Fundamental Differences

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:58 pm

Kids these days are frugal enough for Healthcare, Kulaf.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:01 pm

My guess is the sum of annual collage students alchohol expences could provide healthcare coverage for the entire school.

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:32 pm

*aren't...

Seems I missed that mistake... ugh

It would at least cover the cost of coverage for themselves, in many cases.

Taxious · Post by **Taxious** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:33 pm

Embar Angylwrath wrote:What you're doing is imposing your moral code on others. Is that fair?

Uh... this coming from Mr. "OMG ABORTION IS HORRIBLE AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL" is kind of funny.

I do see your point, but I think the "fair" side of the coin lands with people that need help buying meds that they need to live.

Embar Angylwrath wrote:What other services are you willing to pay for "freeloaders"? If citizens want the benefit of participating a society and having certain needs met, don't you think they have an obligation to that society?

To be honest, I'm pretty torn on this. I'm only "willing to pay for freeloaders" because I feel that the system will help a much larger number of people that aren't freeloaders.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:09 pm

Can't get health coverage......or chooses not to get it. Most people could cancel their mobile phone contract and afford health coverage. Or cancel their Cable. If you require health coverage......prioritize.

Funny thing, that. I'm a under-40 male. I'm overweight, but I still qualify according to the insurance companies' own charts for insurance, and even knowing that I would be paying more BECAUSE I'm not as thin yet as I want to be, AND after going for plans that don't offer nearly as many perks as the good stuff, I can't get it. No reason given on the return form, they just say no. I'm sure that my story is not unique. I'm sure that there are others like me, cash in hand, begging these companies to get on board, and being told no. That's your free market, the freedom of companies to select the cream and ignore the rest.

(Oh, and as a by-the-by, no history of illnesses in my family. My last physical, like all the ones before it, came back zed, zed, zed for any problems or conditions. Other than being large, I've been pronounced by my doctor as 'disgustingly healthy' since he can't make any additional money off me.)

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:47 pm

You telling me Blue Cross of IL turned you down? Or didn't you check with them?

Arkaron · Post by **Arkaron** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:45 pm

I should mention: I have good insurance now because I moved to a different state and now work for a large company. They can typically afford to buy insurance policy in bulk. While I don't do 401k because I've never stayed with a company long enough for this to be reasonable, I always get life insurance when possible. So, I suppose the market 'worked' for me, but it would not for people who were not as mobile. Oh, about the 'big company' thing: I told my sister who is fresh out of high school that there's no shame in working fast food, if only because they tend to have great health plans for exactly that reason. They're huge and can lobby for dirt cheap coverage.

I do agree with Kulaf that anyone who puts a hundred dollars a month into a cell phone plan for an IPhone, buys designer lables and goes home to a Wii instead of health insurance is a moron. I don't think we're talking about those people, though.

I actually didn't take the insurance offered by my last employer because it was beyond crappy and I was covered for accidents and emergencies through the university's health center. Which, by the way, is one option for health care if you're even a part time student and can't get covered elsewhere. Sometimes the extended coverage is more expensive per term, but I don't think university can turn down a student who pays for the better coverage.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:28 am

You telling me Blue Cross of IL turned you down? Or didn't you check with them?

Not only Blue Cross, but Humana too. Unfortunately, as one person, I don't have much leverage to force a large company to sell me products.

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:04 am

Anthem? Aetna? Cigna?

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:31 am

Partha wrote:
You telling me Blue Cross of IL turned you down? Or didn't you check with them?
Not only Blue Cross, but Humana too. Unfortunately, as one person, I don't have much leverage to force a large company to sell me products.

Are you using the self employment option? That is how you get better rates because you go into a plan with a ton of other self employed people.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:34 am

Arkaron wrote:I should mention: I have good insurance now because I moved to a different state and now work for a large company. They can typically afford to buy insurance policy in bulk. While I don't do 401k because I've never stayed with a company long enough for this to be reasonable, I always get life insurance when possible.

Just a point to ponder for you Ark.....you should ALWAYS do a 401k with any employer that offers it. When you leave you establish your own IRA rollover and they will automatically transfer your 401k into your rolloever account. Just keep doing that as you move from employer to employer, rolling over the 401k into your existing account and manage your own investment.

Post by **Ddrak** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:01 am

The idea that someone is choosing whether or not to perform a job they are qualified to do based on whether the employer has appropriate health care plans doesn't strike any of you as flat out stupid? Why in the hell should Ark be forced to look at that sort of thing in relation to working?

Sorry, but the US health care system is flat out broken. In the US it took me 4-6 weeks to get an appointment with a GP. If you had anything vaguely serious you basically had to go to emergency, where the place was so full you could easily wait all day unless you complained of chest pains to get their attention. My insurance claims were lucky to be paid after 6 months on any of the 3 different insurance providers I was with, and you really had little choice of which doctor or which treatments you went to see - if it didn't fit your insurer's idea of what was best then you were SOL. Just for all that mess the insurance company was paid a ridiculously large amount.

No, I don't like freeloaders and the biggest freeloaders in the US system are the health insurance companies. The sooner they have to face real competition instead of offering sweet deals for employers that screw the employees the better. Frankly, Aetna, BCBS, UHC, etc. can all go die in a fire.

I'm quite happy to be out of that mess and shake my head at anyone who defends it.

Embar makes a good and interesting comment here:

What you're doing is imposing your moral code on others. Is that fair? What other services are you willing to pay for "freeloaders"? If citizens want the benefit of participating a society and having certain needs met, don't you think they have an obligation to that society?

Any society imposes its moral code on all members of that society. It manifests through a system of laws, government, welfare, etc. It's absolutely fair and absolutely the cornerstone of anything above anarchy. Is it far to impose your view of personal property on others? Is it fair to impose your moral code of making revenge killings illegal on others? Is it fair to impose a moral view of denying universal health care to others when you live in a society that can easily afford it?

True freeloaders shouldn't be tolerated, but not being able to pay for your own health needs doesn't make you a freeloader any more than not being able to pay for your own personal cruise missile to help out with the Iraq invasion makes you one, or not being able to afford a personal freeway makes you one. You have to decide what's important as a society, and decide what demands you'll place on the members of society to support that.

Dd

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:51 am

If you don't think Ddrak sounds perfectly sensible, then you aren't a rational person.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:00 am

But that's tyranny!!!

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:01 am

I just wonder what shithole he was living in that he had to wait 4-6 weeks to see a GP... I normally get in same day.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:11 am

I've never been able to get in the same day with a GP. I'm lucky if it's the same week. Maybe if I went outside of the network I am allowed to go to and have to pay for 50-75% of it out of pocket. Dentists and specialists are even worse. It's a least a month to get into the sports medicine doctor I go to and at least a month for the dentist unless it's an emergency.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:19 am

I can get in the same day to a Nurse Practitioner if I make an Urgent Care appointment. Doctor or specialist... no chance.

Jarochai Alabaster · Post by **Jarochai Alabaster** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:19 am

None of the insurance companies I've ever been "covered" through were worth shit.

As an example, about 3 years ago I had a suspicious mole on my side that I had a chat with my doctor about. It had been getting bigger, pieces of it were dying and falling off, and generally it was scaring the crap out of me. The doc said it would be best to have it removed and biopsied, and I agreed.
It gets chopped off, sent in and tested, and thankfully the test came back negative. The thing was just a mole. Unfortunately, the insurance company (BCBS) insisted that since the tests came back negative for cancer, the biopsy was "unnecessary" and they were refusing to pay for the procedure. I called and argued with them. The doctor called and argued with them, insisting that the test was absolutely necessary. The fucking doctor told them himself that this mole was suspicious and needed to be biopsied, and they effectively told him "STFU noob."

My most recent provider (UHC) refused payment on a claim, insisting that a recent injury was a "pre-existing condition." An injury. Acquired after becoming insured with UHC.

Honestly, I've never once had an insurance company pay for a fucking thing that they were supposed to pay for. There's always some bullshit loophole or excuse they can give for refusing anything beyond the 2 checkups per year or whatever they allow. Fuck the health insurance companies, and the sooner we have a functional socialized program in place the better.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:38 am

Ddrak wrote:The idea that someone is choosing whether or not to perform a job they are qualified to do based on whether the employer has appropriate health care plans doesn't strike any of you as flat out stupid? Why in the hell should Ark be forced to look at that sort of thing in relation to working?

For the same reason that if I had small children I might look for a employer who offered on site childcare. Not everyone needs health insurance from their employer. A lot of married couples go with whichever employer can provide the best familty plan.....leaving the other spouse free to not have to worry about their employers healthplan.

Shopping for benefits is just part of finding a job.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:43 am

On-site childcare? That's rare as hell these days. It's too much added liability for the company.

Brell Rants

Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences