Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Simple summary of health care
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Simple summary of health care
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 18 2009, 01:26 PM (819 Views)
HoosierLars Jul 10 2009, 11:32 AM Post #76
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 10 2009, 11:24 AM
HoosierLars
Jul 10 2009, 10:49 AM
aaronk2727
Jul 10 2009, 09:29 AM
eelbor
Jul 9 2009, 09:55 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 9 2009, 08:40 PM
If preventative maintenance medical care is so cost effective, why doesn't the consumer pay for hit themselves?
Were you trying to say preventative care it is not effective?
no, if I were trying to say that, I would have said it. You are stating that it is cost effective, therefore I would like to know why the consumer doesn't just pay for this care themselves to prevent extremely high costs in the future which would lead to unafordable or unavailable insurance?
Aaron, I don't know why you aren't getting this. People with type 1 diabetes aren't insurable, period. It doesn't matter if they pay for their own preventative care.

Let's cut to the chase and admit that it's very expensive to insure some people, and it doesn't make economic sense for insurance companies to provide affordable rates for some people. The question is do we find a way to subsidize them (group insurance or some other collective approach) or let them die, saving us money?
lars, were you being sarcastic in your 1st comment? And yes, we can cut to the chase, but I was trying to bring us down a logical path. We must understand the root of the costs and realize that they aren't going away. If we force the insurance company to cover it, they are going to raise the rates for everyone to make up the difference. If we allow the government to pay for it, they are going to raise taxes. No matter which way you look at it, it has to be paid for, and I just can't figure out who Eel wants to cover it?
It comes down to how much are we willing to spend for a human life, because like it or not, we put a value on life when we decide how safe to make a product or road, or what to insure. Practically, it will be impossible to come up with a dollar value because it seems cold as hell, and we are rich enough to afford a lot, within reason. I think the argument comes down to what "within reason" means, and politically and ethically this is an unanswerable question. The advantage of the government getting involved is the state will determine guidelines, and rationing will be implemented. The same state that people have no problem stealing from will be the same faceless entity that will dictate who lives and dies.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jul 10 2009, 01:42 PM Post #77
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
HoosierLars
Jul 10 2009, 11:32 AM
aaronk2727
Jul 10 2009, 11:24 AM
HoosierLars
Jul 10 2009, 10:49 AM
aaronk2727
Jul 10 2009, 09:29 AM
eelbor
Jul 9 2009, 09:55 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 9 2009, 08:40 PM
If preventative maintenance medical care is so cost effective, why doesn't the consumer pay for hit themselves?
Were you trying to say preventative care it is not effective?
no, if I were trying to say that, I would have said it. You are stating that it is cost effective, therefore I would like to know why the consumer doesn't just pay for this care themselves to prevent extremely high costs in the future which would lead to unafordable or unavailable insurance?
Aaron, I don't know why you aren't getting this. People with type 1 diabetes aren't insurable, period. It doesn't matter if they pay for their own preventative care.

Let's cut to the chase and admit that it's very expensive to insure some people, and it doesn't make economic sense for insurance companies to provide affordable rates for some people. The question is do we find a way to subsidize them (group insurance or some other collective approach) or let them die, saving us money?
lars, were you being sarcastic in your 1st comment? And yes, we can cut to the chase, but I was trying to bring us down a logical path. We must understand the root of the costs and realize that they aren't going away. If we force the insurance company to cover it, they are going to raise the rates for everyone to make up the difference. If we allow the government to pay for it, they are going to raise taxes. No matter which way you look at it, it has to be paid for, and I just can't figure out who Eel wants to cover it?
It comes down to how much are we willing to spend for a human life, because like it or not, we put a value on life when we decide how safe to make a product or road, or what to insure. Practically, it will be impossible to come up with a dollar value because it seems cold as hell, and we are rich enough to afford a lot, within reason. I think the argument comes down to what "within reason" means, and politically and ethically this is an unanswerable question. The advantage of the government getting involved is the state will determine guidelines, and rationing will be implemented. The same state that people have no problem stealing from will be the same faceless entity that will dictate who lives and dies.
thats about as well as ive seen that stated.......good post
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 10 2009, 08:02 PM Post #78
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Been gone for a couple of days, but here goes:

aaron, in terms of your statement that I'm 'being like an unappreciative state employee'...well, screw you. I notice you didn't even attempt to answer my post.

If you don't think corporations use good health coverage as a selling point to gain good employees, then I don't know what to say to you. It most certainly was a factor when I was job hunting for my first teaching job.

You belittle people for not reading their contracts with credit card companies, yet when someone does their homework to understand their contract with their employer, you belittle them as well. All I see is a hypocrite.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 11 2009, 08:01 AM Post #79
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 10 2009, 08:02 PM
Been gone for a couple of days, but here goes:

aaron, in terms of your statement that I'm 'being like an unappreciative state employee'...well, screw you. I notice you didn't even attempt to answer my post.

If you don't think corporations use good health coverage as a selling point to gain good employees, then I don't know what to say to you. It most certainly was a factor when I was job hunting for my first teaching job.

You belittle people for not reading their contracts with credit card companies, yet when someone does their homework to understand their contract with their employer, you belittle them as well. All I see is a hypocrite.
that is completely untrue and mostly irrelevent. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jul 11 2009, 09:34 AM Post #80
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Note: Brum does not allow ANY criticism of teachers or their union contracts on this board
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 11 2009, 09:41 AM Post #81
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Jul 11 2009, 09:34 AM
Note: Brum does not allow ANY criticism of teachers or their union contracts on this board
Colt, this has zero to do with teaching.

aaron argued previously that people shouldn't complain about credit card companies raising rates because that they should know their contract. Now, when health insurance is part of your contract, he feels that an employee doesn't have the right to complain about it.

The reasoning he uses is that people shouldn't complain about insurance 'that they aren't paying for.' But people ARE paying for their insurance in the form of reduced salary, a statement that he chooses to ignore.

I'll ask you since aaron won't answer the question:

If it cost you $17000 to obtain insurance with a family plan and their were two jobs with everything else equal, would you take a job that paid $64000 but offered no insurance or would you take a job that paid $50000 but had insurance?
Edited by brumdog44, Jul 11 2009, 10:08 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jul 11 2009, 10:12 AM Post #82
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 11 2009, 09:41 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jul 11 2009, 09:34 AM
Note: Brum does not allow ANY criticism of teachers or their union contracts on this board
Colt, do you believe that a contract between two people should be followed?
sure, contracts are fine. its the people that negotiate them and "govern" the contract that i dont care for. you are just slaves working for your masters just like everyone else. in my industry, non-union employees tend to earn more than union employees. unions buy jobs in attempts to destroy non-union competition, pay people to infiltrate honest non-union competitors, picket businesses that dont uses their over-inflated services........all so their retired executives can drive a free lexus and get free healthcare for life while the actual union employee is laid-off and forced to draw public assistance...........what a total crock of shit. And people actually pay monthly dues for their continued "employment". Where there's a union, there is corruption.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 11 2009, 05:56 PM Post #83
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 11 2009, 09:41 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jul 11 2009, 09:34 AM
Note: Brum does not allow ANY criticism of teachers or their union contracts on this board
Colt, this has zero to do with teaching.

aaron argued previously that people shouldn't complain about credit card companies raising rates because that they should know their contract. Now, when health insurance is part of your contract, he feels that an employee doesn't have the right to complain about it.

The reasoning he uses is that people shouldn't complain about insurance 'that they aren't paying for.' But people ARE paying for their insurance in the form of reduced salary, a statement that he chooses to ignore.

I'll ask you since aaron won't answer the question:

If it cost you $17000 to obtain insurance with a family plan and their were two jobs with everything else equal, would you take a job that paid $64000 but offered no insurance or would you take a job that paid $50000 but had insurance?
Brum, I didn't see you ask that question. 1st thing though, I can't find the connection between people reading their credit card contracts and people not appreciating the insurance that their employer provides. I think your stretching at that one because you took offense to my "typical state employee" comment.

To answer your question though, if I had a contract offered to me that guaranteed me that insurance coverage or better in addition to my salary through the duration of my employment, then I would take that offer. If not, then I would take the higher salary knowing that the employer reserves the right to reduce or remove those benefits, which would be a more common occurance than giving me a reduction in salary.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Jul 11 2009, 07:13 PM Post #84
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 05:56 PM
To answer your question though, if I had a contract offered to me that guaranteed me that insurance coverage or better in addition to my salary through the duration of my employment, then I would take that offer. If not, then I would take the higher salary knowing that the employer reserves the right to reduce or remove those benefits, which would be a more common occurance than giving me a reduction in salary.
Is your salary guaranteed through the duration of your employment? I highly doubt that unless your 'salary' is based on a per job basis. Being a consultant, I obviously sign contracts guaranteeing the amount per job and duration for the most part. The average worker... not so much. For anyone that works for me, their salary is prone to the exact same scenario as their benefits, and if I changed either, I'd expect the exact same response, which would be them looking to see if another employer offered better. I'm not sure why you have this disconnect. Salary is the exact same as insurance coverage.

Also, I've seen salaries reduced by several companies due to the current recession, and I've yet to see anyone's insurance coverage reduced, so to say that salary is less prone isn't true; it's just more easily noticed. They're both just a 'cost' as far as any company is concerned with little differentiation other than employee's reactions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 11 2009, 08:29 PM Post #85
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 05:56 PM
brumdog44
Jul 11 2009, 09:41 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jul 11 2009, 09:34 AM
Note: Brum does not allow ANY criticism of teachers or their union contracts on this board
Colt, this has zero to do with teaching.

aaron argued previously that people shouldn't complain about credit card companies raising rates because that they should know their contract. Now, when health insurance is part of your contract, he feels that an employee doesn't have the right to complain about it.

The reasoning he uses is that people shouldn't complain about insurance 'that they aren't paying for.' But people ARE paying for their insurance in the form of reduced salary, a statement that he chooses to ignore.

I'll ask you since aaron won't answer the question:

If it cost you $17000 to obtain insurance with a family plan and their were two jobs with everything else equal, would you take a job that paid $64000 but offered no insurance or would you take a job that paid $50000 but had insurance?
Brum, I didn't see you ask that question. 1st thing though, I can't find the connection between people reading their credit card contracts and people not appreciating the insurance that their employer provides. I think your stretching at that one because you took offense to my "typical state employee" comment.

To answer your question though, if I had a contract offered to me that guaranteed me that insurance coverage or better in addition to my salary through the duration of my employment, then I would take that offer. If not, then I would take the higher salary knowing that the employer reserves the right to reduce or remove those benefits, which would be a more common occurance than giving me a reduction in salary.
You continue to call it 'employer provided insurance,' when in reality it is insurance subsidized by decreased salary.

BTW, didn't even mention that in the case of a person earning a higher salary, the employer is also going to have to kick in extra money to coverage the employee's FICA. So the $17000 extra at 7.65% runs out to about $1300.

Maybe you should be asking why employers don't appreciate giving employees insurance since it means both healthier employees and reduced costs.
Edited by brumdog44, Jul 11 2009, 08:31 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 11 2009, 09:34 PM Post #86
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
yawnzzz
Jul 11 2009, 07:13 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 05:56 PM
To answer your question though, if I had a contract offered to me that guaranteed me that insurance coverage or better in addition to my salary through the duration of my employment, then I would take that offer. If not, then I would take the higher salary knowing that the employer reserves the right to reduce or remove those benefits, which would be a more common occurance than giving me a reduction in salary.
Is your salary guaranteed through the duration of your employment? I highly doubt that unless your 'salary' is based on a per job basis. Being a consultant, I obviously sign contracts guaranteeing the amount per job and duration for the most part. The average worker... not so much. For anyone that works for me, their salary is prone to the exact same scenario as their benefits, and if I changed either, I'd expect the exact same response, which would be them looking to see if another employer offered better. I'm not sure why you have this disconnect. Salary is the exact same as insurance coverage.

Also, I've seen salaries reduced by several companies due to the current recession, and I've yet to see anyone's insurance coverage reduced, so to say that salary is less prone isn't true; it's just more easily noticed. They're both just a 'cost' as far as any company is concerned with little differentiation other than employee's reactions.
I almost never see anyone's salary cut, but benefits are cut almost every year by almost every company. This is what I see, and apparently you see something else in the companies that you work with....both are anecdotal so without stats I guess it is mute.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 11 2009, 09:38 PM Post #87
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 11 2009, 08:29 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 05:56 PM
brumdog44
Jul 11 2009, 09:41 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jul 11 2009, 09:34 AM
Note: Brum does not allow ANY criticism of teachers or their union contracts on this board
Colt, this has zero to do with teaching.

aaron argued previously that people shouldn't complain about credit card companies raising rates because that they should know their contract. Now, when health insurance is part of your contract, he feels that an employee doesn't have the right to complain about it.

The reasoning he uses is that people shouldn't complain about insurance 'that they aren't paying for.' But people ARE paying for their insurance in the form of reduced salary, a statement that he chooses to ignore.

I'll ask you since aaron won't answer the question:

If it cost you $17000 to obtain insurance with a family plan and their were two jobs with everything else equal, would you take a job that paid $64000 but offered no insurance or would you take a job that paid $50000 but had insurance?
Brum, I didn't see you ask that question. 1st thing though, I can't find the connection between people reading their credit card contracts and people not appreciating the insurance that their employer provides. I think your stretching at that one because you took offense to my "typical state employee" comment.

To answer your question though, if I had a contract offered to me that guaranteed me that insurance coverage or better in addition to my salary through the duration of my employment, then I would take that offer. If not, then I would take the higher salary knowing that the employer reserves the right to reduce or remove those benefits, which would be a more common occurance than giving me a reduction in salary.
You continue to call it 'employer provided insurance,' when in reality it is insurance subsidized by decreased salary.

BTW, didn't even mention that in the case of a person earning a higher salary, the employer is also going to have to kick in extra money to coverage the employee's FICA. So the $17000 extra at 7.65% runs out to about $1300.

Maybe you should be asking why employers don't appreciate giving employees insurance since it means both healthier employees and reduced costs.
there should be mutual appreciated employer/employee, but way way too many people, ESPECIALLY GOVERNMENT & UNION EMPLOYEES act as though they are owed everything from the employer and completely irreplaceable. Additionally brum, the employer's group plan typically saves the employee money on their insurance due to volume, and the employer has SIGNIFICANT extra costs to administer the company's healthcare and other benefits.

We have almost 10% unemployment right now....if I were an employee I would probably think about that and appreciate everything my employer did for me.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 11 2009, 11:38 PM Post #88
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 09:38 PM
brumdog44
Jul 11 2009, 08:29 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 05:56 PM
brumdog44
Jul 11 2009, 09:41 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Jul 11 2009, 09:34 AM
Note: Brum does not allow ANY criticism of teachers or their union contracts on this board
Colt, this has zero to do with teaching.

aaron argued previously that people shouldn't complain about credit card companies raising rates because that they should know their contract. Now, when health insurance is part of your contract, he feels that an employee doesn't have the right to complain about it.

The reasoning he uses is that people shouldn't complain about insurance 'that they aren't paying for.' But people ARE paying for their insurance in the form of reduced salary, a statement that he chooses to ignore.

I'll ask you since aaron won't answer the question:

If it cost you $17000 to obtain insurance with a family plan and their were two jobs with everything else equal, would you take a job that paid $64000 but offered no insurance or would you take a job that paid $50000 but had insurance?
Brum, I didn't see you ask that question. 1st thing though, I can't find the connection between people reading their credit card contracts and people not appreciating the insurance that their employer provides. I think your stretching at that one because you took offense to my "typical state employee" comment.

To answer your question though, if I had a contract offered to me that guaranteed me that insurance coverage or better in addition to my salary through the duration of my employment, then I would take that offer. If not, then I would take the higher salary knowing that the employer reserves the right to reduce or remove those benefits, which would be a more common occurance than giving me a reduction in salary.
You continue to call it 'employer provided insurance,' when in reality it is insurance subsidized by decreased salary.

BTW, didn't even mention that in the case of a person earning a higher salary, the employer is also going to have to kick in extra money to coverage the employee's FICA. So the $17000 extra at 7.65% runs out to about $1300.

Maybe you should be asking why employers don't appreciate giving employees insurance since it means both healthier employees and reduced costs.
there should be mutual appreciated employer/employee, but way way too many people, ESPECIALLY GOVERNMENT & UNION EMPLOYEES act as though they are owed everything from the employer and completely irreplaceable. Additionally brum, the employer's group plan typically saves the employee money on their insurance due to volume, and the employer has SIGNIFICANT extra costs to administer the company's healthcare and other benefits.

We have almost 10% unemployment right now....if I were an employee I would probably think about that and appreciate everything my employer did for me.
I generally have not complained about my pay over the years because of my job security....so while I am not at the same risk of unemployment as those in the business world, I also haven't reaped the rewards that many others have in the past when the economy was good. It goes with the gig, and it's why I typically don't get too wound up in my salary.

And the company plan, while it saves employees money, it also saves costs for employers as well in terms of what they would have to pay in terms of salaries and taxes in lieu of insurance benefits and that is a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY...I already pointed out a very realistic scenario in which the employer saved $4300 on a single employee by giving insurance instead of additional salary.

And BTW, a huge reason that we have unemployment right now is because we had highly irresponsible employers.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 11 2009, 11:40 PM Post #89
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 09:34 PM
yawnzzz
Jul 11 2009, 07:13 PM
aaronk2727
Jul 11 2009, 05:56 PM
To answer your question though, if I had a contract offered to me that guaranteed me that insurance coverage or better in addition to my salary through the duration of my employment, then I would take that offer. If not, then I would take the higher salary knowing that the employer reserves the right to reduce or remove those benefits, which would be a more common occurance than giving me a reduction in salary.
Is your salary guaranteed through the duration of your employment? I highly doubt that unless your 'salary' is based on a per job basis. Being a consultant, I obviously sign contracts guaranteeing the amount per job and duration for the most part. The average worker... not so much. For anyone that works for me, their salary is prone to the exact same scenario as their benefits, and if I changed either, I'd expect the exact same response, which would be them looking to see if another employer offered better. I'm not sure why you have this disconnect. Salary is the exact same as insurance coverage.

Also, I've seen salaries reduced by several companies due to the current recession, and I've yet to see anyone's insurance coverage reduced, so to say that salary is less prone isn't true; it's just more easily noticed. They're both just a 'cost' as far as any company is concerned with little differentiation other than employee's reactions.
I almost never see anyone's salary cut, but benefits are cut almost every year by almost every company. This is what I see, and apparently you see something else in the companies that you work with....both are anecdotal so without stats I guess it is mute.
Sorry, pet peave: it's 'the point is moot,' not 'mute.'
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jul 13 2009, 09:05 AM Post #90
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jul 10 2009, 11:24 AM
No matter which way you look at it, it has to be paid for, and I just can't figure out who Eel wants to cover it?
You are already paying for it. I am already paying for it. That is the point you keep forgetting. What we have does not work. It is broken and built on a broken model. An insurance policy that covers amputations of limbs for circulatory problems in diabetics, but will not pay for real time glucose testing supplies to prevent the need for the amputation, is part of the problem.

My daughter’s real time glucose sensors cost about $175 a month. They are not covered by most insurance companies. That is $2100 a year. In the year before she started on these sensors, she had two trips to the emergency room for low blood sugar. The average cost for the ambulance ride and the emergency room visit, paid for by insurance, was $3700 dollars. So in essence, if the real time sensors allowed each diabetic one less trip to the emergency room per year, it would save the company money. In that time her A1C 7.3 to 6.1. As has been documented by clinical research, a diabetic with an A1C that averages under 6.5 for the long haul suffers close to the norm for the population at large for circulatory problems later in life. That is HUGE. You speak at a 40000 foot view of these problems, and do not take the time to look at specifics. Yes, people expect to be able to charge the health insurance companies for health related costs.

Am I supposed to not charge my car insurance after a car wreck just so the insurance company continues to be able to keep everyone’s rates low? Insurance rates rose in the US post 9/11. Should the owners of the World Trade Center have eaten the $4.5 billion claim they had against the insurance companies to keep your rates low? Insurance exists to spread the risk. We all buy into our policies to lower the financial impact of jetliner striking any one of our buildings across the biggest possible cross section of the population. The Insurance companies are not eating any costs, they are passing them along. In public health dollars, what is not paid for by insurance companies and those with money is paid for with your taxes. You claim private companies always do a better job than the government in handling these types of things, yet you seem unwilling to give them the task to solve. We do not have a health care problem in the US. We have the best health care there is. We have an insurance problem.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:44 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy