Be Noble, Get a Nail Gun to the Head

That's why I hate private healthcare systems.
It's all getting to be more expensive with less care. It's the big healthcare F*cks getting richer and richer over the backs of people like this.
mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's why I hate private healthcare systems.
It's all getting to be more expensive with less care. It's the big healthcare F*cks getting richer and richer over the backs of people like this.
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think from a real-world point of view, we need to realize that people in business, including health care insurance, want to make a living. If they could make even a nickle off someone, I'll bet they'd do it. Why not? It's money right? If it's not a loss, what dif does it make? What that says to me, is if they won't cover someone, it's because they are not in business to lose money. And if the right thing to do is lose money so a few people with problems can get treated, then let the millions with extra money who complain about health care providers just cough-up some free money for those uncovered.

Why not? If it's lost money, what's the problem? If it's good for the health insurance company to lose money, it's got to be good for others making donations, right?

I think a lot of people live in a dream world where they think that society can afford to treat and pay for every disorder under the sun. Just because the equipment exists, does not mean that everybody on the planet can be paid for. If you want the system, you have to pay for the system.

Short answer ... I think if someone could be insured without them being a near certain risk of losing money, I think they would be covered.

It would be comparable to if someone was known to be 100% certain to wreck their Mercedes in the next 6 months, who would insure them? If they were likely to crash their $250,000 plane in the next 6 months, who would insure them?

If someone is getting the shaft, it would almost need to boil-down to the people who are low or medium risk, and given no options, when their life expectancy chances are pretty good for a long life.
 
The donor in the article, if you read the article, had no more likelihood of kidney failure than the general population. His insurance company relied on the wrong test. But that misses the point.

From the piece: "Dialysis is so expensive, in fact, that transplant surgery pays for itself in two years, according to one estimate." This article documents how the health insurance industry, not medical professionals who would work for a nickel, is penalizing donors, even though donors save the health insurance industry money. Most health insurance companies, like most corporations, can only see the quick buck. Their investors demand it. Talk about living in a dream world!
 
This is nothing less than reptilian cannibalism as practiced by corporations in today's neocon America.

A feat accompli.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
The donor in the article, if you read the article, had no more likelihood of kidney failure than the general population. His insurance company relied on the wrong test. But that misses the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
Hi Fred,

The company wasn't relying on any test; they're just cherry picking. They can make up and claim anything they want--except something clearly discriminatory.</font>

--------------------------

From the piece: "Dialysis is so expensive, in fact, that transplant surgery pays for itself in two years, according to one estimate."

<font color="blue">Yup, but that offset ain't in their back yard. It may help Medicare, Medicare, and some other carriers, but nothing necessarily accrues to Blue Cross here, so it stays dishonest and selfish. </font>

--------------------------

This article documents how the health insurance industry, not medical professionals who would work for a nickel, is penalizing donors, even though donors save the health insurance industry money.

<font color="blue">Of course. They exempt themselves from obligations to the common good. They even tout that absence is a goal of good corporate governance. </font>

-------------------------

Most health insurance companies, like most corporations, can only see the quick buck. Their investors demand it.

<font color="blue"> They'll take every buck; quick or slow; legal or not--and pre-calculate those costs if they get caught. Investors (mostly pension plans and managed funds) get lip-service and PR puffery. It's all a well-defended hoax benefiting the corporate insiders.</font>


Talk about living in a dream world!

<font color="blue">What ain't delusional these days...

Thanks for writing.


Bob Wulkowicz</font>
 
[ QUOTE ]
The donor in the article, if you read the article, had no more likelihood of kidney failure than the general population. His insurance company relied on the wrong test. But that misses the point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you read the article, there is not mention of other tests done that would have proved the misinterpretation.

One person interviewed mentioned about other tests that are available, but never indicated whether more were done, or what he used to prove his "healthy" verdict.

So in the nitty gritty of the article, it sort of rides the fence, or is sitting in neutral.

Maybe the writer or people offering opinions should have been more specific just to streamline the interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom