagine they are harder to chew, as well as that whole ink issue. Again, you are just making a fool of yourself, trying to pretend you have any idea what it is like to be really poor and unable to buy food. At least I was lucky enough to not have to eat garbage.
I’m not going to bother to go back and look - if it wasn’t in response to a post of mine, I probably didn’t read it.
Yeah, except I haven’t said anything like that.
Not at all. However, I only paid dental claims for them, so I have no idea if that made any difference. OTOH, my husband & I have been covered by them for the past two years and they haven’t denied any of our claims. The worst thing they have done is send questionnaires asking about whether ER visits were the result of an accident (for asthma related dx’s - WTF?) and they misprinted a benefit in the summary. When it was pointed out that they were paying less than what the summary indicated, they paid per the incorrect summary.
Huh. More things I haven’t said.
What do you mean, what would happen? Unlike Fuji, I cannot foretell the future. There are so many variables in both that there is no way for me to know what we would do. Tho I will say that if our house was destroyed, the land under it is so valuable that we could either sell and get something else, or take out a loan and rebuild. This is true of most homes in S Cal.