[Slum]

Illuyankas, on Jan 19 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 19 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

No cheese?



NO CHEESE?????

That's right. No cheese, so no pizza, no milk, no yoghurt, no cream, no ice cream, no chocolate...

You might as well kill yourself....

[frookenhauer]

Epiph, on Jan 19 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

Because it just makes already unethical insurance more unethical? Because it's discrimination? Because someone at risk for diabetes has just as much right to affordable health care as someone with a family history of cancer? By all means, tax the cause of the condition, but if you charge the person, you are just as likely to be taxing ignorance as stupidity.

I'm talking in terms of risk assessment, whether its unethical or ethical or whatever, I'm not even worried about that aspect. Look at it from another direction and please step off that horse. The employer is paying for health care up to and including what everyone gets, but you have a 'special' condition which pushes up the premiums to cover you at the same level as anyone else. All they are asking for is to pay the difference. That's not discrimination, that's equality

And why pray tell is healthcare insurance unethical? Its insurance...Insurance, when it works, is a company taking on a risk on behalf of their clients to pay for whatever is covered in the event of 'damages etc'. risks are assessed and premiums set. without insurance it would be very, very difficult for the average person to own a vehicle. One bad crash and you gotta sell the home. If you're a mother or a father and you drop dead, life insurance makes sure your kids still get to go to college. House burns down etc, etc, etc...In the case of healthcare, if you live in a country with no state healthcare system, that insurance can make sure you get what you need as quickly as possible.

People who knock insurance and healthcare fits in there nicely have no real concept of how little would be possible without it.

Oops Sounds like I wan to sleep with it.

[frookenhauer]

Terez, on Jan 19 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

No cheese?



NO CHEESE?????

Frookenhauer, on Jan 19 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

Yes, he cleans his peepee properly too nowadays

How the hell did people miss this?!?

[Camel]

I found a profile online with this as its picture. Near as I can tell, it's a legit picture from a legit profile. Terez made me turn it into a demotivational poster.

This post has been edited by Camel: 19 January 2009 - 10:52 PM

[Epiph]

Frookenhauer, on Jan 19 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

How the hell did people miss this?!?

I think they ignored it.

I just have a personal problem with insurance. The whole system pisses me off, precisely because there's no way to do anything without it. I apologize for my high-horseiness; I'm having a bad afternoon.

[frookenhauer]

No worries, Epiph, i was kidding about the horse, care to share your beef with insurance?

And the peepee joke was really tasteful

[Terez]

Epiph, on Jan 19 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

I just have a personal problem with insurance. The whole system pisses me off, precisely because there's no way to do anything without it.

It pisses me off too, but I think that the solution lies in removing medical insurance from the free market. It doesn't belong there.

[frookenhauer]

And turn it into a tax? so it can be part of the bureaucracy? and let shitloads of money get wasted? I am not one with your plan Terez.

Its far better to let corporations run the show, but regulations need tightening.




Will someone please tell me they appreciated my peepee joke!

[Terez]

Frookenhauer, on Jan 19 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

And turn it into a tax? so it can be part of the bureaucracy? and let shitloads of money get wasted?

If you think this doesn't happen in corporations to an even larger degree due to the chain of command making shitloads of money, then you are more naive than you look.

Frookie said:

I am not one with your plan Terez.

That's okay cause you don't live in my country.

[frookenhauer]

Terez, if its nationalised this problem is increased by a hundredfold, Even now they admit that fully nationalising anything is a piece of shit, otherwise why would governments privatise utilities which will always be in demand? If they could do it profitably they would never let go of a cash cow. I'm afraid the naivete is purely on your end

[Epiph]

Frookenhauer, on Jan 19 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

No worries, Epiph, i was kidding about the horse, care to share your beef with insurance?

Mostly because everytime I actually need my insurance, auto, health, whatever, the insurance company does everything in it's power to screw me. Oh, you're not getting better fast enough to meet what we consider to be normal, therefore, we're not paying for your physical therapy anymore. The physical therapy that is making you able to exercise without pain again so that you will stay healthy so that in later life, you will ask us to pay for less. Grrr...

[Centzon Totochtin]

The health insurance issue would obviously be different in every country. Health insurance here is very different, we have a national system that in theory ensures basic medacil cover and treatment for everyone. Then we have private insurance for those who elect to pay for it, where you get extra cover at the level you elect. I am overweight, not near obese yet and I wouldn't want my insurance price to go up because of this, I am already paying for the top cover anyway. If you are talking about insurance you should also do somethign similar for smokers, heavy drinkers and it would tempt insurance companies into change premiums depending on occupation as well I would say.

I think the tax is a good idea. It doesn't necessarily stop people from buying it, butit can at least make people think twice before they do, like with cigarettes and alcohol taxes (in theory) or be an awesome revenue raiser for the government

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Frookenhauer, on Jan 20 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Terez, if its nationalised this problem is increased by a hundredfold, Even now they admit that fully nationalising anything is a piece of shit, otherwise why would governments privatise utilities which will always be in demand? If they could do it profitably they would never let go of a cash cow. I'm afraid the naivete is purely on your end

Who is this they you speak of and have you any quotes of them saying this?

Privatization does not always equal cheaper prices and better service. Take a look at what happened after privatization of California's power supply and distribution. Sky high prices and rolling blackouts.

[Terez]

Frookie, you're a Brit aren't you? You'd make a good Republican if you lived here. Good thing you don't.

[Camel]

I don't know about most of you guys' health problems, but I think it's fair to say that I'm probably the one of posters here most dependent on health insurance. Basically, without health insurance, I'd die within 3 months, probably less. No joke. Having said that.. I have no idea what a good solution to health care would be. Every idea I see just seems terrible.

Maybe there is no solution.

[Epiph]

Centzon Totochtin, on Jan 20 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

If you are talking about insurance you should also do somethign similar for smokers, heavy drinkers and it would tempt insurance companies into change premiums depending on occupation as well I would say.

Frook, this is basically what I was ranting about. Yes, insurance is necessary, but insurance companies are in it to make money and take every opportunity to screw their customers out of more money.

[frookenhauer]

Gwynn ap Nudd, on Jan 21 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

Frookenhauer, on Jan 20 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Terez, if its nationalised this problem is increased by a hundredfold, Even now they admit that fully nationalising anything is a piece of shit, otherwise why would governments privatise utilities which will always be in demand? If they could do it profitably they would never let go of a cash cow. I'm afraid the naivete is purely on your end

Who is this they you speak of and have you any quotes of them saying this?

Privatization does not always equal cheaper prices and better service. Take a look at what happened after privatization of California's power supply and distribution. Sky high prices and rolling blackouts.

I was actually talking about efficiency...and whats it like now?

Look up Margaret Thatcher and Privatisation and you'll find it all the quotes you need in there. Gotta love Maggie. Britain (Maggie) privatised all the utilities because they were costing too much and to make shit loads of money to prop up the economy and to take milk away from kids while simultaneously destroying the midlands. Britain rulez!

[frookenhauer]

Epiph, on Jan 22 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

Centzon Totochtin, on Jan 20 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

If you are talking about insurance you should also do somethign similar for smokers, heavy drinkers and it would tempt insurance companies into change premiums depending on occupation as well I would say.

Frook, this is basically what I was ranting about. Yes, insurance is necessary, but insurance companies are in it to make money and take every opportunity to screw their customers out of more money.

You talk about it as if they are screwing customers, but all they are doing is taking on a RISK, by doing so they should get paid...The riskier the proposition the greater the premium. In England the market is heavily regulated and there are few companies that are out to get you, but essentially everyone should really really really look at the exclusions very very very carefully before they sign.

Also, companies are in business to MAKE money

[Epiph]

Frookenhauer, on Jan 22 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

You talk about it as if they are screwing customers, but all they are doing is taking on a RISK, by doing so they should get paid...The riskier the proposition the greater the premium. In England the market is heavily regulated and there are few companies that are out to get you, but essentially everyone should really really really look at the exclusions very very very carefully before they sign.

Also, companies are in business to MAKE money

They ARE screwing customers. I was sorely tempted to switch my health insurance policy to a health savings account when the option came up at my work this fall so that I would be less obliged to the approval of my health insurance company for co-pays. I passed on it because, in the short term, with my current physical therapy costs (uncovered by my asshole insurance company) made my regular health insurance plan more cost effective (it can came down to a difference in deductibles). My employer is paying the health insurance company a ton of money so that when something does happen to me, I'm covered. Except that when something DID happen to me, my health insurance company didn't rely on what my doctor, who knows and examines me, said I needed, they outsourced the approval to a third party who figured out by some checklists that it was useless to further cover my physical therapy costs. That is not what my employer is paying them for.

I understand that they're a business that needs to make money...but they're in a risky business and they need to accept the risk when it rears its head. And, here in the States, they frequently don't.

This post has been edited by Epiph: 23 January 2009 - 09:31 AM

[frookenhauer]

Why are they not paying for your therapy? I'm intrigued.