Acantha Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Insurance companies executed 5 people in the time it took you to write that post. I believe Insurance companies are the Dem's terrorists. Everyone's gotta have something, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 How many times has Steely changed the poll choices hoping for a rally for the "yes" side? I think at least 4 times. Way to go brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Oooooops....looks like you've taken a step back into your standard ignorant, laughable hyperbole. Are you still wondering why no one takes your 'arguments' seriously? ? http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medi...health-coverage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 How many times has Steely changed the poll choices hoping for a rally for the "yes" side? I think at least 4 times. Way to go brother. What's funny is that it still hasn't helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 What's funny is that it still hasn't helped. Maybe he can swap the yes and no sides. "Should the Bills keep Jauron" might not be so one-sided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 ? http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medi...health-coverage So how does this prove that costs will go down with the "public option"? I'll tell you, It doesn't, now hurry up and google another article in how the "public option" will bring down health insurance costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Maybe he can swap the yes and no sides. I wouldn't put it past him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 ? http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medi...health-coverage Please explain how "45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage" = "45,000 people that the insurance industry kills every year". How is it possible for a group to kill someone if that person did not avail themselves to their services? Are you suggesting it is the job of the insurance industry to conduct a census of US citizens to determine which of them don't have health insurance? If there was a study that 45,000 people died from failure to take blood pressure medication, would that be the fault of the drug manufacturer?? You know, just when I think you may have risen above the molson_golden/Steely Dan/Bad Leftenant level of stupidity...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098 But in the cold, calculating numbered charts of insurance companies, he is fat. That's why he is being turned down for health insurance. And that's why he is a weighty symbol of a problem in the health care reform debate. There's some good unbiased reporting there huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Please explain how "45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage" = "45,000 people that the insurance industry kills every year". How is it possible for a group to kill someone if that person did not avail themselves to their services? Are you suggesting it is the job of the insurance industry to conduct a census of US citizens to determine which of them don't have health insurance? If there was a study that 45,000 people died from failure to take blood pressure medication, would that be the fault of the drug manufacturer?? You know, just when I think you may have risen above the molson_golden/Steely Dan/Bad Leftenant level of stupidity...... I think his point is that if the government provided health insurance for all those 45,000 per year would still be alive. Not sure how you prove that. Sometimes terminal is terminal and insurance can't prevent deaths sometimes. As usual he's getting health care and health insurance mixed up. Now if we could only get the government to provide homes and food for everyone we'd completely do away with homelessness and malnutrition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 So how does this prove that costs will go down with the "public option"? I'll tell you, It doesn't, now hurry up and google another article in how the "public option" will bring down health insurance costs. Lol. So... aside from the fact that you have been brainwashed and mentally conditioned to think the way you do... where do your numbers come from to say "It doesn't"? Do you not believe that competition in a capitalist system will lower costs? and .. I guess I'll go with Chef Jim's response to KD above .. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 9 pages later - shouldn't this be over in PPP board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Lol. So... aside from the fact that you have been brainwashed and mentally conditioned to think the way you do... where do your numbers come from to say "It doesn't"? Do you not believe that competition in a capitalist system will lower costs? and .. I guess I'll go with Chef Jim's response to KD above .. ... Now I know I shouldn't be trying to rationalize with a retard, but here goes hmmm, lets see here, if you add coverage to 30 million more people, does that mean that demand for medical services will go up or down? Now in the real world, when demand goes up, prices do what? That's right, they go up. Also, if you wanted to add competition, why not allow the insurers to compete with one another across state lines? Wouldn't that add competition? Now in the Health Reform Bill, they want to add a Windfall tax on the insurance industry. If they wanted to lower costs, why are you going to add a "windfall" tax? Considering their profit margins are less than 4%, and now you will cut into their profits even more so, do you think it is possible they will just add that cost along to the consumer? Of course they will, ya Dimwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Lol. So... aside from the fact that you have been brainwashed and mentally conditioned to think the way you do... where do your numbers come from to say "It doesn't"? Do you not believe that competition in a capitalist system will lower costs? and .. I guess I'll go with Chef Jim's response to KD above .. ... Ok let me ask you this question. How many of those 45,000 who died without health insurance would be alive today had they had health insurance? All of them? So you take the study as gospel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I think his point is that if the government provided health insurance for all those 45,000 per year would still be alive. Not sure how you prove that. Sometimes terminal is terminal and insurance can't prevent deaths sometimes. As usual he's getting health care and health insurance mixed up. If that's his point, it's even dumber than I thought. The gov't not buying insurance for people = insurance companies killing them? Now if we could only get the government to provide homes and food for everyone we'd completely do away with homelessness and malnutrition. Sounds like a plan, assuming we can afford it. Oh wait, I forgot. We no longer subject things to an affordability test in this country. Makes it so much easier to just tell the Chinese to put it on our tab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 hmmm, lets see here, if you add coverage to 30 million more people, does that mean that demand for medical services will go up or down? Now in the real world, when demand goes up, prices do what? That's right, they go up. .... 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. Also, if you wanted to add competition, why not allow the insurers to compete with one another across state lines? Wouldn't that add competition? I'm in. But no way it's enough to solve the problems. This is a couple drops in the bucket. Now in the Health Reform Bill, they want to add a Windfall tax on the insurance industry. If they wanted to lower costs, why are you going to add a "windfall" tax? Considering their profit margins are less than 4%, and now you will cut into their profits even more so, do you think it is possible they will just add that cost along to the consumer? Don't say **** that isn't true. There is no windfall tax in any of the bills. 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"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Don't say **** that isn't true. Uh, ok. Given the 45,000 people that the insurance industry kills every year No explanation coming on this one, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim 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. Sounds like you don't know how insurance works. Forcing insurance companies to take on more risk will increase the costs. Did you know that an insurance company pays more in risk costs to a group insurance than it does of individuals? And who's going to be paying for the 30 million and if there is a public plan how can for profit companies compete with the "bottomeless pit for losses" US government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Must...not...feed...troll.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts