|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, actually it is their money. The insurance companies have agreed to pay for certain classes of expenses, not to provide the customer's money back to them. The fact that they pay for the service is another issue, the companies don't have pools of "customer money" or one big pot that belongs to "the customers". They have obligations they must fulfill from their own resources, and a stream of income in exchange for those obligations. Yes I understand the concept that giving money to someone means that the someone assumes ownership of it However, the point remains - they take the money that their customers give them and they invest that money. They do not need to make money on underwriting versus payouts in order to increase the amount of capital they have. How much money do you think one can make by owning a 20% stake in all of the companies on the london stock exchange?
But making things illegal does not remove the concept of moral hazard in finance.
And making stealing illegal does not stop theft. Agreed. And any shopkeeper will tell you that it is a good idea not to make it easy to steal from them...thus they don't just let the customers declare what they have bought and trust them to pay the correct amount.
The goal of a free market is regulate profits by legislation? Really?
Got that mixed up with you saying that the goal of insurance providers wasn't profit. Well - the goal of insurance providers is not necessarily to make profit, though some do and for some that is their goal. If making an underwriting profit is the priority - then significant problems come up in realizing the goal of insurance, the mechanism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
Hmm, that sounds like a monopoly. Don't we have laws against that? No, we don't. The health insurance companies have SPECIFICALLY been exempted from anti-trust laws. A bill to repeal it has been introduced:http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200909/091709a.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
How nice that you seem to know what people really want, despite what their representatives say. Perhaps you are advocating a dictatorship of the telepathic?
Its a representation. IT doesn't change the fact that the PEOPLE want it regardless of if Congress does or does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes:
So your superior scenario would be draining someone else's savings to pay for your sickly child? I am still waiting for your justification for "My kid is sick, give me your stuff."
And keeping my little girl alive and healthy completely drained my family's savings. We planned for her expenses years in advance. If I had happened to be poorer, she may not be alive today. You are a fucking monster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Seems like a good bill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1018 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
By the numbers, Alex is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age.
My problem is with the above. This child is 99th percentile for height AND weight. Isn't this ratio typically proportionate? Without seeing a picture of the child, all I envision is a big baby, not necessarily a fat or obese one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1018 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Per the Denver Post:
A Colorado insurance company is changing its attitude about fat babies.
Rocky Mountain Health Plans said Monday that it will no longer consider obesity a "pre-existing condition" barring coverage for hefty infants. The change comes after the insurer turned down a Grand Junction 4-month-old who weighs about 17 pounds. The insurer deemed little Alex Lange obese and said the infant didn't qualify for coverage. The infant's father works at NBC affiliate KKCO-TV in Grand Junction and news accounts about the boy's rejection made national headlines. The insurer said Monday it would change its policy for babies that are healthy but fat. The company attributed the boy's rejection for health coverage to "a flaw in our underwriting system." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
So your superior scenario would be draining someone else's savings to pay for your sickly child? I am still waiting for your justification for "My kid is sick, give me your stuff."
That's not the point, You are not getting all the money from someone else. You are getting the money from many people. This transfer the burden from one to many thereby easing the burden on the one and slightly increasing the burden on the many. Think about it this way: If someone needs a million dollar live-saving operation, all you would need is for 300 million Americans to give 1/300th of a penny for that person to get that operation. You save the person and the burden on any single American is 1/300th of a penny. That's the trade-off - 1/300th of a penny and I'm sure you've thrown away a few pennies in your lifetime. No one is advocating taking all of it from one person, but if you have ever argued Americans stick together, then this is the ultimate expression of that argument. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined:
|
So your superior scenario would be draining someone else's savings to pay for your sickly child? I am still waiting for your justification for "My kid is sick, give me your stuff." Not someone else's, just yours. I support holding a national referendum on health care and everyone who votes no will be taxed extra to pay for cosmetic surgery for illegal aliens. They will get a free coupon at the border. Those same people will also be forced to donate a kidney if they have 2 and their blood once a month. Those same people will also be except from any fire department or emergency response. 911 will be disabled on their phones so they can call their own private companies to help them. I was a little upset at your responses until I thought about it for a minute. You are part of a dying and irrelevant minority in America. The "everyone for himself" crowd. You are pathetic and I feel sorry for someone who can care so little for his fellow human being. I challenge anyone to have the same opinion about our health care system after the very first second of watching their baby on the monitor. I challenge anyone who believes like this idiot to be the one to explain to a mom that she cannot have her child because society is unwilling to regard her child with the same value as lifeless property. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
A public service I can support, but having it as the *only* option is not.
But that's the way most things are set up in the US. We have public schools, but you can send your children to private schools. We have private universities, but you can send your children to public universities. We have police, but you can hire a security company. We have public transportation, but you have the option of driving your car. No one has advocated abolishing insurance companies. Certainly the public option should not be the sole provider but when you are talking about the basic health of every American and the life of every American, why would you deny your fellow Americans? Isn't the basic form of Christian charity to love your neighbor? The ugly truth is not that we have limited resources. That's a fact of life and why we rely on a free market. The ugly truth is that we are willing to let other people suffer and die simply because we can say that there isn't enough. That is not good enough. If we can allow that, then why not have people pay for firefighting insurance so that whenever your house is on fire, perhaps the fire department will save your house. After all, water is a limited resource in many areas. Or maybe security insurance so that people who have it will receive police protection but those that don't will not. Would that be acceptable? Americans should help each other by providing for each other's basic survival, shouldn't they? But that's the ugly truth. Americans would just as soon step on you as help you up. That there are areas in the US that have conditions on par to the poorest countries is something to be ashamed of. That we can allow our fellow citizens die just so we can save a few more pennies, is something to be ashamed of. That we can see starving children on the streets looking in dumpsters for food is something to be ashamed of. That we can allow our so-called heroes, police and firefighters and all those citizens who risked their lives after the attacks of 9/11, be denied treatment for the debilitating conditions that they acquired in service of their fellow Americans is something to be ashamed of. That we can allow our men and women in uniform to return from serving our country in combat, be honorably discharged, and be summarily forgotten is something to be ashamed of. Many Americans talk about being faithful to Christ and his teachings, but when it comes time to put their words into action, they balk and make excuses like "limited resources" and "it's not my problem." How Christian of them. That's the ugly truth that I see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If we can allow that, then why not have people pay for firefighting insurance so that whenever your house is on fire, perhaps the fire department will save your house. Actually - that was pretty much how modern insurance started Quoth wiki:
quote: As ever, Ben Franklin saw the future and got into that racket first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Well, Ben Franklin was pretty intelligent. But I think if the fire departments today were run like the health insurance companies, then there would be a claims department that would try to find ways of justifying not putting out a fire and old houses would have a higher risk of fire and therefore wouldn't be insured.
Isn't it good our fire departments aren't run like insurance companies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
A public service I can support, but having it as the *only* option is not.
But that's the way most things are set up in the US. We have public schools, but you can send your children to private schools. ... Wonderful message (it got POTM'ed), but you forgot the largest public (insurance?) service of them all - The U.S. Department of Defense (and related things). The public health insurance money figure being bandied around seems to be something like $900 billion over 10 years. But we are now (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently spending $500 billion A YEAR on defense and defense related programs. And I think much to all of that is before you add on the financial costs of the current wars. Nick $100 billion a year off that bloated defense budget (which should be cut regardless) and you have the health program paid for. Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Izanagi writes:
I'm not Christian. If you are basing your ideas on what public policy should be off of the teachings of your religion, then you should reconsider the role of the government. Many Americans talk about being faithful to Christ and his teachings, but when it comes time to put their words into action, they balk and make excuses like "limited resources" and "it's not my problem." How Christian of them. Our government is not set up to find "good things" to go and fund. It has very specific duties, and should have good reason behind the assignment of each one. So far I have heard a lot about why having healthcare for everyone is a great thing and something to be proud of, but nothing about why taxing people to pay for it is a good idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
So far I have heard a lot about why having healthcare for everyone is a great thing and something to be proud of, but nothing about why taxing people to pay for it is a good idea. Because if it is worthwhile to do, it is worthwhile to tax for it. Unlike the Republican method of paying for things that are otherwise completely useless (like tax cuts for wealthy people, border fences, and war) which is to pretend like you have money and spend it anyway. At least when progressives tax you Phage, you will be getting something for it. Don't worry though, we don't expect your thanks. Your careless indignation and -50 approval rating are thanks enough. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024