you pull out a post from 8 days ago...surely yuou also saw this from me as well..

You don't really have a clue do you? Heath Insurance companies are contratually oblogated to pay for negotiated services.

Lets just say that your insurance company COULD deny payment and refused to pay for your $25 bandaid what do YOU think will happen?

1. the provider of service is going to bill YOU, the patient for services rendered.
2. When YOU get the bill for that $25 bandaid, what is the first thing YOU are going to do?
3. YOU ARE going to call your health Insurance Company to find out WHY they didn't pay.
4. When they tell you that they're protecting you from the provider by refusing to pay for the $25 bandaid.....

You're just going to say, "Oh, OK. That's fine then, as long as you're looking out for me"

What a LOT OF CRAP.....

Oh and BTW ~ in the mean time, while you're trying to straighten out why your bandaid didn't get pay for by your insurance company, the provider of service is turning you over to a collection agency for non-payment of that $25 bandaid.

Stop making assumption about how health care and health care insurers work and do some un-biased research.

I was actually responding to this post....not yours.

Sorry for the confusion.

No they won't. They WILL try to ascertain that your claims are legitimate and medically necessary as part of the "fraud prevention" efforts. But they WILL pay for your legitimate claims because Health Insurance is a CONTRACT between you and and the Insurance Company. The TERMS of the contract will specify what YOU bought in the way of coverage, not what you "think they should pay for anyway."

Mr. W., I will be the first to say that healthcare premiums are too high (from a personal budgetary perspective of affordability to any given person's family budget) and that there should be coverage, not denial of coverage, available for people with "health conditions." The "issue" is not that. It is HOW should that be best accomplished without destroying the very system that provides the best healthcare in the world? IT IS NOT "solely" a "money issue." There ARE "other ways" other than a government run socialized medicine system.

However, the effects of what you proposing are much more far reaching that just a "few dollars" or even a "lot of dollars" (be it 30% for the administrative costs of insurance companies or anything else). First, I don't accept for one "New York Minute" that the government would "save" that alleged 30% in administrative costs as the Government itself has no "profit motive" and has no "accountability" to anyone for what it does. It simply establishes beauracracy that is bloated and inefficient and arbitrarily assignes "payments" regardless of true COST to the providers.

Thus, the "administrative costs" will soar, not reduce, and the available providers WILL decline because they will choose to NOT provide the services at the rates "offered" (read mandated) by the government. The reimbursement rates, for example, for Medicare, are the same regardless of "where" in the country the service is performed. I guarantee you that the "cost" to provide the very same service is markedly different in different regions in the country, say between New York and Michigan and North Carolina and Mississippi.

Doctors are in "private practice." They are NOT members of a Union, such as the UAW.

The "average" UAW worker, for example, at Ford, GM, Chrysler, makes about $75.00 per hour by Union Contract. That is WAGES and does NOT include healthcare and pension benefits that the COMPANY must bear on their behalf (and "pass on" to the consumers in the form of higher car and truck prices).

$75.00 x 2080 (straight full time annual hours, not including any overtime) = $156,000 per year. EVEN IF benefits were included in that amount, $156,000 per year is a LOT of money to "afford" health insurance, which of course they DON'T have to do because they make the Automobile COMPANY provide it.

But guess what, NOW the automakers and union employees want YOU and ME and EVERYONE to pay for their "folly." ONLY the auto industry people will "benefit" from a bail out. It will do nothing to help the "average" non-auto industry person.

Why not sent the "bail out money" directly to TAXPAYERS and let THEM decide who to help with the cash?

THAT is always the "government response." "Throw YOUR money at problems" in the hope that it will "fix" the problem (Same thing we see with Education).All the "experts" aside, these "bail outs" WON'T work. NOTHING has changed in the base problem, which in the case of the auto industry IS the unions and management's capitulation to the Unions. It is TIME for them all to "face the music" and go out of business. LET the Union workers go find some other sort of employment. SAVE the taxpayer money and let the "Free Market System" work.

All the businesses that exist to support the Auto Industry can likewise "go under."

Let the government BUY everyone a car (probably Japanese or Korean) in exchange for their "Foreign Aid".


NO MORE TEA for the government to keep them "in office." Indict, impeach, and toss the "culprits" like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank OUT OF their malfeasance and irresponsibility as "Managers of the Government Corporation."




No they won't. That simply indicates that you do not understand how healthcare insurance works.

First, NO person with "individual insurance" can be dropped simply because they USE a lot of healthcare.

Second, GROUP insurance has a MANDATORY continuation of coverage built into it. First there is Mandatory COBRA continuation of coverage, and following COBRA there is GUARANTEED COVERAGE for the person(s) coming off of COBRA. NO company can "deny" coverage, regardless of the existing medical conditions.

The "problem" is "affordability" of the premiums...and THAT is what needs addressing.




Again, Mr. W., the cost of the High Risk Pool is a GOVERNMENT "answer" to the problem. Just like with the COBRA continuation and the "creditable coverage" guarantee, the "problem" is NOT the availability of coverage, it is the PRICE of the premium and whether or not it is "affordable" to any given person or family.

IF you think that the cost will be "lower" AND "affordable" by some State run, single payor (socialist), system, then you are sadly mistaken because the PAYOR is not the "problem." The "problem" is the COST of SERVICE performed. That is true whether it is an auto mechanic fixing your car or a healthcare worker fixing "whatever ails you."




You had that chance and you voted for Obama and his support for unlimited abortion "on demand," whether it was medically necessary or not.

pieta,

I like your posts on relationships, but you have your history wrong on FDR. His economic policies were a miserable failure.

First, he continued the failed "stimulus spending" programs put into place by Hoover, when FDR had attacked during the 1932 campaign. Then he instituted more huge public works programs, modeled after Mussolini, and paid for with deficits which were 50% of the budget. He had to run deficits because none of his programs stimulated the economy.

Unemployment was still as high in 1938 as it was in 1932.
Factory and farm production did not increase during the New Deal.

Just like Mussolini and Hitler, it was military buildups and sending 5,000,000 young men off to war which stimulated the economy and ended unemployment.

His wage and price controls were circumvented by the creation of company retirement plans and medical care plans which could not be continued, yet they still plague us today, bankrupting the steel industry, railroads, shipbuilding, airlines, and now the automobile industry.

Barack Obama, an avowed socialist (read his writings) with no work experience, proposes the same tax increases ($2.50 a gallon on gasoline), and public works programs as FDR. They will fail, too, because they will drain money from smart hands of entrepreneurs to the stupid hands of bureaucrats and dishonest hands of politicians. Obama's threat to confiscate our 401-k and IRA plans sent the stock market into a nosedive, and it will not recover until smart investors see the Democrats back off their Marxist rhetoric.