A REAL American hero

[apple0154]

Would the gov't plan provide unlimited funding for any life saving procedures, regardless of how long the life was prolonged?

Probably not but then neither do insurance companies. "So, what's the difference", you may ask. The difference is everyone up to that point does receive medical care regardless of their ability tp pay.

The doctor bills the patient directly, but the nurses and other support personnel do not. So the drs and the hospital could have performed the surgery and eaten the costs as easily as the insurance company could.

As easily? Let's say you buy a TV from a mom and pop electronic store and have problems with it vs having problems with a TV purchased from Costco. Can mom and pop eat the costs as well as Costco if you want to return it?

 

[apple0154]

Just remember. Pretty much everything in Apple's life healthwise can be seen as fairly catastrophic. He needs to take his coke-bottled lenses off and use a reality filter!

People jpin group plans besause they are cheaper. What bigger group is there than the entire country?

There isn't one country where the citizens want to return to a "pay or suffer" system and every country started out that way. Not one exception in over 50+ years.

Talk about not seeing reality.

 

[WinterBorn]

Probably not but then neither do insurance companies. "So, what's the difference", you may ask. The difference is everyone up to that point does receive medical care regardless of their ability tp pay.

That is all well and good. But it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. Since the treatment denied was obviously in the immediate financial vicinity of the limits set by Cigna.

As easily? Let's say you buy a TV from a mom and pop electronic store and have problems with it vs having problems with a TV purchased from Costco. Can mom and pop eat the costs as well as Costco if you want to return it?

So your answer is to hold Costco to a different standard?

Also, Cigna would have to pay the full price of the procedure and the post-transplant treatment. The hospital, on the other hand, would not have to eat the full cost, since a percentage of that price is their own profits.

Finally, the mantra that is continually chanted is the reviling of those who put profits before human lives. The drs and hopsital did that just as much as Cigna did. Actually, the surgeons did it worse, since the money in question would be theirs and not someone else's (as Cigna's was).

 

[apple0154]

I have still not seen any logical reason why the insurance company is to blame, but the drs, surgeons, and the hospital are not.

The reason is how can one man, the doctor, be expected to swallow thousands of dollars in lost salary compared to a corporation which employs a large number of people? As for the hospital it probably has offered services to the indigent so it's budget is squeezed.

However, the point is insurance companies make it possible to delay or interfere in implementing a government plan. Suppose there weren't any medical insurance companies. Citizens would then demand the government implement a policy. As it stands medical insurance companies are a solution but a very poor one. Just enough to keep the people from not demanding a government policy but that's changing.

 

[apple0154]

That is all well and good. But it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. Since the treatment denied was obviously in the immediate financial vicinity of the limits set by Cigna.

It would depend if every policy/customer had the same limit.

So your answer is to hold Costco to a different standard?

Costco holds itself to that standard.

Also, Cigna would have to pay the full price of the procedure and the post-transplant treatment. The hospital, on the other hand, would not have to eat the full cost, since a percentage of that price is their own profits.

Finally, the mantra that is continually chanted is the reviling of those who put profits before human lives. The drs and hopsital did that just as much as Cigna did. Actually, the surgeons did it worse, since the money in question would be theirs and not someone else's (as Cigna's was).

You have a point as far as the money Signa has belongs to someone else (the investors). Companies are compelled to make profits for their investors. That is their first responsibility and that's why they have no place in health care.

Reality dictates we all have to live by a budget and that includes government plans, however, the first responsibility of a government plan is to provide/ensure medical care, not collect money and see how much of that money can be kept from providing medical care.

 

[WinterBorn]

It would depend if every policy/customer had the same limit.



Costco holds itself to that standard.



You have a point as far as the money Signa has belongs to someone else (the investors). Companies are compelled to make profits for their investors. That is their first responsibility and that's why they have no place in health care.

Reality dictates we all have to live by a budget and that includes government plans, however, the first responsibility of a government plan is to provide/ensure medical care, not collect money and see how much of that money can be kept from providing medical care.

If you want to use this incident as an arguing point for gov't healthcare, it is a reasonable one. However, I am not sure it would be a solid enough one to remove the entire private system. While the costs for the surgery and subsequent treatment mentioned in the OP is high, the costs of the basic medical treatments of the entire population dwarfs it. Wouldn't a gov't mandate to fund procedures not covered be far cheaper?

 

[Bfgrn]

I looked back over this thread, and you actually said very little. You posted a lot of other people's words. So if you will not post your own words, people will respond to the words you copy & paste as if they are what you believe.

Of course there are "death panels". A "death panel" is a group who decides who gets life saving/prolonging medical care financed and who does not. Every insurance company has limits to what they will cover. Even medicare or medicaid has them. Because there is not a medical system in th world that provides unlimited life prolonging medical procedures to everyone. Now perhaps you understand what I was saying when you were throwing a fit about me "telling you what you believe". I'll accept your apology for calling me an asshole, since you completely misunderstood the point.

I am polarizing the issue because any institution tasked with funding medical care must have clear lines concerning what they will cover and what they will not. It would be nice to think every case is decided wholely on its individual merits. But that is not how it will ever work. They must provide clear limits, which requires avoiding the kneejerk, emotional reactions and deciding on clear, concise words in black & white. Since you are obviously of the opinion that Cigna was wrong in this case, I was trying to get you to take a stand on what you consider good limits to be. But, once again, you refused to actually debate with your own words and refused to state you own position. I know that it makes it easier for you to claim people are misstating what you said, or are telling you what you believe. But that technique, not mine, is the one that is childish. And since you refused to discuss any limits of any kind (despite repeated requests), the only conclusion I can come to is that you want no limits of any kind.

And your statement "insurance companies denying coverage to patients because if they don't cower to Wall Street investors demands to keep their medical loss ratio down" is just an inflammatory way of saying the insurance companies have limits on what they will spend.

As for your remark of "take it up with someone else", I can see you did not start this topic to actually discuss the issue, but instead just want to bash the "evil corporations" as usual.



I have still not seen any logical reason why the insurance company is to blame, but the drs, surgeons, and the hospital are not.

Thank you for admitting you are polarizing the issue. It allows you to stick to your premise; insurance companies only deny coverage because those cases are unreasonable. They can be easily explained away; it is 'expecting insurance companies to provide unlimited life prolonging medical procedures to everyone'.

That is not the truth. But you have no use for the truth. It would cause you to think and maybe even criticize the practices of the insurance industry. And it would take away dismissing me as merely 'bash(ing) the "evil corporations" as usual.'

The words of others I have posted are those of Wendell Potter, the man at the center of my OP. A man who spent 20 years in the industry, 15 years as an executive at CIGNA. He had the courage and conscience to walk away from a very lucrative position because he could no longer remain silent, or answer his son's questions. He witnessed and participated in practices at CIGNA that routinely denied claims to people, NOT because CIGNA was being asked to 'provides unlimited life prolonging medical procedures to everyone', they were denied because if they didn't cower to Wall Street investors demands to keep their medical loss ratio down, they would be severely punished by those investors. Those are not my words, they are Wendell Potter's words.

I have provided an interview with Wendell Potter. You refuse to even watch it. WHY is that Winterborn? Are you so afraid to hear what the man has to say that you have to resort to polarizing the issues and forwarding the extremes to defend corporations? Is it possible corporations are not as lily white and wholesome as your polarized brain clings to?

It is truly sad to witness ignorance based on fear and dogma. Your epiphany will only occur when YOU are personally violated.

But take heart Winterborn, I have offered this Wendell Potter interview to hundreds of right wing zealots. NONE of them would watch it. So at least you now know who and what you are.

 

[Bfgrn]

Are you condoning putting money above people? If the doctors had any morals, they would have performed the surgery without concern for money. At least, that's what you've said in the past.

WHAT is the purpose of buying health insurance?

 

[Topspin]

WHAT is the purpose of buying health insurance?

To cover a specific set of risk, not all risk. See had you decided once in the last 30 yrs education was good you'd know that.

 

[Bfgrn]

To cover a specific set of risk, not all risk. See had you decided once in the last 30 yrs education was good you'd know that.

So health insurance is designed to offer coverage to healthy people. If you are sick, go ask the doctor and hospital for compassion and charity.

 

[Topspin]

So health insurance is designed to offer coverage to healthy people. If you are sick, go ask the doctor and hospital for compassion and charity.

thanks for proving your the biggest whinner on this board, for that I think you deserve a cookie. Hopefully you didn't pass on your anti education stance to your kids.

 

[Bfgrn]

thanks for proving your the biggest whinner on this board, for that I think you deserve a cookie. Hopefully you didn't pass on your anti education stance to your kids.

You claim to be big on education, so it's your lucky day. Here is an education on the inner workings of the health insurance industry from a highly successful and educated business executive. The man worked his way up to one of the highest positions in the industry. I am sure you will jump at the chance to educate yourself.

 

[Topspin]

I don't take talking points from GED's especially anti-corp libtards.

 

[Topspin]

your a total tool and a loser, thanks for proving it. A fat cat now feels bad because we have poor people. Somebody please ring desh as she has a rival for most anti-corp poster.
Again, if your kids are as anti education as you I have pity for them.

Bet you didn't have a lot of advanced degreed people at the free hc GIVEAWAY!!!
As others have stated, your seeking of childish blame of cost on the insurer. Shouldn't dr give away thier service to make you think they are moral. Shit, your the poster boy for why one should go to college.

 

[apple0154]

If you want to use this incident as an arguing point for gov't healthcare, it is a reasonable one. However, I am not sure it would be a solid enough one to remove the entire private system. While the costs for the surgery and subsequent treatment mentioned in the OP is high, the costs of the basic medical treatments of the entire population dwarfs it. Wouldn't a gov't mandate to fund procedures not covered be far cheaper?

One of the major problems is people don't have any insurance to begin with or have a high co-pay resulting in them postponing a doctor's visit until their ailment has progressed. Just the idea of a free yearly physical/blood test would result in massive savings.

As for "Wouldn't a gov't mandate to fund procedures not covered be far cheaper?" that supposes one has insurance to begin with. The most vocal opponents of government medical are those who can afford to pay for "luxuries". I see the place for private insurance in regards to covering private hospital rooms and private clinics where one doesn't have to wait for a blood test and for wheelchairs and other aids once the person arrives home.

When discussing costs/affordability even if the 1/3 savings realized by national plans do not persuade people surely the fact there isn't one country in which the citizens are demanding a return to private medical shows the superiority of a government medical plan.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't take talking points from GED's especially anti-corp libtards.

So Wendell Potter, who was a senior VP at one of the largest insurance corporations for 15 years is a GED anti-corp libtard? Did they teach you that in college Einstein???

 

[Topspin]

So Wendell Potter, who was a senior VP at one of the largest insurance corporations for 15 years is a GED anti-corp libtard? Did they teach you that in college Einstein???

wow another GED leap blindly. No the guy whose nuts you are now sucking was the evil insurance guy fucking you in the asss for 15 years. Now he finds a guilt complex and he's your hero.
Ask for a reach around next time BFGED.

 

[Bfgrn]

your a total tool and a loser, thanks for proving it. A fat cat now feels bad because we have poor people. Somebody please ring desh as she has a rival for most anti-corp poster.
Again, if your kids are as anti education as you I have pity for them.

Bet you didn't have a lot of advanced degreed people at the free hc GIVEAWAY!!!
As others have stated, your seeking of childish blame of cost on the insurer. Shouldn't dr give away thier service to make you think they are moral. Shit, your the poster boy for why one should go to college.

A fat cat? And I'm the one who is anti-corp? BTW, what college course did you take that gives you the unique ability to sound like a 5 year old?

 

[Topspin]

your not the fact cat, your BFGED.
You've been mocked by everyone with any econ IQ, not just me.
I've mocked you enough, now you get pity from me you snake oil salesman.
That job is going the way of the buggywhip, please advise your kids to stay in school you sorry loser.

 

[Bfgrn]

your not the fact cat, your BFGED.
You've been mocked by everyone with any econ IQ, not just me.
I've mocked you enough, now you get pity from me you snake oil salesman.
That job is going the way of the buggywhip, please advise your kids to stay in school you sorry loser.

Do they teach grammar and spelling in college? Because you sure sound like a 5 year old. I challenged you on another thread to debate me on economics...you ran and hid under your bed for weeks...you are a phony and a coward.