Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 367

Thread: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

  1. #281
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    You are taking two statements I made out of context and joining them together, which demonstrates confused and invalid logic on your part. Fail.
    "Wait times are standard on all insurance", your words that go along with more of your words, "is the same under Obamacare" (referencing wait times). Nope, I'm not confused with what you wrote.


    Again, nothing but confused jumbled invalid logic. What I showed is federal law required EMERGENCY ROOM TREATMENT. I did NOT SAY what you just said "the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough.", you just made that up. You are really grasping for straws by attempting to alter what I said.
    No grasp on my part. Treatment in an ER is heath care. Period. Of course then you added, "Well if the hospital has to treat you, you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.". Fine with me but how about letting the taxpayers off the hook for paying for health insurance for the something for nothing crowd. You should agree being you claim to be against, "sloughing off your burden on others". Note: Of course I made up the following, ""the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough." those were my words. Lets throw in a few words you used to describe your position, "jumbled", "invalid", "grasping for straws". Sober up dude.



    There's a difference that you don't seem to get. Under the old system, many of the 50 million uninsured HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY for insurance and they don't, so if something real serious happens to them, and they can't cover the expense themselves, since they chose not to take responsibility for themselves, they slough it off on the rest of us (but they had the ability to pay for the insurance). In the new system, you are correct, some people will get nearly free health insurance, but the difference is that they DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR IT otherwise. Then we face the moral issue, if someone can't pay for health ins. nor the care necessary to save their life, will we, in the richest nation on earth, just allow them to die. As a society, we are voting NO, we won't let them die. Now, I believe there are limits, I don't think we can ask the society to pay unlimited bills on a limited budget, and that is where we have to make some practical choices on what type of care to pay for that everyone will have access to.
    It's their money and they know how better to spend it than you do. Look at the big "if" you put in your justification of trying to force people to spend their money the way you want them to. That "if" in no way means (a) they will get sick or hurt or (b) they can't cover the expenses.
    You assume everyone that doesn't have heath insurance doesn't have the ability to pay for it. Lot's of people make choices in that places little or no priority on obtaining health insurance. Really, it's not that big a risk being most people had accident coverage with their car insurance and are also covered under workers comp.
    Then here we are back to a point you already made. "we won't let them die.". The law before Obamadon'tcare already provided for that.
    People were already making choices on what to spend their money on before Obamadon'tcare and they still will after 1 Jan. This law will end up forcing millions of productive people to drop health insurance due to increased cost or job loss and the something for nothing crowd is crowned the winner. Assuming they can find a doctor that Obamadon'tcare didn't run off.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  2. #282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    Why do we need the health insurance companies???
    We don't need insurance companies. I PASSIONATELY HATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

    I'm honest when I say this. Shut down all insurance companies. Put the employees of the insurance companies in jail. It's the most disgusting industry of which I am aware. I don't buy their product. When you buy their product you become just as disgusting as they are.

    There are disgusting people in this world that buy health insurance. There are disgusting people in this world that work in health insurance companies. Since this is the case I expect the health insurance scum bags to outsmart the consumer scum bags. The purpose of a company is to make a profit. Anybody who buys health insurance deserves to be screwed for being completely stupid and thinking they can get one over on a sophisticated business operation. They spend billions of dollars on the smartest number crunchers in the world. To expect them to pay out 10 times more than they take in is absurd. Why would they do that? Because they feel guilty? That's ridiculous. It isn't their job to feel guilt. Feeling guilty is something that you can enjoy in your spare time.

  3. #283
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,068

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Absolutely true - but I've yet to see a business that can be run more efficiently and effectively by government than by private enterprise.
    Healthcare. In countries that have nationalized healthcare (which is every 1st world country in the world), healthcare to GDP is 50% lower and with better outcomes than in the US where healthcare system (including insurance) is a substantially run by private enterprise.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...are-ludicrous/
    http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
    http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries
    Last edited by upsideguy; 10-30-13 at 12:21 AM.

  4. #284
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,185

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Healthcare. In countries that have nationalized healthcare (which is every 1st world country in the world), healthcare to GDP is 50% lower and with better outcomes than in the US where healthcare system (including insurance) is a substantially run by private enterprise.

    21 graphs that show America’s health-care prices are ludicrous
    Health Care Spending
    </title> <script src='/rapi/js_config.js' type='text/javascript'></script> <script src="http://cdn.gotraffic.net/v/20131029_153533/javascripts/visual-data/jquery-1.8.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script> $.fn.localizeDateStamp = function
    The problem with figures and graphs like these is that they don't include the additional funds that citizens pay out of pocket for the healthcare they need that is not covered by the government funded plan. Here in Canada, such things as eyecare, dental care, chiropractic care, prescription drugs, and an ever expanding list of other services and products are not covered and require the patient to either have supplemental health insurance or pay for the services out of pocket. As an example, a senior down the street from me pays about $500/month for insulin and diabetes testing strips. More and more people are concerned that the government run system is becoming unmanageable, too expensive, and limited in its application. More and more people have private supplemental healthcare and it's becoming more and more an employment benefit being demanded.

    Here in Ontario, the government spends just under 50% of every dollar of revenue on the delivery of healthcare and it's increasing rapidly causing more and more services to be dropped. People with money and or private insurance are going to border cities in the US to get treatment they either can't get in Canada or can't get in a reasonable time. You may not believe it, but there's a reason people from all over the world, people from all those nationalized healthcare countries you tout, come to the US for healthcare. Here in Canada, we've had UHC for about 60 years and most people haven't ever lived in a system without it. As a result, we'd never give it up. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's 100% fantastic - it's not. Another example is doctors and nurses over the past 2 decades relocating in the US, primarily the southern, expanding US, because in the case of nurses, the government here has reduced the number of nurses hired and they can find jobs, often better paying jobs, in the US - as for doctors, they are not limited to income dictated by the government or limited by setting up office where the government says they can set up office. The best, with the talent and initiative to do so, were moving to the US where their talents were properly compensated. That trend will likely lessen or stop now that more and more Americans are going to be getting their healthcare through government programs and the government is and will continue to squeeze compensation for services they cover - Canada thanks you.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #285
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    I found this interesting from the World Bank... In all its progressive, one world glory....

    "So what exactly is UHC?

    As each layer of argument has been added, UHC has thus morphed from a straightforward notion of making sure everyone has coverage to something much more complex and useful.

    Yes universalism is still there. But UHC isn't about getting everyone coverage, since everyone already has it.

    So what exactly is UHC? I think it means that that in practice everyone—whether rich or poor—gets the care they need without suffering undue financial hardship as a result.

    UHC is about equity: linking care to need, not to ability pay. UHC is also about financial protection: making sure that people's use of needed care doesn't leave their family in poverty. And UHC is about quality of care: making sure providers make the right diagnosis, and prescribe a treatment that is appropriate and affordable."

    Universal health coverage: Old wine in a new bottle? If so, is that so bad? | Let's Talk Development

    So it is, and always has been this sort of, one world, wealth redistribution from those that have, to those that have not...IOW, a subtle, covert communist ideal.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #286
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree
    No grasp on my part. Treatment in an ER is heath care. Period. Of course then you added, "Well if the hospital has to treat you, you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.". Fine with me but how about letting the taxpayers off the hook for paying for health insurance for the something for nothing crowd. You should agree being you claim to be against, "sloughing off your burden on others". Note: Of course I made up the following, ""the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough." those were my words. Lets throw in a few words you used to describe your position, "jumbled", "invalid", "grasping for straws". Sober up dude.
    Treatment in the ER is a part of the healthcare system, but it is NOT the totality of healthcare. If all people got was ER care, they would miss out on much that a good healthcare system should provide. You don't need to go to the ER to get chemo treatments, so are you going to let all the cancer patients die? You don't go to the ER to get brain surgery, you need a sophisticated diagnosis and treatment plan and the correct specialist scheduled to perform the operation. Most of us receive most of our health care outside the ER. To assert that because they passed a federal law requiring hospitals to treat those who present themselves to an ER to the point that they are stabilized, therefore they "have healthcare" is silly, because it omits the bulk of treatments that most of us need. All the ER is required to do is stabilize and release people.

    My point about people sloughing off their responsibility is those who can pay for insurance but they do not, then if they get hit with an expensive illness and the cost is more than they can pay they throw the bill on everyone else. They are sloughing off their responsibility. The other set of people cannot afford health insurance or to pay for their treatment. In a sense they are sloughing off their responsibility, but they have no choice (as opposed to those with the ability to pay who chose not to). Everyone I have talked to says they support providing healthcare to those that are unable to provide it for themselves, we should have a national healthcare system that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. Simply letting them die is not a good option. You can't get all the treatment you need in the ER, and if you could ER is the most expensive form of treatment in our healthcare system and it is stupid to require people to go the the most expensive method of treatment.

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree
    It's their money and they know how better to spend it than you do. Look at the big "if" you put in your justification of trying to force people to spend their money the way you want them to. That "if" in no way means (a) they will get sick or hurt or (b) they can't cover the expenses.
    No, people will not always live up to their responsibility. That is why states REQUIRE individuals with cars to carry liability insurance. The state knows that some of them will get in wrecks and not be able to pay for the damage they caused. If the state didn't require them to carry liability insurance, those people would slough off their responsibility and those that they damaged would just be screwed. There is no moral imperative to replace a car by the society, so we are not involved like we are in saving the life of a very sick person who can be saved. Unless forced by the state, many people will not do the right thing.

    You assume everyone that doesn't have heath insurance doesn't have the ability to pay for it.
    Of course not, you just made that up. In my previous discussion about sloughing off responsibility it was directed at those with the ability to pay for health insurance but don't, and they run up a medical bill they can't pay for. That is what Obamacare aims to fix. There are also those without ins. who can pay for their bills (the wealthy can do that), and those who can't afford heath ins. under the old system. Then there are those under the old system that can afford health ins. but the ins. company denies them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or drops them is they were well but get seriously ill, which is the tragic flaw in the old system than must be fixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree
    Then here we are back to a point you already made. "we won't let them die.". The law before Obamadon'tcare already provided for that.
    Of course not. In this thread I have posted a study by Harvard that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health ins. See below:

    Now, on to the tough question: Is the 45,000 figure accurate? We can’t say for sure, but scores of other studies also conclude that persons without health insurance have a higher chance of dying prematurely than those with health insurance. A committee headed by Dr. John Z. Ayanian of the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine reviewed nearly 100 such studies released since 2002. And in March he summed up the findings for Congress this way:

    Ayanian’s testimony to Congress, March 2009: Uninsured Americans frequently delay or forgo doctors’ visits, prescription medications, and other effective treatments, even when they have serious disease or life-threatening conditions. … Because uninsured adults seek health care less often than insured adults, they are often unaware of health problems such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or early-stage cancer. Uninsured adults are also much less likely to receive vaccinations, cancer screening services such as mammography and colonoscopy, and other effective preventive services.

    The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands:
    Dying from Lack of Insurance

    So, your statement that the old system covered that is wrong, or at best incomplete. We won't let you die if you are in a serious accident and are brought to the ER, we will save and stabilize you. However if you have a serious illness that required extensive followup and treatment, those without health ins. died at a higher rate than those with health ins. because the old system DOES NOT HANDLE THAT. Studies, nearly 100 studies, have proven that.

  7. #287
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The problem with figures and graphs like these is that they don't include the additional funds that citizens pay out of pocket for the healthcare they need that is not covered by the government funded plan. Here in Canada, such things as eyecare, dental care, chiropractic care, prescription drugs, and an ever expanding list of other services and products are not covered and require the patient to either have supplemental health insurance or pay for the services out of pocket. As an example, a senior down the street from me pays about $500/month for insulin and diabetes testing strips. More and more people are concerned that the government run system is becoming unmanageable, too expensive, and limited in its application. More and more people have private supplemental healthcare and it's becoming more and more an employment benefit being demanded.

    Here in Ontario, the government spends just under 50% of every dollar of revenue on the delivery of healthcare and it's increasing rapidly causing more and more services to be dropped. People with money and or private insurance are going to border cities in the US to get treatment they either can't get in Canada or can't get in a reasonable time. You may not believe it, but there's a reason people from all over the world, people from all those nationalized healthcare countries you tout, come to the US for healthcare. Here in Canada, we've had UHC for about 60 years and most people haven't ever lived in a system without it. As a result, we'd never give it up. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's 100% fantastic - it's not. Another example is doctors and nurses over the past 2 decades relocating in the US, primarily the southern, expanding US, because in the case of nurses, the government here has reduced the number of nurses hired and they can find jobs, often better paying jobs, in the US - as for doctors, they are not limited to income dictated by the government or limited by setting up office where the government says they can set up office. The best, with the talent and initiative to do so, were moving to the US where their talents were properly compensated. That trend will likely lessen or stop now that more and more Americans are going to be getting their healthcare through government programs and the government is and will continue to squeeze compensation for services they cover - Canada thanks you.
    Great post John, thanks for your contribution. Canada handles healthcare much like the US handles education. In the US, there is a minimum standard of education provided for all, and if you want better you can pay more and go to a private school. My 3 kids went to the public schools in TX and one is an elec. eng., one is a bio-chemist, and one has a degree in psychology. If you accept the knowledge, you can go on and do what you want.

    Canada spends 11% of GDP on healthcare and we spend 17% in the US. Canada covers everyone and they deal with what they can afford. The US clearly can't afford the system we have, evidenced by our huge deficit, and we don't cover 18% of the people and they die prematurely due to lack of health ins. which 100 studies have shown (I show it in the post above). Canada has something similar to the IPAB proposed by Obamacare that decides what the healthcare system will cover, and there must be limits. Canada's system may not be ideal, but at least Canada isn't going broke as a nation, nor are they allowing the poorest die prematurely due to lack of routine care.

  8. #288
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,068

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The problem with figures and graphs like these is that they don't include the additional funds that citizens pay out of pocket for the healthcare they need that is not covered by the government funded plan. Here in Canada, such things as eyecare, dental care, chiropractic care, prescription drugs, and an ever expanding list of other services and products are not covered and require the patient to either have supplemental health insurance or pay for the services out of pocket. As an example, a senior down the street from me pays about $500/month for insulin and diabetes testing strips. More and more people are concerned that the government run system is becoming unmanageable, too expensive, and limited in its application. More and more people have private supplemental healthcare and it's becoming more and more an employment benefit being demanded.

    Here in Ontario, the government spends just under 50% of every dollar of revenue on the delivery of healthcare and it's increasing rapidly causing more and more services to be dropped. People with money and or private insurance are going to border cities in the US to get treatment they either can't get in Canada or can't get in a reasonable time. You may not believe it, but there's a reason people from all over the world, people from all those nationalized healthcare countries you tout, come to the US for healthcare. Here in Canada, we've had UHC for about 60 years and most people haven't ever lived in a system without it. As a result, we'd never give it up. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's 100% fantastic - it's not. Another example is doctors and nurses over the past 2 decades relocating in the US, primarily the southern, expanding US, because in the case of nurses, the government here has reduced the number of nurses hired and they can find jobs, often better paying jobs, in the US - as for doctors, they are not limited to income dictated by the government or limited by setting up office where the government says they can set up office. The best, with the talent and initiative to do so, were moving to the US where their talents were properly compensated. That trend will likely lessen or stop now that more and more Americans are going to be getting their healthcare through government programs and the government is and will continue to squeeze compensation for services they cover - Canada thanks you.
    Actually, they are inclusive graphs. If what you suggested were true, then the US would have the lowest spending on healthcare as most healthcare spending is private, non government spending.

    I understand supplement in insurance in Canada. In my previous life, my company had four Canadian subsidiaries, all of which I directed the acquisitions of. I can tell, albeit anecdotal, one of the employees biggest fears at being bought out by an American company was that we would layer health insurance on the Canadians (which was an irrational fear, as are most fears). Medicare also operations under the premise of private supplemental insurance (Medicare Part D)...

    The real problem with "figures and graphs like these" is they expose the pathetic nature of the American healthcare system, which provides second world outcomes at out of this world prices.

  9. #289
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    It was tough to try and wade through all 29 pages. The title of course is a CON lie. The CEO of FL. Blue was on a Sunday morning squabble show to knock down the CON game being run by the TPs. No one's policy was cut, the policies that don't meet the new standards are being converting to one of several that do meet the new standards.

    The CONs are trying to make far more of this than is the truth. This is like a state requiring all drivers to have uninsured motorist coverage. The CON lie would be to claim all the driver's without the coverage already part of their policy are going to have their insurance cut.

    That someone in Canada is using 500 dollars worth of insulin, syringes, test strips a month is rather meaningless. For one this person must be using the designer forms of insulin such as humalog and the disease is out of control. Back when I volunteered in the Eldercare program a big issue was the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. The same drug was far cheaper in Canada, where the government bargains with Big Pharma on price (something Congress was forbidding our taxpayer supported programs from doing). The average cost for most of the diabetics was 100 to 200 bucks.

    One dirty little secret those who decry the Canadian system and point to those 'fleeing' their wait lists is the fact far more Americans are 'fleeing' our high costs for other countries' far cheaper medical costs. New Zealand promotes the fact their operations generally run 15-20% the cost of an American one. In 2000 Blue Cross of California certified 3 Mexican hospitals for Americans to use. Companion Global Healthcare of S. Carolina in 2007 used medical facilities in Thailand, Singapore, Turkey, Ireland, Costa Rica, and India. A kidney transplant in Taiwan is $91,000- in the USA $300,000.

    McKinsey and Co. researched the medical tourist traffic and estimated in 2008 85,000 people came to America for treatment while in 2007 over 750,000 Americans went out of country for medical treatment. American retirees routinely cross the Mexican border for medicine, dental, and minor surgeries such as lap band.

    According to the OECD report of 2008 the per capita spending on drugs was $897 in the States and the average for the industrialized countries was $461.

  10. #290
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,185

    Re: Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Actually, they are inclusive graphs. If what you suggested were true, then the US would have the lowest spending on healthcare as most healthcare spending is private, non government spending.

    I understand supplement in insurance in Canada. In my previous life, my company had four Canadian subsidiaries, all of which I directed the acquisitions of. I can tell, albeit anecdotal, one of the employees biggest fears at being bought out by an American company was that we would layer health insurance on the Canadians (which was an irrational fear, as are most fears). Medicare also operations under the premise of private supplemental insurance (Medicare Part D)...

    The real problem with "figures and graphs like these" is they expose the pathetic nature of the American healthcare system, which provides second world outcomes at out of this world prices.
    I would simply add that, like most things in life, not all the people can afford to enjoy the very best of everything or anything. I'd say Canada benefits from the American system of healthcare because your profit driven, business modeled delivery provides us access to treatments we don't get here at all or in a timely manner. When a person can work hard and have their labors properly compensated, they tend to be more productive and more innovative. That's not to say Canada doesn't have some top notch services and service providers just that a lot of research and development dollars go to America where efforts are justly rewarded.

    I believe strongly that all Americans should have healthcare insurance that protects them against catastrophic illnesses/accidents similar to what Canadians enjoy. I never have to worry that having a heart attack is going to cost me and my family out home or our savings. I only have to worry about getting well again. There are two, significant, problems with Obamacare, among many, that I can see - firstly, it requires you to purchase a product you should not be forced to buy and secondly, it demands that that product contain a menu of services/products that many who would buy don't want to buy and thus makes the basics more expensive than the penalty.

    I don't know how you get out of the Obamacare mess - it is a mess, no doubt - and in your political climate, I see it simply as a cudgel with which to beat the other side, depending on your ideological views and having the most inflexible, egotistical, arrogant President in recent memory is not going to help and just leads reform leaderless. Perhaps, after 4 years or so of disaster, a new President in 2016 will come in and have the political mandate to change it.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •