American Politics XIII

[Ector]

You do realize people can't get healh insurance from any company in the counrty right? There are laws on the books about this already, and one of the things healthcare reform is trying to change. I know the presidnet has talked about his desire to allow people to shop for insurance across state lines. A national program would of course operate across state lines. This 1500 number of yours may have a grain of truth to it, but has no bearing on reality.

I didn't realize. Before I supported insurance companies being allowed to go across state lines I would need to research why they don't allow it in the first place. At first thought that part of the bill seems reasonable to me. Its kind of small potatoes compared to getting the government getting involved in the health insurance market though.

[Watcher]

Your girlfriend isn't being denied healthcare. If she needs life saving treatment she will get it under the current health care system. Because 1500 companies can't find a way to provide her with what she wants at her price doesn't make them evil or unresponsive. It makes the price you want impossible for the health insurance company.

She doesn't need life saving treatment, she need a yearly spinal tap and medication to keep it under control. If she loses her job no one will cover that. Our choice is her keeping her job or us declaring bankruptcy due to medical like over half of the other people who declare bankruptcy.

Insurance companies maximize profits by getting customers. They get customers by offering better prices then their competitors and keeping owning up to their contracts. If some company did the thigns you claim they would get destroyed in a free market.

A Free markets system is only concern with profit. If one company can find a way to save money others will follow. Such as what Blue Cross of CA was doing.

Blue Cross of California encouraged employees through performance evaluations to cancel the health insurance policies of individuals with expensive illnesses, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) charged at the start of a congressional hearing today on the controversial practice known as rescission.

The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/bu...ss/fi-rescind17

[Ector]

They care about your needs.

i haven't laughed so hard in many years.

If some company screwed over it customers constantly, nobody would buy from them and they would go out of business. Where is my logic flawed?

[Security Squish]

Heard Daniel Hannan bring it up on the radio the other day. Here was the transcript: http://www.goldcoastchronicle.com/on-the-h...-daniel-hannan/

Its towards the bottom.

I think the CDC may be a better source than your radio show guy. You should do a little more research before you make such outlandish and inflamitory claims.

Did you know more Americans die from prostate cancer than breast cancer? I bet you didn't. Don't feel too bad, most people don't know that.

[BloodRider]

They care about your needs.

i haven't laughed so hard in many years.

I know, right. Thats some crazy shit.

If some company screwed over it customers constantly, nobody would buy from them and they would go out of business. Where is my logic flawed?

Ummm it is flawed where it meets up with reality. Also - it isn't logic. I mean these things that your "logic" supposedly disproves ARE ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

Lets talk about the easiest shortcut to your vulcanic skills. Collusion of all the providers would prevent service shopping. In other words - what good is it to switch providers if none of them provide the service you need. For example - watchers girlfriend is not able to switch to a health care that will cover a pre-existing condition. Why? because none of them will do it. Collusion.

There are at least two other ways you "logic" is hopelessly flawed. (I won't go into a discussion on your misunderstandings of Economic theory since lets face it - most of that can be counterintuitive) I leave the work up to you as an exercise in using your noggin.

[Watcher]

I didn't realize. Before I supported insurance companies being allowed to go across state lines I would need to research why they don't allow it in the first place. At first thought that part of the bill seems reasonable to me. Its kind of small potatoes compared to getting the government getting involved in the health insurance market though.

This is a horrible ideal. The Insurance Companies are regulated by the States, not at the Federal level. If this would to be allowed ever company would go to the state with the laxest laws and operate from there. Then when anyone sued them, they could legally claim there were following all laws required by the business friendly state. THis is why your credit card company is based in Delaware or North Dakota.

[Ector]

She doesn't need life saving treatment, she need a yearly spinal tap and medication to keep it under control. If she loses her job no one will cover that. Our choice is her keeping her job or us declaring bankruptcy due to medical like over half of the other people who declare bankruptcy.

Would she be denied a spinal tap if she wasn't covered. I think that would be against the Hippocratic Oath. So she would get her health care just not at the price you want. Spinal taps are expensive, its a fact of life that can't be changed with legislation. if the government got involved the only difference would be probably you would be making your neighbor pay for it.

[TerraPrime]

The 25% prostate cancer thing is probably from something like this: link

Scroll down and you'll see that the 5 year survival rate for prostate cancer in the U.S. is 99.7%, whereas for Europe (according to the Europe4 report) is 77.5%.

Overall, the success rate for cancer treatment does seem to be better in the U.S.

However.

Cancer tends to afflict people in the higher age groups more, since it is an accumulative disease. Most of the elderly people of the U.S. utilize Medicare, which is a government-run program. Therefore, the success of 5 year survival rate for cancers is not that great of a piece of evidence to support the private insurance model of health care in the U.S. It'd be nice if we can break down the 5 year cancer survival rate for only those patients who are NOT under Meidcare and/or Medicaid. That will be a more appropriate comparison when discussing the merits of a private insurance system versus a public one.

[TerraPrime]

If some company screwed over it customers constantly, nobody would buy from them and they would go out of business. Where is my logic flawed?

Since you asked:

Most Americans obtain private health insurance through work, which serves as an aggregate to leverage better premium and coverage on behalf of their employees. Therefore, most insured Americans do not choose their insurance plan. The choice was made for them by their employer.

Would she be denied a spinal tap if she wasn't covered. I think that would be against the Hippocratic Oath.

Your understanding of the Hippocratic Oath is very peculiar.

[Ormond]

Sure it is. I have never heard of someone being denied life-saving treatment due to funds in this country. Now the UK (which is a single payer system) on the other hand......................

It may be true that it would be rare for a physician to "deny live saving treatment due to funds", but that would be because of moral scruples that are not mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath.

There seems to be more than one version of the Oath, but neither the ancient version nor the modern one found in the following online medical dictionary involve any obligation to treat patients for free:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909

[Watcher]

If some company screwed over it customers constantly, nobody would buy from them and they would go out of business. Where is my logic flawed?

While that's a good assumption based on free market theory, in reality it doesn't work that way. These companies are too big and spread out for a few cancelation to truly affect them. The CEOs claim they drop less then 1% of the people they cover, which there is no way to verify but even if the number was 2 or 3% that's still not enough people for it to make news. But the savings can be huge. And enough people are either happy with the coverage or unaware of the practice to not be concerned about it. Plus most people get their insurance their work and even if they are stuck with a bad company are to far removed to actually care about it. Until they are directly effected that is.

Did you know more Americans die from prostate cancer than breast cancer? I bet you didn't. Don't feel too bad, most people don't know that.

I knew that!

[Ector]

Since you asked:

Most Americans obtain private health insurance through work, which serves as an aggregate to leverage better premium and coverage on behalf of their employees. Therefore, most insured Americans do not choose their insurance plan. The choice was made for them by their employer.

Your understanding of the Hippocratic Oath is very peculiar.

Nobody forces someone to get health insurance through their employer. And if a company did, nobody forces someone to work for that company.

You may be right about the Hippocratic Oath, but it doesn't change the fact nobody is denied life-saving treatment in the US because of funds.

[sologdin]

ector--

i'm sure that your argument is valid; i simply doubt its soundness.

that said, the notion that insurers care about the needs of the insureds is pure propaganda. my experience is that nurse case managers, claims adjusters, and other routine risk management positions might readily be abolished at an aggregate gain to the world economy.

and, seriously, regarding nurse case managers--how does their role fit in with the hippocratic oath?

ETA--

nobody forces someone to work for that company.

this argument is extremely weak, considering that the variation among potential employers is approximately zero.

[Ector]

While that's a good assumption based on free market theory, in reality it doesn't work that way. These companies are too big and spread out for a few cancelation to truly affect them. The CEOs claim they drop less then 1% of the people they cover, which there is no way to verify but even if the number was 2 or 3% that's still not enough people for it to make news. But the savings can be huge. And enough people are either happy with the coverage or unaware of the practice to not be concerned about it. Plus most people get their insurance their work and even if they are stuck with a bad company are to far removed to actually care about it. Until they are directly effected that is.

All these things are faults of the individual. A person not caring enough about their insurance to do the necessary amount of research before purchase has nobody to blame but themselves.

[Ector]

nobody forces someone to work for that company.

this argument is extremely weak, considering that the variation among potential employers is approximately zero.

Then the answer is to fix the economy not government health care. agreed?

[TerraPrime]

Nobody forces someone to get health insurance through their employer. And if a company did, nobody forces someone to work for that company.

Of course nobody ever forces anyone to work. That'd be slavery. But how's that even material? The word "choice" and "force" in this context that you apply them are void of meaning. Jobs provide economic stability. The vast, vast majority of people do not have the luxury to turn down jobs on account of their dissatisfaction over the health plan that their company offers. In fact, the availability of health insurance is one of the top considerations for people looking for a job. Out-of-pocket insurance fees are so high that it is prohibitive to most people. I'm honestly unsure whether your apparent dismissal of this simple reality of the current U.S. situation was born out of sheer ignorance, or from a will to make a convenient argument at all costs, or a mixture of the two.

You may be right about the Hippocratic Oath, but it doesn't change the fact nobody is denied life-saving treatment in the US because of funds.

First, these people are not treated for free. The cost is deferred to the rest of people paying for health insurance. These emergency life-saving procedures that we are all entitled to are paid for by the collective, which is no different from any sort of public-funded option. It's not clear to me what sort of logical consistency can be manufactured out of your support for the offering of life-saving emergency treatments to those who cannot affort it and your opposition to reforming health care so that those who cannot afford care can have the option to obtain care, since both situations are paid for by the rest of society.

Second, health care is more than averting life-threatening emergencies. It's about managing chronic ailments as well. Diseases such as diabetes and hypertension are chronic conditions that should be monitored routinely. Health is more than just staying alive.

[BloodRider]

Nobody forces someone to get health insurance through their employer. And if a company did, nobody forces someone to work for that company.

Yes, but they don't treat debilitating conditions for free. A patient with Trigeminal neuralgia is going to have to live with the HORRIBLE pain, but thats OK - it isn't life threatening.

By the same token - they won't remove a growth at the ER unless it becomes life threatening. Which by then it is way too late.

They won't diagnose your symptoms and treat you for an emerging conditions in an ER. But that is pretty much the best way to save a cancer patient's life.

They certainly will not hand out anti-psychotics at the ER. But that stuff saves lives - and not just those of the mentally ill.

Not to mention - you are paying for this treatment anyway. You honestly think the insurance companies take that on the chin. Hell no they pass those costs on to their consumers. And the ER is where it costs the absolute most.

I could go on, but the idea that the ER will fix it all for free is just stupid, dude.

[Trencher]

I got my call from my insurance provider last week. It went something like this:

Insurance Agent: Ector, I know we are competing with 1,500 other insurance companies for your business but we need a favor.

ME: What?

Insurance Agent: We need you to go cause a ruckus at a town hall meeting even if your not upset about the HCR bill.

ME: Done.

You guys are easily as paranoid as birthers.

Exactly. Isn't Dante a Diebolder as well?

Now the King of community organizers is complaining about potential community organizing. What hypocrisy. The polls show most Americans do not want the bill to pass yet the far left doesn't want to think a few of them (Dems included) might just protest a little when their lives are on the line? The union and ACORN brownshirts however are out in force now to deal with the elderly. There's some real astroturf for you. Well done, Obama.

[awesome possum]

I got my call from my insurance provider last week. It went something like this:

Insurance Agent: Ector, I know we are competing with 1,500 other insurance companies for your business but we need a favor.

ME: What?

Insurance Agent: We need you to go cause a ruckus at a town hall meeting even if your not upset about the HCR bill.

ME: Done.

You guys are easily as paranoid as birthers.

Now the King of community organizers is complaining about potential community organizing. What hypocrisy. The polls show most Americans do not want the bill to pass yet the far left doesn't want to think a few of them (Dems included) might just protest a little when their lives are on the line? The union and ACORN brownshirts however are out in force now to deal with the elderly. There's some real astroturf for you. Well done, Obama.

I was going to type up a valid, thoughtful reply to these posts. Then I decided to just match the intellectual honesty shown by both of you with this response:

DUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

[BloodRider]

There is no such thing a free-market being unresponsive to the people. There are 1500 insurance providers in the US. Each one is competing for your business. They care about your needs.

I can't stop laughing about the surreal inanity of this statement. Ector, may I sig this. I want to laugh about it again and again!