A REAL American hero

apple0154 said:
Because not everyone has a car but everyone has a body. (And some people have an especially nice body but I won't get into that.) :)

Also, like car or home owner insurance one can determine any possible loss. For example, if one purchases home insurance against fire but not theft they know ahead of time the maximum loss they may sustain, that being the contents of their home. Also, they can evaluate the chances of theft, say, between living in a gated community with security patrols vs a crime ridden area. Contrast that to medical insurance.

How is one able to make a reasonable evaluation regarding the risk of illness or accident? Cancer? Organ failure? Paralysis?
Click to expand...

you've obviously lost the mission of insurance companies in general. Their entire profit motive is based on risk, like much of life in general. This was a known and accepted business practice when the insurance industry was created. It's why government entities pay huge premiums to insurance companies, to protect them from the risk of their failures.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you've obviously lost the mission of insurance companies in general. Their entire profit motive is based on risk, like much of life in general. This was a known and accepted business practice when the insurance industry was created. It's why government entities pay huge premiums to insurance companies, to protect them from the risk of their failures.
Click to expand...

Insurance is fne but not for health. One insures things they obtain...cars, houses, businesses, etc. The loss of any of those will not result in the illness or death of the individual. Furthermore, as I noted, how can one evaluate the risk of illness or accident to any reasonable degree?

A smoker may realize the odds of contracting lung cancer are high but there are individuals who never smoked and contract lung cancer. Purchasing health insurance is akin to a person purchasing home insurance (theft) by looking at the outside of a house and guessing how much the contents are worth.
 
Bfgrn said:
Only if you put money before human life.
Click to expand...

Its funny that you want to rant and rave about Cigna putting money before human life. But you are not accusing the hospital of the same crime. You are not accusing the surgeons of the same crime. Aren't they just as guilty, if not more so?
 
Bfgrn said:
Then tell me WHAT can't the insurance companies cover? I'm sure Nataline Sarkisyan's parents would like to know.

In late 2007 a 17-year-old girl, Nataline Sarkisyan, lay close to death in a Los Angeles hospital. Diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 14, Sarkisyan was suffering from liver failure due to the aggressive treatment that had recently cured the disease. Without a new organ she would die; if she received a transplant, her doctors gave her a 60 percent chance of surviving.

Miraculously, a perfect liver match was found a couple of days after Sarkisyan was put on the transplant list. But her insurer, CIGNA, denied the request to cover the cost of the operation, deeming it “experimental.” Nataline’s desperate mother took the fight to the headquarters of the insurer, organizing protests and demonstrations. CIGNA, finding itself embroiled in a public relations nightmare, reversed its decision. But it was too late, and Sarkisyan died two hours after their change of heart.

Her case had a profound effect on CIGNA’s then Head of Corporate Communications, Wendell Potter. He was devastated upon hearing of Sarkisyan’s death, and it led to his gradual realization that he “was part of an industry that would do whatever it took to perpetuate its extraordinarily profitable existence. I had sold my soul.” He walked away from the company shortly thereafter, becoming a leading voice in the campaign for healthcare reform.
Click to expand...

And why didn't the hospital proceed with the surgery? Why didn't the surgeons volunteer to do it without it being covered? Why is it only the insurance company that is the villian?
 
WinterBorn said:
And why didn't the hospital proceed with the surgery? Why didn't the surgeons volunteer to do it without it being covered? Why is it only the insurance company that is the villian?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. They even asked for a down payment of $75,000 before they would perform the surgery. This is actually rather surprising, as most hospitals will treat parents regardless of their ability to pay. Makes me wonder if there's more to this story than what has been disclosed in this thread.
 
Bfgrn said:
Does Medicare work? I am not talking about the cost, I'm talking about the patient care?
Click to expand...

It works about as well as Canadian healthcare - it delivers, but the problems that are supposed to magically go away with government involvement are still there.
 
I have a question for you, Bfgrn. We will call it a hypothetical situation, but it is very real. If a man has a serious medical condition which effects his heart, and his heart is failing, should the insurance company pay for a heart transplant? Bear in mind, the transplant will probably add about 6 months to his life and will cost between $400k and $500k.

Should the insurance company pay for it?
 
WinterBorn said:
I have a question for you, Bfgrn. We will call it a hypothetical situation, but it is very real. If a man has a serious medical condition which effects his heart, and his heart is failing, should the insurance company pay for a heart transplant? Bear in mind, the transplant will probably add about 6 months to his life and will cost between $400k and $500k.

Should the insurance company pay for it?
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you rigged the question by placing the 6 month qualifier. The very first heart transplant patient in 1967 lived 18 days.
 
King of Hops said:
I know the feeling. I used to run a vBulletin and phpBB board and mod problems were very annoying and difficult to troubleshoot, especially since I didn't know any code at the time.
Click to expand...

I had to rewrite the code on this one because the newest upgrade changed everything and variables and templates in particular have to be registered and rendered... Then to top it all off the code is "post_groans_amount" v. "post_groan_amount" v. "post_groans_total_amount_groaned"... so on... I'm tired of seeing the word "groan" as much as I am tired of looking for one misplaced "s" on pages and pages of text....

Ugh.
 
Bfgrn said:
It's interesting that you rigged the question by placing the 6 month qualifier. The very first heart transplant patient in 1967 lived 18 days.
Click to expand...

I didn't rig anything. There are plenty fo situations in which an expensive procedure would prolong the patient's life by a relatively small amount.


So you are refusing to answer the question? Should the insurance pay for the procedure?
 
Bfgrn, I am truly interested in your answer to my question. And if you could also tell me why you only hold the insurance company responsible and no one else?

I look forward to your reply.
 
WinterBorn said:
Bfgrn, I am truly interested in your answer to my question. And if you could also tell me why you only hold the insurance company responsible and no one else?

I look forward to your reply.
Click to expand...

Dont hold your breath.... 10 to 1 he replys with a quote that is completely irrelevant to the questions you posed and then he pretends that he 'answered' you.
 
bf= poster boy for simpleton

Even if we have total gov hc, they most certainly will not cover everything. And the things they cover will be done with the efficiency of the Dept of Motor vehicles.
 
King of Hops said:
It works about as well as Canadian healthcare - it delivers, but the problems that are supposed to magically go away with government involvement are still there.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't people being able to buy into medicare work? Everything is in place, and the system has worked for decades. Medicare is a government-run program that has administrative expenses around three percent. The insurance industry spends about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense and profit. The profit is not in the Medicare equation. That is why the insurance industry spent millions of dollars to defeat the public option.
 
WinterBorn said:
I didn't rig anything. There are plenty fo situations in which an expensive procedure would prolong the patient's life by a relatively small amount.


So you are refusing to answer the question? Should the insurance pay for the procedure?
Click to expand...

Yes, you DID rig the question. The 5 year survival rate is 73.1% (males), 67.4% (females). Anyone with only a 6 month prognosis would probably be eliminated from a transplant list.
 
you are that stupid, and you think gov overhead is remotely as efficient as corp overhead. LOFL
No wonder you didn't go to college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top