just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
Sure there a lot of them out there, though what good is it if someone got denied coverage, or lost their job, or had an illness or something that put them in the category of "pre-existing", their choice is to get something that is very expensive and offers little coverage. That's not really a choice. If strong regulations were put in place to make health insurance more like car insurance then there would be a world of difference. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_SUMMARY.pdf is a summery of the house bill. But premiums that keep going up year after year while offering less if no the same coverage isn't how it should be.
Wow... you are right Phobic... Just no choices for insurance companies out there...
Aetna,
American Association of Retired Persons,
American Family Insurance,
American National Insurance Company,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Assurant,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Cigna,
EmblemHealth,
Fortis,
Golden Rule Insurance Company,
Group Health Cooperative,
Health Net,
HealthMarkets,
Humana Inc.,
Independence Blue Cross,
Independent Health,
Intermountain Health Care,
Kaiser Permanente,
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon,
Medical Mutual of Ohio,
Premera,
Principal Financial Group,
Regence Group,
Scott & White,
Shelter Insurance Companies,
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans,
UnitedHealth Group,
Unitrin, and
Wellpoint
And that was just what I came up with in about 2 minutes searching...
just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
Sure there a lot of them out there, though what good is it if someone got denied coverage, or lost their job, or had an illness or something that put them in the category of "pre-existing", their choice is to get something that is very expensive and offers little coverage. That's not really a choice. If strong regulations were put in place to make health insurance more like car insurance then there would be a world of difference. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_SUMMARY.pdf is a summery of the house bill. But premiums that keep going up year after year while offering less if no the same coverage isn't how it should be.
Wow... you are right Phobic... Just no choices for insurance companies out there...
Aetna,
American Association of Retired Persons,
American Family Insurance,
American National Insurance Company,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Assurant,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Cigna,
EmblemHealth,
Fortis,
Golden Rule Insurance Company,
Group Health Cooperative,
Health Net,
HealthMarkets,
Humana Inc.,
Independence Blue Cross,
Independent Health,
Intermountain Health Care,
Kaiser Permanente,
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon,
Medical Mutual of Ohio,
Premera,
Principal Financial Group,
Regence Group,
Scott & White,
Shelter Insurance Companies,
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans,
UnitedHealth Group,
Unitrin, and
Wellpoint
And that was just what I came up with in about 2 minutes searching...
Your missing my point smart a*s! Sure there are a lot of companies out there, many have their parent group but that means bupkis. I never said that there weren't companies out there, I said there are no real choices. If you have a job your employer most likely pays for it or at least most of it. Then great your set, though a lot of them don't have great plans unless your lucky. If they do offer insurance, and a lot of places don't especially in retail or lower income jobs and if they do the coverage sucks. If your employment does not offer it you could get some but it's really expensive and does someone who makes 7.50 or 8.50 an hour really going to afford that? And say they do find a place that isn't hella-expensive I bet the deductible is high and offers bad coverage. And that's if the person is able to get it. People are and have been treated like commodities. Your just not getting what I'm saying dude.
just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
Sure there a lot of them out there, though what good is it if someone got denied coverage, or lost their job, or had an illness or something that put them in the category of "pre-existing", their choice is to get something that is very expensive and offers little coverage. That's not really a choice. If strong regulations were put in place to make health insurance more like car insurance then there would be a world of difference. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_SUMMARY.pdf is a summery of the house bill. But premiums that keep going up year after year while offering less if no the same coverage isn't how it should be.
Wow... you are right Phobic... Just no choices for insurance companies out there...
Aetna,
American Association of Retired Persons,
American Family Insurance,
American National Insurance Company,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Assurant,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Cigna,
EmblemHealth,
Fortis,
Golden Rule Insurance Company,
Group Health Cooperative,
Health Net,
HealthMarkets,
Humana Inc.,
Independence Blue Cross,
Independent Health,
Intermountain Health Care,
Kaiser Permanente,
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon,
Medical Mutual of Ohio,
Premera,
Principal Financial Group,
Regence Group,
Scott & White,
Shelter Insurance Companies,
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans,
UnitedHealth Group,
Unitrin, and
Wellpoint
And that was just what I came up with in about 2 minutes searching...
Your missing my point smart a*s! Sure there are a lot of companies out there, many have their parent group but that means bupkis. I never said that there weren't companies out there, I said there are no real choices. If you have a job your employer most likely pays for it or at least most of it. Then great your set, though a lot of them don't have great plans unless your lucky. If they do offer insurance, and a lot of places don't especially in retail or lower income jobs and if they do the coverage sucks. If your employment does not offer it you could get some but it's really expensive and does someone who makes 7.50 or 8.50 an hour really going to afford that? And say they do find a place that isn't hella-expensive I bet the deductible is high and offers bad coverage. And that's if the person is able to get it. People are and have been treated like commodities. Your just not getting what I'm saying dude.
and once the government takes over there will only be one choice. link
cant even pay out of pocket if you want, or get loans, or seek charity, or many other options that actually exist today.
just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
Sure there a lot of them out there, though what good is it if someone got denied coverage, or lost their job, or had an illness or something that put them in the category of "pre-existing", their choice is to get something that is very expensive and offers little coverage. That's not really a choice. If strong regulations were put in place to make health insurance more like car insurance then there would be a world of difference. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_SUMMARY.pdf is a summery of the house bill. But premiums that keep going up year after year while offering less if no the same coverage isn't how it should be.
Wow... you are right Phobic... Just no choices for insurance companies out there...
Aetna,
American Association of Retired Persons,
American Family Insurance,
American National Insurance Company,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Assurant,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Cigna,
EmblemHealth,
Fortis,
Golden Rule Insurance Company,
Group Health Cooperative,
Health Net,
HealthMarkets,
Humana Inc.,
Independence Blue Cross,
Independent Health,
Intermountain Health Care,
Kaiser Permanente,
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon,
Medical Mutual of Ohio,
Premera,
Principal Financial Group,
Regence Group,
Scott & White,
Shelter Insurance Companies,
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans,
UnitedHealth Group,
Unitrin, and
Wellpoint
And that was just what I came up with in about 2 minutes searching...
Your missing my point smart a*s! Sure there are a lot of companies out there, many have their parent group but that means bupkis. I never said that there weren't companies out there, I said there are no real choices. If you have a job your employer most likely pays for it or at least most of it. Then great your set, though a lot of them don't have great plans unless your lucky. If they do offer insurance, and a lot of places don't especially in retail or lower income jobs and if they do the coverage sucks. If your employment does not offer it you could get some but it's really expensive and does someone who makes 7.50 or 8.50 an hour really going to afford that? And say they do find a place that isn't hella-expensive I bet the deductible is high and offers bad coverage. And that's if the person is able to get it. People are and have been treated like commodities. Your just not getting what I'm saying dude.
and once the government takes over there will only be one choice. link
cant even pay out of pocket if you want, or get loans, or seek charity, or many other options that actually exist today.
Damn you Kuzi! You beat me to my next point. Phobic, your entire arguement in your last post was that there is not enough competition... Now wait that sounds like a free market system? OMG that can't be right... But when the government takes over you will have 0 options... NONE. That is not freedom and that is not what I want for me and my family.
Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.
If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.
Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.
consider this as an alternative to a government take over of health care....
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes. Those who complain about the cost of medical care and insurance must be confronted with the fact that if we cannot afford medical care, we surely cannot afford to pay taxes on the money we set aside for it
Allow an individual or corporate tax deduction equal to double the value of the service for all charity care by medical care providers. At one time America had a vigorous network of private charity care, which was largely destroyed by the government barging in. We need to restore that environment of private charity, which was more efficient, effective and compassionate.
Pass legislation now proposed in the U.S. Congress that would give every individual or business the ability to purchase insurance in a national market, from insurance companies in any state. That would allow for ownership of health insurance that is more affordable and can follow individuals from job to job and state to state. The increased competition between insurance companies would restrain the cost of insurance.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles.
Broaden the availability of optional coverage provided by Medicare Advantage, but allow for additional tax-deductible premiums to be paid by those seniors who elect such options. More choices from more options should be available to retirees—but not paid for by taxpayers. This would allow for expanded and more efficient coverage, and reintroduce an element of competition to those who seek to provide health care to seniors.
Allow Medicare patients to utilize their Health Savings Accounts to pay for services from their Medicare physicians. This could bring thousands of doctors back into the Medicare program overnight and eliminate the ridiculous and unjust prohibition on those who want to spend their own money on their medical care.
just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
Sure there a lot of them out there, though what good is it if someone got denied coverage, or lost their job, or had an illness or something that put them in the category of "pre-existing", their choice is to get something that is very expensive and offers little coverage. That's not really a choice. If strong regulations were put in place to make health insurance more like car insurance then there would be a world of difference. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_SUMMARY.pdf is a summery of the house bill. But premiums that keep going up year after year while offering less if no the same coverage isn't how it should be.
Wow... you are right Phobic... Just no choices for insurance companies out there...
Aetna,
American Association of Retired Persons,
American Family Insurance,
American National Insurance Company,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Assurant,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Cigna,
EmblemHealth,
Fortis,
Golden Rule Insurance Company,
Group Health Cooperative,
Health Net,
HealthMarkets,
Humana Inc.,
Independence Blue Cross,
Independent Health,
Intermountain Health Care,
Kaiser Permanente,
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon,
Medical Mutual of Ohio,
Premera,
Principal Financial Group,
Regence Group,
Scott & White,
Shelter Insurance Companies,
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans,
UnitedHealth Group,
Unitrin, and
Wellpoint
And that was just what I came up with in about 2 minutes searching...
Your missing my point smart a*s! Sure there are a lot of companies out there, many have their parent group but that means bupkis. I never said that there weren't companies out there, I said there are no real choices. If you have a job your employer most likely pays for it or at least most of it. Then great your set, though a lot of them don't have great plans unless your lucky. If they do offer insurance, and a lot of places don't especially in retail or lower income jobs and if they do the coverage sucks. If your employment does not offer it you could get some but it's really expensive and does someone who makes 7.50 or 8.50 an hour really going to afford that? And say they do find a place that isn't hella-expensive I bet the deductible is high and offers bad coverage. And that's if the person is able to get it. People are and have been treated like commodities. Your just not getting what I'm saying dude.
and once the government takes over there will only be one choice. link
cant even pay out of pocket if you want, or get loans, or seek charity, or many other options that actually exist today.
Damn you Kuzi! You beat me to my next point. Phobic, your entire arguement in your last post was that there is not enough competition... Now wait that sounds like a free market system? OMG that can't be right... But when the government takes over you will have 0 options... NONE. That is not freedom and that is not what I want for me and my family.
Oh My Lord... really this dense? The current bill is not for government control over health care, it is to put regulations over insurance companies and offer a public insurance company set up by the government for people choose alongside the private.
just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
Sure there a lot of them out there, though what good is it if someone got denied coverage, or lost their job, or had an illness or something that put them in the category of "pre-existing", their choice is to get something that is very expensive and offers little coverage. That's not really a choice. If strong regulations were put in place to make health insurance more like car insurance then there would be a world of difference. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_SUMMARY.pdf is a summery of the house bill. But premiums that keep going up year after year while offering less if no the same coverage isn't how it should be.
Wow... you are right Phobic... Just no choices for insurance companies out there...
Aetna,
American Association of Retired Persons,
American Family Insurance,
American National Insurance Company,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Assurant,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Cigna,
EmblemHealth,
Fortis,
Golden Rule Insurance Company,
Group Health Cooperative,
Health Net,
HealthMarkets,
Humana Inc.,
Independence Blue Cross,
Independent Health,
Intermountain Health Care,
Kaiser Permanente,
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon,
Medical Mutual of Ohio,
Premera,
Principal Financial Group,
Regence Group,
Scott & White,
Shelter Insurance Companies,
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans,
UnitedHealth Group,
Unitrin, and
Wellpoint
And that was just what I came up with in about 2 minutes searching...
Your missing my point smart a*s! Sure there are a lot of companies out there, many have their parent group but that means bupkis. I never said that there weren't companies out there, I said there are no real choices. If you have a job your employer most likely pays for it or at least most of it. Then great your set, though a lot of them don't have great plans unless your lucky. If they do offer insurance, and a lot of places don't especially in retail or lower income jobs and if they do the coverage sucks. If your employment does not offer it you could get some but it's really expensive and does someone who makes 7.50 or 8.50 an hour really going to afford that? And say they do find a place that isn't hella-expensive I bet the deductible is high and offers bad coverage. And that's if the person is able to get it. People are and have been treated like commodities. Your just not getting what I'm saying dude.
and once the government takes over there will only be one choice. link
cant even pay out of pocket if you want, or get loans, or seek charity, or many other options that actually exist today.
Damn you Kuzi! You beat me to my next point. Phobic, your entire arguement in your last post was that there is not enough competition... Now wait that sounds like a free market system? OMG that can't be right... But when the government takes over you will have 0 options... NONE. That is not freedom and that is not what I want for me and my family.
Oh My Lord... really this dense? The current bill is not for government control over health care, it is to put regulations over insurance companies and offer a public insurance company set up by the government for people choose alongside the private.
better take a closer look.... it will make it cheaper for companies to dump you off of the company health care plan and force you into government health care. how is that a choice again?
and THIS doesnt seem like much of a choice either...
Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.
Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.
If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.
Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.
consider this as an alternative to a government take over of health care....
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes. Those who complain about the cost of medical care and insurance must be confronted with the fact that if we cannot afford medical care, we surely cannot afford to pay taxes on the money we set aside for it
Allow an individual or corporate tax deduction equal to double the value of the service for all charity care by medical care providers. At one time America had a vigorous network of private charity care, which was largely destroyed by the government barging in. We need to restore that environment of private charity, which was more efficient, effective and compassionate.
Pass legislation now proposed in the U.S. Congress that would give every individual or business the ability to purchase insurance in a national market, from insurance companies in any state. That would allow for ownership of health insurance that is more affordable and can follow individuals from job to job and state to state. The increased competition between insurance companies would restrain the cost of insurance.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles.
Broaden the availability of optional coverage provided by Medicare Advantage, but allow for additional tax-deductible premiums to be paid by those seniors who elect such options. More choices from more options should be available to retirees—but not paid for by taxpayers. This would allow for expanded and more efficient coverage, and reintroduce an element of competition to those who seek to provide health care to seniors.
Allow Medicare patients to utilize their Health Savings Accounts to pay for services from their Medicare physicians. This could bring thousands of doctors back into the Medicare program overnight and eliminate the ridiculous and unjust prohibition on those who want to spend their own money on their medical care.
Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.
If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.
Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.
consider this as an alternative to a government take over of health care....
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes. Those who complain about the cost of medical care and insurance must be confronted with the fact that if we cannot afford medical care, we surely cannot afford to pay taxes on the money we set aside for it
Allow an individual or corporate tax deduction equal to double the value of the service for all charity care by medical care providers. At one time America had a vigorous network of private charity care, which was largely destroyed by the government barging in. We need to restore that environment of private charity, which was more efficient, effective and compassionate.
Pass legislation now proposed in the U.S. Congress that would give every individual or business the ability to purchase insurance in a national market, from insurance companies in any state. That would allow for ownership of health insurance that is more affordable and can follow individuals from job to job and state to state. The increased competition between insurance companies would restrain the cost of insurance.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles.
Broaden the availability of optional coverage provided by Medicare Advantage, but allow for additional tax-deductible premiums to be paid by those seniors who elect such options. More choices from more options should be available to retirees—but not paid for by taxpayers. This would allow for expanded and more efficient coverage, and reintroduce an element of competition to those who seek to provide health care to seniors.
Allow Medicare patients to utilize their Health Savings Accounts to pay for services from their Medicare physicians. This could bring thousands of doctors back into the Medicare program overnight and eliminate the ridiculous and unjust prohibition on those who want to spend their own money on their medical care.
Like I said, it would probably be easier to just make health insurance like auto insurance. But I could see either working. You two are just so damn scared of a govt healthcare system, and have so much love for the private insurer's even with all the things they are doing. Kind of sums it up right there.
you seem to think that health insurance companies are in business to be nice. they arent. they are in it to make money by providing a service. if they are going to lose money by picking you up, why would they want to do that? health care is not a right. you cannot force a company to provide its service. if you forced me to cook for you (you need food right) and i lost money on it, that would make me a slave, wouldnt it? if you force an insurance company to provide insurance when they know they will lose money on it arent you just enslaving them?
we dont have Rights to things in the USA. we have the Right to pursue things, but not to have them. our rights also do not include the Right to violate the rights of others, no matter how noble the cause.
you seem to think that health insurance companies are in business to be nice. they arent. they are in it to make money by providing a service. if they are going to lose money by picking you up, why would they want to do that? health care is not a right. you cannot force a company to provide its service. if you forced me to cook for you (you need food right) and i lost money on it, that would make me a slave, wouldnt it? if you force an insurance company to provide insurance when they know they will lose money on it arent you just enslaving them?
we dont have Rights to things in the USA. we have the Right to pursue things, but not to have them. our rights also do not include the Right to violate the rights of others, no matter how noble the cause.
See you see health care as something like a plasma tv. Well I guess that some people could see it that way, maybe you need some lessons in the world. Maybe you need to go through what millions of people have gone through until you see the truth. Making money is one thing, making money off the deaths of others is just morally wrong. It is about what is right Kuzi, and your continued statements just show your dis-connect with civil society. I would have hoped that our country would have moved passed the barbaric-ness of our ancestors. But looking at the hardships that keep us as a Nation from being able to see past ourselves that day may be far off. As an example just to have 2 people getting married of the same sex is hard to keep into law because people have to use their feelings towards it, rather than doing what they want, people not to dictate what they do. Why is a hetrosexual able to have equal rights but not a homosexual? Again it's not right. Why should people die because they are denied insurance? Why should these companies rob them of their money throughout the years then drop them and they have to die or die in mountains of debt? It all comes down to civility and what is morally right. You obviously are either morally damaged or confused that greed will offer morality. Why would a company stop itself from making more money that it did before? There really isn't a reason but what business should be ran on is a set of rules and what is right. If I rob a customer of their paid service such as I do something that they paid for but do it half-assed, then they can go after me with legal recourse. And since I don't have multi-millions it's more or less an equal battle. Going up against the large business's today being a regular person would be impossible. That's the un-equality in business today. The people are losing leverage over them or at least lost equal footing against them. They have become too powerful.
The most important lesson I've learned in my years of being a self-employed cabinetmaker is that you can sheer sheep over and over, but you can only skin him once. Insurance companies make a very low profit margin, a lot less than me. It behooves them, IMO, to do whatever they have to do to keep a profit. They have a responsibility to their stockholders, employees, and the like. Most companies sheer, rather than skin as it's better for business that way.
at the expense of killing people? this isn't a commodity business or a service business, they are just brokers. They do nothing, the hospitals and doctors do.
They make a large profit margin actually. Record profits this year. If they didn't how would they afford the lobbying, the company bonus's, the bribes to congress, the jets with gold silverware, on and on....
See you see health care as something like a plasma tv.
a plasma tv is a good or a service. I cant afford one. ...yet. in a few years, when the technology is cheaper, i may be able to afford one.
Consider the contrasting case of the computer industry, which is much freer than the healthcare industry. When the newest, most souped-up, most software-laden computer with the most comprehensive service contract first comes out, it might cost $20,000 or more. Only wealthy Americans choose to buy, or can afford to buy, such an expensive model. Most Americans settle for a model and service contract that costs maybe $1,000 or less. But a couple of years later, after manufacturers have improved their manufacturing ability and brought their costs down, they can sell the old souped-up model for $1,000; and then the average man can enjoy what only the wealthiest could afford a couple of years earlier. Meanwhile, the wealthy can now buy an even more amazing new computer for $20,000.
This has been the pattern of all technological progress in all industries throughout the Industrial Revolution. A poor immigrant today making less than minimum wage off the books can afford to pay for a life-saving antibiotic that the richest of the rich could not obtain a few generations ago.
But suppose the government declares that owning a computer is a right, and so every American has the right to a quality computer, the best computer available. Then progress becomes an enemy of the state. Every new, $20,000 computer has to be provided to everyone. And so, instead of the average computer cost per person being around $1,000, the average cost is $20,000
Moreover, some people who had no computer before are now entitled to one. And they need more service, because they keep spilling booze on it. And those who had two computers must do with only one, with less service. And soon the computer models become more stripped down, because that’s the only way to pay for an equal computer for all.
this view … that everyone should be provided with the same level of health care and education, which are “essential services,” no matter their income level. In other words: Money should be only for luxuries. There should never be any incentive for someone to work hard for something really important such as food, or one’s health, or the safety of one’s family. The thinking, industrious man and the loafer deserve the same of all of that. Working hard and making money should be only for things you don’t really need anyway. In short, we should have socialism for anything important, and freedom only when it doesn’t matter much anyway.
Of course, this view is absurd. Our Founding Fathers did not fight for freedom just so that their progeny could play tiddlywinks. What we think of today as luxuries did not even exist back then. Freedom is and always will be a matter of survival. If this is news to anyone, he should take a look at countries whose farms are owned by the state.
...all of that from THIS article.
phobicsquirrel:
Well I guess that some people could see it that way, maybe you need some lessons in the world.
and maybe you need some lessons on how to keep an industry running.
phobicsquirrel:
making money off the deaths of others is just morally wrong.
so the undertaker, the coffin maker, and the embalmer shouldnt be paid either? what about the funeral home?
at least insurance companies are attempting to keep people alive while turning their profit.
phobicsquirrel:
It is about what is right Kuzi, and your continued statements just show your dis-connect with civil society.
it is not what you see as "right" or "noble" it is about RIGHTS.
your RIGHTS do not include the Right to violate the rights of others no matter how noble the cause.
your continued statements show just how disconnected you are with what an individual right is.
phobicsquirrel:
I would have hoped that our country would have moved passed the barbaric-ness of our ancestors.
what? that people have the right to keep what they own and and obtain legally? that they have a right to run their lives as they see fit without an all powerful government forcing them to do anything?
phobicsquirrel:
As an example just to have 2 people getting married of the same sex is hard to keep into law because people have to use their feelings towards it, rather than doing what they want, people not to dictate what they do. Why is a hetrosexual able to have equal rights but not a homosexual?
AMEN!!! thats what im talkin about!!
phobicsquirrel:
Why should people die because they are denied insurance? Why should these companies rob them of their money throughout the years then drop them and they have to die or die in mountains of debt? It all comes down to civility and what is morally right. You obviously are either morally damaged or confused that greed will offer morality.
and you arent listening to what im saying at all. there needs to be reform, but the government taking over is not the reform that is needed. there are things that are wrong with the system. there are ways to fix it. Nationalizing the system will not fix it.
phobicsquirrel:
Why would a company stop itself from making more money that it did before?
they wouldnt
phobicsquirrel:
There really isn't a reason but what business should be ran on is a set of rules and what is right.
and who decides those rules? as long as a business is not violating rights, i have no problem with them. if i dont like their practices i dont use their goods or services.
phobicsquirrel:
If I rob a customer of their paid service such as I do something that they paid for but do it half-assed, then they can go after me with legal recourse.
as well they should
phobicsquirrel:
And since I don't have multi-millions it's more or less an equal battle. Going up against the large business's today being a regular person would be impossible.
and that may be part of the problem that needs to be changed. but a government take over is not the only way to fix .
phobicsquirrel:
That's the un-equality in business today. The people are losing leverage over them or at least lost equal footing against them. They have become too powerful.
i disagree with this. If i dont like a company i dont use the products. thats good enough leverage to me.
and HERE is a link to AP NEWS titled "FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat"
Record profits.... Their actual margin is 1 or2 percent, I make 8-10, but my volume is much lower so it appears as though they are making huge margins, when in fact they are not.
Kuzi your arguements on whether insurance is a right or a privlidge is just scewed bud. Like I said, you just don't get it. There are two views on it, as there are always, though some are more morally sound. I use to think that everyone should be in the wild themselves and if they can can take more power to them and if they can't, may the strong survive. But after serving combat tours and doing volunteer work with people who are "lazy" as puro would put it, I got over my selfishness and lack of principles. Maybe you should get out and do some volunteer work or be around these people who had their lives ruined do to the insurance companies (as an example). Making profit off of killing people is not good, no matter what business it is.
Kuzi your arguements on whether insurance is a right or a privlidge is just scewed bud. Like I said, you just don't get it.
no, you dont get that this country was founded on individual rights. Government heath care is unconstitutional. Whenever a government attempts to guarantee any service (such as health care) as a "right," it must also control it. This can only be done by violating citizens' actual rights. THAT is messed up.
phobicsquirrel:
There are two views on it, as there are always, though some are more morally sound.
and violating the rights of the individual is never a moral action.
phobicsquirrel:
I use to think that everyone should be in the wild themselves and if they can can take more power to them and if they can't, may the strong survive. But after serving combat tours and doing volunteer work with people who are "lazy" as puro would put it, I got over my selfishness and lack of principles. Maybe you should get out and do some volunteer work or be around these people who had their lives ruined do to the insurance companies (as an example). Making profit off of killing people is not good, no matter what business it is.
wow... im immoral for protecting the rights of the individual. .
i have done plenty of volunteer work. dont insult me by assuming i havent.
the insurence company is not killing people. if the insurance company didnt exist they would die just as if they did. if the company is actually, physically killing people then they are violating the rights of the individual. but since they are not killing them, and they would die even if the company didnt exist, they are not violating their rights.
like i said before, the system has its problems, but a government run system is not how to fix it.
government mandates have messed up health care as is. State-level reforms to make insurance affordable include eliminating mandatory insurance benefits( a state mandate), community rating(a state mandate), and guaranteed issue( another state mandate). Largely because of such controls, the average price of individual and family insurance in the five most expensive states is three times the price in the five least expensive states. Link
It's ironic Phebes that you seem to constantly bash the religious right for their "morality," but you seem to think your sh*t doesn't stink. Morality is a matter of opinion, and as we all know, opinions are like politicians.... They all stink. Why is your view of morality any more "right" than Jerry Fallwell's? Or Pat Robertson's? (I can't stand either one of those two either) You preach morality but bash religious morality... That seems a bit... ohhhh whats the word... hypocritical!
having people dropped and gouged for coverage, if they can get it is really something that as an American I can say is a good thing... Yeah, just like how a black man couldn't eat at the same restaurant in the 50's. There isn't levels of morality. I do bash the right for their morality because they are hypocrites, and there is no irony there. They will fight to the death for saving a fetus but not he mother, or they will stand up for marriage but only when it doesn't mean gay people getting married. They have no morals. Plain and simple. My sh*t doesn't stink on this, I am saying that people should have protections for equality something that this country seems to have such a Frigg'n hard time giving. And a lot of that is from the damn religious wacko's out there. Take the catholic church, they are more corrupt than any government and use religion as their defense though they like to pin things they deem not correct in being against the law of God. There is no equality in that. Religion doesn't say treat people differently and to kill, that is a slant of religion and people using religion to do their own deeds. Yes, I do bash religious nut jobs, just like I would bash anyone who wants to give one group something but not another. Cally me a hypocrite for saying that just shows just how much you don't know about it. Not all religious people fall under what I was generalizing just to let you know.
Puro, kuzi maybe you guys should take a trip down to iran or north korea and see what it is like living under that kind of rule, or go to the congo where tyrany has run a muck, or be around people who have been denied health insurance or can't afford it then come back to me and talk. Why defend companies the way you do? I mean honestly the business ethics in this country have been swallowed up by greed. I don't care whether the govt run health care or private companies do, I just want it to be affordable for all and people aren't treated like cans of food. Healthcare isn't like car insurance where you can choose not to have a car, it is something that should be given, or at least giving at a rate that isn't going to bankrupt someone. We can go around in circle all day on this, basically the outcome will be the same, you guys are corporatist and I'm a humanist.
The most important lesson I've learned in my years of being a self-employed cabinetmaker is that you can sheer sheep over and over, but you can only skin him once. Insurance companies make a very low profit margin, a lot less than me. It behooves them, IMO, to do whatever they have to do to keep a profit. They have a responsibility to their stockholders, employees, and the like. Most companies sheer, rather than skin as it's better for business that way.
UNless the US is in another galaxy... that statement just isn't true bro'. Insurance companies make a VERY healthy profit margin. What they have is very little business expenses. They just run offices, take in premiums and payout as little as they have to in claims. Insurance of all kinds is a VERY lucrative business.
Pheebs. I can't believe you are still banging your head against the wall in this thread. There have been others who after months of frustrations have just left the forums altogether. Don't let that happen with you Pheebs.
Now, I hope NOT to start something here with this statement but...
Pheebs, Kuzi is a nice guy, with lot's of cigar knowledge. However, he is also someone who refuses to be wrong, or to (as he see's it) lose an arguement or debate.
Your valid points will be brushed aside, or ignored completely and new points which favor his views will be constantly inserted.
I gave up trying to convince Kuzi (and Puro too) that thier views were not the only views out there, or even that thier views were NOT in step with millions of other Americans.
There are people out there who would argue about something even after it has been totally proven to be wrong. (The Israeli's come to mind) Kuzi and Puro fall into this category. It is very hard to pin down a moving target. (IMO)
I just don't want to see more GOOD members leave the forums over political debate that goes nowhere. I think after a while winning the debate becomes much more important to some people then the information being passed back and forth. Too bad, because with these types of blinders on, true debate only suffers.
If you are only willing to grace the world with your knowledge, while refusing that others knowledge is as useful, and necessary as your own... then you are not debateing. You are just waiting for the other person to stop talking their trash so that you can get back to educating the masses.
Let's get back to talking about cigars. Not one thing said in this forum is going to change a damned thing in the real world, unfortunatley.
Pheebs. I can't believe you are still banging your head against the wall in this thread. There have been others who after months of frustrations have just left the forums altogether. Don't let that happen with you Pheebs.
Now, I hope NOT to start something here with this statement but...
Pheebs, Kuzi is a nice guy, with lot's of cigar knowledge. However, he is also someone who refuses to be wrong, or to (as he see's it) lose an arguement or debate.
Your valid points will be brushed aside, or ignored completely and new points which favor his views will be constantly inserted.
I gave up trying to convince Kuzi (and Puro too) that thier views were not the only views out there, or even that thier views were NOT in step with millions of other Americans.
There are people out there who would argue about something even after it has been totally proven to be wrong. (The Israeli's come to mind) Kuzi and Puro fall into this category. It is very hard to pin down a moving target. (IMO)
I just don't want to see more GOOD members leave the forums over political debate that goes nowhere. I think after a while winning the debate becomes much more important to some people then the information being passed back and forth. Too bad, because with these types of blinders on, true debate only suffers.
If you are only willing to grace the world with your knowledge, while refusing that others knowledge is as useful, and necessary as your own... then you are not debateing. You are just waiting for the other person to stop talking their trash so that you can get back to educating the masses.
Let's get back to talking about cigars. Not one thing said in this forum is going to change a damned thing in the real world, unfortunatley.
Laker, I will toast to every d@mn thing you just said. Pheebs and I both get emotional on issues (and I know you do do---including on my end, my little fit I had with you awhile back), and get ready to leave this place because of the closed mindedness, inability to admit flaws in opinions, and overinflated sense of self opinion around here....but on cigars we all can enjoy a good conversation and common ground and thats at least something. Thanks for the cool temper from one of the guys on here that doesnt always have one.
Pheebs. I can't believe you are still banging your head against the wall in this thread. There have been others who after months of frustrations have just left the forums altogether. Don't let that happen with you Pheebs.
Now, I hope NOT to start something here with this statement but...
Pheebs, Kuzi is a nice guy, with lot's of cigar knowledge. However, he is also someone who refuses to be wrong, or to (as he see's it) lose an arguement or debate.
Your valid points will be brushed aside, or ignored completely and new points which favor his views will be constantly inserted.
I gave up trying to convince Kuzi (and Puro too) that thier views were not the only views out there, or even that thier views were NOT in step with millions of other Americans.
There are people out there who would argue about something even after it has been totally proven to be wrong. (The Israeli's come to mind) Kuzi and Puro fall into this category. It is very hard to pin down a moving target. (IMO)
I just don't want to see more GOOD members leave the forums over political debate that goes nowhere. I think after a while winning the debate becomes much more important to some people then the information being passed back and forth. Too bad, because with these types of blinders on, true debate only suffers.
If you are only willing to grace the world with your knowledge, while refusing that others knowledge is as useful, and necessary as your own... then you are not debateing. You are just waiting for the other person to stop talking their trash so that you can get back to educating the masses.
Let's get back to talking about cigars. Not one thing said in this forum is going to change a damned thing in the real world, unfortunatley.
Laker, I will toast to every d@mn thing you just said. Pheebs and I both get emotional on issues (and I know you do do---including on my end, my little fit I had with you awhile back), and get ready to leave this place because of the closed mindedness, inability to admit flaws in opinions, and overinflated sense of self opinion around here....but on cigars we all can enjoy a good conversation and common ground and thats at least something. Thanks for the cool temper from one of the guys on here that doesnt always have one.
I do bash the right for their morality because they are hypocrites, and there is no irony there. They will fight to the death for saving a fetus but not he mother,
thats not true. most republicans are ok with abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. it was even in the 200(ish) page republican health care bill. look it up yourself. you dont care about my links anyway.
phobicsquirrel:
or they will stand up for marriage but only when it doesn't mean gay people getting married.
yeah... that is messed up.
phobicsquirrel:
They have no morals. Plain and simple.
thats not true. and you cant prove it. they just dont agree with you.
phobicsquirrel:
My sh*t doesn't stink on this, I am saying that people should have protections for equality
we do. we have the right to take action and try to get health insurance. but we do not have a right to insurance.
phobicsquirrel:
Puro, kuzi maybe you guys should take a trip down to iran or north korea and see what it is like living under that kind of rule,
or go to the congo where tyrany has run a muck,
yeah... because the government has taken over everything and the rights of the individual are being violated. power corrupts. the more power the government has over its people, the more corrupt it will be. if we hand the power of 1/6th of the economy over to the government it too will be corrupted and we will be one step closer to the congo, iran, north korea, communist china, fascist germany...
phobicsquirrel:
or be around people who have been denied health insurance or can't afford it then come back to me and talk.
i AM one of those people. can i talk now? i cant afford some medicine that is prescribed to me. (about $900 a month BTW) i refuse to violate the rights of someone else to get it. that is greedy.
phobicsquirrel:
Why defend companies the way you do? I mean honestly the business ethics in this country have been swallowed up by greed.
some yes. and if they violate the rights of the indvidual, they should be punished. if they have not then they shouldnt be. what is so hard to understand about that?
phobicsquirrel:
I don't care whether the govt run health care or private companies do, I just want it to be affordable for all and people aren't treated like cans of food.
i too want affordable health care
and i also want everyone to have puppies and kittens and to agree on everything and farts to smell like cotton candy, but we live in reality and that will not happen when you have a government run system or the system we currently have.
phobicsquirrel:
Healthcare isn't like car insurance where you can choose not to have a car
no, i need a car to get to work. there are no buses that run that way for me. its a long walk that would take almost 4 hours each way and the snow in the winter here sucks. i cant afford to move. maybe if i got a better job... maybe if i got a better job i could have better health care too...
phobicsquirrel:
it is something that should be given, or at least giving at a rate that isn't going to bankrupt someone.
and who is gunna pay for it? it isnt free. you cant mandate the cost down it still costs money to dole out health care. people still need to make a living providing that service. if you try and mandate the cost down, then the quality will fall and coverage will be slow at best. look at canadas waiting lines for that.
phobicsquirrel:
We can go around in circle all day on this, basically the outcome will be the same, you guys are corporatist and I'm a humanist.
no, im not looking for anyone to run my life. im looking to run my life myself. the system we have is broken yes. are their rights being violated by some insurance companies? probably. does that mean that the government should take over the industry? no. that is still someone telling me how to run my life.
Pheebs. I can't believe you are still banging your head against the wall in this thread. There have been others who after months of frustrations have just left the forums altogether. Don't let that happen with you Pheebs.
Now, I hope NOT to start something here with this statement but...
Pheebs, Kuzi is a nice guy, with lot's of cigar knowledge. However, he is also someone who refuses to be wrong, or to (as he see's it) lose an arguement or debate.
Your valid points will be brushed aside, or ignored completely and new points which favor his views will be constantly inserted.
I gave up trying to convince Kuzi (and Puro too) that thier views were not the only views out there, or even that thier views were NOT in step with millions of other Americans.
There are people out there who would argue about something even after it has been totally proven to be wrong. (The Israeli's come to mind) Kuzi and Puro fall into this category. It is very hard to pin down a moving target. (IMO)
I just don't want to see more GOOD members leave the forums over political debate that goes nowhere. I think after a while winning the debate becomes much more important to some people then the information being passed back and forth. Too bad, because with these types of blinders on, true debate only suffers.
If you are only willing to grace the world with your knowledge, while refusing that others knowledge is as useful, and necessary as your own... then you are not debateing. You are just waiting for the other person to stop talking their trash so that you can get back to educating the masses.
Let's get back to talking about cigars. Not one thing said in this forum is going to change a damned thing in the real world, unfortunatley.
Laker, I will toast to every d@mn thing you just said. Pheebs and I both get emotional on issues (and I know you do do---including on my end, my little fit I had with you awhile back), and get ready to leave this place because of the closed mindedness, inability to admit flaws in opinions, and overinflated sense of self opinion around here....but on cigars we all can enjoy a good conversation and common ground and thats at least something. Thanks for the cool temper from one of the guys on here that doesnt always have one.
Yup. sound advice.
funny, when you have an opinion you are always right. when i have an opinion i am always wrong. you claim i wont ever change my opinion... yet i doubt you will either. you bush aside my links, refuse to look at them in many cases even though they are true, and have been vetted, but somehow I am the one that is wrong. and what about the opinions of millions of americans that arent on your side? that agree with me and puro? you just sweep them under the carpet too. you sir are a hypocrite as well. only 42% Support Health Care Reform After Release of Pelosi's Version
but that statistic means nothing to you. im still wrong.
Comments
Aetna, American Association of Retired Persons, American Family Insurance, American National Insurance Company, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Assurant, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Cigna, EmblemHealth, Fortis, Golden Rule Insurance Company, Group Health Cooperative, Health Net, HealthMarkets, Humana Inc., Independence Blue Cross, Independent Health, Intermountain Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon, Medical Mutual of Ohio, Premera, Principal Financial Group, Regence Group, Scott & White, Shelter Insurance Companies, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, UnitedHealth Group, Unitrin, and Wellpoint
And that was just what I came up with in about 2 minutes searching...
cant even pay out of pocket if you want, or get loans, or seek charity, or many other options that actually exist today.
If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.
Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.
consider this as an alternative to a government take over of health care....
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes. Those who complain about the cost of medical care and insurance must be confronted with the fact that if we cannot afford medical care, we surely cannot afford to pay taxes on the money we set aside for it
Allow an individual or corporate tax deduction equal to double the value of the service for all charity care by medical care providers. At one time America had a vigorous network of private charity care, which was largely destroyed by the government barging in. We need to restore that environment of private charity, which was more efficient, effective and compassionate.
Pass legislation now proposed in the U.S. Congress that would give every individual or business the ability to purchase insurance in a national market, from insurance companies in any state. That would allow for ownership of health insurance that is more affordable and can follow individuals from job to job and state to state. The increased competition between insurance companies would restrain the cost of insurance.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles.
Broaden the availability of optional coverage provided by Medicare Advantage, but allow for additional tax-deductible premiums to be paid by those seniors who elect such options. More choices from more options should be available to retirees—but not paid for by taxpayers. This would allow for expanded and more efficient coverage, and reintroduce an element of competition to those who seek to provide health care to seniors.
Allow Medicare patients to utilize their Health Savings Accounts to pay for services from their Medicare physicians. This could bring thousands of doctors back into the Medicare program overnight and eliminate the ridiculous and unjust prohibition on those who want to spend their own money on their medical care.
and TORT reform.
this has been a version of Richard E. Ralston's Seven Simple Rules for Health Care Reform
it will make it cheaper for companies to dump you off of the company health care plan and force you into government health care. how is that a choice again?
Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.
we dont have Rights to things in the USA. we have the Right to pursue things, but not to have them.
our rights also do not include the Right to violate the rights of others, no matter how noble the cause.
Consider the contrasting case of the computer industry, which is much freer than the healthcare industry. When the newest, most souped-up, most software-laden computer with the most comprehensive service contract first comes out, it might cost $20,000 or more. Only wealthy Americans choose to buy, or can afford to buy, such an expensive model. Most Americans settle for a model and service contract that costs maybe $1,000 or less. But a couple of years later, after manufacturers have improved their manufacturing ability and brought their costs down, they can sell the old souped-up model for $1,000; and then the average man can enjoy what only the wealthiest could afford a couple of years earlier. Meanwhile, the wealthy can now buy an even more amazing new computer for $20,000.
This has been the pattern of all technological progress in all industries throughout the Industrial Revolution. A poor immigrant today making less than minimum wage off the books can afford to pay for a life-saving antibiotic that the richest of the rich could not obtain a few generations ago.
But suppose the government declares that owning a computer is a right, and so every American has the right to a quality computer, the best computer available. Then progress becomes an enemy of the state. Every new, $20,000 computer has to be provided to everyone. And so, instead of the average computer cost per person being around $1,000, the average cost is $20,000
Moreover, some people who had no computer before are now entitled to one. And they need more service, because they keep spilling booze on it. And those who had two computers must do with only one, with less service. And soon the computer models become more stripped down, because that’s the only way to pay for an equal computer for all.
this view … that everyone should be provided with the same level of health care and education, which are “essential services,” no matter their income level. In other words: Money should be only for luxuries. There should never be any incentive for someone to work hard for something really important such as food, or one’s health, or the safety of one’s family. The thinking, industrious man and the loafer deserve the same of all of that. Working hard and making money should be only for things you don’t really need anyway. In short, we should have socialism for anything important, and freedom only when it doesn’t matter much anyway.
Of course, this view is absurd. Our Founding Fathers did not fight for freedom just so that their progeny could play tiddlywinks. What we think of today as luxuries did not even exist back then. Freedom is and always will be a matter of survival. If this is news to anyone, he should take a look at countries whose farms are owned by the state.
...all of that from THIS article. and maybe you need some lessons on how to keep an industry running. so the undertaker, the coffin maker, and the embalmer shouldnt be paid either? what about the funeral home?
at least insurance companies are attempting to keep people alive while turning their profit.
it is not what you see as "right" or "noble" it is about RIGHTS.
your RIGHTS do not include the Right to violate the rights of others no matter how noble the cause.
your continued statements show just how disconnected you are with what an individual right is. what? that people have the right to keep what they own and and obtain legally? that they have a right to run their lives as they see fit without an all powerful government forcing them to do anything? AMEN!!! thats what im talkin about!! and you arent listening to what im saying at all. there needs to be reform, but the government taking over is not the reform that is needed. there are things that are wrong with the system. there are ways to fix it. Nationalizing the system will not fix it. they wouldnt and who decides those rules? as long as a business is not violating rights, i have no problem with them. if i dont like their practices i dont use their goods or services. as well they should and that may be part of the problem that needs to be changed. but a government take over is not the only way to fix . i disagree with this. If i dont like a company i dont use the products. thats good enough leverage to me.
and HERE is a link to AP NEWS titled "FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat"
Whenever a government attempts to guarantee any service (such as health care) as a "right," it must also control it. This can only be done by violating citizens' actual rights. THAT is messed up. and violating the rights of the individual is never a moral action. wow... im immoral for protecting the rights of the individual. .
i have done plenty of volunteer work. dont insult me by assuming i havent.
the insurence company is not killing people. if the insurance company didnt exist they would die just as if they did. if the company is actually, physically killing people then they are violating the rights of the individual. but since they are not killing them, and they would die even if the company didnt exist, they are not violating their rights.
like i said before, the system has its problems, but a government run system is not how to fix it.
government mandates have messed up health care as is.
State-level reforms to make insurance affordable include eliminating mandatory insurance benefits( a state mandate), community rating(a state mandate), and guaranteed issue( another state mandate). Largely because of such controls, the average price of individual and family insurance in the five most expensive states is three times the price in the five least expensive states.
Link
Puro, kuzi maybe you guys should take a trip down to iran or north korea and see what it is like living under that kind of rule, or go to the congo where tyrany has run a muck, or be around people who have been denied health insurance or can't afford it then come back to me and talk. Why defend companies the way you do? I mean honestly the business ethics in this country have been swallowed up by greed. I don't care whether the govt run health care or private companies do, I just want it to be affordable for all and people aren't treated like cans of food. Healthcare isn't like car insurance where you can choose not to have a car, it is something that should be given, or at least giving at a rate that isn't going to bankrupt someone. We can go around in circle all day on this, basically the outcome will be the same, you guys are corporatist and I'm a humanist.
There have been others who after months of frustrations have just left the forums altogether. Don't let that happen with you Pheebs.
Now, I hope NOT to start something here with this statement but...
Pheebs, Kuzi is a nice guy, with lot's of cigar knowledge. However, he is also someone who refuses to be wrong, or to (as he see's it) lose an arguement or debate.
Your valid points will be brushed aside, or ignored completely and new points which favor his views will be constantly inserted.
I gave up trying to convince Kuzi (and Puro too) that thier views were not the only views out there, or even that thier views were NOT in step with millions of other Americans.
There are people out there who would argue about something even after it has been totally proven to be wrong. (The Israeli's come to mind) Kuzi and Puro fall into this category. It is very hard to pin down a moving target. (IMO)
I just don't want to see more GOOD members leave the forums over political debate that goes nowhere. I think after a while winning the debate becomes much more important to some people then the information being passed back and forth. Too bad, because with these types of blinders on, true debate only suffers.
If you are only willing to grace the world with your knowledge, while refusing that others knowledge is as useful, and necessary as your own... then you are not debateing. You are just waiting for the other person to stop talking their trash so that you can get back to educating the masses.
Let's get back to talking about cigars. Not one thing said in this forum is going to change a damned thing in the real world, unfortunatley.
and i also want everyone to have puppies and kittens and to agree on everything and farts to smell like cotton candy, but we live in reality and that will not happen when you have a government run system or the system we currently have. no, i need a car to get to work. there are no buses that run that way for me. its a long walk that would take almost 4 hours each way and the snow in the winter here sucks. i cant afford to move. maybe if i got a better job...
maybe if i got a better job i could have better health care too... and who is gunna pay for it? it isnt free. you cant mandate the cost down it still costs money to dole out health care. people still need to make a living providing that service. if you try and mandate the cost down, then the quality will fall and coverage will be slow at best. look at canadas waiting lines for that. no, im not looking for anyone to run my life. im looking to run my life myself. the system we have is broken yes. are their rights being violated by some insurance companies? probably. does that mean that the government should take over the industry? no. that is still someone telling me how to run my life.
but that statistic means nothing to you. im still wrong.