Sick People and the Innocent Insurance Companies they Defraud

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


Has it ever had a good chance in an economically developed country? Also do not take me for a supporter of the far left, so lets not talk about Russia, extremes either way are bad, right and left. What do you think the problem is with the left? You said it's built on fantasies, actually, when england was at it's most socialist point (gas, BT and others were state owned) jobs were abundant, housing prices were at an all time low, people turned away jobs because they had too many choices and every family had a mortgage. Now we've gone further right, the poverty line has increased, everyone rents and the NHS is being driven into the ground, england sucks atm... Show me where pure right wing privatisation has actually developed a sustainable model that isn't built on debt and the impossible idea of infinite growth?




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Phoenix


Giving up freedom in exchange for healthcare is not worth it.



Sadly, not too many agree with that.

But well said!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

Again, see General Welfare vs Personal Welfare.

The difference is quite real.


Yeah but you don't have a personal insurance that you pay for the roads etc you must have some level of a General welfare to the state or local authority?? Or do the insurance companies for cars pay for it or what?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


This is a very poor comparison. In most cases the illness or ongoing sickness occurred while the people were on insurance. Then they were cancelled. It's like your house insurance cancelling your policy halfway through a fire or your car insurance being cancelled upon impact with another car.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 



Show me where pure right wing privatisation has actually developed a sustainable model that isn't built on debt and the impossible idea of infinite growth?

It was hardcore free market capitalism driven by a sound gold standard currency that allowed the United States to quickly become a powerhouse in the first place. The U.S. has gone down hill ever since the Federal Reserve was established along with the income tax and fiat debt based money replaced the gold standard, and the market has been strangled with countless elaborate socialist regulations. The U.S. will never be the prosperous and innovative nation it once was because of that.
edit on 7/12/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


Having experienced Healthcare on bothy sides of the Pond, I can say that they are the same. From the GP to a Hospital stay the quality of service and technology used are comparable.

The difference is. Only those that can afford it receive quality care in the good ole U.S of A. Any extended Hospital stay or indeed a long term illness can and does lead to Bankruptcy (it is the main cause of Bankruptcy in the States) unless you have a few Hundred Thousand Dollars lying around doing nothing.

Back in Blighty one Third of my wages were taken for Income Tax and National Insurance. Here a Quarter is taken out for Income Tax and once Premiums, Deductibles and Co Pays are taken into consideration, I am paying far more for Healthcare. This is something the Right do not understand, because of Commies or something.

P.S. Please do not refer to the NHS as Free Healthcare. It confuses our Right Wing friends. The best description is probably Pre Paid and Free at the point of service.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


in light of this , and your next 2 posts in this regard , please englighten me on how the US pays for :

the majority of its schools [ to age 18 ]

police

fire brigades

the majority of its roads and bridges

streetlights [ in urban areas ]

most municipal parks

the majority of libraries

etc etc etc

PS - its a rhetorical question



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


General welfare, already been covered.

But thanks for playing!

What do we have for our contestant? A years supply of Palmolive Dish Soap (it softens your hands while you do the dishes)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


it hasn't " been covered " so answer the question



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

ignorant_ape
reply to post by beezzer
 


it hasn't " been covered " so answer the question



James Madison, Federalist #41


Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity.


Article I, Section 8 has the general welfare as part of that sections preamble. The rest of section 8 specifically spells out what congress can spend money on.

If the authors of the Constitution intended Congress to have unlimited powers of spending then why bother spelling out limits on that spending right under the preamble ?

In general its been an opinion used to allow this kind of spending, that it be on a national basis, OK, that justification would seem to disallow all the exemptions and bribes, I mean special payments to a few states. Of course that's even if I bought that theory in the first place.

To me the whole issue goes right back to intent, not the bastardization going on for along time that allows "feel good" spending contrary to the body and language of section 8

If reading the Constitution correctly instead of picking out words or phrases from the body and misusing them - then much government spending is technically unconstitutional including ACA.

Its just like anti 2nd amendment people cant read correctly either as they ignore that comma.

In the case of section 8 they are picking words out and running with them in ignorance of what is well enumerated below - why - because it allows unchecked spending.
edit on 7-12-2013 by Phoenix because: add



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I would never argue that capitalism isn't great at getting a country going, I am a firm believer that capitalism is a good system, however it needs balancing with some socialism after a time. My argument was to show me an occasion of privatisation where it has been sustainable and not built on debt. I don't think it's socialist that have choked capitalism because socialist ideology hasn't been present in your system for a long time and not in ours for at least 20 years. Capitalism works on the theory that you can have infinite growth, this is impossible and will the only ultimate outcome is that it will fail because of this.
edit on 7-12-2013 by iRoyalty because: Damn it iPhone...
edit on 7-12-2013 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


I don't understand why having healthcare under a general tax is so offensive to others :/ if I knew going to get my broken arm check out would cost me a few hundred bucks I would just suck it up and risk to internal damage!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

iRoyalty
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


I don't understand why having healthcare under a general tax is so offensive to others :/ if I knew going to get my broken arm check out would cost me a few hundred bucks I would just suck it up and risk to internal damage!


Its offensive for its mere existence and way it was decided constitutional - in no uncertain terms the precedence set is one that destroys the constitutional protections that limit government in favor of individual rights.

Congress had many other ways of doing legislation that could have improved the private system without resorting to a grab for power.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

jrod
Here we go, Georgia's State appointed Insurance Commissioner is comparing insuring those with pre-existing medical conditions as the same as insuring a car after an accident.


I think he's right. Insurance is designed as a "what if" business, not a "when" business. The entire business model is set up to take in more dollars thru the premiums of healthy people than they pay out for claims. Spreading the risk and the cost so-to-speak. If people only start paying premiums once they are sick, then the entire model fails.


Likewise, the model does not work for those who become too sick to work and cannot continue paying premiums, and thus lose their health insurance. (Although, I really don't understand why that is. If I have a car accident, I can cancel my car insurance immediately after, but the insurance company still has to pay to fix my car, no matter how long it takes or how extensive the damage. If I was insured at the time of the damage, they have to pay... Why is it that insurance companies do not likewise have to continue paying for a health claim made while the policy was in force?)

The point the Insurance Commissioner unwittingly highlighted is that insurance is not the perfect answer to the issue of making sure everyone has access to quality healthcare. It can be part of the solution, but not the whole solution.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

badgerprints

If I'd seen a declaration of membership in the Christian faith on the part of the speaker or the audience it would have been apparent. I missed the reference.
I did apologize to the OP



This is based on the demographics in Georgia. I have family there and I can assure that someone like that speaker will not gain a political position of power unless he has the backing of the a Christian(most likely Baptist, and certainly NOT Catholic) church. He is in bible belt.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


I live in GA and yes, in any state and within any political party is always going to be your fair share of idiots, is just natural and part of the human nature.

We hear them, some just dismiss their rants as nothing but moronic stupidity and is always your share of those that will use anything the morons say for political agendas.

And like everything in America, we do have freedom of speech in this nation, that if, the political correctness freaks do not step in and feel offended as usual.

So don't worry, any stupid comments are just stupid, and I am sure that many intelligent voters out there can see it for what it is.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


I can never understand such people... We are talking about human beings, not some replaceable objects or assets to be insured.

Most of the pre-existing condition can lead to severe loss of productivity. Lower productivity means less salary. How can you expect somebody suffering from some disease like that work at the same productivity as others... The financial income already suffers from the disease, at the same time the costs for treatment add extra costs.

At the end the insurance system will become extremely costly for the country due to productivity loss from people who can not afford treatment/insurance for their diseases.

Healthcare due to its nature, should never be a for-profit business - no person besides doctors/nurses/essential staff getting paid for it, no CEOs, shareholders, insurance companies, shortly middlemen...



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


But what part of my rights are being breeched by having the NHS? It doesn't empower the government, in fact they want to get rid of it because they pay for it! I feel like I have more rights because even if I'm a bum on the streets I have the right to healthcare



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
If socialized healthcare is such a terrible thing, why do countries that have it not only benefit from a higher life expectancy but from a greater quality of life and are generally happier? Are some people really saying that not only would they rather live a shorter, less fulfilling life, but deny others the same benefit, all because of their political ideology?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


And yet how many people in the US die from cancer due to either not having insurance or their insurance deems their treatment unnecessary. Currently I only know one person suffering from cancer and he is most likely going to die because his insurance has decided that the tests his doctor feels are essential are in fact "unnecessary." Of course this case isn't a rare occurrence. I know a number of people who died because their insurance wouldn't cover their treatment.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join