Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

 

2009-10-21 13:35:12
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6829|Texas - Bigger than France

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not many people can afford operations and other surgery.  That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.

Do you even understand the concept of insurance?  Either you are playing a fool or you are one.  I don't think it's the latter.
I think the interesting thing about NHI is the people I would think should be bitching about this idea are not.

Who usually gets sick all the time?  Who visits docs all the time?  Yeah...the people who are older and usually can afford to pay a bit more.
2009-10-21 13:35:50
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not many people can afford operations and other surgery.  That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.

Do you even understand the concept of insurance?  Either you are playing a fool or you are one.
Insurance is an optional cost spreading choice...it doesn't force a net loss on anyone.

Insurance relies on some people paying out all or most of the $20k over their lifetime and never using it...that's perfectly fair isn't it? They signed up for it to reduce their financial risk - not because it wins them free money.
2009-10-21 13:36:16
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6983|NJ

Red Forman wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Red Forman wrote:


meh...ill pay for better cancer survival rates kthx
hahaha you've obviously never delt with insurance companies.. They'd drop you like a rock, find out that you're great great grandfather had it and say it's a pre-existing condition... They're job isn't to provide you care, there job is to make money PERIOD>.
so why do we have the best cancer survival rates?  your cynical words are trumped by actual results.


(my mom has cancer.  dont tell me i have never dealt with insurance companies)
OK link that? I"m pretty sure it's inaccurate.. All I know is I see it time and time again, Remember I"m in finance where we look at people's credit.. Remember that after a while the hospitals/doctors will but a collection/judgement on peoples credit.. When Asking the client what it's from, usually it's from the insurance company not paying out the hospital/doctor???

The medical frield can't go after the insurance companies, because they don't take personal responsiblity for claims. So all these people(I'd say it's on a good 75% of peoples credit) end up having to pay a bill that was supposely covered..

But then again we do live in different places and insurance coverage is different from state to state.
2009-10-21 13:38:47
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6983|NJ

Pug wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not many people can afford operations and other surgery.  That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.

Do you even understand the concept of insurance?  Either you are playing a fool or you are one.  I don't think it's the latter.
I think the interesting thing about NHI is the people I would think should be bitching about this idea are not.

Who usually gets sick all the time?  Who visits docs all the time?  Yeah...the people who are older and usually can afford to pay a bit more.
You think you're paying the fool? Really basically a multi billion dollar industry that's pretty much a scam is a fool?

P.S. my cigs and liqure are taxed and taxed high, if that's not going to suppliment health care then I don't know what to say..

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2009-10-21 13:42:28)

2009-10-21 13:43:04
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5687

cpt.fass1 wrote:

OK link that? I"m pretty sure it's inaccurate..
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
Arduino Verdecchia et al., "Recent cancer survival in Europe : a 2000–02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data," Lancet Oncology, 2007, No. 8, pages 784–796.
2009-10-21 13:47:53
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6829|Texas - Bigger than France

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Pug wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not many people can afford operations and other surgery.  That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.

Do you even understand the concept of insurance?  Either you are playing a fool or you are one.  I don't think it's the latter.
I think the interesting thing about NHI is the people I would think should be bitching about this idea are not.

Who usually gets sick all the time?  Who visits docs all the time?  Yeah...the people who are older and usually can afford to pay a bit more.
You think you're paying the fool? Really basically a multi billion dollar industry that's pretty much a scam is a fool?

P.S. my cigs and liqure are taxed and taxed high, if that's not going to suppliment health care then I don't know what to say..
I'm talking about the old getting all the benefits of the new program

...not the drunk, smoking crowd

Are the young bitching about incurring the extra cost of a non-elective healthcare system when as an age group when they won't be using it as much?

Last edited by Pug (2009-10-21 13:48:24)

2009-10-21 13:48:11
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not many people can afford operations and other surgery.  That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.

Do you even understand the concept of insurance?  Either you are playing a fool or you are one.
Insurance is an optional cost spreading choice...it doesn't force a net loss on anyone.

Insurance relies on some people paying out all or most of the $20k over their lifetime and never using it...that's perfectly fair isn't it? They signed up for it to reduce their financial risk - not because it wins them free money.
They are contractually obligated to pay for whatever care at whatever cost.  If I incur $1million in operation costs, the insurance company won't make me pay $1 million.  They may increase my premium as a result, but I don't get billed for that money - the insurance company pays for me.  I don't pay, someone (or many other people) pay - through increased rates.  Someone is paying for my operation, and it's not always me.  Time that by thousands.  Insurance rates are based on many factors.  They charge me according to what the average person that has the same health indicatators will incur over their lifespan (or other time frame).  I may or may not incur those costs, but I still pay for them.  If I don't have medical issues, I've payed for nothing of my own, only other people's problems.  If I incur more medical expenses than the average, someone else pays the difference.  How is that not net gains and losses?  Sure, it (our system) doesn't force any costs.  The alternative would be a crapshoot on my health and/or death.

Your idyllic system - where everyone pays and earns their own money - isn't realistic.  A ridiculous majority of people wouldn't be able to pay for healthcare.  I hope you have $200k sitting for your healthcare, just in case.
2009-10-21 13:51:18
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7053|UK

SEREVENT wrote:

Vilham wrote:

I think the NHS is great. But this is a total waste of money. Fuck him tbh. Im sure there is someone far more worthy that needs an operation that actually contributes to this society that won't be able to get it because of people like him abusing the system.
I doubt its very fun for him...
and?

as to the pathological thing. I guess my mate has a pathological problem with cheating on girlfriends.

O no, wait a second, its called having no fucking self control. Pathological anything my arse.
2009-10-21 13:52:33
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6983|NJ
http://www.ncpa.org/about/ncpa-board-of-directors

Seems like an Unbiased group, also like I stated about health insurance difference from state to state, it's all europe..

On a side note I wonder if they're documenting treated patients instead of people on the whole. My uncle has lung and brain cancer, no insurance, found out what it was costing his family a day in the hospital.. So he said fuck this, got up, went home and died in his bed. I wonder if this man was in the statistics, probably not because he wasn't "treated"..

So going off these unbiased stats of people who are treated. You can say that there's probably alot more americans in this country who have problems, no insurance and don't get counted cause they find out too late for treatment.
2009-10-21 13:57:13
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not many people can afford operations and other surgery.  That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.

Do you even understand the concept of insurance?  Either you are playing a fool or you are one.
Insurance is an optional cost spreading choice...it doesn't force a net loss on anyone.

Insurance relies on some people paying out all or most of the $20k over their lifetime and never using it...that's perfectly fair isn't it? They signed up for it to reduce their financial risk - not because it wins them free money.
They are contractually obligated to pay for whatever care at whatever cost.  If I incur $1million in operation costs, the insurance company won't make me pay $1 million.  They may increase my premium as a result, but I don't get billed for that money - the insurance company pays for me.  I don't pay, someone (or many other people) pay - through increased rates.  Someone is paying for my operation, and it's not always me.  Time that by thousands.  Insurance rates are based on many factors.  They charge me according to what the average person that has the same health indicatators will incur over their lifespan (or other time frame).  I may or may not incur those costs, but I still pay for them.  If I don't have medical issues, I've payed for nothing of my own, only other people's problems.  If I incur more medical expenses than the average, someone else pays the difference.  How is that not net gains and losses?  Sure, it (our system) doesn't force any costs.  The alternative would be a crapshoot on my health and/or death.
It is your choice to enter in to the group bargaining with all the other people that may or may not have shitty luck, just like you. The alternative is irrelevant - no one is forcing you into insurance. The result of insurance acts a lot like socialized medicine sure, but that's not the difference between them. The difference between them is the infringement on your right to private property, and to do what you want with that property.

Net gain/loss is only a function of the profits for the insurance company. Everyone doesn't automatically "lose" when people start spending more on their health, anyone can cancel their insurance and not pay for that increase. If they have a contract that held variable rates, then they are obviously obligated to honor that contract, but they weren't held at gunpoint to sign the contract.

Personal freedom.
2009-10-21 13:59:48
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Your argument wasn't personal freedom, your argument was net loss/gain. 

I like personal freedom too.  High five o/
2009-10-21 14:00:33
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6983|NJ

Pug wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Pug wrote:


I think the interesting thing about NHI is the people I would think should be bitching about this idea are not.

Who usually gets sick all the time?  Who visits docs all the time?  Yeah...the people who are older and usually can afford to pay a bit more.
You think you're paying the fool? Really basically a multi billion dollar industry that's pretty much a scam is a fool?

P.S. my cigs and liqure are taxed and taxed high, if that's not going to suppliment health care then I don't know what to say..
I'm talking about the old getting all the benefits of the new program

...not the drunk, smoking crowd

Are the young bitching about incurring the extra cost of a non-elective healthcare system when as an age group when they won't be using it as much?
Dunno is 33 years old young?  I have a 245 lb friend whose on crazy meds, a friend whose wife has cronnens diese, now these are people who make good money and have good coverage. But call me looking for help cause rising health insurance and having to cover the remanders of there bills is pretty much bankrupting them..

Everyone is money poor but insurance rich..

I"m going through a rough patch in my bussiness right now, so the cost of health care had to be put on the back burner.. 350-500 a month just isn't in my budget right now.. You know either pay for health or pay for food.. I wonder if health insurance would cover starvation.
2009-10-21 14:08:09
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Your argument wasn't personal freedom, your argument was net loss/gain. 

I like personal freedom too.  High five o/
There is no net loss/gain when people are entering in an agreement for the insurance that clearly follows the methods you outlined above. It is worth what people pay for it - and obviously people pay for it.

The concept of net loss/gain only applies when there is a fixed income (taxation) and variable cost, or the converse. For an insurance company this is profit. Because the company is just a middle-man, the net loss/gain has nothing to do with the absolute cost of the medicine or how much people paid for it that year. They may adjust their rates for the next year in order to change their margins, but that doesn't change what people paid the year before. The debt is incurred neither on the people directly or on the people indirectly by the government saddling the debt.
2009-10-21 14:17:10
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6829|Texas - Bigger than France

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Dunno is 33 years old young?  I have a 245 lb friend whose on crazy meds, a friend whose wife has cronnens diese, now these are people who make good money and have good coverage. But call me looking for help cause rising health insurance and having to cover the remanders of there bills is pretty much bankrupting them..

Everyone is money poor but insurance rich..

I"m going through a rough patch in my bussiness right now, so the cost of health care had to be put on the back burner.. 350-500 a month just isn't in my budget right now.. You know either pay for health or pay for food.. I wonder if health insurance would cover starvation.
Well, that's the question there...will it be more with the new system?  And since it may not be optional?  I own a small biz too, so yeah, I know what sucks now...but some of the stuff I see proposed is going to make it (slightly) worse.  But the bogey is...how much?

I think it'll be more.  Because I believe the government's waste will be larger than the insurance company's profit margin.  I used to remember what % of each dollar went to the receipent, but can't right now.  I think it was between 20-30%.

In the meantime, if ur not already, free tax tip (i think you have a LLC):
...pay ur healthcare through the company as a guaranteed payment, it then becomes almost fully deductible
2009-10-21 14:21:08
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6919|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Your argument wasn't personal freedom, your argument was net loss/gain. 

I like personal freedom too.  High five o/
There is no net loss/gain when people are entering in an agreement for the insurance that clearly follows the methods you outlined above. It is worth what people pay for it - and obviously people pay for it.

The concept of net loss/gain only applies when there is a fixed income (taxation) and variable cost, or the converse. For an insurance company this is profit. Because the company is just a middle-man, the net loss/gain has nothing to do with the absolute cost of the medicine or how much people paid for it that year. They may adjust their rates for the next year in order to change their margins, but that doesn't change what people paid the year before. The debt is incurred neither on the people directly or on the people indirectly by the government saddling the debt.
So because I entered an agreement, its not a loss when someone (or everyone on that particular insurance carrier) pays for the cost of my operations?  OK, whatever you say.  In the end, other people are paying for my expenses.  It doesn't matter if I entered an agreement or not - it's still a net loss for everyone else involved.  You are agreeing to take on that potential cost, sure, but it's still there.
2009-10-21 14:32:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

rammunition wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I answered your question exactly. There are three rights. The right to life is one of them - the right to artificially prolonged life is not. By no means can you infringe on the other rights to satisfy a privilege.
So if someone gets hit by a car they should be left to die, even though its not his/her fault?
That would be covered by the driver's liability insurance on his/her car + a lawsuit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-21 14:34:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

rammunition wrote:


decent healthcare should always be a right and never a privilege
meh...ill pay for better cancer survival rates kthx
hahaha you've obviously never delt with insurance companies.. They'd drop you like a rock, find out that you're great great grandfather had it and say it's a pre-existing condition... They're job isn't to provide you care, there job is to make money PERIOD>.
My girlfriends mother just dealt with lymphoma. She got chemo, radiation, and even experimental therapy using mouse proteins. She's now cancer free and her insurance covered it all without dropping her.

Those victims that the Dems like to trot out make up maybe 0.001% of the population.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-21 14:36:31
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:


hahaha you've obviously never delt with insurance companies.. They'd drop you like a rock, find out that you're great great grandfather had it and say it's a pre-existing condition... They're job isn't to provide you care, there job is to make money PERIOD>.
so why do we have the best cancer survival rates?  your cynical words are trumped by actual results.


(my mom has cancer.  dont tell me i have never dealt with insurance companies)
OK link that? I"m pretty sure it's inaccurate.. All I know is I see it time and time again, Remember I"m in finance where we look at people's credit.. Remember that after a while the hospitals/doctors will but a collection/judgement on peoples credit.. When Asking the client what it's from, usually it's from the insurance company not paying out the hospital/doctor???

The medical frield can't go after the insurance companies, because they don't take personal responsiblity for claims. So all these people(I'd say it's on a good 75% of peoples credit) end up having to pay a bill that was supposely covered..

But then again we do live in different places and insurance coverage is different from state to state.
So you offer the hospital $20 a month for the rest of your life. They're obligated to take it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-21 14:42:08
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

Pug wrote:

Let's say...

Someone has a life threatening drinking problem, gets a new liver.

Continues to drink...needs a new liver.

Is that covered?  Are both covered?

Who makes that decision?  The government?

Do you want the government controlling your doctor's decisions?
The doctors. The budget may be set by the government but medical decisions are made by the doctors and hospitals. In your specific case, yes but given the self inflicted condition if there is anyone else in need of that liver they'll get preference over you.

Red Forman wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Red Forman wrote:


meh...ill pay for better cancer survival rates kthx
hahaha you've obviously never delt with insurance companies.. They'd drop you like a rock, find out that you're great great grandfather had it and say it's a pre-existing condition... They're job isn't to provide you care, there job is to make money PERIOD>.
so why do we have the best cancer survival rates?  your cynical words are trumped by actual results.


(my mom has cancer.  dont tell me i have never dealt with insurance companies)
You don't. You have higher 5 year survival rates due to earlier detection. About the same percentage of people die from cancer they just know they have it for longer. Arguably better but treatments are no better.

FatherTed wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I answered your question exactly. There are three rights. The right to life is one of them - the right to artificially prolonged life is not. By no means can you infringe on the other rights to satisfy a privilege.
So if someone gets hit by a car they should be left to die, even though its not his/her fault?
That's not what he meant.

Artificially prolonging a life means pushing the boundaries past when naturally you should die. Being hit by a car is not a natural cause of death. Unless you consider 1.2ton of Volkswagen engineering natural.

of course, you could keep on picking at individual words trying to make a point out of nothing.
No, he is saying if you can't afford treatment you don't get treatment. It's that simple. You get hit by a car while in your house and can't afford treatment too fucking bad, go die in the gutter.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not many people can afford operations and other surgery.  That's why we get insurance - because most people don't have $20k sitting around in case they need an operation.

Do you even understand the concept of insurance?  Either you are playing a fool or you are one.
Insurance is an optional cost spreading choice...it doesn't force a net loss on anyone.

Insurance relies on some people paying out all or most of the $20k over their lifetime and never using it...that's perfectly fair isn't it? They signed up for it to reduce their financial risk - not because it wins them free money.
But Insurance companies and private hospitals have to make a profit, so along the way there are always people who are losing out. At least in a government run system there is a net break even point.
2009-10-21 14:45:18
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5687

DrunkFace wrote:

You don't. You have higher 5 year survival rates due to earlier detection.
which leads to a better chance at survival.  honestly what the hell.
2009-10-21 14:45:24
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6983|NJ
I wouldn't say it's the 0.001%, I don't think it's that small. Also Insurance companies drive up the cost of the operations making them more expensive..

It's really a hinderance but we are already indirectly paying into medical through our taxes. I would rather see some real benefit through coverage here.. But on the same note we need coverage, not something that's going to (crap I'm blanking on the word) assist someone is getting this unhealthy..

Again my Uncle left the hospital cause of the cost it was going to have to his family. Not sure of the whole situation but he was a retired rail way worker, which I think has pension/medical after retirement.
2009-10-21 14:46:42
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6968|Disaster Free Zone

Red Forman wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

You don't. You have higher 5 year survival rates due to earlier detection.
which leads to a better chance at survival.  honestly what the hell.
The statistics say otherwise. I wont argue its a bad thing, but the excessive costs of the US system no way are worth the benefits.
2009-10-21 14:51:24
rdx-fx
...
+955|6878

rammunition wrote:

The fact is Britain is a loving, caring society where everyone is treated fairly and equally.

America is a selfish, greedy society where people only have concerns for themselves.

Thats the difference
Okay...

So, Rammunition is either;
A) A blatant troll,
B) Wears extremely opaque rose colored glasses,
C) Is clinically delusional, or
D) My sarcasm meter is hopelessly broken

One word for you, Ramm.  "Chav".  Ever heard of them?

Though that whole fairytale story of a boy-prince and his horse is rather touching, I'll admit.
Prince Charles and Camille I think you call it.
2009-10-21 15:25:49
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6908|London, England

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

For every anti-universal healthcare story about a fat guy who's a bane on the taxpayers there are probably tens of thousands of undocumented cases of the NHS being a valuable asset to those in genuine need.

To give an analogy that some of the more right wing members can understand, it's like how the media always focus on the bad things that happen in places like Iraq and Afghanistan rather than the good, although in the case of media/NHS the bad media stories will outnumber the good on a much more massive scale.
Just because some good is generated of a program doesn't make it successful.     Example? Social Security.
But that's the thing, it's not just some good, it's a whole lot of good. I'm happy with what we have here, even if it means you get those rare cases where fucked up shit like this happens.

I'm glad I don't live in a place where I'd be told to fuck off if there was something wrong with me. That's what's really fucked up. People always assume that it's the non-taxpayers that are the only people to ever use taxpayer funded things such as healthcare, it's just moronic.
2009-10-21 15:27:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

rdx-fx wrote:

rammunition wrote:

The fact is Britain is a loving, caring society where everyone is treated fairly and equally.

America is a selfish, greedy society where people only have concerns for themselves.

Thats the difference
Okay...

So, Rammunition is either;
A) A blatant troll,
B) Wears extremely opaque rose colored glasses,
C) Is clinically delusional, or
D) My sarcasm meter is hopelessly broken

One word for you, Ramm.  "Chav".  Ever heard of them?

Though that whole fairytale story of a boy-prince and his horse is rather touching, I'll admit.
Prince Charles and Camille I think you call it.
He's just a 20 year old that doesn't know any better yet.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard