Healthcare Bill - Daily Life Question

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

I don’t see how the validity of any recent wars has any relevance to the health care bill. Should people just blindly trust their government for all time now seeing as they set a precedent by doing it once?

And wouldn’t it be smarter to remove/reduce whatever system allows everyone who walks in off the street to get emergency treatment so that people consider getting insurance and taking responsibility for themselves. As I understand it, this would also have an enormous positive outcome for the whole illegal alien problem too. Two birds with one stone.

Why would this not be reasonable? (note: I didn’t say realistic I realise Hell will freeze before people give up something they are getting for free.)

22

[quote]secondplace wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]secondplace wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Good luck getting reimbursed at the rate you are getting now. The government is equally capable of limiting the number of therapy sessions covered by a government plan, as a private plan could. This is the huge mistake the government is making by “giving Americans health care.” Giving you care doesn’t mean you will necessarily get it.

I used to see this all the when I worked in a hospital, where private companies would cover someone for X amount of treatment, after that, tough shit. We used to discharge people long before they were ready to go home, on the sole reason of the insurance not covering the patient any further. In your case, the government can easily low ball a patient with fewer sessions covered than they actually need.

This is my guess as to what will happen to make sure costs don’t get to be too much for the government. So in essence, the government is really no different than a private company. I do foresee your practice having more patients, because cost prevented many people from pursuing treatment, which now is allegedly going to not be a factor. My 2 cents. [/quote]

You make it sound like those who would choose the government option already have healthcare. Some care is better than no care. If you’re satisfied with your current insurance, you keep it -plain and simple. Those that criticise this bill, do so only because the idea sounds so “liberal,” not because it would hurt our country; at least not from the analysis I’ve seen.
[/quote]

Everyone has some degree of care with emergency rooms, so while you make it sound as if people have “no” care at all, that is not true.

I criticize the bill because I do not trust the government to effectively run health care. The government is much too big and clumsy an entity to run something so serious. These are people who stay awake all night to find ways to screw you during the day. Did you not already know this? Have you not seen enough bullshit to convince you that the government could care less about you, as long as you keep making money so they can tax you later? Have you not seen the bribery to make this thing go through? Please remove the anal from your analysis. [/quote]

I truly can’t believe that you think anybody could care less about your and my health than insurance companies. It is literally their job to ensure that they provide you less in healthcare than you pay them for - that’s the definition of a profit, and that’s why they are the last people that should be in charge of, in some cases, whether we live or die. Insurance companies, because of their policies, have played the role of murderer time and time again.

Your so right, they do have care. And who do you think pays for those emergency room visits every time someone uninsured gets a runny nose? This is why it’s in the best interest of the tax payers to get as many people insured as possible. Not to mention the bill is payed for by the newly-insured’s premiums.

Why is that people start fearing their government when big business is challenged, but not when lies about wars are being shoved down their throats? [/quote]

Let me tell you a story about how much health insurance companies care about me…

Once upon a time, I had surgery. My insurance company covered it when the claim was submitted, and so I had my surgery. 7 months later, I get a letter from the insurance company saying they were taking their payment back, because the surgery was deemed “experimental.” I called my surgeon asking him why didn’t he tell me this procedure was experimental, and he told me it wasn’t. He was right, the FDA approved the procedure 2 yrs prior. I called the insurance company to tell them, and they said they were still not going to pay, leaving me with a bill of $20k. My final words with them were “you picked the wrong mother fucker to try this with…”

I filed an appeal with the California Dept. of Managed Health Care, and submitted a shit ton of paperwork supporting my reasons as to why this should be covered. The verdict? I won my appeal. What happened next? They appealed the appeal. So I got on the phone with some big wig from Anthem Blue Cross, and I told him flat out, “I will fight you for the rest of my life, I will use every resource I have within the media, and I will make sure that everyone sees the details of this.” Finally he backed down, and covered the bill they originally agreed to.

You see, they will always try. This is their law. They may or may not win, but they will always try. Whatever money they don’t spend on their patients, is profit for them. Now I understand they will make their money, but they went back on their word as far as coverage for my surgery. Not on my watch. I am in the business of kicking ass, and business has always been good to me.

If they do it to me, they will do it to you.

23

This pretty much sums up what’s wrong with this bill. It would be cheaper for the U.S. gov. to purchase the 31 million people “Cadillac” insurance plans for the next 10 years, then it would be to implement this “Reform”. That’s a problem.

24

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]secondplace wrote:

I truly can’t believe that you think anybody could care less about your and my health than insurance companies. It is literally their job to ensure that they provide you less in healthcare than you pay them for - that’s the definition of a profit, and that’s why they are the last people that should be in charge of, in some cases, whether we live or die. Insurance companies, because of their policies, have played the role of murderer time and time again.

   [/quote]

A bakers profit comes from literally “giving you less bread than you pay for” and he is personally responsible for all the people starving in this world?

TSB.

[/quote]

They better be spending less making that bread than they charge for it, or no they won’t make a profit. I’ll try to wrap my head around the world hunger analogy. Let’s say the baker had a monopoly over bread and was able to set an extremely high market rate for it that the poor could not afford and they were starving. It would not be the baker’s (insurance company’s) fault, he’s just doing what’s in his best interest. It would be the government’s fault for not providing some sort of competition to force the price of bread down, or the citinzens fault for not voting for the change.

25

[quote]Cameron_Phillips wrote:
I don’t see how the validity of any recent wars has any relevance to the health care bill. Should people just blindly trust their government for all time now seeing as they set a precedent by doing it once?

And wouldn’t it be smarter to remove/reduce whatever system allows everyone who walks in off the street to get emergency treatment so that people consider getting insurance and taking responsibility for themselves. As I understand it, this would also have an enormous positive outcome for the whole illegal alien problem too. Two birds with one stone.

Why would this not be reasonable? (note: I didn’t say realistic I realise Hell will freeze before people give up something they are getting for free.)[/quote]

I guess the war comment was unfair. i apologize, it was late. As far as everything else, it seems like you’re pretty much agreeing with me that it would be cheaper in the long run for people to have health insurance than to use the emergency room as their primary physician.

Oh wait, I just understood what you were saying. Believe me, as a dirt poor college student who just underwent a series of tests, sonograms, and biopsies, and with a girlfriend who has a seriously painful medical condition that needs operating, I feel fairly certain that if people could afford insurance they’d choose that over impersonal emergency room visits anyday.

26

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]secondplace wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]secondplace wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Good luck getting reimbursed at the rate you are getting now. The government is equally capable of limiting the number of therapy sessions covered by a government plan, as a private plan could. This is the huge mistake the government is making by “giving Americans health care.” Giving you care doesn’t mean you will necessarily get it.

I used to see this all the when I worked in a hospital, where private companies would cover someone for X amount of treatment, after that, tough shit. We used to discharge people long before they were ready to go home, on the sole reason of the insurance not covering the patient any further. In your case, the government can easily low ball a patient with fewer sessions covered than they actually need.

This is my guess as to what will happen to make sure costs don’t get to be too much for the government. So in essence, the government is really no different than a private company. I do foresee your practice having more patients, because cost prevented many people from pursuing treatment, which now is allegedly going to not be a factor. My 2 cents. [/quote]

You make it sound like those who would choose the government option already have healthcare. Some care is better than no care. If you’re satisfied with your current insurance, you keep it -plain and simple. Those that criticise this bill, do so only because the idea sounds so “liberal,” not because it would hurt our country; at least not from the analysis I’ve seen.
[/quote]

Everyone has some degree of care with emergency rooms, so while you make it sound as if people have “no” care at all, that is not true.

I criticize the bill because I do not trust the government to effectively run health care. The government is much too big and clumsy an entity to run something so serious. These are people who stay awake all night to find ways to screw you during the day. Did you not already know this? Have you not seen enough bullshit to convince you that the government could care less about you, as long as you keep making money so they can tax you later? Have you not seen the bribery to make this thing go through? Please remove the anal from your analysis. [/quote]

I truly can’t believe that you think anybody could care less about your and my health than insurance companies. It is literally their job to ensure that they provide you less in healthcare than you pay them for - that’s the definition of a profit, and that’s why they are the last people that should be in charge of, in some cases, whether we live or die. Insurance companies, because of their policies, have played the role of murderer time and time again.

Your so right, they do have care. And who do you think pays for those emergency room visits every time someone uninsured gets a runny nose? This is why it’s in the best interest of the tax payers to get as many people insured as possible. Not to mention the bill is payed for by the newly-insured’s premiums.

Why is that people start fearing their government when big business is challenged, but not when lies about wars are being shoved down their throats? [/quote]

Let me tell you a story about how much health insurance companies care about me…

Once upon a time, I had surgery. My insurance company covered it when the claim was submitted, and so I had my surgery. 7 months later, I get a letter from the insurance company saying they were taking their payment back, because the surgery was deemed “experimental.” I called my surgeon asking him why didn’t he tell me this procedure was experimental, and he told me it wasn’t. He was right, the FDA approved the procedure 2 yrs prior. I called the insurance company to tell them, and they said they were still not going to pay, leaving me with a bill of $20k. My final words with them were “you picked the wrong mother fucker to try this with…”

I filed an appeal with the California Dept. of Managed Health Care, and submitted a shit ton of paperwork supporting my reasons as to why this should be covered. The verdict? I won my appeal. What happened next? They appealed the appeal. So I got on the phone with some big wig from Anthem Blue Cross, and I told him flat out, “I will fight you for the rest of my life, I will use every resource I have within the media, and I will make sure that everyone sees the details of this.” Finally he backed down, and covered the bill they originally agreed to.

You see, they will always try. This is their law. They may or may not win, but they will always try. Whatever money they don’t spend on their patients, is profit for them. Now I understand they will make their money, but they went back on their word as far as coverage for my surgery. Not on my watch. I am in the business of kicking ass, and business has always been good to me.

If they do it to me, they will do it to you.[/quote]

I think we’re in agreement