A little perspective in the budget bullshit.

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
You repeatedly stated "they put money above life". The paragraph you typed above does not change the fact that the hospital and the surgeons put money above life.

If it is unethical for one it is unethical for the other.
Click to expand...

You are in a car wreck and an ambulance shows up. You are rushed to a hospital where doctors do everything possible to save your life.

NOW, tell me how an insurance company will save your life?
 
cawacko said:
Not sure why we would want to give them even more money when they have never shown any restraint.
Click to expand...


Well, they have shown restraint. The trouble is that the restraint and resulting balanced budget was a problem that required fixing in the form of the Bush tax cuts to correct the grievous problem of having revenue sufficient to fund the budget and pay down debt.
 
Bfgrn said:
You are in a car wreck and an ambulance shows up. You are rushed to a hospital where doctors do everything possible to save your life.

NOW, tell me how an insurance company will save your life?
Click to expand...

Posting more irrelevant nonsense does not change the facts.

The hospital and the surgeons could have performed the transplant. They did not. They reason they did not was money. They put money above life.

Why is it when the insurance company does that you call it unacceptable, but when the hospital or surgeons do it you do everything you can to point fingers somewhere else??

Actually, to rant and rave about one and dismiss (or even defend) the other would be.............UNETHICAL.
 
WinterBorn said:
From:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/...esss-solution-to-the-federal-deficit-problem/

"We have a family that is spending $38,200 per year. The family’s income is $21,700 per year. The family adds $16,500 in credit card debt every year in order to pay its bills. After a long and difficult debate among family members, keeping in mind that it was not going to be possible to borrow $16,500 every year forever, the parents and children agreed that a $380/year premium cable subscription could be terminated. So now the family will have to borrow only $16,120 per year."
Click to expand...

Congress and the president sets the example~ They just need to raise their debt ceiling so their family won't collapse.
 
WinterBorn said:
Posting more irrelevant nonsense does not change the facts.

The hospital and the surgeons could have performed the transplant. They did not. They reason they did not was money. They put money above life.

Why is it when the insurance company does that you call it unacceptable, but when the hospital or surgeons do it you do everything you can to point fingers somewhere else??

Actually, to rant and rave about one and dismiss (or even defend) the other would be.............UNETHICAL.
Click to expand...

REALLY??? How the fuck do they get the organ, steal it from another patient?
 
Bfgrn said:
REALLY??? How the fuck do they get the organ, steal it from another patient?
Click to expand...

Do you think the insurance company obtained the organ???
The insurance company did not provide the organ. If the organ was available then the hospital and surgeons could have performed the transplant. If it was not available then the insurance company's refusal is irrelevant.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, they have shown restraint. The trouble is that the restraint and resulting balanced budget was a problem that required fixing in the form of the Bush tax cuts to correct the grievous problem of having revenue sufficient to fund the budget and pay down debt.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that because they didn't count taking S.S. revenue? Additionally that lasted maybe a year or so? The dot com boom was not lasting forever.
 
WinterBorn said:
Do you think the insurance company obtained the organ???
The insurance company did not provide the organ. If the organ was available then the hospital and surgeons could have performed the transplant. If it was not available then the insurance company's refusal is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Nataline Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA had recommended that she have a liver transplant. But when the coverage request was reviewed at Cigna, the decision was made to deny it.
 
Bfgrn said:
Nataline Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA had recommended that she have a liver transplant. But when the coverage request was reviewed at Cigna, the decision was made to deny it.
Click to expand...

And none of that prohibited Drs from going ahead with the surgery. Lack of payment stopped them. They put money before life.
 
WinterBorn said:
And none of that prohibited Drs from going ahead with the surgery. Lack of payment stopped them. They put money before life.
Click to expand...

I'll make it REAL simple and go very S...L...O...W just for you.

You are a patient. You have to go into the hospital...

There are 3 entities you will deal with; a hospital, doctors, and an insurance company.

Define each of those entities roles.
 
NigelTufnel said:
There are problems with the analogy is that it starts at the end of the story instead of the beginning. It neglects to point out that the family's income is so low because the father decided about a decade ago that, having worked to get out of debt, he thinks it unfair that he is earning so much money and unilaterally cut his own salary because he felt he was earning too much and "it's the company's money." Instead of living modestly following that unilateral pay cut, he decides to spend lots of money that he doesn't have on cool shit that blows up and drugs and all the while refuses to take a pay increase notwithstanding that the family is spending shitloads more than it takes in such that the family now finds itself in the situation that it is in. Oh, and it also neglects to mention that father skipped town a few years ago before the shit really hit the fan
Click to expand...

Bulls eye, Nigel! You hit the proverbial nail on the head.
 
Bfgrn said:
You are in a car wreck and an ambulance shows up. You are rushed to a hospital where doctors do everything possible to save your life.

NOW, tell me how an insurance company will save your life?
Click to expand...

it's not an insurance companies JOB to save your life, why can't you understand that?
 
Bfgrn said:
I'll make it REAL simple and go very S...L...O...W just for you.

You are a patient. You have to go into the hospital...

There are 3 entities you will deal with; a hospital, doctors, and an insurance company.

Define each of those entities roles.
Click to expand...

now YOU are obfuscating.
 
Bfgrn said:
I'll make it REAL simple and go very S...L...O...W just for you.

You are a patient. You have to go into the hospital...

There are 3 entities you will deal with; a hospital, doctors, and an insurance company.

Define each of those entities roles.
Click to expand...

You are still trying to divert the topic. Your argument was that the insurance company acted in an unethical manner. They put money before life.

Nothing in any of my research showed anything prohibiting the Drs from performing the transplant. The only reason they did not do it was money. So they are guilty of the same unethical behavior.
 
WinterBorn said:
You are still trying to divert the topic. Your argument was that the insurance company acted in an unethical manner. They put money before life.

Nothing in any of my research showed anything prohibiting the Drs from performing the transplant. The only reason they did not do it was money. So they are guilty of the same unethical behavior.
Click to expand...

The insurance companies unethical behavior as spelled out by Wendell Potter, senior VP at Cigna was to find any excuse to deny coverage. IT was an active and conscious effort. It was planned and conceived with no regard for patients, their families or bringing upon them financial ruin.

Trying to drag in doctors and hospitals is either ignorant or deceitful. If the parents knew Cigna would deny coverage, they could have started paying the doctors and hospital for years in advance.

You refuse to acknowledge the role of insurance companies. They make ZERO medical contribution. So WHAT DO THEY DO?????
 
Bfgrn said:
The insurance companies unethical behavior as spelled out by Wendell Potter, senior VP at Cigna was to find any excuse to deny coverage. IT was an active and conscious effort. It was planned and conceived with no regard for patients, their families or bringing upon them financial ruin.

Trying to drag in doctors and hospitals is either ignorant or deceitful. If the parents knew Cigna would deny coverage, they could have started paying the doctors and hospital for years in advance.

You refuse to acknowledge the role of insurance companies. They make ZERO medical contribution. So WHAT DO THEY DO?????
Click to expand...

I have not refused to acknowledge the role of insurance companies. They suck.

But this discussion has been about a specific case. In that case a young woman died when a transplant might have saved her.

The insurance company refused to pay for the surgery. Your claim has been that they put money before life, and that makes them unethical and responsible.

The Hospital and surgeons refused to do the surgery without being paid. The also put money before life, but you refuse to hold them responsible. You have yet to do anything except try to dodge the issue that BOTH entities put money above this young woman's life. Yet you only blast one of them.

That is what I have been after you about the entire previous thread and now this one. You have tried talk about insurance companies having contracts (ignoring the written limitations). You have tried to go with "who will save your life" and "Define their roles". But noe of that changes the facts of this individual case, which is the topic.
 
WinterBorn said:
They sure seemed pissed when GE took those legal deductions.
Click to expand...

Dear gawd you have really been dense lately!

We aren't pissed that they took them, we are pissed that they are given them by the government and want to see a change a real change in our tax code that is fair.

Someone must have really burnt you over this comment, because you keep making it and it is not what anyone of us are saying.

You keep repeating a lie.

any deficit hawk refusing to consider tax increases simply isn't serious about reducing the U.S. national debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top