I don't relish bringing this up again, but you've forced the issue by being such an ignoramus.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
How do you suppose your wife's cancer diagnosis and treatment came to be? Magical wisps from pink ponies? Gifts from God?
And how do you suppose she and her family could overcome such a devastating and catastrophic diagnosis and its expensive treatment?
I can't find the thread to quote you, Lewk. But to paraphrase, you said the main point of insurance was in underwriting. That would mean actuarial accountants taking in as much data as they could, and figuring out how to charge premiums from the people least likely to file claims. In addition, insurers have a vested interest in both appealing to peoples' worst fears (buy our insurance), and exploiting their worst fears (your policy does not cover xyz). The insurers' goal is to demand highest premiums from the most number of people, while denying as many claims as possible.
Do you agree or disagree?
It's not, because once they do another insurance company can exploit that and say, "We won't deny you coverage for ___".
Are you serious? Do you truly believe that once denied for something like renal failure, MS, Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's disease, there is another insurer waiting in the wings chomping at the bit to offer comprehensive long term affordable coverage?
Hey Dread or Lewk, do you have some lead on affordable insurance? I'd like to know since I buy my own policy without any employer/state/federal subsidy. It's rather expensive, even though my breasts and uterus are excluded (due to previous benign tumors and C-sections). It's just a routine catastrophic 80/20 major medical plan, with a high deductible. Some discounts for using a preferred network. But if I end up with metastatic breast, cervical, or uterine cancer, I'm on my own. Even if I have something like a cyst in my fallopian tubes, treatment is not covered. Not even outpatient surgery, pain meds or antibiotics.
Can you guys give me some advice in this area? Or are you just posting bullshit?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that my mammograms are OOP cash. Local rates run around $200 for the x-ray, radiologist readings are extra. I haven't looked into colonoscopy costs yet, either. I probably need a comprehensive cardio-pulmonary assessment and blood tests too, but that's on the back burner.
Any suggestions?
Last edited by GGT; 04-18-2011 at 12:33 PM.
I am also against defunding PP, but I was curious:You just don't get it, do you?Women can't just go to a pharmacy and ask for Birth Control Pills or a fitted cervical diaphragm. Women can't just "self-insert" an IUD. Women can't just strap on a condom. Women can't do self PAP smears or cervical checks. Women don't have a visual like a penis with sores or chancres or exudate that signals an STD. Nobody can self-screen *or treat* for gonorrhea or syphilis or HIV without medical tests and professional diagnosis. Your line of reasoning is bizarre.
Then answer my question. If you're "pro-life", why isn't the reproductive life and health of women important to you?
Over here for birth control you can just visit your GP. Same for STD checks, I think, plus hospitals have free, no-appointment STD checks. Not sure about abortions, never been involved with any. These are all free (if you are 21+ I think you have to pay 60€/year for the pill, but visiting the GP is at least free), and anonymous (though I imagine your parents might notice on their insurance papers that you visited the GP, but I'm not sure about that).
Don't you guys have doctors you can visit for free to get a consult, and a pill prescription? Or can they also refuse to do birth control?
BTW Lewk pretty much showed why PP is needed:
Because it is important that people have access to things like birth control, and because of people like you who don't think it's important that a pharmacist carries them, something like PP is needed.
Because people like you don't want it taught in schools to begin with. Gotta learn it somewhere when your school and your parents both refuse to.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
NO, we don't have "free doctor visits". University campuses may have student health and reduced cost reproductive health services, as part of student fees. Poor women, working poor women, and uninsured or underinsured women rely on clinics like Planned Parenthood.
Well, we have this mandatory health insurance thingAnd although you usually have to pay the first x euros of health care expenses yourself, GP consults are always covered. The idea being that you'd want a low-as-possible barreir to visit doctors in the first place, and GPs act as a sort of triage. Plus, it's way cheaper than visiting emergency rooms.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Too logical for US use, Flixy. Or something like that.WE have this strange notion that competition is what it's all about, because capitalism has gone from a way to trade, an turned into a way to govern.
It doesn't look like that's working very well so far.
We have competition between insurers, to a certain extent. But they are not allowed to refuse anyone coverage, except people with a history of fraud. And everybody pays the same for standard coverage (the mandatory part). The extra costs for taking in people with, say, chronic illness or a handicap is leveled out between insurers, but I'm not really sure how to be honest. They can definitely compete on overhead costs, and I know at least one offers free gym memberships in an effort to bring down the health expenses down the road. Seems more sensible than dumping expensive patients... and better for the country in the long run.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Key concept.....better for the country in the long run. You SSSocialist you.
I'm not denying that
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Sure, but they will charge a higher premium. That's the point of insurance. And when insurance fails in those corner cases, a society may choose to subsidize certain things. That said, everyone may as well be a corner case because our insurance market is broken.
Disagree. Premiums are charged based on the risk factor an individual has. If an insurance company is using less data or is charging someone more/less then their are problems. If they are charging less then they either are endangering their financial strength or by necessity they are charging other individuals more. If they are charging more to people then they should be then those people are likely to find better deals elsewhere.
If an insurance company gets a reputation for doing everything they can to deny a claim how much business do you think that insurance company will get in the future?
There has been much controversy of insurers denying claims, even hiring UR companies with software specifically geared toward denials (Blue Cross, Aetna). They keep getting business because they have a monopoly in affording care, employer subsidies and corporate tax breaks.
Agreed with Dread --- our insurance market is broken. Using broken models topped on one another (health-insurance-government) is our recipe for failure.
So S&P has a negative outlook on the future of US debt. Anybody here thinks that's going to have an effect on the way things go in Washington once they get past the posturing that came with the first shock?
Congratulations America
Eh I was mostly talking about auto/dwelling coverage not health insurance. Most people get their health insurance through employment so its not like they shop, price compare and research.
Premiums for auto/dwelling are going up, too. Some around 25% or more. And we're legally obligated to have this insurance if we drive or have a mortgage. Who left the FL homeowners insurance field after too many hurricanes and floods (was it State Farm or Allstate?) leaving no option other than a state-subsidized program?
Health insurance should be decoupled from employment, employer subsidy/tax break removed. Then we could see who's swimming naked when the tide rushes out....practically everyone.
Insurers left the Florida market because the state refused to allow insurance companies to adequately charge the rate commiserate with the risk. The shortage of insurance companies in Florida is almost entirely due to Charlie Crist.Premiums for auto/dwelling are going up, too. Some around 25% or more. And we're legally obligated to have this insurance if we drive or have a mortgage. Who left the FL homeowners insurance field after too many hurricanes and floods (was it State Farm or Allstate?) leaving no option other than a state-subsidized program?
Health insurance should be decoupled from employment, employer subsidy/tax break removed. Then we could see who's swimming naked when the tide rushes out....practically everyone.
Well thats the deadly mix of populism and capitalism you very often see in US politics. With some risks you have to admit that they can't really be insured. İf you then still insist on coverage the only solution is a state sponsored program. Forcing the risk upon private companies at a premium that doesn't cover the costs is a recipe for driving away those companies.
Congratulations America
Not sure I agree with this, because I do think we have a problem here. But I thought this was an interesting take on things:
In Defense of the McJob: 5 Ways to Look at McDonald's Hiring Boom
McDonald's Pushes to Get 50,000 New Employees
BY DAN ARNALL
April 19, 2011
As McDonald's makes its nationwide push to get 50,000 new employees to join its ranks, it is important to put the "McJob" in perspective.
We've all heard that the average McDonald's job doesn't pay much. And you're right – it doesn't offer compensation that is anywhere near the pay for salaried positions filled by college graduates or skilled workers.
The data we've seen is that the entry-level McJob probably pays a little more than minimum wage. The company and sites that track wages suggest that many of those workers hired today will be making around $8 an hour depending in which area of the country they live.
A full workweek at $8 an hour gets you about $320 before tax withholding. That's $16,000 a year if you take two weeks off during the year for vacation. It's above the poverty line for individuals this year ($11,136 according to the Census), but below the level for a four-person household ($22,314).
So why would anyone want these jobs? Let me make a case.
These Job Aren't For Skilled Workers -- If you have a college degree, your expectation of lifestyle and compensation are based on your cohort of college-educated people. If you live in the U.S. and have just a high school diploma working means making less than your college educated peers (only 29.5 percent of Americans have a bachelors degree or higher). The latest jobs report shows the median weekly wage for a person with a high school diploma is just $633 a week -- $31,650 a year. An entry-level McJob is below that level, but is certainly competitive for less educated people without specialized skills or training.
These Jobs Are Great For Some People – Retired and looking to supplement your social security check (~38 million people)? Going to college and need some beer money (~11 million fulltime college students)? Stay-at-home parent and wanting to get some fun-money for the family vacation (~5 million women and men in this situation)? A part-time job at McDonald's (or any other fast-food restaurant) might offer the convenience and flexibility you need to make that work.
McWages Can Make A Big Difference For The Average Family – If you aren't the primary breadwinner, working part-time in a McDonald's can make a big difference to your family. Assume you work 3 days a week, adding about $800 per month to the family budget. That's almost $10,000 a year in extra cash. According to government figures, that would fully fund the family spending on food ($6,372), clothing ($1,725) and pay for 60 percent of the family healthcare spending ($1,875).
There's More to It than Burger Flipping -- The McJob can get better than burger flipping. If you have previous experience or could be a manager at the restaurant, the annual salary ranges from $20,000 - $60,000. About 40 percent of the McDonald's corporate staff (including the woman who runs the entire US for the company) started as hourly workers at the restaurants. You could even end up owning the place – 50 percent of the McDonald's franchise owners were entry-level workers at the restaurants. McDonald's jobs come with all the training you'd need to get started and the restaurants typically promote from within.
In the Aggregate, 50,000 New McJobs Add to the Nation's Growth – The new McJobs added today will mean more than $500 million in new wages during the coming year (according to Dr. Dennis Tootelian, who studies business trends and policy at the Center for Small Business at California State University). These wages will result in $1.4 billion in new consumer spending according to the company. They will also add some $54 million in payroll taxes.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/defen...3411640&page=2
Hooray for the Job McNugget? I posted a similar article in the youth unemployment thread. Barbells may be great for weight lifters and people wanting pretty pecs, but a good job recovery it may not make....
Please, this was only news to someone with their head in the sand for the last year. I doubt it will change anything; S&P's decision simply wasn't a new signal to the markets.
S & P, rating teat-sucking cows and crap since 2001. AIG AAA one day and junk the next. Kinda like Iceland, or PIIGS. Those guys, or was that Moody's?
So if they keep rating our debt at AAA, they are bad. If they warn that they have a negative outlook on our debt, they are also bad?
IMO the rating agencies lost all credibility when they didn't downgrade Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, or AIG well ahead of the meltdown. They also couldn't identify outrageous risk for default while financial moguls were taking billions of profits on the housing bubble. When it came to sovereign debt, Iceland was AAA before it was junk? I mean come on, why should anyone believe them now?
Of course it's not really news that the outlook for the USA is negative. What is news though is that S&P is willing to admit that that is the case. I haven't seen them so reluctant to slap lower ratings on other sovereign debt 'just in case'.
Congratulations America
We have a printing press, Federal Reserve and Treasury. Ready to inflate/deflate and fiddle with value of USD, with laser-point accuracy and quantum speed.
The rating agencies have lost a lot of credibility. But the question is are they right in this case? Are you really going to say that given the current financial situation of the United States you would say that our financial house is rock solid? Because to me that is what a AAA rating should mean.
A broken clock is right twice a day, too. They should have downgraded plenty of "investment grade" things years ago. As well as several nations, US included. But they're paid by the entities they're rating. They'd rate a cow if it came across their desk.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote