Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: HEALTH CARE


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: HEALTH CARE Page: <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 12:57:04 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		All the Unions are against this now as they're starting to realize that their current plans are much better.
One of my brothers who's a Teamster in the notorious "Local 25" up in Boston said; "Fuck this new plan and fuck Obama."
Hey! Why doesn't Obama give everyone a healthcare plan just like he Teamsters have? Or like the Congress and Senate? No-one would be complaining then!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 641
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 12:59:01 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
And putting the 30% (an inflated number to start with) and 4% together imply they are comparable numbers. They arent, and the overhead for covering the general population in a public option will be at least as great as under private insurance.


Care to cite any supporting information for that claim?





I already have. Here it is again:

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

Next steps: Cue up the ad hominen about Heritage. Challenge the responders to dispute the numbers. Responders disappear or play semantic games.

"However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care administrative costs by several billion dollars."

And of course, DK, in his usual cut his losses mode, chose not to respond to it, and in fact repeats the 3% bullshit claim whenever he can.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/4/2009 1:02:05 PM >

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 642
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 1:02:00 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

All the Unions are against this now as they're starting to realize that their current plans are much better.
One of my brothers who's a Teamster in the notorious "Local 25" up in Boston said; "Fuck this new plan and fuck Obama."
Hey! Why doesn't Obama give everyone a healthcare plan just like he Teamsters have? Or like the Congress and Senate? No-one would be complaining then!

Cos that would be government controlled health care...eeeebil eeebil stuff right?


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 643
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 1:04:34 PM   
Slavehandsome


Posts: 382
Joined: 9/19/2004
Status: offline 		Of course everybody's going to realize that their current plans are better.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 644
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 1:07:15 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

Of course everybody's going to realize that their current plans are better.


They already do. Odd that people are so happy but the status quo is so dire.

(in reply to Slavehandsome)
Profile   Post #: 645
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 1:39:02 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		I'm listening to The Howie Carr Show on WRKO-680 AM Boston and he was playing clips from town hall meetings with congressmen and senators and the people were shouting down the congressmen and senators.
Boy, that Dick Durbin from Illinois is one arrogant bastard! Thinks "The People" don't know what's good for them!
Shouldn't these people be *LISTENING* to The Voters instead of trying to *tell* The People what's "good for them?"
Isn't that why we elect them in the first place??? To do what we *tell* them to do???
You know, it's really not good when our government tries to dictate to us.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 8/4/2009 1:42:33 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 646
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 2:18:50 PM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline




Conservatives organize to shout down congressmen at town halls

The American people have apparently forgotten how to use their indoor voices. For a few different elected officials, that's meant their trips home recently have been interrupted by encounters with agitated citizens, people who have something they want to get off their chest. Loudly.

Two weeks ago, Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., was shouted down and saw his town meeting hijacked over the question of the president’s birth certificate. Watching the crowd force Castle to recite the Pledge of Allegiance instead of talk about healthcare can make you want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Then, two days ago, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, had his meeting with constituents overrun by people protesting healthcare reform and chanting, “Just say no!” There’s apparently a loose affiliation between this “mob,” as Doggett called them, and the infamous Tea Partiers of several months ago. At the very least, the “Just say no!” crowd, with its hammer-and-sickle-adorned anti-government posters, draws obvious inspiration from the winter anti-tax rallies.

And on Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius presided over a tense public meeting at a packed Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Questioners raised the standard complaints about the government being incompetent to run any sort of healthcare plan. Said one audience member -- who sounded a bit like the Castle meeting hijacker -- to the applause of the audience and the barely-concealed eye-rolls of Sebelius and Specter:
I look at this health care plan and I see nothing that is about health or about care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke, Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and you want us to believe that a government that can't even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our U.S. economy? No sir, no.

But the nastiest booing was reserved for Specter, when he revealed that he wasn’t going to read the entire piece of legislation when it came to the floor. The senator tried to explain that his staff would split it up, because otherwise the process would take too long. This is, apparently, outrageous.

The truth of all three meetings -- in Delaware, in Texas and in Philly -- is that there were probably at least as many supporters of the Obama administration in the room as there were opponents. That is almost certainly the case when considering the congressional districts as a whole of Mike Castle and Lloyd Doggett, as well as the state of Pennsylvania (and certainly the city of Philadelphia). But it’s not hard for an angry few to derail a meeting, especially when they're so much more interested in confrontation than conversation.

In addition to the disrupting these three meetings, protesters have surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., forcing him to rely on a police escort to escape to his car. They've also hung Rep. Frank Kratovil, D-Md., in effigy. A leaked memo from a volunteer with conservative group FreedomWorks entitled "Rocking the Town Halls -- Best Practices" advises exactly this sort of behavior. (The man listed as author, Frank MacGuffie, denies having written the memo on behalf of FreedomWorks.) The memo tells protesters to spread out to appear more numerous than they are and maximize disruption, reminding them, "Try To 'Rattle Him,' Not Have An Intelligent Debate."

That's probably why there's so much bad information in play here. Just as the president was, in fact, born in the United States, no proposal on the table actually has the government running one-seventh of the economy. We already do ration healthcare, as Sebelius pointed out (to applause). Nor is it the least bit unusual, despite the booing, for senators not to read the full text of legislation. Sometimes a sneaky little earmark or amendment does squeeze through, but nobody is going to trick Congress into passing a law requiring that we pull the plug on ailing seniors or refuse treatment to kids with cancer.

Still, this is the kind of thing that spooks elected officials. To see that, you don’t need to look any further than otherwise moderate Republicans looking over their shoulders at Mike Castle, and then refusing to admit that Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president.


http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/03/meeting_shouting/

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 647
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 4:24:25 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
And putting the 30% (an inflated number to start with) and 4% together imply they are comparable numbers. They arent, and the overhead for covering the general population in a public option will be at least as great as under private insurance.


Care to cite any supporting information for that claim?


I already have. Here it is again:

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

Next steps: Cue up the ad hominen about Heritage. Challenge the responders to dispute the numbers. Responders disappear or play semantic games.

"However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care administrative costs by several billion dollars."

And of course, DK, in his usual cut his losses mode, chose not to respond to it, and in fact repeats the 3% bullshit claim whenever he can.


The study you cite excludes plays semantic games, excludes large chunks of the overhead of private insurances to arrive at their numbers by narrowly redefining administrative costs while adding costs to Medicare's overhead arbitrarily.

Basically, according to them, only little more than claims processing is administrative. Gone is the cost of the general bureaucratic apparatus. Gone are the CEO salaries and private jets. They do include the profits - but given that Kaiser and Blue Cross/Blue Shield and a few others are nominally non-profits, that isn't saying much.

And in the end, they fail: even after excluding all that, even on the nonsensical per-person basis, private health insurance STILL has costs that are only marginally lower than Medicare despite processing far fewer claims.

But that's hardly surprising given the source.


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 648
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 4:45:47 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		"Left" or "Right" doesn't matter.
When someone is giving you the "hard sell" on something it usually isn't a "good" thing!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Brain)
Profile   Post #: 649
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 5:05:49 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
And putting the 30% (an inflated number to start with) and 4% together imply they are comparable numbers. They arent, and the overhead for covering the general population in a public option will be at least as great as under private insurance.


Care to cite any supporting information for that claim?


I already have. Here it is again:

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

Next steps: Cue up the ad hominen about Heritage. Challenge the responders to dispute the numbers. Responders disappear or play semantic games.

"However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care administrative costs by several billion dollars."

And of course, DK, in his usual cut his losses mode, chose not to respond to it, and in fact repeats the 3% bullshit claim whenever he can.


The study you cite excludes plays semantic games, excludes large chunks of the overhead of private insurances to arrive at their numbers by narrowly redefining administrative costs while adding costs to Medicare's overhead arbitrarily.

Basically, according to them, only little more than claims processing is administrative. Gone is the cost of the general bureaucratic apparatus. Gone are the CEO salaries and private jets. They do include the profits - but given that Kaiser and Blue Cross/Blue Shield and a few others are nominally non-profits, that isn't saying much.

And in the end, they fail: even after excluding all that, even on the nonsensical per-person basis, private health insurance STILL has costs that are only marginally lower than Medicare despite processing far fewer claims.

But that's hardly surprising given the source.





ROFL.

Ok.

What "private insurances have been excluded?" What costs are inconsistently or improperly defined as "administrative"?

What "bureaucratic costs" have been ignored for one or the other, and if ignored for both do you really think that a comparison with the government would be favorable? And at the start of this part of the thread you pooh pooh .58% or 1% of health care spending yet with a straight face you mention CEO salaries and private jets? Ludicrous, even if they were administrative costs, which they arent.

And then after all that you at least agree that they ARE marginally lower in private practice, when the implication of your original statement was "Whoa, 30% vs 4%, the government stepping in can reduce administrative costs 26%.

Massive fail.


(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 650
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 5:55:31 PM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline 		Kathleen Sebelius - Health-Care Reform's Many Benefits Include Peace of Mind - washingtonpost.com 　

Lifting A Burden Of Worry

By Kathleen SebeliusTuesday, August 4, 2009

As the political debate about how to pay for and pass health reform grows louder and more contentious, we shouldn't lose sight of the reason we're even having this conversation: We have a huge, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans, insured and uninsured alike.

Health insurance is fundamentally about peace of mind. If you have good insurance, you don't have to worry about an accident or sudden illness. You know that whatever happens, you and your family will be taken care of.

We can't eliminate all disease. But through health reform, we can give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance so that if they do get sick, they have the best chance possible of getting better without bankrupting their families.

The current health-care system gives insurance companies all the power. They get to pick and choose who gets a policy. They can deny coverage because of a preexisting condition.

They can offer coverage only at exorbitant rates -- or offer coverage so thin that it's no coverage at all. Americans are left to worry about whether they'll get laid off and lose their insurance or wake up from surgery with a $10,000 bill because they didn't read the fine print on their policy.
　

By giving Americans choices, health reform will switch the roles. Americans will get peace of mind and insurance companies will start getting nervous. They will know that if they don't deliver a great value, their customers will flee. So they will start offering better coverage.

Reform will close the gaps in our current system. When my two sons graduated from college, I had mixed feelings. I was incredibly proud of their accomplishments, but I dreaded the fact that they would lose their health insurance when they left school. The peace of mind that comes with health reform means college graduations can go back to being the celebrations they are supposed to be.

Consider the entrepreneur sitting at her desk, dreaming about her idea for a new business. Right now, many entrepreneurs are paralyzed by our fractured health insurance system. They know that if they leave their job, they might not be able to get insurance for their families. So they, and their innovations, stay put. Health reform means unleashing America's entrepreneurs to chase their big ideas.

Without reform, we will miss out on these benefits. And our health-care system will still be a fiscal time bomb.

Recent estimates indicate that by 2040, health-care costs will eat up 34 percent of our gross domestic product. By comparison, the entire federal budget today is just 20 percent of our GDP. By acting now, we have the chance to slow health-care costs in a way that doesn't slash benefits or reduce care. Instead, we can make investments in prevention, wellness and health information technology that will allow the health-care system to deliver incredible results at prices we can all afford.

Imagine a system in which your doctor spends as much time trying to keep you healthy as treating you when you're sick, in which you and your doctor have all the information you need to choose the treatments that work best for you, in which you never have to fill out the same paperwork twice. Health reform is the first step in that direction.

President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring. The urgency behind reform has nothing to do with the schedule of Congress and everything to do with the needs of the American people.

Nor should we let ourselves be distracted by attacks that try to use the complexity of health reform to freeze Americans in inaction. We've learned over the past 20 years that "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care" are code words for "don't change

anything."

With some insurers raising premiums by more than 25 percent and 14,000 people losing their health insurance every day, Americans want to hear something more from their leaders than "wait and see" and "more of the same." People have enough to worry about these days. Americans deserve the peace of mind that only health-care reform can provide.

The writer is secretary of health and human services.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/03/AR2009080302223.html

　

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 651
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 6:16:45 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline 		What a load of hooey.

Just picking two nonsense items, since they were together and easy to quote:

"By giving Americans choices, health reform will switch the roles. Americans will get peace of mind and insurance companies will start getting nervous. They will know that if they don't deliver a great value, their customers will flee. So they will start offering better coverage.

Reform will close the gaps in our current system. When my two sons graduated from college, I had mixed feelings. I was incredibly proud of their accomplishments, but I dreaded the fact that they would lose their health insurance when they left school. The peace of mind that comes with health reform means college graduations can go back to being the celebrations they are supposed to be. "


Guess what Katherine, insurance companies already have the ability to deliver "great value or their customers will flee". Insurance profits are all about spreading the risk over a larger pool, and charging the appropriate premiums to cover the benefits. If there was a way for insurance companies to deliver more value and gain more customers they would do it in a heartbeat. The demonization of insurance companies and doctors is a despicable tactic being employed to create false outrage. whether or not health care passes, it has already done permanent damage to the perception of the industry.

And she "dreaded the fact that they would lose their health insurance"? I call bullshit. If they are healthy kids and she "dreaded" $100 a month for a very comprehensive medical and dental plan then she should learn how to budget better. And if they are unhealthy and expects the insurance companies to subsidize the cost of their ill health it is in direct opposition to her plea for insurance companies to deliver "great value", because if they subsidize one group they cannot by definition provide "great value" to another group.

Another in a litany of grotesquely obvious propoganda pieces.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/4/2009 6:17:57 PM >

(in reply to Brain)
Profile   Post #: 652
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 6:20:56 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Flee to where with their pre-existing conditions?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 653
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 7:10:11 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Flee to where with their pre-existing conditions?


Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is another strawman in the national health care debate. It is done to avoid facing the debate about subsidies, because most Americans don't believe in mandatory redistribution of wealth, which is exactly what subsidies are.

The fact is that anyone can get coverage for almost any pre-existing condition in most states, as long as they are willing to pay the premium. The concept, for example, of "insuring" someone for the costs of their medications for a chronic pre-existing condition is either an oxymoron or a plea for subsidization. You cannot "insure" against certainty..the appropriate premium would be 100% of the cost plus administration, unless it is subsidized by someone else. Put another way, insurance is pooling against risk, and if something is certain, there is no risk to pool.

Under Federal law if your coverage is under an employer provided plan, there a maximum of 12 months exclusion for any pre-existing condition, AND that 12 months is offset by any period of continuous coverage under a prior plan, including COBRA. Premium rating can only be done in mandated Tiers, so there are already some mandated subsidies.

For individual policies, most states have limitations on how long coverage for a pre-existing condition can be excluded...maintain coverage for a sufficient period of time, it must be covered. That period is generally from 1 to 2 years, but there are still some states that do allow permanent exclusion of some or all pre-existing conditions. They also gnerally follow the "Tier" system of rating subidies. Differences from state to state can be remedied by a simple Federal law mandating a maximum exlcusion period without spending $1 trillion dollars on health care reform.

Here are links to most state laws: http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/statespecificinformation/StateSpecific_Information.htm

And since you asked about where Sebelius should flee to if her children have pre-existing conditions and cant get coverage? She should flee to her own state of Kansas, where there is a program where anyone who cant get coverage for pre-existing conditions can enroll. How much is that cost she dreaded? Less than $240 a month for a college graduate that doesnt use tobacco AND AGAIN THAT IS THE COST WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS COVERED.

As I said, her speech is total bullshit.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 654
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 7:17:30 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

deliver "great value or their customers will flee".
not quite correct, most people dont wish to deal with the hassel... and if its employer cased insurance, they dont typically get a choice. we have switched from a manufactoring based economy to a service one... one that does not seem to want to offer insurance. so, in the end, you get what you pay for... there is no company loyalty anymore... on either side. management is out for itself, and to hell with those shoulders they ride on...

the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, so has the cost of medicine, Dr visits, insurance, ect... everything associated with healthcare... what hasnt is income.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 655
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 7:18:07 PM   
Lockit


Posts: 11292
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		I guess we should shoot people the way the tv cowboys did lame horses. We are of no worth to mankind in our lame shape.

Funny... my brother thought that way. Said to me... you are nothing but a drain on society and you should just shot yourself. That was because I had a doctor appointment. I have supported myself and still support myself on my own funds. Oh one day I may be that drain on society if I make it that far... but then... who knows.

Odd how I have taken in the homeless... counseled many, many people and have helped people learn to live happy no matter what. Some drain I was. But he was a dj at girly clubs and he played music for weddings and didn't pay his taxes for years...

It is a do for yourself world out there and no one wants to be the weakest link or help the weakest links. Too bad on them... eh?

I just hope those strong healthy horses out there, never have an accident, can deal with genetics and never get ill...

< Message edited by Lockit -- 8/4/2009 7:19:14 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how old a woman gets, some men will think she was born yesterday! ROFL... I love this place!


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 656
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 7:20:11 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		heart attacks and strokes have a way of making people's eyes pop open, ya know?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Lockit)
Profile   Post #: 657
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 7:20:50 PM   
Lockit


Posts: 11292
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		LOL tell me about it! My eyes are wide open!

_____________________________

No matter how old a woman gets, some men will think she was born yesterday! ROFL... I love this place!


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 658
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 7:26:56 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		there is a new strain of HIV....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1204035/New-strain-HIV-gorillas-woman-Cameroon.html?ITO=1490

sorta makes me wonder since the report of the new strain of TB that came out a few years ago...





_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Lockit)
Profile   Post #: 659
RE: HEALTH CARE - 8/4/2009 7:43:34 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline 		Siggghhh, more poorly thought out points.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

deliver "great value or their customers will flee".
not quite correct, most people dont wish to deal with the hassel... and if its employer cased insurance, they dont typically get a choice. we have switched from a manufactoring based economy to a service one... one that does not seem to want to offer insurance. so, in the end, you get what you pay for... there is no company loyalty anymore... on either side. management is out for itself, and to hell with those shoulders they ride on...

the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, so has the cost of medicine, Dr visits, insurance, ect... everything associated with healthcare... what hasnt is income.



If people dont "want to deal with the hassle" who's fault is that? That is exactly the point regarding consumer awareness, education and comparison shopping. If they dont't want to spend at least much time on buying "their health" as they do on buying a fucking TV, that is their problem not mine.

If its "employer coverage they dont get a choice". But the EMPLOYER gets a choice. If an EMPLOYER, who doesnt mind "dealing with the hassle" of course [/sarcasm] has the option of "great value" "mediocre value" or "bad value" where the hell is it going to go? We dropped Anthem..why? Because they didnt provide good value. Yes, it was an easier decision for us, because we have a department that deals exclusively with health care, but that expertise is widely available from dozens of qualified companies and will save money versus randomly picking a plan and a provider.

Service companies dont want to provide insurance coverage? Cite some statistics on companies that dropped health insurance coverage and the breakdown between service and manufacturing companies. (hint: the correlation is not one of type of industry, but of size of company, nature of the business structure (Corp/LLC vs partnershp vs schedule C.) As the libs on this board are so fond of saying "you made the claim, now support it".

And yes...companies and individuals both have the right to get what they pay for. Companies are just representatives of their stockholders, and they damn well shouldnt be "loyal" to someone who isn't pulling their weight. Blind loyalty is...guess what...another subsidy, this one to those who least deserve it..the capable but non-performing employee.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: HEALTH CARE Page: <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.086