A REAL American hero

WinterBorn said:
And why didn't the hospital proceed with the surgery? Why didn't the surgeons volunteer to do it without it being covered? Why is it only the insurance company that is the villian?
Click to expand...

Because THAT is why you BUY insurance isn't it? Or do you just put a premium check in an envelope every month to send CEO's to Aruba?
 
Topspin said:
you are that stupid, and you think gov overhead is remotely as efficient as corp overhead. LOFL
No wonder you didn't go to college.
Click to expand...

The overhead costs of Medicare is about 18% lower than private 'for profit' insurance corporations. WHAT economic course did you sleep through? Insurance corporations are not in the health care business, they are in the profit business. They are bound by law to maximize profits for shareholders. The American people are stakeholders. Our very lives are the stakes we put on the line.
 
Bfgrn said:
Yes, you DID rig the question. The 5 year survival rate is 73.1% (males), 67.4% (females). Anyone with only a 6 month prognosis would probably be eliminated from a transplant list.
Click to expand...

Reread the question. It was asked as a hypothetical. You are dodging and dancing to avoid answering.

Should an insurance company have to pay for any procedure that will prolong life even for a short time?
 
Bfgrn said:
Because THAT is why you BUY insurance isn't it? Or do you just put a premium check in an envelope every month to send CEO's to Aruba?
Click to expand...

Once again you are avoiding answering a simple, direct question.

You are ranting about the insurance companies putting profits before lives. Why do you exempt the hospital and doctors when they did the exact same thing.
 
Bfgrn said:
The overhead costs of Medicare is about 18% lower than private 'for profit' insurance corporations. WHAT economic course did you sleep through? Insurance corporations are not in the health care business, they are in the profit business. They are bound by law to maximize profits for shareholders. The American people are stakeholders. Our very lives are the stakes we put on the line.
Click to expand...

you couldn't even get into college with the limited smarts you have, nobody with a decent high school education thinks the government runs things better than the best private companies.
 
WinterBorn said:
Reread the question. It was asked as a hypothetical. You are dodging and dancing to avoid answering.

Should an insurance company have to pay for any procedure that will prolong life even for a short time?
Click to expand...

I am not an expert on transplant eligibility criteria, but it's not hard to speculate that a prognosis that is grossly shorter than the norm would be deemed ineligible. The proper question should be: Should an insurance company have to pay for any procedure that will prolong a LOVED ONE'S LIFE even for a short time?

THAT is why the phony 'death panel' argument by the right was so egregious. End of life counseling puts that decision in the hands of the most important party...the PERSON
 
Topspin said:
you couldn't even get into college with the limited smarts you have, nobody with a decent high school education thinks the government runs things better than the best private companies.
Click to expand...

You know what, you know my circumstances, that I quit college because my mother died and my father was terminally ill, yet you continue to lie and try to use those tragic circumstances as a weapon. What kind of animal raised you Topspin? Because I don't recall anyone I've met on any board as morally and ethically bankrupt as you.
 
Bfgrn said:
I am not an expert on transplant eligibility criteria, but it's not hard to speculate that a prognosis that is grossly shorter than the norm would be deemed ineligible. The proper question should be: Should an insurance company have to pay for any procedure that will prolong a LOVED ONE'S LIFE even for a short time?

THAT is why the phony 'death panel' argument by the right was so egregious. End of life counseling puts that decision in the hands of the most important party...the PERSON
Click to expand...

and AGAIN you cower away from answering his questions.
 
apple0154 said:
Because not everyone has a car but everyone has a body. (And some people have an especially nice body but I won't get into that.) :)

Also, like car or home owner insurance one can determine any possible loss. For example, if one purchases home insurance against fire but not theft they know ahead of time the maximum loss they may sustain, that being the contents of their home. Also, they can evaluate the chances of theft, say, between living in a gated community with security patrols vs a crime ridden area. Contrast that to medical insurance.

How is one able to make a reasonable evaluation regarding the risk of illness or accident? Cancer? Organ failure? Paralysis?
Click to expand...

People can decide their own risk in the same way they do for auto insurance...the point being cost savings born from the ability to tailor coverage based on things like age/sex/weight/lifestyle etc. coupled with interstate competition and access to health coopertaives would go a long way in saving on health coverage-and not require huge deficits.
 
(Post # 43) insurance is fine for health, why should the slacker afford the same HC as the hard worker?
Click to expand...

If you're talking about manicured lawns and a lobby with imported wall hangings, no, everyone does not require those facilities. If you're talking about basic medical care then, yes.

Regarding slackers, the majority of the time such persons require medical care. Pain and/or depression is frequently the cause.

Consider teenagers. If a teen is despondent, a "slacker", do we not try to determine the problem? Healthy, happy human beings are energetic and productive. It's human nature to want to improve ones living conditions.
 
Bfgrn said:
Why wouldn't people being able to buy into medicare work? Everything is in place, and the system has worked for decades. Medicare is a government-run program that has administrative expenses around three percent. The insurance industry spends about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense and profit. The profit is not in the Medicare equation. That is why the insurance industry spent millions of dollars to defeat the public option.
Click to expand...

More people on Medicare would increase the cost of health services for everyone else because Medicare doesn't reimburse doctors for 100 cents on the dollar (not even close). Even today, many doctors can no longer afford to treat Medicare patients. Simple economics my friend.
 
WinterBorn said:
I didn't rig anything. There are plenty fo situations in which an expensive procedure would prolong the patient's life by a relatively small amount.

So you are refusing to answer the question? Should the insurance pay for the procedure?
Click to expand...

In the ideal world there would be enough hearts for everyone requiring a transplant. Unfortunately, that's not the case which results in an individual whose prognosis is much better being denied the transplant and the individual with the poor prognosis receiving it due to their ability to pay.

That's one of the basic problems with the "pay or suffer" system. Medical care is based on ones ability to pay rather than on the greater overall benefit. Do we allow the father of three small children to die so the elderly man with money may live?
 
WinterBorn said:
Bfgrn, I am truly interested in your answer to my question. And if you could also tell me why you only hold the insurance company responsible and no one else?

I look forward to your reply.
Click to expand...

The reason I hold the insurance company responsible is because medical insurance companies enable such practices to take place. We can't expect the individual doctor to forego his complete fee while another doctor receives full payment from someone else. That's another problem with the "pay or suffer" system. It prevents allowing other factors to be considered such as I mentioned previously regarding the family man vs the elderly gentleman.
 
Topspin said:
bf= poster boy for simpleton

Even if we have total gov hc, they most certainly will not cover everything. And the things they cover will be done with the efficiency of the Dept of Motor vehicles.
Click to expand...

Total government medical may not cover everything, however, because it has to cover every citizen, every nationality/genetic make-up that may be predisposed to certain illnesses, it would, by necessity, be more inclusive than any private plan.
 
apple0154 said:
The reason I hold the insurance company responsible is because medical insurance companies enable such practices to take place. We can't expect the individual doctor to forego his complete fee while another doctor receives full payment from someone else. That's another problem with the "pay or suffer" system. It prevents allowing other factors to be considered such as I mentioned previously regarding the family man vs the elderly gentleman.
Click to expand...

So it is unethical to make one doctor forego his fee while paying another in full. But its ok for one patients to receive a million dollars worth of treatment while other insurance customers pay the same rates and receive only minor benefits?

So you are saying the insurance company should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or they are murderers. But the hospital and surgeons, who also sat idly by and watched this young woman die, should not be expected to give up even a small portion of their monies? lol (sorry, the laugh just jumped out)

And isn't the hospital a public hospital? Aren't they required by law to provide life saving care? But they are not murderers?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then how do you propose to handle healthcare, if not for insurance?
Click to expand...

The same way other government services are handled. The way I see it one does not buy school/teacher insurance just in case they have a child who will require schooling. If they have a child the school and teacher are there for the child. The same principal should apply to medical care. If one requires medical care the hospital and doctor are there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top