Steely Dan Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 You too could be covered for such an emergency. I would love to help everyone so this wouldn't be a problem but you be surprised how many people don't accept the help or would rather buy NFL Sunday Ticket and yell at their favorite team instead. I told you my thoughts on the health insurance industry. But you seem not to interested in that. You're content in crying to me that I don't care about anyone. Little do you know. So somebody making $30,000 a year could be covered if they just didn't buy NFL Sunday ticket. I've heard your thoughts about the health insurance industry. It seems you believe their profit supersedes human life. I really don't care if you give a million dollars a year to charity your stance on this issue is uncaring. Do you give enough to help everybody who has this problem? Can you pay all of their expenses? Real caring. Ok, my family is making $50,000 a year starting out at $25,000 - $30,000 for five years and then $30,00 to $50,000 for the next five. What would you suggest for my family in order to make enough money to cover $30,000 a year in medical expenses for one of my children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 So somebody making $30,000 a year could be covered if they just didn't buy NFL Sunday ticket. I've heard your thoughts about the health insurance industry. It seems you believe their profit supersedes human life. I really don't care if you give a million dollars a year to charity your stance on this issue is uncaring. Do you give enough to help everybody who has this problem? Can you pay all of their expenses? Real caring. Ok, my family is making $50,000 a year starting out at $25,000 - $30,000 for five years and then $30,00 to $50,000 for the next five. What would you suggest for my family in order to make enough money to cover $30,000 a year in medical expenses for one of my children? So if I don't pay for everyone's problems I'm uncaring? Can you? If not you're an uncaring bastard too. I care for those I love and those who seek my assistance and those who benefit from my charitable giving. Care to suggest what else I could do? And it's not that I put profits above life I put personal responsibility first. And the Sunday Ticket thing was my was of saying people put their day to day wants ahead of their future needs. Would you deny that? And to answer your question I can't there's not enough information. But a start would be to get a life policy on your children. Minimal cost and could possibly provide for your child should they get very sick. Or maybe reconsider before you even have the child. Now there's a thought huh? God I'm such a bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 So if I don't pay for everyone's problems I'm uncaring? Can you? If not you're an uncaring bastard too. I care for those I love and those who seek my assistance and those who benefit from my charitable giving. Care to suggest what else I could do? And it's not that I put profits above life I put personal responsibility first. And the Sunday Ticket thing was my was of saying people put their day to day wants ahead of their future needs. Would you deny that? And to answer your question I can't there's not enough information. But a start would be to get a life policy on your children. Minimal cost and could possibly provide for your child should they get very sick. Or maybe reconsider before you even have the child. Now there's a thought huh? God I'm such a bastard. * Nope, but I use what little power I have to do the best for the most people I possibly can. Like those who truly need assistance and the only way I can help is through my vote. ** Use the power you have to help others on a much greater scale than you're currently doing. Look past your nose and, really, look past your nose to see what the real world is like. If you do, and you manage to understand it, then I think you'll easily understand what you can do. (I'm putting the chances of that happening at 1%) *** Go back and reread your posts in a disassociated way. I believe you will see that you are arguing that profits are more important than people. (I'm 99% sure that's impossible for you) **** No, but should people live in shacks using their monies for only basic needs. Y'know, like paying to send their kids to go to school. After all why should somebody else have to pay taxes for a public education program? (It's something you said in another thread once.) ***** I'm unaware of how a child's life insurance policy can be used for huge medical expenses. ****** Thinking that only the well off should have kids isn't elitist. *******Not wanting anyone to have kids because they could possibly get an illness they can't afford isn't elitist. Ok, here's how I'm interpreting your belief's: Insurance companies shouldn't be forced to pay for life saving claims because the companies can't afford to do that. If everybody only invested with you then there would be no need for health insurance because they'd all be able to pay for anything themselves. All it takes is hard work to succeed. (just to point out some common sense. X=the number of jobs considered "making it". Y=the number of people in America. X < Y. Think about it.) Only people who can afford kids that could possibly encounter major medical problems and some health insurance denials should have kids. I'm done here. You start arguing when you don't even understand what the argument is about. Even though it's the reason the whole thread was started. When you finally are told what the argument is about you don't change your opinions, just the way you phrase them. When asked a question you either don't understand it, or choose to interpret it in a way that doesn't make you look like a hypocrite. When asked a direct question that you can't weasel out of you ignore it or say there isn't enough information. I'm 99% sure that in the example I gave you that you couldn't ever figure out a way for them to get a million dollars no matter what the situation was. I'm 100% sure you'd never tell your wife that her illness is superseded by the insurance companies profits. I can't believe that even you would be that callous. So this is my last post to you in this thread. I have given you the chance for the last word. If anyone else want's to join this discussion feel free to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 http://www.madville.com/out/sports/312725_..._outside_online You mean this fake website you put up like a spam. To supposedly support a guy who was under contract with confidus for 1.25 million a year, buying million dollar homes, rolexes, etc... but wouldn't buy health insurance for himself, until he was diagnosed with cancer. Then he started witching about it and oakley signed him and forced their insurance company to pick up the cost. Why should my tax dollars go to support some idiot who makes 1.25 million a year and that was 13 years ago. Why should me and my middle of the road income go to support someone who finds it more important to buy big houses, cars, multi-thousand dollar watches and who knows whatelse? Not happening and very hypocritical of him if this is in any way related or supported by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Bump - I wonder how many of the 15 people, at this time, consider themselves Christians. There isn't a single Christian among them or anyone who refused to sign the petition. I'm not Christian, so I guess I am not allowed to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Ok you're upset. But how can an insurance company insure someone who has a major preexisting condition that would end up costing the insurance company tens or more likely hundreds of thousands of dollars? Exactly!!!! You get it! That's exactly why we need to do away with for-profit insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 * Nope, but I use what little power I have to do the best for the most people I possibly can. Like those who truly need assistance and the only way I can help is through my vote. And I help by actually improving people's lives. Imagine that. ** Use the power you have to help others on a much greater scale than you're currently doing. Look past your nose and, really, look past your nose to see what the real world is like. If you do, and you manage to understand it, then I think you'll easily understand what you can do. (I'm putting the chances of that happening at 1%) What is the greater scale you're talking about? You said you help on a grander scale by voting. So do I, but probably in a different direction. Seeing I have a different philosphy regarding these issues somehow makes me a terrible person in your mind. I actually help a lot more that you do. Through my actions I've improved the current and future financial being for hundreds of families. I can only help those I come in contact with through my job but help others I never see through charities. Once again because you disagree with me someone this just isn't quite enough. What else should I do? Change my way of thinking? No, doubt it. *** Go back and reread your posts in a disassociated way. I believe you will see that you are arguing that profits are more important than people. (I'm 99% sure that's impossible for you) That's your interetation of my posts. Once again seeing I put personal responsibility first I'm somehow in your mind a moster. So be it. **** No, but should people live in shacks using their monies for only basic needs. Y'know, like paying to send their kids to go to school. After all why should somebody else have to pay taxes for a public education program? (It's something you said in another thread once.) Depends on how they got to where they are. If it's due to disability then they should be helped and I believe we as a country already do. ***** I'm unaware of how a child's life insurance policy can be used for huge medical expenses. I'm not surpised. Talk to a planner. I bet there are a lot of things you find out about what people like I do that would make you say, "wow, he really does help people. ****** Thinking that only the well off should have kids isn't elitist. Not the well off, but there should be basic abilities to provide for the child you created. Like a roof, food, clothing, medical coverage. A couple making $25-30k a year should realize at some point it's tough to make ends meet for themselves let alone a child. People make that mistake all the time. *******Not wanting anyone to have kids because they could possibly get an illness they can't afford isn't elitist. Not wanting a child to have to go through the fact that their parents can't properly take care of them says more about how much I care about people than your saying that someone who can't afford children should have them. Having a kid when you can't even afford things for yourself can ruin your life as well as the kid. I don't want that to happen. Ok, here's how I'm interpreting your belief's: Insurance companies shouldn't be forced to pay for life saving claims because the companies can't afford to do that. Where did I say that? I said the system needs to be changed. If everybody only invested with you then there would be no need for health insurance because they'd all be able to pay for anything themselves. Who said anything about investing. I'm talking about the protection planning part of what I do. I'm not surprised you don't get that. All it takes is hard work to succeed. (just to point out some common sense. X=the number of jobs considered "making it". Y=the number of people in America. X < Y. Think about it.) Only people who can afford kids that could possibly encounter major medical problems and some health insurance denials should have kids. Well that much you got right. And that's under the current system (which is all I have to go by right now) which I said needs to be changed. I'm done here. Ok, but you're a perfect example of how emotion gets in the middle of the debate. You start arguing when you don't even understand what the argument is about. Even though it's the reason the whole thread was started. When you finally are told what the argument is about you don't change your opinions, just the way you phrase them. When asked a question you either don't understand it, or choose to interpret it in a way that doesn't make you look like a hypocrite. When asked a direct question that you can't weasel out of you ignore it or say there isn't enough information. I'm 99% sure that in the example I gave you that you couldn't ever figure out a way for them to get a million dollars no matter what the situation was. I'm 100% sure you'd never tell your wife that her illness is superseded by the insurance companies profits. I can't believe that even you would be that callous. There was not enough information. Don't tell me how to do my job, but I did give you an idea which you had no idea how it works and right there I've already helped some people by making them think how life insurance could possibly help in medical costs. There could be a way to get them a million dollars sure. But how old are they, what are their montly expenses, do they really need a million dollars, is their income from one main bread winner or split between the two of them? See, not enough information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Just an observation.... but if he didn't have health insurance, why would he get "letter after letter from the insurance company" that they wouldn't pay? Why would an insurance company send denial letters to someone who isn't a client? Lance Armstrong's foundation is LIVESTRONG. Not Livestrongaction. To my knowledge, Lance has not injected himself or his organization into the political debate about insurance. He and the organization has always stayed politically benign, focusing intently on the science/medicine/inspiration side. This reeks of yet another email forwarding campaign with mis-appropriated statements to further their own divergent cause or, more likely, it's a spammer gathering email addresses. It's bad enough that this stuff has a life on the email forward circuit. Shouldn't be posting this fraud here. If Lance has not injected himself here, it would be a first. Lance knows about how much money can be made by injecting ones self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Those of you who feel insurance companies should be forced to accept everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions should start an insurance company that accepts people with pre-existing conditions. See how long before you are in debt up to your ears and out of business. Does anyone understand that insurance is a business not a charity? They cannot pay for the care of their clients who get sick AFTER purchasing a policy if they are forced to accept every client that wals in the door. If you feel that people with pre-existing conditions should receive free health care, that's fine. By directing your anger at a business that has to make money to provide service to the millions of clients it serves, you are showing your lack of understanding of the concept of insurance. I also see two different issues being discussed. Dropping people from coverage who get sick is entirely different than refusing to accept new customers that are already sick. There are many issues that need to be fixed in the health car industry, but forcing insurance companies to lose money is not the way to solve the problem. I must give the government credit though, they have come up with a perfect strategy to take over the healthcare industry by convincing the ignorant masses that the enemy is the "greedy" insurance company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Those of you who feel insurance companies should be forced to accept everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions should start an insurance company that accepts people with pre-existing conditions. See how long before you are in debt up to your ears and out of business. Does anyone understand that insurance is a business not a charity? They cannot pay for the care of their clients who get sick AFTER purchasing a policy if they are forced to accept every client that wals in the door. If you feel that people with pre-existing conditions should receive free health care, that's fine. By directing your anger at a business that has to make money to provide service to the millions of clients it serves, you are showing your lack of understanding of the concept of insurance. I also see two different issues being discussed. Dropping people from coverage who get sick is entirely different than refusing to accept new customers that are already sick. There are many issues that need to be fixed in the health car industry, but forcing insurance companies to lose money is not the way to solve the problem. I must give the government credit though, they have come up with a perfect strategy to take over the healthcare industry by convincing the ignorant masses that the enemy is the "greedy" insurance company. Maybe I am lost, but couple of points here. #1) Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions!!!!! That is of course provided you had insurance coverage previous to them #2) COBRA allows you to continue your insurance company even if you are no longer working at the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Maybe I am lost, but couple of points here. #1) Insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions!!!!! That is of course provided you had insurance coverage previous to them #2) COBRA allows you to continue your insurance company even if you are no longer working at the company. #1 - That's the problem with the current system. So much health insurance is tied to ones job or the state where they live. So when you change jobs or move you have to change insurance carriers. The system should be much like life insurance in that it needs to be made more affordable so people can purchase it outside of work and keep it for life as long as they continue to pay. #2 - Falls under my #1 as it's not affordable and when you go off COBRA you have to be re-underwritten with a new company and if you have a health issue it may be too expensive. Just like life insurance. You cancle you life policy and several years pass you may not be able to afford it or even qualify for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 #1 - That's the problem with the current system. So much health insurance is tied to ones job or the state where they live. So when you change jobs or move you have to change insurance carriers. The system should be much like life insurance in that it needs to be made more affordable so people can purchase it outside of work and keep it for life as long as they continue to pay. #2 - Falls under my #1 as it's not affordable and when you go off COBRA you have to be re-underwritten with a new company and if you have a health issue it may be too expensive. Just like life insurance. You cancle you life policy and several years pass you may not be able to afford it or even qualify for it. Thats true its tied to your job..so i am guessing you believe there should be a minimum amount of extra pay included with any job that allows you to purchase insurance and not have employers involved at all..kind of like a minimum wage? But then, and i am only paying devils advocate here..what happens when I can buy"better" insurance(not quite sure what that means) cause my old man left me a bunch of money, or will every body have the excat same level of coverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Thats true its tied to your job..so i am guessing you believe there should be a minimum amount of extra pay included with any job that allows you to purchase insurance and not have employers involved at all..kind of like a minimum wage? But then, and i am only paying devils advocate here..what happens when I can buy"better" insurance(not quite sure what that means) cause my old man left me a bunch of money, or will every body have the excat same level of coverage? No, I don't feel it's your employers duty to pay for you insurance. Do they pay for your life insurance, car insurance, home owners insurance? Something needs to be done to make it more affordable. Affordable is subjective of course but I think even low income people can afford even a basic life policy. And I'm not sure if there would be a one size fits all plan. But I would imagine that if you could afford better coverage you probably would have better coverage, but we have to make sure that it is affordable by all with the government subsidising only the destitute or those below a certain income level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, I don't feel it's your employers duty to pay for you insurance. Do they pay for your life insurance, car insurance, home owners insurance? Something needs to be done to make it more affordable. Affordable is subjective of course but I think even low income people can afford even a basic life policy. And I'm not sure if there would be a one size fits all plan. But I would imagine that if you could afford better coverage you probably would have better coverage, but we have to make sure that it is affordable by all with the government subsidising only the destitute or those below a certain income level. That would be prefect..just not sure how to get there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That would be prefect..just not sure how to get there I think we get there by starting out small, start cutting costs, tort reform etc. The problem is everytime this is brought up they talk about total reform of the whole healthcare system. Of course that big a plan with just guestimates on the cost and how it's actually going to work are going to face major opposition. But if the government said we are going to start small with cost cutting, etc I think they'd get more people on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 http://www.madville.com/out/sports/312725_..._outside_online You mean this fake website you put up like a spam. To supposedly support a guy who was under contract with confidus for 1.25 million a year, buying million dollar homes, rolexes, etc... but wouldn't buy health insurance for himself, until he was diagnosed with cancer. Then he started witching about it and oakley signed him and forced their insurance company to pick up the cost. Why should my tax dollars go to support some idiot who makes 1.25 million a year and that was 13 years ago. Why should me and my middle of the road income go to support someone who finds it more important to buy big houses, cars, multi-thousand dollar watches and who knows whatelse? Not happening and very hypocritical of him if this is in any way related or supported by him. It's not a fake website. Read the entire thread. If you read the entire thread you'll see it's not about Lance it's about the people who would be in his situation and not be able to do anything about it. You are interpreting in a way that makes him look bad instead of caring. Keep believing that if it helps you. He did have health insurance but they refused to cover his treatments. One of his sponsors stepped up for him. That's something the average American can't do. This isn't about a government option this is about holding insurance companies liable for payments. If you are unwilling to help those who need your help then don't call yourself a Christian if you think you are. I'm not Christian, so I guess I am not allowed to vote. If you don't believe in helping others you are not following the teachings of Christ. Matthew 19:24 (New International Version) 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." James 1:27 7Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. Timothy 1:3 3If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Luke 16:13 and 14 13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." 14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight. So, IMO, if you are not willing to help others in their time of need, then no, you aren't a Christian. If you don't sign the petition then you are unwilling to lose some money in order to help others and that is not following the teachings of Christ. The word is Christian. Exactly!!!! You get it! That's exactly why we need to do away with for-profit insurance. Glad you get it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Exactly!!!! You get it! That's exactly why we need to do away with for-profit insurance. No, read my postst below. Sorry above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 blah...blah...blah Honestly, you are not following the teachings of Christ in this thread, so you might want to take a step back. Honestly, you don't really follow them in other threads, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No, read my postst below. Sorry above. That you think Tort reform comes even close to solving the problems of health care is laughable. Are you serious with that? Tort reform is the magic bullet? Get serious man, this is not a joke. You are playing with people's lives here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That you think Tort reform comes even close to solving the problems of health care is laughable. Are you serious with that? Tort reform is the magic bullet? Get serious man, this is not a joke. You are playing with people's lives here. It's not the "magic bullet", but it definitely is a better solution to bringing down costs than the "public option" along with intrastate competition from the health insurers. I repeat, the "Public option" does NOTHING to bring down costs, NOTHING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts