Doc Posted September 20, 2010 Posted September 20, 2010 On 9/20/2010 at 5:10 PM, BB27 said: Your example about car insurance (you've never lived in Massachusetts ! ! ! ! ) Thankfully, no I haven't.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 On 9/20/2010 at 5:22 PM, Doc said: Thankfully, no I haven't. +1
erynthered Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 No more children!! http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921
Chef Jim Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 12:20 PM, Bluesky said: No more children!! http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921 What a freaking nightmare.
erynthered Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 2:44 PM, Chef Jim said: What a freaking nightmare. Its only going to get worse. That abortion of a bill needs to be repealed. I'd call it a cluster!@#$ but that phrase wouldnt do it justice.
birdog1960 Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 (edited) On 9/22/2010 at 12:20 PM, Bluesky said: No more children!! http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921 as one legislator said in the article: the insurers need to decide if they're in the business of denying care or providing it. those of us who actually provide care have known the answer for years. this bill is just unveiling the truth to everyone else. Edited September 22, 2010 by birdog1960
Chef Jim Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:07 PM, birdog1960 said: as one legislator said in the article: the insurers need to decide if they're in the business of denying care or providing it. those of us who actually provide care have known the answer for years. this bill is just unveiling the truth to everyone else. I don't think insurance companies are in the business of providing care.
birdog1960 Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:14 PM, Chef Jim said: I don't think insurance companies are in the business of providing care. and you would be right. as i've said before, they are superfluous, meddling middle men. they add nothing to the system and subtract lots of dollars.
jjamie12 Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 I find it incomprehensible the number of people who think 'Health Care' = 'Health Insurance'. Some quotes are just simply amazing.
erynthered Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:07 PM, birdog1960 said: as one legislator said in the article: the insurers need to decide if they're in the business of denying care or providing it. those of us who actually provide care have known the answer for years. this bill is just unveiling the truth to everyone else. Arent Insurers supposed to either provide or deny coverage? What actual care do they provide? Anthony Wright is a moron.
IDBillzFan Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:20 PM, birdog1960 said: and you would be right. as i've said before, they are superfluous, meddling middle men. they add nothing to the system and subtract lots of dollars. I agree. We need to eliminate that middle man and put someone in charge with a proven track record of delivering true cost and operating efficiencies. Someone like the federal government.
birdog1960 Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:23 PM, LABillzFan said: I agree. We need to eliminate that middle man and put someone in charge with a proven track record of delivering true cost and operating efficiencies. Someone like the federal government. the gov't already pays for the lions share of health care. that's how insurers get away with this. they're the insurer of last resort after the private insurers cherry pick the low risk lives. why not allow them (us) to spread risk over the good bets and the bad ones? and if you're after efficiency, think of all the personnel costs that could be saved by having a single billing and paying entity- whole billing departments in hospitals, clinics and ancillary services could be eliminated, not to mention all the folks sitting in their cubicles denying care at the other end.
Magox Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:07 PM, birdog1960 said: as one legislator said in the article: the insurers need to decide if they're in the business of denying care or providing it. I've never heard this talking point before....
drnykterstein Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 3:25 PM, Bluesky said: Its only going to get worse. That abortion of a bill needs to be repealed. I'd call it a cluster!@#$ but that phrase wouldnt do it justice. This abortion of a post needs to be repealed. I'd call it a cluster!@#$ but that phrase wouldn't do it justice.
Chef Jim Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:20 PM, birdog1960 said: and you would be right. as i've said before, they are superfluous, meddling middle men. they add nothing to the system and subtract lots of dollars. Let me ask you. If I didn't have health insurance how would I ever be able to afford the medical services that have been provided to me over the years. Pay the doctors minimum wage? Barter?
birdog1960 Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:51 PM, Chef Jim said: Let me ask you. If I didn't have health insurance how would I ever be able to afford the medical services that have been provided to me over the years. Pay the doctors minimum wage? Barter? the govt would've negotiated for you and it - single payer
erynthered Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:46 PM, conner said: This abortion of a post needs to be repealed. I'd call it a cluster!@#$ but that phrase wouldn't do it justice. This abortion of a poster needs to be edumikated I'd call him a cluster!@#$ but that phrase wouldn't do him justice.
IDBillzFan Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:32 PM, birdog1960 said: the gov't already pays for the lions share of health care. that's how insurers get away with this. they're the insurer of last resort after the private insurers cherry pick the low risk lives. why not allow them (us) to spread risk over the good bets and the bad ones? and if you're after efficiency, think of all the personnel costs that could be saved by having a single billing and paying entity- whole billing departments in hospitals, clinics and ancillary services could be eliminated, not to mention all the folks sitting in their cubicles denying care at the other end. I wasn't talking about paying for it. I was talking about running it. Outside of the armed forces, the federal government couldn't run a flea market efficiently. All the money you think will be saved by having the federal government act as a single billing/paying entity will quickly be absorbed and spent on some other entitlement. It's amazing to me, in this day and age, that ANYONE would blindly believe that the best way for anything to save money and act more efficiently is to kill one middle man and replace him with the federal government.
Chef Jim Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 5:55 PM, birdog1960 said: the govt would've negotiated for you and it - single payer So what makes the government a better middle man than the insurance companies?
erynthered Posted September 22, 2010 Posted September 22, 2010 On 9/22/2010 at 6:00 PM, Chef Jim said: So what makes the government a better middle man than the insurance companies? I gotta see his answer to that question.
Recommended Posts