|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:15:47 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
One of my younger family members has a rare (treatable) form of cancer that requires a drug that costs $30,000 per month to keep him alive. He cannot work any more, so his employer insurance will be gone after he leaves his position at the corporation. Pre-existing conditions would have doomed him, of course, but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!! Let's see... $360,000 per year for a cancer drug for one patient versus $360,000 per year for birth control for Fluck and 359 of her sorority sisters.... That amount of dough would probably also cover the salaries and equipment to perform a few more colonoscopies and endoscopies each year. How shall we spend the money? (Don't get mad at me, you brought it up!) |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 7:14:48 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:22:58 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:41:07 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 1:35:03 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:39:10 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote: but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!! Fine for him, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, it was fine for him, and certainly relevant to this discussion.. Who are you to set rules for what is relevant? Are you the final arbiter of everything? In this case, definitely yes. The discussion is about health insurance, not VA benefits. This "fine for him" shows that sometimes the government CAN do something right. CAN but doesn't always, as in: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/ Irrelevant! NO, completely relevant! You were trying to hold up the VA as example of govt doing something right, but we certainly don't want to use the VA as a model for health care, now do we? It's totally irrelevant because for this person there are only two options. One is to die quickly, and the other is to use the VA insurance program that will provide the $30,000 per month drugs that will keep him alive. Private insurance certainly will not, and should not be on the hook. Private companies are not set up to lose money. Any private company that continuously loses money will go bankrupt and that would be the end of it. Many insurance companies do go out of business because of inadequate financial strength and leave their policy holders hanging. The VA insurance system allows him to buy the needed drugs and allows him to continue to see the same doctors that were treating him before. I don't think you understand how the VA really works. I agree that for some veterans the VA is a disgrace and has not served our veterans well. We would probably disagree why, since the reason is that congress has continually cut funding for this agency. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On 5/7/2014 12:40 PM, Bill wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2014 05:06:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote: "I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide." And you can twist that any way you like; I think his statement is correct. I expect my representatives in government to care what I think. I expect them all to defend the interests of their constituents first, and their party agenda second (or not at all). The purpose of government is to do acts of war with pen, so that people have no need to take up swords against one another ...for resources. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 11:43:33 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 7:14:48 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:22:58 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:41:07 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/ Irrelevant! NO, completely relevant! You were trying to hold up the VA as example of govt doing something right, but we certainly don't want to use the VA as a model for health care, now do we? It's totally irrelevant because for this person there are only two options. One is to die quickly, and the other is to use the VA insurance program It isn't "insurance" it's a -benefit- of being a veteran. that will provide the $30,000 per month drugs that will keep him alive. Private insurance certainly will not, and should not be on the hook. If the terms of the contract specify that the company must pay then it will have to pay. Private companies are not set up to lose money. Except Solyndra (but that was taxpayers' money, so it doesn't count!) Any private company that continuously loses money will go bankrupt and that would be the end of it. Get out of here! Many insurance companies do go out of business because of inadequate financial strength and leave their policy holders hanging. http://www.investopedia.com/articles...antee-fund.asp Of course, all a govt would have to do is raise taxes or print money in order to pay for $30,000 per month per patient treatments. And if the cancer drug in question were $3,000,000 per month?? For a cancer that WASN'T rare? The VA insurance system It isn't "insurance" it's a -benefit- of being a veteran. allows him to buy the needed drugs and allows him to continue to see the same doctors that were treating him before. Which brings up an interesting point. He was (apparently) diagnosed under -private- insurance, but received treatment via the VA, the same VA that is having problems -diagnosing- other types of cancers: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/ |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:40:52 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2014 05:06:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: "I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide." And you can twist that any way you like; I think his statement is correct. No one is twisting his words, but asking that he be completely specific about what "the people" means in this context. A govt can't "provide" anything, it can only take from one group and give to another. My dad's concern, and mine, would be about HOW any government shoud go about responding to it's citizen's requests - and this is where the rub really lies. Free cars - achieved in the right way, would not be objectionable to me. There is no "right way" to do such a thing. Some people do not have or make enough money to buy a new car each year. Others can but choose not to. It's ultimately about individual choice, not collective decisions. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:46:26 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul wrote:
On 5/7/2014 12:40 PM, Bill wrote: On Wed, 7 May 2014 05:06:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote: "I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide." And you can twist that any way you like; I think his statement is correct. I expect my representatives in government to care what I think. I expect them all to defend the interests of their constituents first, So if the Pentagon wants to close an obsolete military base in your district, you want your congress-critter to stop the closure? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 11:43:33 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote: On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 7:14:48 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:22:58 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:41:07 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/ Irrelevant! NO, completely relevant! You were trying to hold up the VA as example of govt doing something right, but we certainly don't want to use the VA as a model for health care, now do we? It's totally irrelevant because for this person there are only two options. One is to die quickly, and the other is to use the VA insurance program It isn't "insurance" it's a -benefit- of being a veteran. that will provide the $30,000 per month drugs that will keep him alive. Private insurance certainly will not, and should not be on the hook. If the terms of the contract specify that the company must pay then it will have to pay. Private companies are not set up to lose money. Except Solyndra (but that was taxpayers' money, so it doesn't count!) Any private company that continuously loses money will go bankrupt and that would be the end of it. Get out of here! Many insurance companies do go out of business because of inadequate financial strength and leave their policy holders hanging. http://www.investopedia.com/articles...antee-fund.asp Of course, all a govt would have to do is raise taxes or print money in order to pay for $30,000 per month per patient treatments. And if the cancer drug in question were $3,000,000 per month?? For a cancer that WASN'T rare? The VA insurance system It isn't "insurance" it's a -benefit- of being a veteran. allows him to buy the needed drugs and allows him to continue to see the same doctors that were treating him before. Which brings up an interesting point. He was (apparently) diagnosed under -private- insurance, but received treatment via the VA, the same VA that is having problems -diagnosing- other types of cancers: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/ A decent health service would avoid the bureaucracy and inefficiency of US healthcare, Heres another US user's view of the NHS. http://hotfile.wordpress.com/2009/08...ence-with-nhs/ You ignored the last one of these I posted. Was it too convincing? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change will change thing, not for the better
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 9:05:36 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
You ignored the last one of these I posted. Was it too convincing? It appeared to be largely anecdotal, and the writer even admitted it, IIRC. There is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Someone is paying for it. I prefer to keep monthly premiums low and don't care too much about out-of-pocket costs. I like policies that cover at or near %100 of further costs once the yearly deductible & OoP is met. I find that doc-in-the-boxes have short wait times, decent care and reasonable fees. I don't see why I should subsidize someone who could also pay premiums but chooses to spend his money on other things. I also don't want to subsidize someone who smokes, drinks, takes illegal drugs, eats too much, etc. I don't believe that Sandra Fluke (sp?) is automatically entitled to $1000 worth of free birth-control each year from her insurance company. For poor minor children and for people who -truly- are unable to contribute towards their health care costs, means-based govt programs are acceptable. A one-size-fits-all health system is not about individual choice. Etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Climate Change BS artists are at it again ... | Hägar | Misc | 6 | December 3rd 13 09:52 PM |
Your Climate Change Petition | [email protected] | Misc | 1 | April 16th 13 10:02 PM |
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | August 8th 12 10:43 PM |
Climate change | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 126 | July 23rd 09 10:38 PM |
Climate change | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 8 | July 10th 09 05:05 PM |