quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?
Do you not see how problematic this could get?

No. I don't see anything other than usual due diligence.
But thats the difference. You want a nanny state.
I want to be able to choose for myself.

Bullshit. You already admitted to not having insurance. You even claimed you would refuse to get insured under the ACA because of your opposition to it.

Again, you are choosing for people and not letting them choose for themselves. If Phydeaux has chosen to not buy insurance, then the choice has been made, hasn't it? Self-determination is such a bitch for a nanny state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?
Do you not see how problematic this could get?

My plan covers everything at 100%.
So, you're complaining that things might be difficult? Well, FFS, why didn't you just come out and say that?!? Apparently, people are too stupid to be responsible enough to know what is and what isn't covered. They shouldn't be bothered with understanding their plans, options, and responsibilities, either.
As far as the insurance company not covering blood transfusions because they are a JW organization, that would be something that should come up in negotiations, shouldn't it? I guess we can't let a company negotiate it's own insurance options, either, now, huh?

Really? Your plan has no exclusions? Are you really sure about that? (no plan I've ever seen did so and I used to help choose plans for a software firm that wanted to provide the best policy possible.) You might want to reread the policy small print. They all exclude "experimental" treatments and most also include wording that says they don't cover procedures not considered standard care or the like.

!00% sure. I don't care what you've been part of before. Your not seeing a plan does not mean it doesn't exist.

quote:

quote:

Why would the JW insurance company be required to explain it's preapproval policies? No law requires such. Luckily the ACA says insurance now has to provide a certain core set of things including blood transfusions and contraception.
But still the company simply provides health insurance. What the employee does with said insurance is no concern of the employer. Otherwise the employer is infringing on the employees rights to privacy, association and religion (at least). Trying to get the government to place the employers "right" over the employees actual rights is absurd.

If the company is paying for the insurance, then it's covering transfusions means that they are paying for transfusions, doesn't it? Now, if there is zero difference in premium amount and the company isn't self-insured, then covering or not covering transfusions is moot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered? Or does your plan simply require preapproval of all procedures? What if the no blood transfusions wasn't even in the plan? What if it was just the HMO's policy as a JW business itself and was just always denied when the preapproval call was made?
Do you not see how problematic this could get?

No. I don't see anything other than usual due diligence.
But thats the difference. You want a nanny state.
I want to be able to choose for myself.

Bullshit. You already admitted to not having insurance. You even claimed you would refuse to get insured under the ACA because of your opposition to it.

Again, you are choosing for people and not letting them choose for themselves. If Phydeaux has chosen to not buy insurance, then the choice has been made, hasn't it? Self-determination is such a bitch for a nanny state.

I just pointed out that he couldn't have looked at his insurance plan unless he had previously lied about not having one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The argument that is an invalid twist is the claim that when an employee buys birth control, it is the same as if the employer purchased the birth control. That ignores that once an employee is paid, that money is no longer the employer's property to control, but is now the employee's. The employer can not dictate what an employee does with his or her private property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Consider if this would be acceptable, a Jehovah's Witness business could, under this theory, provide health insurance to its employees but mandate that that insurance follow their beliefs on blood transfusion which would mean a covered procedure, say trauma surgery after an accident, could never include a blood transfusion even to save the employees life. Do you really think that is acceptable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

Taxes and regulation make doing business less profitable,

If government policies help stabilize the economy and boost the middle class, higher taxes and regulations would actually increase corporate profits. Also, reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage helps small businesses who would otherwise fold having to pay the prices for existing health care premiums.

Higher taxes did not cripple the economies under Clinton or Eisenhower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Then name the plan. I'd like to see a plan that has no exclusions.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Why would the JW insurance company be required to explain it's preapproval policies? No law requires such. Luckily the ACA says insurance now has to provide a certain core set of things including blood transfusions and contraception.
But still the company simply provides health insurance. What the employee does with said insurance is no concern of the employer. Otherwise the employer is infringing on the employees rights to privacy, association and religion (at least). Trying to get the government to place the employers "right" over the employees actual rights is absurd.

If the company is paying for the insurance, then it's covering transfusions means that they are paying for transfusions, doesn't it? Now, if there is zero difference in premium amount and the company isn't self-insured, then covering or not covering transfusions is moot.

So if the plan covers contraception and doesn't cost any more, it doesn't or the price for women would be higher, it is moot as well. So why are you arguing?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The argument that is an invalid twist is the claim that when an employee buys birth control, it is the same as if the employer purchased the birth control. That ignores that once an employee is paid, that money is no longer the employer's property to control, but is now the employee's. The employer can not dictate what an employee does with his or her private property.

The employer isn't buying the birth control either way. In one case, the employer is giving the employee money, and then the employee uses their money to pay for birth control. In the other case, the employer is buying the employee an insurance plan, and then the insurance company uses their money to pay for the employee's birth control. In both cases, the employer's control over the use of the employee's compensation package ends when the money leaves the employer's bank account.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Then name the plan. I'd like to see a plan that has no exclusions.

Never heard of cash, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Then name the plan. I'd like to see a plan that has no exclusions.

Never heard of cash, eh?

So you lied when you claimed you had an insurance plan that paid 100% of everything. I guess that pretty much ends any chance of honest discussion.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Then name the plan. I'd like to see a plan that has no exclusions.

Never heard of cash, eh?

So you lied when you claimed you had an insurance plan that paid 100% of everything. I guess that pretty much ends any chance of honest discussion.

Cash isn't a plan?

Interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Cash is not an insurance policy which is what we were discussing. You knew that and your response was an intentional misrepresentation. Dishonest at its most basic.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Cash is not an insurance policy which is what we were discussing. You knew that and your response was an intentional misrepresentation. Dishonest at its most basic.

What is an insurance plan, other than a way to pay for health care (which is what the shut down was about, fyi)? And, not surprisingly, so can cash.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:


I asked you to read your insurance plan. You claimed to have done so when that is a physical impossibility. How precisely was that not dishonest?

Actually, that's a lie, to try to win the argument.

Here's what you actually said:

quote:

Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered?

See you've bit from the apple twice. Once when you called me a liar for choosing not to have insurance.
Here when you lie, to try to make it seem like DS is lying.

It is perfectly fine plan to set aside money for medical expenses Ken.
It is perfectly fine to have a plan that you pay the first $500,000K of expenses and the insurer picks up everything over that.

It is perfectly fine to participate in other medical coops -such as presbyters sometimes do, and amish often do.

Don't try to shoehorn your preconceptions on what a health care plan should be onto other people.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 10/20/2013 5:27:28 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



I asked you to read your insurance plan. You claimed to have done so when that is a physical impossibility. How precisely was that not dishonest?

Actually, that's a lie, to try to win the argument.

Here's what you actually said:

quote:

Really? Can you tell me, without digging out your plan, what exactly is and isn't covered?

See you've bit from the apple twice. Once when you called me a liar for choosing not to have insurance.
Here when you lie, to try to make it seem like DS is lying.

It is perfectly fine plan to set aside money for medical expenses Ken.
It is perfectly fine to have a plan that you pay the first $500,000K of expenses and the insurer picks up everything over that.

It is perfectly fine to participate in other medical coops -such as presbyters sometimes do, and amish often do.

Don't try to shoehorn your preconceptions on what a health care plan should be onto other people.