The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022, Lillian, ROCOR man, comehavebreakfast
5,878 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 141 guests, and 27 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,217
Posts415,273
Members5,878
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
As I said, companies that indulge in such practices will lose their business quite rapidly. It happens in all other sectors of the economy (including other parts of the insurance industry), so why should health insurance be any different, especially if there is more competition?


Stuart, you are completely missing the point. They ALL DO it!!! Since they are able to get away with it. That's why regulation is needed. They have run amuck for so long...the poison has spread throughout the system...If this wasn't a problem, presidents have not been trying to address this for 100 years (varing degrees of focus on the issue)...

Quote
If you are too busy to read a contract that could have life-altering consequences, you deserve what you get--just like those people who took out adjustable rate mortgages without reading the terms, who suddenly found themselves inundated by massive balloon payments.


Call me a dreamer but I will always believe that with contracts being part of everyday life. The reason we pay to have a financial advisor (for insurance or mortgages) is to have them get the best plan. The problem is if they all stink, they all stink.

Quote
In places where health care is free, it's worth what you pay for it.


This is quite the red herring. Nowhere did I nor anyone else suggest that health care should be free. Or it is free anywhere. I will give you another example of a problem with the current system. There was an issue in the family, where we knew an MRI would be needed. The primary care physician said we need a catscan first. (We knew the issue and the last time it occured, we went through a catscan, only to need an MRI and was told at that point that catscans don't show what is necessary for them.) I was told by the physician that the Insurance company required the catscan first or they would not pay for an MRI. Now, I don't know if it was the insurance company that said it, or it was the doctor looking for additional testing for additional fees. But, It was clear right from the beginning that the catscan was not needed and was just another expense for the insurance company. So even if prices were posted for fees on tests, it doesn't matter if you are required to get a test that you don't need.

Oh...in regards to Scrooge...you are correct "it's not Scrooge's business acumen that is criticized by Dickens" but that is an aspect that has been criticized by others...

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
Stuart, you are completely missing the point. They ALL DO it!!! Since they are able to get away with it. That's why regulation is needed.

So, they are regulated, but they all do it. Hence regulation is ineffective. But we need regulation.

Quote
.If this wasn't a problem, presidents have not been trying to address this for 100 years (varing degrees of focus on the issue)...

Actually, it's not the President's job to do this. But some like to pander, it is true, in the search for votes.

Quote
Call me a dreamer but I will always believe that with contracts being part of everyday life. The reason we pay to have a financial advisor (for insurance or mortgages) is to have them get the best plan. The problem is if they all stink, they all stink.

But they don't all stink, do they?

Quote
But, It was clear right from the beginning that the catscan was not needed and was just another expense for the insurance company.

Count your blessings. In countries with socialized medicine, you would either get neither, or just one after a very long wait.

Quote
Oh...in regards to Scrooge...you are correct "it's not Scrooge's business acumen that is criticized by Dickens" but that is an aspect that has been criticized by others...

Then others are simply anti-commerce bigots who really don't know whence the food on their table comes. With Michael Novak, I give two cheers for capitalism.

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 383
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 383
Quote
Quote
But, It was clear right from the beginning that the catscan was not needed and was just another expense for the insurance company.


Count your blessings. In countries with socialized medicine, you would either get neither, or just one after a very long wait.

Have you ever actually lived in a country with socialised medicine? Or is this just another one of those assertions based on anecdotal evidence, which, if weighed up against the positive anecdotal evidence, would be soundly trounced?

You have referred in earlier posts to 'government studies' that reveal the failures of the NHS (UK)/Medicare (Canada). Why is it that I, an instinctively conservative regular news reader, have failed to notice these far-reaching condemnations of my (and other) countries' medical systems?

Alas, I suspect it's because they're not quite as irrefutable as they are being made out here.

I am not saying socialised medicine is the health-care panacea; I am saying, however, that, as undertaken in Canada, Britain, and Scandinavia, it is - and has been - an enterprise of untold value in human terms.

[/Sits back and waits for further fear-mongering]

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Slavophile,

Thank you for your post! One of the other forum members, tried discouraging me from keeping this dialogue going with Stuart. However, my rationale for keeping the discussion going was, the problem is the "anti-reform" conservatives here in America, attempt to shut down the conversation and utilize things such as "far reaching condemnations" of other health-care systems. Liberals tend to throw up their hands and give up. Unfortunately, that allows the opposing view to dominate any dialogue.

Again thank you for your post! The condemnation of other country's health-care systems get a "bad rap" from the right in this country.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Job
If someone in NY does not want full coverage they and are looking for a "cheap" plan...they would buy from Mississippi or another state that has even less regulations...And I repeat they would get just that...a CHEAP plan with exclusions out the "ying yang".
Why is this a problem? Someone who wishes to purchase something like only catastrophic coverage (without covering regular doctor check-ups) should be able to. This would be an ideal way for a young twenty-something to save money.

Originally Posted by Job
Define, the market??? Nobody I know, really has any say...it's like the insurance companies have a gun to our heads...there is no market...it is what it is...
Again, it depends on what state you live in. Some states have good competition and better quality health care. Other states regulate in ways that drive away competition and bring down the quality of health care.

Originally Posted by Job
The line needs to be drawn somewhere, if costs are going to be controlled.
Government regulation has NEVER managed to control costs prices in anything activity it has regulated. Look at the percentage of waste and fraud in Medicare / Medicaid. CBS just reported this past fall that the Medicare fraud was estimated to be $60 billion a year.

Originally Posted by Job
The problem is these clauses are in the fine print...and the average consumer doesn't know until it's too late...Let's be realistic...companies trying to sell their product do not emphasise, let alone often bring up, their shortcomings...
This is not an issue of a failing capitalism or unfair competition. This is an issue of truth in advertising. Many in Congress on both sides of the aisle have introduced legislation to simplify contract language (even to simplify the annual tax return). It is legitimate for the government to issue regulations requiring simple, easy to read contracts. And there is nothing immoral about selling a policy that covers little so long as the purchase knows that and chooses it freely.

Originally Posted by Job
Again, currently...there is no competition in Health Care...the few major carriers dominate the market...also, since most Health Insurance is purchased through employers most people must take what is offered them...
Your statement is not correct. There is plenty of completion in states where it is allowed. The issue here is bad government regulation at the state level that discourages completion, not ‘evil’ insurance companies. Look at the auto insurance model.

Originally Posted by Job
Once again, I will not continue to beat a dead horse, but this would only lead to a worsing of the situation of the race to the bottom. We'll get plans that are affordable, because they don't cover anything.
That is a false statement. What you’d get with regulation that encourages completion is consumer choice. Look at auto insurance. You can choose from a number of plans. If you wish to save money you can get a plan that covers only the other guy. You can choose a plan that covers the other guy and some / all of the damage that might happen to your car. You can choose a plan with no deductible. You can choose a plan that gives you included towing, and even a loaner car. The auto insurance industry is thriving. Compare it to the health insurance in states with socialist programs (Mass, Maine, etc.). Costs are way up, waiting lists are growing, and doctors are bowing out.

Originally Posted by Job
You are mixing up two different issues. I would be in favor of allowing individuals to deduct their premiums the same way business does. Actually, come to think of it, you can already deduct this if an individual is paying for their health insurance, because due to the high expense of Health Insurance, it easily meets the 7.5% threshold to itemize health care expenses. Although, I think, and I don't have a problem with it, it would lead to the elimination of Health Insurance benefits offered in the workplace. Which is why I am saying you are mixing up two different issues. Do you want small businesses to form their own pools (so we can keep the current employer based model) (Also, they already can do this and many do.) Or would you have the emphasis put on the individual?
Elimination of employer health care would not be a bad thing (but it should be done through the market and not by force). It would really assist in creating more completion in the health insurance industry. The issues of how employers added health insurance is a bit complicated, but much of it came about during periods of wage freezes (at a time when employers could not raise salaries they offered benefits instead). If individuals were responsible to write the check for their health care insurance they would examine the policy they purchase more closely, and when they go to the doctor they would ask about the costs of the various tests. That would greatly reduce the current trend toward not caring about the cost since “it’s covered and my insurance pays for it”.

Originally Posted by Job
To Stuart: Are you demeaning the average consumer since we are busy and if we read and analyze every contract presented to us in our society we would have time for nothing else? Glad you must be independently wealthy, so you can either read and analyze all day or pay others to do so! Otherwise you would realize that people with lives don't have time to do so, even if the inclination is there. It's extremely sad to me, that you would call people stupid because they have lives. I definitely have not.
It has nothing to do with being independently wealthy. It is true that most people don’t read the fine print on contracts. They skip that to their own detriment. But what most people do is to rely on the experience of others. When I first purchased a car and looked for auto insurance I went with a recommendation from a friend for a major insurance company in my area. After a few years I realized that the company was famous for dropping people who had accidents (which meant that they had to pay big time to sign up with another company). I then switched to another company and have been with them now for over 25 years. Every year when renewal comes up I look around and review what other companies are offering, but every year so far I am happy with the coverage I purchase. It does not take long and people are certainly smart enough to do that with health care. Also on that front, if competition across state lines were allowed groups like Consumer Reports would be providing reviews and rankings (they do so now but it is limited as one can’t purchase insurance across state lines).

Originally Posted by Job
Now, I don't know if it was the insurance company that said it, or it was the doctor looking for additional testing for additional fees. But, It was clear right from the beginning that the catscan was not needed and was just another expense for the insurance company. So even if prices were posted for fees on tests, it doesn't matter if you are required to get a test that you don't need.
Since you don’t know the cause you really can’t assign blame. This could be a matter of an insurance company having a procedure it prefers (which you change if you chose another insurance company), or it could be a doctor looking to make a bit extra on a test, or it could be a doctor practicing defensive medicine (to avoid you suing him should a future catscan pick up something the last one did not). No way of telling on the evidence you provided, and there is no way for you to trash anyone on such scant evidence.

--

Originally Posted by slavophile
Have you ever actually lived in a country with socialised medicine? Or is this just another one of those assertions based on anecdotal evidence, which, if weighed up against the positive anecdotal evidence, would be soundly trounced?
I’ve traveled extensively but not lived in other countries. I have known lots of people how have lived in other countries. My cousins in Alberta complain routinely about the problems with health care in Canada. We know for fact that numerous wealthy Canadians head across the border to the United States for things like heart bypass surgery because the wait lists in Canada are long (typical with socialized medicine). I have a friend who lived for many years in England who came home to get his dental work done. And we know the wait list in the U.K. is long for pretty much anything (not anecdotally, but from the official British studies that document the problems of their system). The joke among those studying / living in Rome is that if you get really sick someone should put you on a plane home and have a relative take you to a doctor before being admitted to an Italian hospital.

Why do you fail to notice the studies? I have no idea. Very possibly because one needs to do some comparison (a British study, for example, does not always provide a scientific comparison to health care in other countries).

I would say that health care in America has been far more an enterprise of untold value in human terms than has been socialized medicine anywhere else in the world. It is the American system (even if imperfect) that develops the latest technologies and drugs. We have techniques and drugs that are just not available anywhere else in the world. Need the latest cancer drug? You can’t get it England or Canada? You need to get in the States.

One thing that is interesting is human nature. People in the United Kingdom (for example) have either grown up with or have adjusted to socialized medicine. The level of care they get is normal for them and they accept it as normal. That does not mean it is the best it can be for the high cost they are paying (and they do pay far more in direct and indirect costs for far less health care).

--
Originally Posted by Job
One of the other forum members, tried discouraging me from keeping this dialogue going with Stuart. However, my rationale for keeping the discussion going was, the problem is the "anti-reform" conservatives here in America, attempt to shut down the conversation and utilize things such as "far reaching condemnations" of other health-care systems. Liberals tend to throw up their hands and give up. Unfortunately, that allows the opposing view to dominate any dialogue.

Again thank you for your post! The condemnation of other country's health-care systems get a "bad rap" from the right in this country.
I am amazed that Job would bother to label anyone “anti-reform” as such a statement is simply false. Conservatives want reform, just not the reform that liberals want. I stand against socialism simply because it does not work. It drives up costs and spreads poverty.

As far as an “attempt to shut down the conversation” Job is also wrong. He has offered his opinion at great length. I would invite others to read it, and to notice that he seldom responds to anything with facts but rather just whines about ‘evil’ insurance companies. Where are his studies that show that government socialism will provide better coverage at lower costs? One look at Medicare fraud blows anything he might suggest away.

My comments of the problems of health-care in other countries are based on studies done by professionals in those countries. Where are Job’s studies refuting them, that show that socialized medicine provides better coverage at lower cost? They don’t exist. That is why you can get the latest technology and the latest cancer drug in America, but not in Britain or Canada. To say so is not a judgment against the people who live in those countries, just a comment that the socialized medicine they chose does not work as well as the American system. We need reform that embraces more capitalism, not reform that embraces socialism. From what Job has written anyone who is a capitalist is “anti-reform”. That is false.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
Originally Posted By: Job
If someone in NY does not want full coverage they and are looking for a "cheap" plan...they would buy from Mississippi or another state that has even less regulations...And I repeat they would get just that...a CHEAP plan with exclusions out the "ying yang".

Why is this a problem? Someone who wishes to purchase something like only catastrophic coverage (without covering regular doctor check-ups) should be able to. This would be an ideal way for a young twenty-something to save money.


Not a problem IF...they know what they are buying! I repeat, I know the house bill called for a "young invinceable" option.

Quote
Again, it depends on what state you live in. Some states have good competition and better quality health care. Other states regulate in ways that drive away competition and bring down the quality of health care.


Not necessarily, it also depends upon the employer...and if you look at the statistics for insurance companies and state coverage, it's only a few who dominate the market (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United and Aetna) The regional players, like the old Oxford Health, have been bought up by the big guys, In this case I believe they were bought by United HealthCare. There is NO COMPETITION in the HEALTHCARE ARENA.

Quote
Government regulation has NEVER managed to control costs prices in anything activity it has regulated. Look at the percentage of waste and fraud in Medicare / Medicaid. CBS just reported this past fall that the Medicare fraud was estimated to be $60 billion a year.


Two points:
1. If this is true...Why so much opposition to a public option which was essentially set up to be run like a mutual company. Premiums only would pay for benefits not tax dollars.????
2. Absolutly,medicare fraud is a problem, the way to correct this is prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Not deny any claim that might be problematic.

Quote
This is not an issue of a failing capitalism or unfair competition. This is an issue of truth in advertising. Many in Congress on both sides of the aisle have introduced legislation to simplify contract language (even to simplify the annual tax return). It is legitimate for the government to issue regulations requiring simple, easy to read contracts.


I agree!!! See even those who disagree can find issues to agree on!!!

Quote
And there is nothing immoral about selling a policy that covers little so long as the purchase knows that and chooses it freely.


Again I agree!!! Never said that the "catastrophic" plan was immoral. Re-read what I have written! As long as people are aware of what they are purchasing.

Quote
Originally Posted By: Job
Again, currently...there is no competition in Health Care...the few major carriers dominate the market...also, since most Health Insurance is purchased through employers most people must take what is offered them...

Your statement is not correct. There is plenty of completion in states where it is allowed. The issue here is bad government regulation at the state level that discourages completion, not ‘evil’ insurance companies. Look at the auto insurance model.


I disagree, look at state by state statistics of insurance domination. Health Insurance is a very different story from auto insurance. I won't say anymore on this except re-read some of what has already been written in response to Stuart's postings.

Quote
Once again, I will not continue to beat a dead horse, but this would only lead to a worsing of the situation of the race to the bottom. We'll get plans that are affordable, because they don't cover anything.

That is a false statement. What you’d get with regulation that encourages completion is consumer choice.


This is not a "false statement". You may disagree with it, and you are entitled to your own opinion. But it is not False, only look around at how other businesses have behaved. Next thing you will be telling me is that $35 overdraft charges from the bank are OK because that's what the market will allow. It will only allow it because there is nowhere else to go. Even small banks know they can charge these fees since that is not a make or break issue since there is nowhere else to go.

Quote
Look at auto insurance. You can choose from a number of plans. If you wish to save money you can get a plan that covers only the other guy. You can choose a plan that covers the other guy and some / all of the damage that might happen to your car. You can choose a plan with no deductible. You can choose a plan that gives you included towing, and even a loaner car. The auto insurance industry is thriving.


John, all I can say is re-read my posts. I agree! That's why there is an exchange to be set up with varing plans. You seem to be bringing up issues where there is not a difference of views and has been stated several times already!

Quote
Elimination of employer health care would not be a bad thing (but it should be done through the market and not by force). It would really assist in creating more completion in the health insurance industry. The issues of how employers added health insurance is a bit complicated, but much of it came about during periods of wage freezes (at a time when employers could not raise salaries they offered benefits instead). If individuals were responsible to write the check for their health care insurance they would examine the policy they purchase more closely, and when they go to the doctor they would ask about the costs of the various tests. That would greatly reduce the current trend toward not caring about the cost since “it’s covered and my insurance pays for it”.


Once again, I agree! Except what would happen in the situation I gave above, where a test was required by the insurance company, when I knew is was going to be useless??? It seems to me like that was a waste of money. That would have been money wasted out of pocket, since I knew that the MRI was necessary.

Quote
Since you don’t know the cause you really can’t assign blame. This could be a matter of an insurance company having a procedure it prefers (which you change if you chose another insurance company), or it could be a doctor looking to make a bit extra on a test, or it could be a doctor practicing defensive medicine (to avoid you suing him should a future catscan pick up something the last one did not). No way of telling on the evidence you provided, and there is no way for you to trash anyone on such scant evidence.


Either way, since I won't get into medical specifics of the situation, I can say it was not "defensive medicine". The evidence is "scant" based on what was posted here, but clearly not so in reality based on the circumstances.

Quote
which you change if you chose another insurance company


John, the problem with your side of the argument (along with Stuart et al...) is that you want to throw around "let the market decide"...There IS NO MARKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. It's not like other businesses...if it was why would they need the Anti-Trust exemption???? Let's follow the situation your quote is taken from...The Doctor or Insurance company wants to run an unnecessary test. You say, well change insurance companies! I say, what drop the group plan, to change to an individual policy, especially since this specific issue deals with a pre-existing condition, any other company would not cover it either! So now I would have "cut off my nose to spite my face". There was nowhere else to go!!!! You might say, well not this time but when your employer has it's annual open enrollment choose another carrier. The only choices are with the same carrier with higher deductables. THERE IS NOT A CHOICE!!!!

Quote
I stand against socialism simply because it does not work.


Please John, I give you more credit than that. Throwing around slurs such as socialism, knowing the loaded baggage it brings with it from the distortion through distorted communism, does nothing to elevate the arguments which have been presented on both sides.

Quote
Where are his studies that show that government socialism will provide better coverage at lower costs? One look at Medicare fraud blows anything he might suggest away.


LOL!!! (see above) Throwing around loaded words does not make an argument.

Quote
My comments of the problems of health-care in other countries are based on studies done by professionals in those countries. Where are Job’s studies refuting them


Please show us the studies that you are talking about! Conservatives love to cite these studies...but we never see them, when we do they are from a conservative think-tank...I know based on all the people I have spoken with from other countries with "socialized medicine" they are amazed that many in America speak poorly about their systems...since they are happy with them!!!! And would not give them up for anything remotely close to our system!!! I know some of those people are posters on this forum...but tend to shut down when they realize you and Stuart and others are never going to listen...just keep drinking the "cool-aid"...what you guys are saying although, I agree with much of it, doesn't meet reality...

There is always talk about liberals who live in "ivory towers"...I think this is a situation of conservatives "in ivory towers". Rhetoric does not meet reality.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Originally Posted by Job
Not a problem IF...they know what they are buying!
Again, not an issue of capitalism and it cannot be used to suggest a failure of capitalism. Truth in advertising is what is required and that is a legitimate function of government. To accomplish it one does not need the socialist style reform currently being pushed through Congress.

Originally Posted by Job
Not necessarily, it also depends upon the employer...and if you look at the statistics for insurance companies and state coverage, it's only a few who dominate the market (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United and Aetna) The regional players, like the old Oxford Health, have been bought up by the big guys, In this case I believe they were bought by United HealthCare. There is NO COMPETITION in the HEALTHCARE ARENA.
Don’t miss the point. State regulations have a large influence on completion (or lack of it). There is a reason that there are only one or two companies willing to do business in states like Maine (which has excessive regulation that discourages completion).

As to employer offerings, it is unrealistic for an employer to offer more than a handful of choices. My company offers about six choices. It used to be a dozen but that was whittled down as it was too expensive for my employer to manage all that. If, however, the country moved from employer provided health insurance to consumer chosen models (like in auto insurance) there would be far more choices.

Originally Posted by Job
1. If this is true...Why so much opposition to a public option which was essentially set up to be run like a mutual company. Premiums only would pay for benefits not tax dollars.????
2. Absolutly,medicare fraud is a problem, the way to correct this is prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Not deny any claim that might be problematic.
1. Firstly, because there are those in government (like the President) who have openly stated their intent to do away with private health insurance. In a speech during the campaign President Obama stated that he could not promise to do away with private health insurance immediately, and that the move to single-payer socialized health care would probably take 15 or more years.

2. Insurance companies cannot compete with a government run system that has unlimited funding, and where the government has the power to adjust regulations to favor the government run system.

3. No government run system has ever been as efficient as a private-run system. You agree that Medicare fraud is a huge problem. Such problems with fraud exist everywhere in government.

Private companies (including insurance companies) have a profit motive, and that profit motive (to give a decent return to investors) encourages quality and efficiency (when government regulations are reasonable and do not discourage it). Government run programs simply have no incentive to provide either quality or efficiency. Politicians on all sides of the aisle have campaigned to clean up fraud in government (and in Medicare / Medicaid) for many years now. None have succeeded. It is reasonable to ask that they do so before even discussing the idea of expanding the government’s role as a bigger government will only spawn more fraud and waste.

Originally Posted by Job
I disagree, look at state by state statistics of insurance domination. Health Insurance is a very different story from auto insurance. I won't say anymore on this except re-read some of what has already been written in response to Stuart's postings.
I have. There is plenty of completion in states where it is allowed. The issue here is bad government regulation at the state level that discourages completion, not ‘evil’ insurance companies. Look at the auto insurance model. Yes, it is true that the health care and auto insurance models are currently quite different. My point is that they should not be different but the same. In auto insurance you have about a half dozen huge companies, dozens of regional companies and thousands of small companies. If people were allowed to purchase insurance across state lines we’d head in this direction (but only so far as it is unrealistic to expect employers to offer hundreds of choices, unless technology advances to make it much easier for them to do so).

Originally Posted by Job
This is not a "false statement". You may disagree with it, and you are entitled to your own opinion. But it is not False, only look around at how other businesses have behaved. Next thing you will be telling me is that $35 overdraft charges from the bank are OK because that's what the market will allow. It will only allow it because there is nowhere else to go. Even small banks know they can charge these fees since that is not a make or break issue since there is nowhere else to go.
I didn’t quote everything, but yes, your statement is indeed false. Look at how other businesses behave. In auto and life insurance you can chose from lots of companies and each of those companies offers numerous plans. In some states with excessive regulation you can’t purchase simply a catastrophic plan – you have to choose from among Cadillac versions.

Yes, there is nothing wring with a bank charging a $35 dollar overdraft charge if the market will allow it. I choose not to do business with such banks. I don’t bounce checks (and have my checking account tied to a savings account just in case) but if I did the fee is $15. That’s because I use a credit union. The response here is for people to move their money from institutions that have high fees to institutions that have lower fees.

Look at the credit card reform that became law. What did it do? Citibank (to name one) is raising its interest rates (thanks to government regulation) to the maximum across the board (21% for even good customers). Look how many people are cancelling their cards and getting cards from other institutions that offer lower interest rates. A strange gamble by Citibank.

Originally Posted by Job
John, the problem with your side of the argument (along with Stuart et al...) is that you want to throw around "let the market decide"...There IS NO MARKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. It's not like other businesses...if it was why would they need the Anti-Trust exemption????
Again, that is false. In states with reasonable regulations there is much more completion than in states with unreasonable regulation (look at Maine, which drove a number of companies from doing business there). Completion is limited by state regulations (not allowing people to purchase across state lines). Completion is not currently limited by the market. Regulations should be adjusted to be more like auto and life insurance.

Originally Posted by Job
Let's follow the situation your quote is taken from...The Doctor or Insurance company wants to run an unnecessary test. You say, well change insurance companies! I say, what drop the group plan, to change to an individual policy, especially since this specific issue deals with a pre-existing condition, any other company would not cover it either! So now I would have "cut off my nose to spite my face". There was nowhere else to go!!!! You might say, well not this time but when your employer has it's annual open enrollment choose another carrier. The only choices are with the same carrier with higher deductables. THERE IS NOT A CHOICE!!!!
Again, the choices are limited to the companies willing to do business in your state, and states with better regulation have more companies competing to do business. Your story is a good reason to move away from employer offered health insurance. If your employer added the part of your salary it provides in health insurance coverage to your salary itself, and you choose from companies in your state that would spring up to sell health insurance (if and when your state allows it) you’d have more options. Everyone from BC/BS to Wal-Mart to the Knights of Columbus should be able to sell insurance. That you have one choice is not due to ‘evil’ health insurance companies but a combination of state regulations and what your employer is willing to offer.

[quot=Job]Please John, I give you more credit than that. Throwing around slurs such as socialism, knowing the loaded baggage it brings with it from the distortion through distorted communism, does nothing to elevate the arguments which have been presented on both sides.[/quote]
Socialism is socialism. You are arguing for socialism. Socialism always tends towards the worst ends and needs to be called the evil that it is. Always.

Originally Posted by Job
Please show us the studies that you are talking about! Conservatives love to cite these studies...but we never see them, when we do they are from a conservative think-tank...
Several of them have been posted here and discussed at length. Read them!

And please provide some links demonstrating how socialized medicine has provided better quality care at lower costs. You always seem to ignore such requests.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Don't have much time left today so I will only touch on a few things...

Quote
Again, not an issue of capitalism and it cannot be used to suggest a failure of capitalism.


Again, this is a red herring...since it implies the problem is capitalism. The problem isn't capitalism, merely the Health Insurance system is not playing in a pure capitalist structure...which as I continue to repeat is the issue...not capitalism...

Quote
Don’t miss the point. State regulations have a large influence on completion (or lack of it).


No don't you miss the point...Employer offerings have a large influence on competition...much more so than state regulations...Again I will state that I agree that our employer provided system, I would say is a big part of the issue. If it were up to me, I would say, be done with it, let the employers give the money that they pay for benefits directly to the employee to purchase their own benefits on the exchange. Although, I'm sure that's too radical...

Quote
1. Firstly, because there are those in government (like the President) who have openly stated their intent to do away with private health insurance. In a speech during the campaign President Obama stated that he could not promise to do away with private health insurance immediately, and that the move to single-payer socialized health care would probably take 15 or more years.

2. Insurance companies cannot compete with a government run system that has unlimited funding, and where the government has the power to adjust regulations to favor the government run system.


What is it with these red herrings and straw men??? President Obama, regardless of what he stated...will not be president in 15 years and even if he was he is President not all powerful King or Emperor who gets whatever he/she wants...

A government run public option run as a mutual company as was originally proposed, has nothing to do with "unlimited funding"...the funding is based on premiums taken in...

Quote
Yes, there is nothing wring with a bank charging a $35 dollar overdraft charge if the market will allow it.


I would love to find a bank around here that doesn't charge it. It exists since no other options exist, except for foregoing the banking system altogether and only paying in cash...Oh yea, even that won't work since you NEED a bank account to even CASH YOUR PAYCHECK!!!! But this is a completely different topic...

Quote
Several of them have been posted here and discussed at length. Read them!

Please link them. I would be happy to take a look at what your sources are!!! smile

Quote
And please provide some links demonstrating how socialized medicine has provided better quality care at lower costs. You always seem to ignore such requests.


John I ignore such requests because it's like asking me when Will I stop beating my wife. crazy

I have stated repeatedly that I agree with the capitalist/market...I am happy that the health care bill has moved to a "regulated marketplace" rather than a single-payer system...but regulations such as a requirement for everyone to carry health insurance is necessary in such a regulated environment...

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
For my friends who are on the forum and don't live in the US so they may not be on top of the Health care debate these are the things we are fighting here in the US...


GOP Senator appears to propose a prayer for Sen. Byrd's death [huffingtonpost.com]
Quote
On Sunday afternoon, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) appeared to propose a prayer for Robert Byrd's death so that health care reform would not pass. Dana Milbank reports at the Washington Post:

At 4 p.m. Sunday afternoon -- nine hours before the 1 a.m. vote that would effectively clinch the legislation's passage -- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) went to the Senate floor to propose a prayer. "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight," he said. "That's what they ought to pray."

It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) who has been in and out of hospitals and lay at home ailing. It would not be easy for Byrd to get out of bed in the wee hours with deep snow on the ground and ice on the roads -- but without his vote, Democrats wouldn't have the 60 they needed.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Cheap shot, Job. Just shows what we have to put up with in this debate, in which the majority has censored all dissent, ignored the wishes of its constituency, violated both House and Senate procedural rules, and resorted to lies regarding the provisions of their legislation and the arguments made by the opposition against it.

Given that Washington was totally snowed in last night, a member could fail to appear for any number of reasons--and not just the Grand Klavan of West Virginia (how strange that liberal hopes should rest on the shoulders of the one member who was a high ranking official in the Klu Klux Klan and one of the instigators of the Senate fillibuster of the Civil Rights Act back in 1964; politics makes strange bedfellows).

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
It now turns out that Harry Reid had to summon Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menedez back from New Jersey, with both Amtrak and commercial air service sidelined. One wonders if the Majority Leader would have invested the time, effort and government money to retrieve any stranded Republican senators. But it does go to show just how phoney Job's post, and the execrable Huffington Post blog from which he quoted, really were. For citing such an unreliable source, Job has lost all credibility with me.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
Cheap shot, Job. Just shows what we have to put up with in this debate


Not sure what you mean??? Actually it seems like It was a low blow by Sen. Coburn.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Quote
One wonders if the Majority Leader would have invested the time, effort and government money to retrieve any stranded Republican senators.


Why would the majority leader have invested time, or effort in getting someone opposed is beyond me...just doesn't seem like a logical issue...

Quote
For citing such an unreliable source, Job has lost all credibility with me.


Are you refering to the Huffington Post which was simply reporting, what was reported in the Washington Post???? Stuart my loosing all credibility with you is your loss. You lost all credibility with me a long time ago. Why would you attack the messenger when your message is the one that's flawed. Ad homium attacks get us nowhere.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Senator Coburn did not pray for the death of anybody. There were several Senators not present as the voting began, and there are any number of reasons why they might not have arrived in time to vote--24 inches of snow being a good place to start. As I noted, Harry Reid dispatched an Air Force jet to pick up New Jersey's two Senators--but even Air Force planes can be grounded by weather. Yet you--and your sources--falsely implied that Coburn was praying for the death of Senator Robert Byrd.

You, and your sources, are intellectually dishonest, as is the Huffington Post. As for the Washington Post, let's just say most people in town read it for the Style section.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
J
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441
Likes: 5
Go Giants!!!!

Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5