Magox Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 .... this statement makes me think you don't know how the insurance industry works. That you don't know how they make their profits. Insurance is not a commodity that you produce. There is no shortage of money with this. 30 Million more people being insured is also 30 million more paying them money. Way to miss the point It's not because of the added demand on insurance, it's the added demand for medical services, like doctors, general practicioners, physicians, nurses and etc. So as the demand for these professions increase, guess what happens to the price of their services? So then of course the insurers will get billed more which would then lead to what? I'm in. But no way it's enough to solve the problems. This is a couple drops in the bucket. But yet, it's not in any of the 5 bills that are being proposed Don't say **** that isn't true. There is no windfall tax in any of the bills. It is true that it is being considered, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/62211-ho...urance-industry http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/...tory?id=8782463 not only are they considering a "windfall tax" but they are going to tax medical equipment, and if the price of medical equipment goes up, who is going to eat the cost? Not the doctors or the hospitals or the health insurers, ya thats right, the patients. For some reason, these geniuses just don't understand how business economics work, if you take away a source of revenue or add additional costs through taxes, it will ultimately be passed along to the consumer. And what of the morality of having for-profit insurance? Do you like the idea of a guy at some insurance company looking at your claim and having the legal ability to say "nah, I won't pay this.. I'll make more money if I don't"? As I have mentioned to others, why not take it a step further, let the government socialize the entire medical field industry. All doctors, hospitals and nurses should be on government payroll. The idea of the "morality" of Doctors profiting off of the sick is terrible. Might as well nationalize the pharmaceutical industry as well, because you know, the "morality" question. Nevermind that once the government steps in, innovation for better drugs and cures will go downhill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 So how come spreewell hasn't chimed in lately? I can't believe a post whore like him has enough restraint to not post in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 i got a boner reading this one.. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...ick_and_wrong/1? As I have mentioned to others, why not take it a step further, let the government socialize the entire medical field industry. All doctors, hospitals and nurses should be on government payroll. The idea of the "morality" of Doctors profiting off of the sick is terrible. Might as well nationalize the pharmaceutical industry as well, because you know, the "morality" question. Nevermind that once the government steps in, innovation for better drugs and cures will go downhill. other than giving you a fake strawman to attack ... that system you propose makes no sense. nobody is saying we should tell doctors how to care for anyone, and no one is saying we should nationalize the doctors. stop making **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 i got a boner reading this one.. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...ick_and_wrong/1? other than giving you a fake strawman to attack ... that system you propose makes no sense. nobody is saying we should tell doctors how to care for anyone, and no one is saying we should nationalize the doctors. stop making **** up. you have a knack for missing the point. This is the third time now. The point you retard is the "morality" argument you made. You asked "And what of the morality of having for-profit insurance?" I drew a parallel to your "morality" question to other similar arguments you could make with the same exact principle. But of course, you didn't get that. So let me make it easy for you to understand shall we; "And what of the morality of having for-profit doctors?" or "And what of the morality of having for-profit hospitals?" or "And what of the morality of having for-profit life saving drugs?" Man, that was fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linksfiend Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Here's my favorite recent story: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_135...=commented-news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Here's my favorite recent story:http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_135...=commented-news Yes. Don't deny the infant anything. For gosh sakes don't let him cry. Sounds like they should sue their Pediatrician for malpractice for not telling them the kid's a tub of lard and it will have consequences. Duh. How soon will they get him a cell phone and laptop? He's a dead ringer for this guy. How fat is your country? Who cares? Super-size it to the max! And start 'em early, as early as possible. Don't deny them anything - ever! Yeah, it's the Insurance industry's fault. It's called risk aversion, moron. They ought to outlaw gambling then - or make the casinos even the odds on all bets. All investors in securities and mutual funds should be forced to have the same risk tolerance too while we're at it. Tax them and their portfolios if they're not. Protect everyone from everything! Help! Help! Help! Help! Help! Help! Help! I can't find the pizza tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linksfiend Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yeah, it's the Insurance industry's fault. It's called risk aversion, moron. Moron? Seriously? Can't anyone be civil on this board? Anyhow, the kid is four MONTHS old! Maybe at 4 years old you might want to put a kid on a diet. But surely not 4 months. Probably not even then. More like Jr High. Until then, let them grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I haven't seen Chef Jim agree with any criticism of the insurance companies. Are you aware of the concept of "insurance". It's not called a crap shoot, it's not called a gamble, its not called a lottery, it's called insurance. It's there to insure you against something going wrong. It insures that if something goes wrong that you can fix it. Insure. The insurance companies insure us against health problems. Even denying one single claim for the sake of profits is outrageous. Care to pull out the line in ANY one of these health care bills being floated that says "Any and all claims submitted will be honored without dispute"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 you have a knack for missing the point. This is the third time now. The point you retard is the "morality" argument you made. You asked "And what of the morality of having for-profit insurance?" I drew a parallel to your "morality" question to other similar arguments you could make with the same exact principle. But of course, you didn't get that. So let me make it easy for you to understand shall we; "And what of the morality of having for-profit doctors?" or "And what of the morality of having for-profit hospitals?" or "And what of the morality of having for-profit life saving drugs?" Man, that was fun. Well... if any significant portion of the society ever starts question the moral implications of those things, we'll have a discussion on them. For now, nobody is, so stop making **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Moron? Seriously? Can't anyone be civil on this board? Anyhow, the kid is four MONTHS old! Maybe at 4 years old you might want to put a kid on a diet. But surely not 4 months. Probably not even then. More like Jr High. Until then, let them grow. A remarkable response considering how the OP set this up. "QUOTE (Steely Dan @ Oct 4 2009, 01:03 AM) Bump - I wonder how many of the 15 people, at this time, consider themselves Christians. There isn't a single Christian among them or anyone who refused to sign the petition." Last time I checked greed, envy, and coveting the property of others aren't Christian values. Perhaps Jesus would consider waterboarding Steely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 A remarkable response considering how the OP set this up."QUOTE (Steely Dan @ Oct 4 2009, 01:03 AM) Bump - I wonder how many of the 15 people, at this time, consider themselves Christians. There isn't a single Christian among them or anyone who refused to sign the petition." Last time I checked greed, envy, and coveting the property of others aren't Christian values. Perhaps Jesus would consider waterboarding Steely. I'm pretty sure choking the living crap out of female co-workers is a Christian value. WWJD...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Insurance companies executed 5 people in the time it took you to write that post. I only contributed to the death of 4 people all of today. I need to increase my output or I'm out of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I only contributed to the death of 4 people all of today. I need to increase my output or I'm out of a job. Slacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Allegedly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Yes. Don't deny the infant anything. For gosh sakes don't let him cry.Sounds like they should sue their Pediatrician for malpractice for not telling them the kid's a tub of lard and it will have consequences. Duh. How soon will they get him a cell phone and laptop? He's a dead ringer for this guy. How fat is your country? Who cares? Super-size it to the max! And start 'em early, as early as possible. Don't deny them anything - ever! Yeah, it's the Insurance industry's fault. It's called risk aversion, moron. They ought to outlaw gambling then - or make the casinos even the odds on all bets. All investors in securities and mutual funds should be forced to have the same risk tolerance too while we're at it. Tax them and their portfolios if they're not. Protect everyone from everything! Help! Help! Help! Help! Help! Help! Help! I can't find the pizza tree. And just in case no one noticed...the family already has health insurance, they're just shopping around for a new policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 SEIU.org. So Golden Rule denied her application. Has she tried to get insurance any place else or is that her only option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1520116.html My neighbor's kid just had a tumor removed behind his eye for $10. That miracle is happening every day for the insured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1520116.html Story sucks but there are ways he could have protected himself. Health insurance is not the only way to protect yourself from the costs of losing your job to cancer. And actually in my mind it's not even the best way. Go through life angry with a narrow view on how these things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 That is great. I'm very happy for that kid. I just wish we were all insured, because certainly there are some in this country who could not afford to have that tumor removed. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to provide free health care, rather than free insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts