Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 That you think Tort reform comes even close to solving the problems of health care is laughable. Are you serious with that? Tort reform is the magic bullet? Get serious man, this is not a joke. You are playing with people's lives here. A little melodramatic aren't we. Read was I posted. We need to cut costs so most everyone can afford health insurance. One was to tort reform. I'm not solving the problems of health care you putz, I'm trying to solve the problem of the cost of insurance. What's your idea? Oh that's right, free health care for everyone. That's not the solution either.
MattyT Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Just thought I'd stop in to say that I just read most of this thread and feel that it would be difficult to make an earnest call for help seem less appealing than this one. If I were to write a case study as to how not to effectively persuade someone, this would be a fantastic example to base it on. All this pretentious BS is turning otherwise benevolent people into hostile skeptics...myself included. Please think about that before you try to "help" your next cause.
LeviF Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 If you don't believe in helping others you are not following the teachings of Christ. ... So, IMO, if you are not willing to help others in their time of need, then no, you aren't a Christian. If you don't sign the petition then you are unwilling to lose some money in order to help others and that is not following the teachings of Christ. The word is Christian. I think what KRC was trying to say is that you seemed to exclude non-christians from the "caring" or "charitable" group in your earlier posts.
drnykterstein Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 It's not the "magic bullet", but it definitely is a better solution to bringing down costs than the "public option" along with intrastate competition from the health insurers. I repeat, the "Public option" does NOTHING to bring down costs, NOTHING!!! Tort Reform barely puts a dent in fixing costs, but I'm all for passing it as every dime helps. But it's not even close to being enough. Costs aren't the only problem. Denied coverage, denied payments, slow payments. Every trick that insurance companies can do to make a buck they do. Inevitably in a for-profit system someone somewhere is going to face the decision: save this persons life, or make some money. That is terrible that they would even have that choice.
drnykterstein Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 That's not the solution either. Tell that to the 40+ countries who do use that as their solution.
Steely Dan Posted October 5, 2009 Author Posted October 5, 2009 Those of you who feel insurance companies should be forced to accept everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions should start an insurance company that accepts people with pre-existing conditions. See how long before you are in debt up to your ears and out of business. Does anyone understand that insurance is a business not a charity? They cannot pay for the care of their clients who get sick AFTER purchasing a policy if they are forced to accept every client that wals in the door. If you feel that people with pre-existing conditions should receive free health care, that's fine. By directing your anger at a business that has to make money to provide service to the millions of clients it serves, you are showing your lack of understanding of the concept of insurance. I also see two different issues being discussed. Dropping people from coverage who get sick is entirely different than refusing to accept new customers that are already sick. There are many issues that need to be fixed in the health car industry, but forcing insurance companies to lose money is not the way to solve the problem. I must give the government credit though, they have come up with a perfect strategy to take over the healthcare industry by convincing the ignorant masses that the enemy is the "greedy" insurance company. Spoken like a man who's never had this problem. What is your solution to the problem. Screw 'em profit beats human life. It sure seems that way to me. Offer an idea that solves the problem. If the problem isn't with insurance companies refusing coverage then what is the problem? Do you feel the same way about a Walmart moving in and shutting down the mom and pop shops around them? If the public option doesn't refuse people based on "pre-existing" conditions and if insurance companies can't compete with them then they should go out of business rather than allow people to die. Maybe I am lost, but couple of points here. #1) Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions!!!!! That is of course provided you had insurance coverage previous to them #2) COBRA allows you to continue your insurance company even if you are no longer working at the company. Yes they can. If you come in with what "they call" a pre existing condition they'll refuse to pay. Anything to do with my cancer, stroke, thyroid condition or seizure disorder would be considered a "pre-existing" condition and they would refuse to pay. As soon as I go over the line in income that makes me eligible for public assistance I'm shooting myself in the foot, but hey if I work hard I can still make it. COBRA is only valid for 6 months if you buy it. Honestly, you are not following the teachings of Christ in this thread, so you might want to take a step back. Honestly, you don't really follow them in other threads, either. #1 I don't call myself a Christian. #2 How does what I do or don't do have any bearing on your relationship with Jesus? I believe I follow his teachings much more closely than the ultra conservative "Christians". It's not the "magic bullet", but it definitely is a better solution to bringing down costs than the "public option" along with intrastate competition from the health insurers. I repeat, the "Public option" does NOTHING to bring down costs, NOTHING!!! My last job's health coverage was from "Blue Cross of Alabama". My job was located in NYS. If that in fact turns out to be true it will save lives. Do you or don't you support insurance that saves lives? Just thought I'd stop in to say that I just read most of this thread and feel that it would be difficult to make an earnest call for help seem less appealing than this one. If I were to write a case study as to how not to effectively persuade someone, this would be a fantastic example to base it on. All this pretentious BS is turning otherwise benevolent people into hostile skeptics...myself included. Please think about that before you try to "help" your next cause. I did fly off the handle but it's a very important issue for me. When people come in and start saying it's a scam when it isn't and it convinces others to ignore it then yeah I'll get pissed. If UConn had been willing to admit his mistake and apologize I would have removed the angry posts. Unfortunately he is as smart as a box of rocks, just like VABills. With malevolent intentions they stick to their guns. My anger was fueled by the stupidity of these people. EII and Levi91 removed their posts supporting UConn once they found out it was a real petition. Evidently UConn and VA would rather repeat their lies than admit they've made a mistake and by doing that they're costing people their lives. If you knew somebody was trying to kill your friends or family because they're stupid I think you'd get very angry too.
MattyT Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 I did fly off the handle but it's a very important issue for me. When people come in and start saying it's a scam when it isn't and it convinces others to ignore it then yeah I'll get pissed. If UConn had been willing to admit his mistake and apologize I would have removed the angry posts. Unfortunately he is as smart as a box of rocks, just like VABills. With malevolent intentions they stick to their guns. My anger was fueled by the stupidity of these people. EII and Levi91 removed their posts supporting UConn once they found out it was a real petition. Evidently UConn and VA would rather repeat their lies than admit they've made a mistake and by doing that they're costing people their lives. If you knew somebody was trying to kill your friends or family because they're stupid I think you'd get very angry too. This will be the last I say about this because I'm not trying to pick a fight or put you down personally, but I'm not confident that the message sank in. You're simply deflecting the blame onto others. IMO, you have done more damage to your own cause than any that you named here. Take a step back and think about the people you have alienated and insulted in this thread. And then realize that you've done yourself a disservice by behaving this way. In all seriousness...good luck with your important issue.
KRC Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 #1 I don't call myself a Christian. So, you don't want to help people out? Remember, only Christians want to help people out. You said so, yourself. #2 How does what I do or don't do have any bearing on your relationship with Jesus? Don't have a relationship with Jesus. Again. Not Christian. Try to keep up. I believe I follow his teachings much more closely than the ultra conservative "Christians". Sure you do...
Steely Dan Posted October 5, 2009 Author Posted October 5, 2009 I think what KRC was trying to say is that you seemed to exclude non-christians from the "caring" or "charitable" group in your earlier posts. I'm excluding them because they don't take a promise to follow Jesus' teachings. If they refuse to do anything based on the belief that money is more important than people at least they aren't hypocrites. The people who do promise to follow the teachings of Christ and then skew them to how they want them to is not a true Christian IMO. How many millionaires consider themselves Christians when Christ tells them that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven? They throw a few thousand bucks around and pat themselves on the back and smile about how their charitable works make everything else ok. Some will also use another's lack of following the teachings of Christ as an excuse for them to not have to. I've heard a lot of "Christians" use passages from the Old Testament in order to validate their opinions when the whole religion is called Christianity. Jesus's teachings never appears in the Old Testament and therefore, IMO, Jesus' words are the only part of the Bible that gives guidance to Christians. Tort Reform barely puts a dent in fixing costs, but I'm all for passing it as every dime helps. But it's not even close to being enough.Costs aren't the only problem. Denied coverage, denied payments, slow payments. Every trick that insurance companies can do to make a buck they do. Inevitably in a for-profit system someone somewhere is going to face the decision: save this persons life, or make some money. That is terrible that they would even have that choice. What he said. Spoken like a true advocate of human life. How many "anti-abortionists" support a system that allows that to happen, I wonder.
Steely Dan Posted October 5, 2009 Author Posted October 5, 2009 This will be the last I say about this because I'm not trying to pick a fight or put you down personally, but I'm not confident that the message sank in. You're simply deflecting the blame onto others. IMO, you have done more damage to your own cause than any that you named here. Take a step back and think about the people you have alienated and insulted in this thread. And then realize that you've done yourself a disservice by behaving this way. In all seriousness...good luck with your important issue. No, I believe I understand. You're right, but as I said this is a much more important issue to me and it made me fly off the handle. I'll go back and delete those posts. So, you don't want to help people out? Remember, only Christians want to help people out. You said so, yourself. Don't have a relationship with Jesus. Again. Not Christian. Try to keep up. Sure you do... I did? That's a matter of opinion I guess.
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 If that in fact turns out to be true it will save lives. Do you or don't you support insurance that saves lives? I know you're not talking to me in this thread because you've turned into a raving lunatic here. But to answer your question. Insurance is not meant to save lives it's not its purpose. It's funny how you call me being selfish when I've admitted to helping hundreds of families but you come across as only caring in this thread because of things that have happened to you. I'm sorry for your situation but once again your emotions because of it are dictating your behavior.
VABills Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Steey, you little punk. Don't call me a liar. You know damn well that Armstrong was under contract for millions of dollars when he got cancer. His claims were also not accepted because he didn't have coverage active anymore, and he admits it. He did at one time apparantly have a policy, but had dropped it and was trying to get retroactive coverage. That's a fact. Oakley, taking advantage of the situation to a point and also feeling bad, "hired" him as an employee as their policy didn't have a pre-existing condition clause, and his medical bills were picked up right away. That actually wound up costing Oakley as their rates then wind up going up, which tanslates to costing consumers more to pay for it. You are the dumber than a box of rocks spreading lies to advance your propaganda BS. BTW, even if he was out of the cofidus contract which he wasn't until the hole issue boiled over, he was also under contract to Nike and someone else. He also was making millions prior to the illness, so again there was no reason for him not to have insurance.
John Adams Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I forget: How old is Steely? Seriously, this thread has all the trappings of a high schooler, starting with multi-colored and sized fonts and ending with 4-5 self-bumps. On to the issue. Many frame this issue as you do: In terms of health care denial. Others say they don't want government running healthcare. I see it from a simple supply and demand perspective. It's wonderful to want every benefit for everyone. The trouble is that there are not enough health care providers (let's just say doctors to keep it simple, with the understanding that nurses, PAs and many others provide health care) to provide all the health care demands in this country. So you are left with some people being left out of the system. Those people are the ones without $$. That is the best system we've got. It's fine and dandy to want to provide everyone with their own doctor but it just can't happen. It's simply not possible. Honestly. I know a whole bunch of surgeons and they are worked to the bone as is. You don't work half as hard as them. Add 30% more people into the system and the system gets more broken than it is now. Magox and others have suggested things to make it better. Tort reform is actually huge because it starts to get to the root of the problem: It could lure more doctors into the field because there'd be more $$ to make. Porting policies is a good idea. I think the co-op idea is solid. Making health insurance a tax deductible benefit for businesses to offer would be HUGE. None of these provide a perfect solution but they are attempts to make it better. So, if you can retreat from Yatzger's farm for a second and rejoin the dialog on this, the national debate on point is a good one. There are some good ideas out there. The extreme-left's position is infeasible in every respect but I credit Obama with keeping this dialog going. Maybe, just maybe, we'll get some substantive reforms.
drnykterstein Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 The trouble is that there are not enough health care providers Bull . That is an absolutely false statement.
Chef Jim Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Bull . That is an absolutely false statement. Do you know what a health care provider is?
Steely Dan Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 Steey, you little punk. Don't call me a liar. You know damn well that Armstrong was under contract for millions of dollars when he got cancer. His claims were also not accepted because he didn't have coverage active anymore, and he admits it. He did at one time apparantly have a policy, but had dropped it and was trying to get retroactive coverage. That's a fact. Oakley, taking advantage of the situation to a point and also feeling bad, "hired" him as an employee as their policy didn't have a pre-existing condition clause, and his medical bills were picked up right away. That actually wound up costing Oakley as their rates then wind up going up, which tanslates to costing consumers more to pay for it. You are the dumber than a box of rocks spreading lies to advance your propaganda BS. BTW, even if he was out of the cofidus contract which he wasn't until the hole issue boiled over, he was also under contract to Nike and someone else. He also was making millions prior to the illness, so again there was no reason for him not to have insurance. You called the email spam and refuse to admit you were you wrong thus turning a stupid comment into a lie. You also made this into an all about him issue which is a complete lie. What does anything that happened to him have to do with this except that it made him realize how lucky he is and that a lot of people aren't so lucky. Your inability to get away from a "poor Lance" attitude and realize it's a "poor all of the people who can't get themselves out of the situation as easily as he did issue." That's what leads me to believe you are dumber than a box of rocks. You are perpetuating your propaganda by lying about what the issue really is. I don't know maybe it's not lying and just stupidity. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. These are examples of what I think you're saying; I need your help to ensure that what happened to me doesn't happen to any other American: Your interpretation; I want to be sure that I never have a problem again because I don't want to give up my millions. http://www.livestrongaction.org/campaigns/healthcare No matter what side of the healthcare debate you're on, I believe we can all agree on two things: No American should be denied health insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions. No American should lose their insurance due to changes in health or employment. Your interpretation; No matter what side of the healthcare debate you're on, I believe we can all agree on two things: I should never be denied health insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions. I shouldn't lose my insurance due to changes in health or employment. I was lucky. We can't rely on luck to ensure coverage and treatment for the millions of Americans affected by cancer. Some cannot get coverage because they've already been diagnosed. Others get calls from their insurance companies saying they have been dropped. It happens all the time—and it's unacceptable. Your interpretation; I almost had to pay myself but I got out of it even though I had millions to cover it. We can't rely on luck to ensure that I get the coverage and treatment for myself.I probably can't get coverage because I've already been diagnosed. I get calls from my insurance companies saying that I have been dropped. It happens all the time—and it's unacceptable. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. This is not about Lance Armstong!! It's about his realization that a lot of other people in the situation need help. Ok, admit you were wrong about the email being spam. Admit that you were wrong about this being about Lance Armstrong and that he is not asking for help for himself, but is instead trying to do a compassionate thing for many Americans. Remove yourself from your own political agenda and admit it's really about what it is and not about something that it's not. Whether you agree with his views or not don't perpetuate lies about it because you refuse to admit you're wrong. I'll save you the time and effort you'll need for you next post I'll answer for you. I never said it was spam, and it is because you never asked for it to be mailed to you. (FYI, I'm on the organizations mailing list) It is about Lance because he's using his situation as the centerpiece of it. It doesn't matter what the real issue or real reason for his compassion is it's all about him. Period. Just because I want to rail on Lance rather than address the real issue doesn't make me stupid or a liar. You're the one who's stupid and a liar. It is all about Lance. He doesn't give a about anybody else. It is all about Lance. He doesn't give a about anybody else. It is all about Lance. He doesn't give a about anybody else. It is all about Lance. He doesn't give a about anybody else. It is all about Lance. He doesn't give a about anybody else. It is all about Lance. He doesn't give a about anybody else. You're the one who's stupid and doesn't get it. That about right?
Simon Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 ....... That about right? Please don't ever advocate anything for me.
Chef Jim Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Please don't ever advocate anything for me. No ****, we'd be demanding money from you.
Steely Dan Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 I forget: How old is Steely? Seriously, this thread has all the trappings of a high schooler, starting with multi-colored and sized fonts and ending with 4-5 self-bumps. On to the issue. Many frame this issue as you do: In terms of health care denial. Others say they don't want government running healthcare. I see it from a simple supply and demand perspective. It's wonderful to want every benefit for everyone. The trouble is that there are not enough health care providers (let's just say doctors to keep it simple, with the understanding that nurses, PAs and many others provide health care) to provide all the health care demands in this country. So you are left with some people being left out of the system. Those people are the ones without $$. That is the best system we've got. It's fine and dandy to want to provide everyone with their own doctor but it just can't happen. It's simply not possible. Honestly. I know a whole bunch of surgeons and they are worked to the bone as is. You don't work half as hard as them. Add 30% more people into the system and the system gets more broken than it is now. Magox and others have suggested things to make it better. Tort reform is actually huge because it starts to get to the root of the problem: It could lure more doctors into the field because there'd be more $$ to make. Porting policies is a good idea. I think the co-op idea is solid. Making health insurance a tax deductible benefit for businesses to offer would be HUGE. None of these provide a perfect solution but they are attempts to make it better. So, if you can retreat from Yatzger's farm for a second and rejoin the dialog on this, the national debate on point is a good one. There are some good ideas out there. The extreme-left's position is infeasible in every respect but I credit Obama with keeping this dialog going. Maybe, just maybe, we'll get some substantive reforms. I used highlighted letters to emphasize the point and I bumped the thread to keep it on the front page of the thread list. If that's a bad thing then I'm bad I guess. (after reading your post I have to admit you've changed my mind)<sarc> You're right the poor and middle class should have to die because they can't afford to stay alive. Y'know that's not such a bad idea. Let's get rid of all the people who don't have $$. Think about how much better our country would be without the poor. After all none of them work hard and make it. Since I can't think of a single country that has achieved a comprehensive health plan that works I guess we'll just have to let people die, not anyone in my family just the people who aren't me.</sarc> <sarc>Hey maybe we could repaint the interior of their houses with lead paint and eliminate the safety laws for landlords. All those laws do is impinge on the rights of property owners. If you can't afford a house than I really don't care. Gee, after looking at it like that I have to agree with you.</sarc> I'm consulting a psychic and she tells me your next post to me is going to say; Where did I ever say the poor should die? and I'll quote this in the next thread. So you are left with some people being left out of the system. Those people are the ones without $$. That is the best system we've got. and then you'll deny that's what you meant but won't really be able to offer up a reasonable explanation.
Steely Dan Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 Please don't ever advocate anything for me. I never intend to.
Recommended Posts