Honda Car Forum

edspyhill01@yahoo.com turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

> Most of the people here who rant and rave about universal healthcare
> are retired. Â*I expect a storm of flame posts

You are a completely ****ed up pig****ing social commie moron who doesn't
give a rat's ass about the needs of children and those who can make it on
their own.


</flame>


Okay, feel better?



Good.


Now back to my regularly scheduled government job. :P


--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock

> The fact is that here in the USA the insurance companies are a totally
> unnecessary profit layer between people paying for the health
> "insurance" (really a service plan, not insurance) and the people they
> are paying. The insurance companies are smart enough to keep that
> issue from being discussed. Instead, they wave the red flag of "you
> don't want the government deciding on your health care" - when the
> alternative is an insurance company executive whose only goal is to
> maximize profit by providing the minimum amount of care and coverage.
>
> Unfortunately the neo-con machine is very sharp in their marketing aka
> brainwashing.

I'm "conservative" by nature...however the US is the only Western nation
with health care. And with the upcoming massive job losses, more folks will
not be covered by their employer's insurance. I've also had relatives in
the US tell me the nightmares that HMOs cause, i.e. some conditions not
covered etc..

"Jack" <bigcletus123@yahoo.com.com> wrote in message
news:494ff725$0$5469$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>
>> The fact is that here in the USA the insurance companies are a totally
>> unnecessary profit layer between people paying for the health
>> "insurance" (really a service plan, not insurance) and the people they
>> are paying. The insurance companies are smart enough to keep that
>> issue from being discussed. Instead, they wave the red flag of "you
>> don't want the government deciding on your health care" - when the
>> alternative is an insurance company executive whose only goal is to
>> maximize profit by providing the minimum amount of care and coverage.
>>
>> Unfortunately the neo-con machine is very sharp in their marketing aka
>> brainwashing.
>
> I'm "conservative" by nature...however the US is the only Western nation
> with health care. And with the upcoming massive job losses, more folks
> will not be covered by their employer's insurance. I've also had
> relatives in the US tell me the nightmares that HMOs cause, i.e. some
> conditions not covered etc..

I'm guessing you meant the US is the only western nation without universal
health care.

Yesterday, I just got a letter from my physician's group which said they
will not be taking our insurance after December 30, 2008. What a nice time
of year for me to find out that I have to go search for a new doctor. My
company's benefits enrollment is already "locked in" for next year, so I
can't change insurance coverage.

So yes, my insurance company is saving money by reimbursing so little that
doctors are dropping them. :-P

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

"Jack" <bigcletus123@yahoo.com.com> wrote in message
news:494ff725$0$5469$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
> I'm "conservative" by nature...however the US is the only Western nation
> with health care. And with the upcoming massive job losses, more folks
> will not be covered by their employer's insurance. I've also had
> relatives in the US tell me the nightmares that HMOs cause, i.e. some
> conditions not covered etc..

You mean "without" healthcare? Actually, if there is a medical emergency,
one can go to a county hospital and they will treat you without insurance
and the hospital will try and collect later. They do not deny health care in
an emergency. I am not talking about elective surgery, but any kind of
serious health care problem. The taxpayers foot the bill for this if the
people cannot pay. This would not include things like reconstructive surgery
for torn ligaments, which is usually considered elective surgery. In
addition, there is Medicaid government insurance for poor people, and
Medicare for those over 65.

HMO's cover pretty much the same things that are covered in countries that
have "free healthcare". Some "treatments" are not covered, because they are
too expensive or experimental, just like in countries with free healthcare.
In the US, one reason for our high health care costs is that way too many
things are covered, such as Viagra, which even covered with government paid
health care (when I say covered, I mean highly discounted prescriptions).
Americans may not get their health care for free, but they are getting off
much more often than in other Western countries.

Those who complain about HMO's are usually given a choice of several
different health care plans, and some choose to get the cheapest ones
(HMO's) and then complain when coverage is not as good as the more expensive
plans. When I say expensive, I mean the cost to the employee, which averages
about 20% of the actual cost (this can vary from 0% to 100) and the company
they work for pays the other 80%.

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:48ccd$494ff825$927a2cda$2668@FUSE.NET...
> I'm guessing you meant the US is the only western nation without universal
> health care.
>
> Yesterday, I just got a letter from my physician's group which said they
> will not be taking our insurance after December 30, 2008. What a nice
> time of year for me to find out that I have to go search for a new doctor.
> My company's benefits enrollment is already "locked in" for next year, so
> I can't change insurance coverage.
>
> So yes, my insurance company is saving money by reimbursing so little that
> doctors are dropping them. :-P
>
> Jeff

Wait until we get government run health care. They will pay even less than
your insurance company. Even now there are many doctors who do not accept
Medicare.

BTW, it is unlikely that your insurance company is to blame. It could be
that your doctor wants to charge more than he did last year, and/or he is
not willing to accept the same as last year. It is unusual that an insurance
plan will pay less to a provider from one year to the next. But even if that
is true, it probably would have been initiated by your company who wants to
pay less premiums.

Insurance is optional. Most big companies with lots of employees are
self-insured (they only pay a administrative fee to an insurance company to
do claims administration), but even they are trying to reduce costs, so they
may limit the amount they want to pay providers. The purpose of insurance is
to mitigate risk when you have a small pool of insured persons. Any company
can offer health care without being insured.

Regardless of whether a company is self-insured or is insured by an
insurance company for health care, the company can provide whatever level
and amount of coverage they want if they are willing to pay the insurance
company for what it will cost. The insurance business is very competitive,
and there is not much profit in it these days. I don't mean to suggest that
there is no profit, but it is not as much as one would think. The people who
are getting rich are the doctors, and most of all the ambulance chaser
lawyers who force doctors to pay about $100,000 for malpractice insurance.
That's how John Edwards made all his money.

On Dec 22, 3:41*pm, "Mark A" <some...@someone.com> wrote:
> "Jack" <bigcletus...@yahoo.com.com> wrote in message
>
> HMO's cover pretty much the same things that are covered in countries that
> have "free healthcare".

I beginning to realize you make stuff up. You'll have to come up with
vetted comparisons before I can stop laughing at your posts. I bet
you didn't even go see "Sicko".

On Dec 22, 2:51*pm, PerfectReign <theperfectre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> edspyhil...@yahoo.com turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
> > Most of the people here who rant and rave about universal healthcare
> > are retired. *I expect a storm of flame posts
>
> You are a completely ****ed up pig****ing social commie moron who doesn't
> give a rat's ass about the needs of children and those who can make it on
> their own.
>

Useless comment. Has no reasons, facts, data, substance. Does that
tactic work anywhere? Maybe in shot and beer bars.

So you don't want the same health care coverage that Senators and
Congressmen have?

Mark A wrote:

>
> Regardless of whether a company is self-insured or is insured by an
> insurance company for health care, the company can provide whatever level
> and amount of coverage they want if they are willing to pay the insurance
> company for what it will cost. The insurance business is very competitive,
> and there is not much profit in it these days. I don't mean to suggest that
> there is no profit, but it is not as much as one would think. The people who
> are getting rich are the doctors, and most of all the ambulance chaser
> lawyers who force doctors to pay about $100,000 for malpractice insurance.
> That's how John Edwards made all his money.
>
>
Just a comment on auto insurance, and I may just be talking from my arse
here, my brother who worked as an adjusters manager told me that the
insurance co.'s made their big money from investing premiums into the
stock markets. Might be the next one's in line for a bail-out?

On Dec 22, 3:56*pm, "Mark A" <some...@someone.com> wrote:
> there is no profit, but it is not as much as one would think. The people who
> are getting rich are the doctors, and most of all the ambulance chaser
> lawyers who force doctors to pay about $100,000 for malpractice insurance..
> That's how John Edwards made all his money.

Republicans love and need lawyers more than any other group. Nobody
can lawyer up faster than a republican.

> <edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9a279ca7-5afe-4650-9d5b-ff459e4dc122@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> I beginning to realize you make stuff up. You'll have to come up with
> vetted comparisons before I can stop laughing at your posts. I bet
> you didn't even go see "Sicko".

I agree that there is a lot of profit in the health care business, but I
just don't think it is in the insurance companies (not much anyway). Anyone
can start there own non-profit insurance company as I am sure there are
enough left-wingers to fund one. But in reality, there are already many
non-profit insurance companies. Blue Cross Blue Shield used to be 100%
non-profit and provided the insurance for the majority of Americans at one
time, although some in states they have converted over to for profit
companies. Insurance companies are not the problem, although they appear to
be because they are the ones who are trying cut the cost of medical care on
behalf of those who are funding it (mainly corporate America). Also, most
large companies are self-insured, and only pay insurance companies to do
claims administration.

Medical providers (especially physicians) make much more (probably 2-3 times
as much) as those in UK, Canada, or France. That is a big part of the
problem. I once went to an IT training class and there were some people from
the UK there. One was an ex-physician who said he switched to IT because
being a doctor in the UK did not pay enough.

In 2007 the US total health care spending represented 17 percent of the
gross domestic product (GDP), which is up from 8 percent in 1980. The
percentage is expected to continue to rise. That is way more than UK, CA, or
FR, and there are so many people on the gravy train that it will be very
difficult to stop it. To make matters worse, if one did try to stop it, that
would cause massive new unemployment, so no politician wants to mess with
17% of the GDP right now with all our other problems.