 |
|

05-13-2008, 04:55 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,458
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
Interesting. Can you point to the State laws and regulations that require insurance companies to refuse to insure people with pre-existing and costly medical problems, and that require insurance companies to cancel the policies for people who make a lot of claims, and the requirement to deny requests and claims for coverage until after the patient dies?
Such a pointer would be helpful in the upcoming elections: running attack ads featuring these laws and regulations with the names of the people who wrote, voted for, and approved them would certainly be helpful to Democrats in the fall.
|
I do not know about NH, but in Texas, we have a Department of Insurance that investigates complaints. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor.
There is no excuse for a Politician in Texas to say "We did not know this was happening"
Texas has a health Insurance pool (Created by Politicians) and their guidelines are tougher than that of any Insurance Company.
__________________
Drill offshore now
|

05-13-2008, 10:20 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 2,491
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wow
I do not know about NH, but in Texas, we have a Department of Insurance that investigates complaints. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor.
There is no excuse for a Politician in Texas to say "We did not know this was happening"
Texas has a health Insurance pool (Created by Politicians) and their guidelines are tougher than that of any Insurance Company.
|
So, if you were a politician in Texas, how would you fix things in Texas?
|

05-14-2008, 11:44 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,458
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
So, if you were a politician in Texas, how would you fix things in Texas?
|
Bush did a good job in Texas.
His tort reform measures and tax cuts produced huge surpluses and lower Insurance premiums for all Texans, that we enjoy to this day! 
__________________
Drill offshore now
|

06-03-2008, 07:12 PM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I go where the jellyfish are plentiful and the air burns like a whore's rash.
Posts: 253
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
Interesting. Can you point to the State laws and regulations that require insurance companies to refuse to insure people with pre-existing and costly medical problems, and that require insurance companies to cancel the policies for people who make a lot of claims, and the requirement to deny requests and claims for coverage until after the patient dies?
|
No laws required here...it's a BUSINESS. By definition, they have to calculate their risks. If your job were on the other side of a raging river would you swim across and gamble that you'd get to work alive, or would you use the bridge and insure a better chance of making money instead of failing miserably?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
Such a pointer would be helpful in the upcoming elections: running attack ads featuring these laws and regulations with the names of the people who wrote, voted for, and approved them would certainly be helpful to Democrats in the fall.
|
You wouldn't have to attack insurance companies if they were so stupid that they needed laws to tell them to reduce risks and increase profits. Those companies would cease to exist by paying out more in claims than they took in from premiums.
Do you honestly feel that a business should be required to provide their services to everyone, no matter the risk to the company? Should auto insurance companies be required to insure repeat drunk drivers? Or blind people?
What insurance company would see ANY profit in insuring a man with pre-existing cancer? What insurance company would want to insure a woman whose claims in year were $76,263, but her premiums only added up to $17,456 in her whole lifetime?
Insurance is a BUSINESS, not a right. Why doesn't McDonald's sell their Big Macs for less money that they cost to make? Why doesn't your dry cleaner just charge you for the chemicals, but give you the labor for free? Why doesn't the shoe store only sell shoes that everyone in every income bracket can afford?
Why would any half-intelligent person think that if a business doesn't operate at your sole convenience, it must be because it's the law, not because it's good business sense?
__________________
Global Warming is my favorite color.
|

06-03-2008, 07:22 PM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 209
|
|
It is quite clear this man had a price put on the value of his life.
It is a very sad thing.
This man decided for himself that his life wasn’t worth going into debt for.
|

06-03-2008, 07:35 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 437
|
|
Mulp is so shallow he likes to look at 2 things:
1. Bottom price that is easily published and promoted via prominant sources.
2. Refusal to separate an apple and an orange when comparing the two.
Mulp, rather than make the claim the swiss system is better than our own, please specify exactly WHAT they did to make it better. What inside thier system needs to be removed or added to our own to make it equal or better. Furthermore, places like CUBA (who you called a capitalist healthcare system) need to be compared to FRANCE and figure out why one is better.
Mulp, you cannot look at the bottom dollar and make a judgment until you understand how that dollar figure is possible. You seem oblivious that, to cut ourselves down to their level of average expense is NOT government impliments but in fact CUTS inside the private sector and many of which are already government regulated ergo keeping the prices high where capitalism would allow prices to drop!
In case my last paragraph confused you let me put it into lamens terminology. The government already plays a HUGE INFLUENCE on what our healthcare costs! You think adding even more government would lower it while most economists would agree the reverse is true. Capitalism has always proved the best product or service at the lowest price when government leaves it alone, with the only exception being MONOPOLIES......
|

06-03-2008, 07:43 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chapmanville, wv
Posts: 4,712
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RL Gumm
Can anyone give a logical explanation as to why the Bush Administration went to such great lengths in terms of military lives lost (4000+) and innocent citizens killed nearly 1,000,000), to lie us into a war over approximately 3,000 fatalities on 9/11, but shows absolutely no concern that we are losing between 80,000 and 100,000 people EVERY YEAR from MEDICAL MISTAKES?
|
And what about the the 3700 children killed on a daily basis...by the medical profession, THAT "IS NOT" A MEDICAL MISTAKE, but a humanitarian one? BD
|

06-03-2008, 08:30 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 437
|
|
I certainly hope some imbecile is not claiming medical malpractice by licensed physicians is somehow Bush's fault. That would set an entirely new low for grasping at reason to dislike a president.
How about we blame a president for the fact a girlfriend cheated on her boyfriend? Oh wait, that would be the Clinton presidency, so let's just not go there for now and wait for a liberal that is in the republican party to do it before we start placing new lows of blame.
Edited to add----
-When NEWT GINGRICH has an affair and admits to his faults everyone expects him to resign Speaker of the House of Representitives! He DOES resign!
-When Bill Clinton has an affair, lies about it, found guilty of perjery via Impeachment, only conservatives (no liberals) expect him to resign.........
In conclusion------ Conservatives believe in rules and morality while liberals believe in political agendas are more important than morality and personal character.
Last edited by Tileman : 06-03-2008 at 08:37 PM.
|

06-03-2008, 08:54 PM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I go where the jellyfish are plentiful and the air burns like a whore's rash.
Posts: 253
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RL Gumm
Can anyone give a logical explanation as to why the Bush Administration went to such great lengths in terms of military lives lost (4000+) and innocent citizens killed nearly 1,000,000), to lie us into a war over approximately 3,000 fatalities on 9/11, but shows absolutely no concern that we are losing between 80,000 and 100,000 people EVERY YEAR from MEDICAL MISTAKES?
|
Unless you know of a chain of Hospitals that are all manned by Jesus, I think you'll have to accept that they'll make mistakes. If you're naive enough to walk into a hospital thinking every doctor can cure everything, then I can see where you'd be appalled by medical mistakes. I, on the other hand, know and accept that when I walk into a Hospital (or crawl, or am wheeled in as the case may be!), it's because I've done everything I know to do, and now I'm hoping (not demanding or even expecting) that someone in there can do a better job than I did at fixing whatever's wrong. Sometimes, they can't help. Sometimes there's more than one way to try to help, but no rule book will tell them which way is certain to work. They're humans who are trained to troubleshoot the human body. Nothing more. The study of Medicine is a science. The application of medicine is a craft. Even the finest craftsmen screw up.
Compare your 80,000-100,000 mistakes per year to the number of lives saved each year; then number of potentially fatal diseases caught in time; the number of fatal wounds repaired successfully; the number of preventative practices that saved lives without ever being counted. Your numbers are meaningless without comparison.
Hell, McDonald's loses almost NO patients EVER. Compared to 80,000 they look pretty good. But then compare their dead patients to the number of lives they saved, and even an idiot can see you're still safer at the Hospital than the drive-thru. Quit trying to make medical mistakes look like butchery.
__________________
Global Warming is my favorite color.
|

06-03-2008, 09:36 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chapmanville, wv
Posts: 4,712
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tileman
Mulp is so shallow he likes to look at 2 things:
1. Bottom price that is easily published and promoted via prominant sources.
2. Refusal to separate an apple and an orange when comparing the two.
Mulp, rather than make the claim the swiss system is better than our own, please specify exactly WHAT they did to make it better. What inside thier system needs to be removed or added to our own to make it equal or better. Furthermore, places like CUBA (who you called a capitalist healthcare system) need to be compared to FRANCE and figure out why one is better.
Mulp, you cannot look at the bottom dollar and make a judgment until you understand how that dollar figure is possible. You seem oblivious that, to cut ourselves down to their level of average expense is NOT government impliments but in fact CUTS inside the private sector and many of which are already government regulated ergo keeping the prices high where capitalism would allow prices to drop!
In case my last paragraph confused you let me put it into lamens terminology. The government already plays a HUGE INFLUENCE on what our healthcare costs! You think adding even more government would lower it while most economists would agree the reverse is true. Capitalism has always proved the best product or service at the lowest price when government leaves it alone, with the only exception being MONOPOLIES......
|
People seem to believe that Government provided health care is "FREE"..when it is anything but. Someone is going to have to foot the bill, and considering the way the government manages other endeavors of monetary concern, it will indeed cost a great deal more. And to compare a nation like one of the smaller socialist countries of Europe that depend upon the "good nature" of their enemies not to attack them, is surely a bad example, as they have no where near the cost for their military and security than does the US. If you want a valid comparison of total "regulation" by a SUPER POWER in its attempts to maintain a government trough for its citizens and the ability to remain a Super Power in conflict with other Super Powers....compare the message that history presents us in the case of the USSR. BD
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|