^ Part of me wishes that you weren't so in love with yourself.

Record numbers go abroad for health treatment with 70,000 escaping NHS

Quote :

"Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS - with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year. And by the end of the decade 200,000 'health tourists' will fly as far as Malaysa and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs, according to a new report. The first survey of Britons opting for treatment overseas shows that fears of hospital infections and frustration of often waiting months for operations are fuelling the increasing trend. Patients needing major heart surgery, hip operations and cataracts are using the internet to book operations to be carried out thousands of miles away. India is the most popular destination for surgery, followed by Hungary, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, Poland and Spain. But dozens more countries are attracting health tourists. Research by the Treatment Abroad website shows that Britons have travelled to 112 foreign hospitals, based in 48 countries, to find safe, affordable treatment."

Quote :

"Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said the figures were a 'terrible indictment' of government policies that were undermining the efforts of NHS staff to provide quality services. The findings come amid further revelations about the Government's mishandling of NHS policies, and ahead of official statistics that will embarrass ministers. On Wednesday, figures are expected to show rising numbers of hospital infections. Cases of the superbug Clostridium difficile, which have risen five-fold in the past decade, are expected to increase beyond the 55,000 cases reported last year. On the same day, statistics will show that vast sums have been spent on pay, with GPs' earnings rising by more than 50 per cent in three years to an average of more than £110,000. New research shows that growing NHS bureaucracy has left nurses with little time to see patients – most spending long periods dealing with paperwork. Katherine Murphy, of the Patients' Association, said the health tourism figures reflected shrinking public faith in the Government's handling of the NHS. 'The confidence that the public has in NHS hospitals has been shattered by the growth of hospital infections and this Government's failure to make a real commitment to tackling it,' she told The Sunday Telegraph. 'People are simply frightened of going to NHS hospitals, so I am not surprised the numbers going abroad are increasing so rapidly. 'My fear is that most people can't afford to have private treatment – whether in this country or abroad.'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490233&in_page_id=1770

11/1/2007 6:00:52 PM

I'm sure an extensive cost-benefit analysis would yield that universal health care is more economically efficient than what we do now, especially if you went into preventative care.

The whole system would be cheaper if you assholes took care of yourselves.

11/1/2007 6:44:04 PM

Quote :

"It's not like the government is one unified actor, who by definition fucks everything up."

Actually, that's exactly what the gov't is. Look at anything the gov't does, and you will find something that is fucked up.

Quote :

"riiight so it's ok for some of the people that make the wrong choices to die...ok sounds ethical"

tell me, why shouldn't someone be affected by the choices they make? I'm just curious...

Quote :

"Hell, as much as I'm against public healthcare, i'd rather the money we're wasting on this idiotic war be spent on healthcare. At least that money won't be needlessly killing people."

how about we just NOT SPEND THE MONEY AT ALL. Not on Iraq, not on universal healthcare. Wouldn't it be great to get to keep more of your hard-earned money, instead of giving it up to the gov't to waste on something?

Quote :

"Like the car companies that are purposefully lagging behind on electric cars because of the oil lobby"

I bolded that word because you fail to see what is actually keeping innovation DOWN as far as cars go. Lobbyists are using THE GOVERNMENT to stifle innovation. If the gov't got the fuck out of the way, then people would be demanding better cars and buying them from those who made them. So basically, gov't interference is PREVENTING the free market from working in your example.

Quote :

"So you're saying if the government deregulates healthcare and it becomes a purely profit-driven system (even moreso than now) that the same companies that employ masses of people to find excuses not to cover people will magically become worlds more caring and the system will be revolutionized and great for everyone?"

Actually, that's the fantastic part. If the gov't gets its fucking hands out of healthcare, prices would drop back to normal and reasonable levels. As a result, people would be able to afford healthcare DIRECTLY, thus skipping the bullshit middleman that you describe here. Remember: health insurance DOES NOT provide healthcare.

Quote :

"Others want to help themselves, but don't have the means or opportunity."

And how much more able would those poor souls be to help themselves if they didn't have the gov't driving up healthcare costs via its misguided and horrible policies?

Quote :

"I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the people who inflict diseases upon themselves to chip more into the system."

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make such people pay for their own healthcare completely? Isn't it far more ridiculous to have the entire system hurt by such people without those people paying for it themselves? Why not make one's own choices directly affect himself and only himself?

Quote :

"I'm sure an extensive cost-benefit analysis would yield that universal health care is more economically efficient than what we do now, especially if you went into preventative care."

depends on who does the analysis, for starters. However, i'm willing to bet that getting the gov't's unwieldy, oppressive, and inefficient hands out of healthcare altogether would likely increase the efficiency of the system. After all, it only makes sense that one can increase effectiveness by removing a clearly inefficient member from the system, right?

Quote :

"The whole system would be cheaper if you assholes took care of yourselves."

And, don't you think, if people had to pay for their own choices instead of mooching off of other people, they would be more likely to take care of themselves?

11/1/2007 6:58:48 PM

I'm just sitting around waiting for hooksaw to apply some actual analysis. I refuse to do it for him this time.

11/1/2007 6:58:56 PM

I'm libertarian minded but I wish i could live in capitalism fantasy land like aaronburro

11/1/2007 7:20:37 PM

hey, it could happen

11/1/2007 7:24:58 PM

Quote :

"Actually, that's the fantastic part. If the gov't gets its fucking hands out of healthcare, prices would drop back to normal and reasonable levels. As a result, people would be able to afford healthcare DIRECTLY, thus skipping the bullshit middleman that you describe here. Remember: health insurance DOES NOT provide healthcare."

This is an unsubstantiated and VERY optimistic outlook at best. It still doesn't address companies trying their best not to cover people for retarded reasons or any real issues. This line of thought is just flawed in my view. It's the same line of thought as 'the free market is perfect and creates no problems at all.' Which I'm sure you agree with despite the evidence.

11/1/2007 8:47:59 PM

ummm... what part doesn't make sense? If people can afford healthcare directly, why would they need insurance? Insurance is what denies people treatment in your scenario. Cut out the need for insurance and you cut out the "evil corporation" from harming people as you describe

11/1/2007 9:07:08 PM

health ins. should be like car ins. it only covers the big stuff. It would be cheaper and prices at the docs would be cheaper. People would also have incentives to take care of themselves.

11/1/2007 9:33:23 PM

Regressive insurance... I like it!

Huge prices on the small stuff so people take care of themselves, and those that don't subsidize bigger issues. Hmmm...

Looks good on paper, just like every other socio-polit-economical policy/doctrine I've ever looked at in college.

"Dude, you being sarcastic?"
"I don't even know anymore."

11/1/2007 10:39:09 PM

*conjures free market solution*

Simsal... bimbamba... Saladu... Saladim!!

*waves hands, smoke explodes out of his witch's pot*

Okay so here's that free market solution you just ordered. Remember that if it doesn't work, it wasn't the REAL free market.

11/2/2007 6:25:15 AM

^ Your posts didn't address any of the problems in the British and Canadian healthcare systems that were listed in the articles, Captain Logic: staff shortages, waiting lists, system capacity, bureaucratic paperwork, dirty hospitals, and so on. Please engage your superior intellect and grace us with its output.

11/2/2007 6:39:23 AM

Shortcomings in other government systems don't address the question of whether or not healthcare is a right. Do I really need to explain this to you?

11/2/2007 6:45:56 AM

So, models of government-run healthcare systems that have existed for many years in other countries are totally irrelevant? There is nothing that we can learn from them? Yes, please edify me.

11/2/2007 7:01:38 AM

Again that's not what I said, and it's not what's at issue here.

What's at issue is whether healthcare is a right or not. Focusing on specific cases of government mismanagement addresses this question in what way?

I'm pretty convinced you're not taking this discussion seriously, because there's no way you don't get this. If you don't get this, it means you don't understand the basics of how to analyze and address an argument.

11/2/2007 7:04:09 AM

^ Of course I am, Captain Logic. Do rights come from governments or from God?

11/2/2007 7:05:23 AM

Why did you set up a choice for me when neither disjunct is true?

Government can recognize and uphold rights, but it doesn't determine them. "God" (whatever this means) arguably does neither.

11/2/2007 7:08:19 AM

McDouche: "anything that I think is good and that other countries already have is a right....IT JUST HAS TO BE!!" :retard:

common sense: "um, no it's not. rights are universal, come from "god" or nature, and don't contradict other rights." :truth:

McDouche: "That's not how you argue!! Therefore I win. Debate over." :smug:

11/2/2007 7:14:48 AM

^^ Thomas Jefferson disagreed.

Quote :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . ."

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

^ PS: LMAO!

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 7:21 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 7:19:22 AM

Quote :

"^^ Thomas Jefferson disagreed. "

What does this have to do with anything? Do you really think appeal to authority is anything but a logical fallacy? Give me a real reason, or at least your own. Just because Jefferson said something doesn't mean anything, especially not in the context of this debate.

Quote :

"McDouche: "anything that I think is good and that other countries already have is a right....IT JUST HAS TO BE!!" :retard: common sense: "um, no it's not. rights are universal, come from "god" or nature, and don't contradict other rights." :truth: McDouche: "That's not how you argue!! Therefore I win. Debate over." :smug:"

This isn't my argument, and it's not even a possible way you could construe my argument (even under the most uncharitable reading I can imagine). Are you just being glib, or do you really lack the comprehension skills required to follow even the most basic arguments?

11/2/2007 9:19:47 AM

^ Argumentum ad verecundiam does not apply, Captain Logic. I was simply quoting a source to support my position.

And you still haven't addressed these issues:

Quote :

"Your posts didn't address any of the problems in the British and Canadian healthcare systems that were listed in the articles. . .: staff shortages, waiting lists, system capacity, bureaucratic paperwork, dirty hospitals, and so on. Please engage your superior intellect and grace us with its output."

hooksaw

Quote :

"Government can recognize and uphold rights, but it doesn't determine them. 'God' (whatever this means) arguably does neither."

Captain Logic

So, what entity determines rights? The ether?

11/2/2007 10:21:38 AM

Someone please explain to me how tens of millions of Americans have no healthcare, yet the market hasn't adjusted to tap this market? I have a hunch current regulations have contributed to this effect, just haven't taken the time to do the research. I'm hoping someone already has and can elaborate...

11/2/2007 11:06:49 AM

b.c some members decide to indulge in luxuries and non essential purchases instead of purchasing insurance that protect their livelihood with the mistaken believe that if something bad really did happen the gov't would pay to help them.

11/2/2007 11:18:20 AM

Quote :

"And you still haven't addressed these issues:"

I'm not committed to addressing those issues, because they don't address the overall question of this discussion. Do you still not see why?

Quote :

"So, what entity determines rights? The ether?"

I would argue that rights are determined by mankind -- application of reason allows us to discover what we should consider rights and what we shouldn't. This is remarkably like how we decide practically everything else.

I don't see why saying "god does it" in lieu of any evidence at all suddenly legitimizes rights while a secular foundation doesn't. Do we consider ourselves to have rights or not? We do consider this to be the case ... so now we proceed as we always do, with the application of reason.

Edit:

Quote :

"^ Argumentum ad verecundiam does not apply, Captain Logic. I was simply quoting a source to support my position. "

Actually, it does apply. Somebody else thinking what you do doesn't support your position (unless the argument is about what Jefferson thinks). You quoted a source to restate your position -- but it doesn't SUPPORT your position at all. If you think it does, you have no clue how rational discourse proceeds (and beyond that, how to properly adduce reasons for claims, which exposes a fairly broad hole in your educational background).

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 11:35:10 AM

^

Quote :

"I'm not committed to addressing those issues, because they don't address the overall question of this discussion. Do you still not see why?"

So, people have a right to staff shortages, waiting lists, system capacity problems, bureaucratic paperwork, dirty hospitals, and so on in their healthcare system? You find these issues to be totally unrelated to the topic question?

Quote :

"I would argue that rights are determined by mankind -- application of reason allows us to discover what we should consider rights and what we shouldn't. This is remarkably like how we decide practically everything else."

So, the right to healthcare emerges from "mankind"? Where and when does mankind meet so that I can send them a letter in opposition to this alleged right. Do you happen to have mankind's address?

Quote :

"Actually, it does apply. Somebody else thinking what you do doesn't support your position (unless the argument is about what Jefferson thinks). You quoted a source to restate your position -- but it doesn't SUPPORT your position at all. If you think it does, you have no clue how rational discourse proceeds (and beyond that, how to properly adduce reasons for claims, which exposes a fairly broad hole in your educational background)."

Wrong again, Captain Logic/McDouche.

Quote :

"Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so."

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#The%20list%20of%20logical%20fallacies

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:13:50 PM

Quote :

"So, people have a right to staff shortages, waiting lists, system capacity problems, bureaucratic paperwork, dirty hospitals, and so on in their healthcare system? You find these issues to be totally unrelated to the topic question?"

Whether they have a right to care or not is completely unrelated. The best way of fulfilling and upholding that right is a completely different question.

Is this a right?
Given that it is a right, what's the best way of providing it?

How do you not notice that these are different questions? Confusing and conflating them leads to the sloppiness of argumentation and thinking that you systematically express.

Quote :

"So, the right to healthcare emerges from "mankind"? Where and when does mankind meet so that I can send them a letter in opposition to this alleged right. Do you happen to have mankind's address?"

No this isn't at all what I'm saying, but far be it from you to misunderstand. Morals in general can spring from a secular framework just fine, based upon psychological facts that we all share (that have arisen evolutionarily). This is how we determine what we want to consider rights -- we weigh, based upon the facts of our situation, all of the options and consequences of viewing things different ways. We select the combination that's maximally optimal given our assumptions.

How is this hard to figure out? Some thinkers, or people in general, reason to certain conclusions about right and wrong (and about certain things that are always wrong -- this would define what our rights are, as they're things that are always wrong to violate). In fact, you ask where "mankind" is and all those other silly things -- but really, this is exactly what's happening right now. We're discussing the issue -- and so do lawmakers, so on so forth. It's happening right in front of you and you're asking me where it is.

About your argument from authority citation -- how were you not offering that as sole justification for your point? You quoted it and said "Jefferson thought otherwise." What was that supposed to show? Even if he's an expert, saying "so and so says this" doesn't mean anything. Einstein could say something about physics that's patently false, for instance -- and saying that HE said it doesn't show anything. You have to expose the contents of the argument and provide justification as to why it's usable for your purposes, and why it's rationally justified itself.

You did none of this, and that's why it was a lame appeal to authority. You're going to attempt to redefine it into something now after the fact, but it's patently obvious you have no idea how to debate.

11/2/2007 12:56:21 PM

You posted this:

Quote :

"Government can recognize and uphold rights, but it doesn't determine them."

Then you posted this:

Quote :

"I would argue that rights are determined by mankind -- application of reason allows us to discover what we should consider rights and what we shouldn't."

But then you posted this:

Quote :

"In fact, you ask where 'mankind' is and all those other silly things -- but really, this is exactly what's happening right now. We're discussing the issue -- and so do lawmakers, so on so forth. It's happening right in front of you and you're asking me where it is."

My debating skills aside, I can recognize a college boy bullshit artist when I see one. Try again, Captain Logic.

11/2/2007 1:05:02 PM

So government = all of mankind now? I don't get it.

It's NOT determined by government, but by a discourse amongst people as a whole. What did I say that contradicts that? Government upholds rights (since it holds the force) but it doesn't determine them.

Rights in a functional sense ARE determined by a discourse amongst a populace, however -- meaning, people have opinions of what rights are, and the ones that are universally agreed upon get recognized. I think that rationality can lead us to rights that are unrecognized by the populace, or to see that certain things we consider rights really shouldn't be.

Basically I'm saying we come to a realization of rights through critical thinking, which people in general partake in. Current facts about humanity (psychological facts, for instance -- how we're wired) play into this, along with past facts (how people viewed it before -- our history and societal/cultural influences that play into our basic modes of thought). But "government qua government" is not the sole determining factor in this -- it can be for practical concerns, but it probably isn't or shouldn't be for the exploration of the subject itself.

How exactly is that bullshit or contradictory? You need to drop the internet troll act right away if you hope to understand anything or get anything out of posting here. If there's a problem with my argument or thought process, let's determine what it is and expose it so I can change my opinion. However, it seems like you're glossing over what I'm saying as fast as possible to hit the "post reply" button so you can "win" in a flame war -- which is exactly the wrong way to approach this.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 1:22:08 PM

I just realized that since you lack knowledge of practically every subject, I should be as explicit as possible.

Moral reasoning goes as follows: you start with a set of moral axioms (things you take to be properly basic, or true without justification) and then you expand them to a set of truths using whatever process of valid reasoning you like. If positions contradict those axioms or the resultant truths you expand from them, you consider those positions morally impermissible.

I'm suggesting that the determination of rights occurs in much the same way as this -- people, based on a certain set of assumptions, come to all kinds of determinations of what their rights are. I think the case in which there's a fact of the matter is where you take moral axioms to be basic psychological truths (an example is -- pleasure is good, pain is bad) and, based on these, figure out how to proceed.

The only basis for this -- the only starting point, and the only vehicle of reasoning, is the human being. Seeing as how these beings exist in groups, the group can reason together. This is what I'm suggesting for the determination of rights -- it's a position that describes what actually happens (except in the case where people waive their right to think about the subject) and also how what happens can fail to get at the truth (cases where people ignore the basic, psychological axioms in favor of some other set).

11/2/2007 2:33:53 PM

Quote :

"Shortcomings in other government systems don't address the question of whether or not healthcare is a right."

Well, if all you care about is whether or not healthcare is a right, then the Constitution is pretty explicit: it isn't a right. Next thread.

Quote :

"Someone please explain to me how tens of millions of Americans have no healthcare, yet the market hasn't adjusted to tap this market?"

Actually, the market is working perfectly wrt this. First, healthcare IS NOT THE SAME AS HEALTH INSURANCE! Second, the "tens of millions of Americans" mostly don't want health INSURANCE (not healthcare), so they don't buy it. The market doesn't go out and give stuff to people who don't want it. The market sells stuff to people who want it. And finally, the "tens of millions of Americans" figure is vastly overstated. Most of those people are illegal fucking immigrants, and they deserve NOTHING that is paid for by American taxes. Thus, it's not "tens of millions of Americans;" it's "tens of millions of illegal immigrants and maybe a million or so Americans."

Quote :

"Moral reasoning goes as follows"

Hey, gov't shouldn't legislate morality! [/typical liberal rant]

11/2/2007 7:22:09 PM

Quote :

"Regressive insurance... I like it! Huge prices on the small stuff so people take care of themselves, and those that don't subsidize bigger issues. Hmmm... Looks good on paper, just like every other socio-polit-economical policy/doctrine I've ever looked at in college. "

WTF are you talking about? Yes insurance would be cheaper if it only covered major events. Do research high deductibles are a ton cheaper than copay ins. Doctors visits would be cheaper, why? Because I no longer have to wait 2 months to collect 20 cents on the dollar, or employ people to refile the claims that get denied for no fucking reason. Now why would they do that? Because they can, thats why. And incentives to take care of yourself.. well if you can jog a couple days a week or cut out fatty foods to prevent you from taking meds that will cost YOU money, just maybe you might do that. If you choose not too, it doesnt affect anyone else bc YOU are paying for YOUR decision.

Most people can afford a 100 doctors visit. What they cant afford is 700k hospital stay after a wreck. Thats when they NEED insurance.

11/2/2007 8:02:02 PM

bingo. and the problem is that at this point, people are needing insurance in order to cover the normal shit, because gov't has caused the cost of the normal stuff to be ridiculously expensive. Meanwhile, hillary and others are all focusing on giving people insurance instead of fixing the actual problem.

11/2/2007 8:12:09 PM

Quote :

"Well, if all you care about is whether or not healthcare is a right, then the Constitution is pretty explicit: it isn't a right. Next thread."

That says whether or not our current government considers it a right or not. This has nothing to do with whether it IS a right or not (or in other words, whether we should consider it a right or not). How exactly is it that you don't understand this? This is a fundamental misunderstanding -- it means that you really don't even understand how to frame this debate, much less participate in it.

Quote :

"Hey, gov't shouldn't legislate morality! [/typical liberal rant] "

I am baffled how you got this from my post.

11/3/2007 1:23:14 AM

Well in order to answer that question you have to define what you mean by "health care".

If by "health care" you mean: Do people have a right to provide for their own health in whatever manner they see fit without interference by the government or other people then most people would agree that yes, it is a right.

If by "health care" you mean: Do people have a right to have someone else provide for their health, whether directly or via payment for services, regardless of ability to pay or compensate for the services given, then you run into the place where I and others feel that no you don't have that right.

So if we want to answer the fundamental question of the thread, define health care.

11/3/2007 12:08:54 PM

actually, no, I think the debate is framed pretty well. Should it be considered a right? Well, according to the Constitution, NO! end of story! Walking around, giving people extra "rights" is dangerous and stupid. Getting your panties in a wad because millions of illegal immigrants don't have health insurance is equally stupid.

11/3/2007 6:40:30 PM

If you think the Constitution is the end-all be-all of morality and human rights then we should just end this thread here due to the fact that it's obvious you're not capable of having an intelligent conversation.

11/3/2007 9:49:09 PM

well, when we are asking "what is a Constitutional right," it seems to make sense to me to, you know, look at the Constitution...

11/5/2007 9:05:17 PM

Quote :

"Healthcare a right?"

11/5/2007 9:07:34 PM

seems like there is too much money in the government to not have healthcare honestly

11/5/2007 9:12:17 PM

that's great reasoning... Hey, we already throw a bunch of money at the gov't... why not throw more?

11/5/2007 9:13:27 PM

honestly i think thats horrible reasoning

maybe i shoulda said there is so much money in the government that we should allocate shit better

11/5/2007 9:14:41 PM

Defenders of private health care, what say ye of this

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-insure9nov09,0,4264262.story?coll=la-tot-topstories

Quote :

"Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed."

Quote :

"The documents show that in 2002, the company's goal for Barbara Fowler, Health Net's senior analyst in charge of rescission reviews, was 15 cancellations a month. She exceeded that, rescinding 275 policies that year -- a monthly average of 22.9. More recently, her goals were expressed in financial terms. Her supervisor described 2003 as a "banner year" for Fowler because the company avoided about "$6 million in unnecessary health care expenses" through her rescission of 301 policies -- one more than her performance goal. In 2005, her goal was to save Health Net at least $6.5 million. Through nearly 300 rescissions, Fowler ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: "Barbara's successful execution of her job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability" of individual and family policies."

So private health care companies are in it to take our money so long as they don't have to pay it out when we need health care? Gotcha!

11/12/2007 1:51:06 PM

^deregulate it. Allow of open competition, which we dont have now.

You dont have to tell me about claims being denied. Ive already said we have 3 girls that do nothing but file and refile claims to get our 20 bucks 3 months later.

You think the companies that admin medicare/medicaid are any different? Come on now

But there is alot of fraud, esp in the medicaid side. Denying claims to prevent abuse is not a bad thing, for any of us.

She saved the company 35 Million but got a 20k bonus.. I would be PISSED. haha

11/12/2007 1:57:14 PM

Quote :

"^deregulate it. Allow of open competition, which we dont have now. "

Eh, if I don't like my current provider, I can switch to some other provider that will not be in my best interests either, correct?

11/12/2007 2:23:46 PM

^not quite. If BC/BS of virginia has a more affordable plan you cant purchase it. Also, if you have your plan through your company, your company would have to change it. YOU simply dont have many options. THere was about 5 different companies that we could have choosen here in VA for the business. We wanted to get BC/BS of NC because it is cheaper and alot of border docs take both. However they wouldnt even match the NC price difference.

It isnt like car ins. where you have national companies that compete for your business. The states are limited, which means less competition.

Do you get what im saying?

Oh, and name a business whose best interests are in buyers? Healthcare is like every other commodity, except for the fact no one wants to pay for it. Their best intrests are in serving thier stock holders. Just like McDs, Lowes, Sears, etc.

11/12/2007 3:15:25 PM