Obesity (My Sincere Apologies For Pulling A Jarod)

I am obese. I happen to like the taste of food. Some of us equate food with pleasure. I know very few people who have to make themselves eat. No, make that no people...that I know personally. Getting together with family and friends always involves food and most times it ain't salad...though salad might be on the side menu. You know, to go along with the steak, fried deer, squirrel, fish or quail (most of the time we have cole slaw with fish), Tex/Mex food made with plenty of ground beef, peppers and cheese.

Now I might go to McDonald's once or twice a year but I sure don't want to pay the government a penalty for running short of time and having to grab some fast food along the way.
 
Insurance companies are regulated against abuse. Does it guarentee abuses still do not happen, no. Insurance companies are rated and regulated against abuses however and consumers DO have courses of action that are effective via their state regulator. I know because I have used them and was very satisfied with the effectiveness.

When you buy insurance you sign a binding legal agreement. An insurance company cannot just deny you coverage without the grounds to do so based on your policy agreement. Conversley if they do deny coverage you are entitled to you can appeal to your states regulator to apply pressure, which as I stated was very effective both times I used them. Once for an auto policy and once for a health policy.

I appreciate that information. I surmised the only recourse a consumer had was through the government...how about that...government.

Please do me a favor, invest a half hour at your leisure to listen to this interview. It is very enlightening.

The man's name is Wendell Potter. He is a former CIGNA executive with 15 years experience in the health insurance industry.


Profit Before Patients - Wendell Potter


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI[/ame]
 
I appreciate that information. I surmised the only recourse a consumer had was through the government...how about that...government.

Please do me a favor, invest a half hour at your leisure to listen to this interview. It is very enlightening.

The man's name is Wendell Potter. He is a former CIGNA executive with 15 years experience in the health insurance industry.


Profit Before Patients - Wendell Potter


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI

No one here is an anarchist calling for no government. Government has a role to play that is defined by the Constitution.

I can't speak for Ice Dancer but she'll probably give you a similar response to the video that Damo did.
 
I appreciate that information. I surmised the only recourse a consumer had was through the government...how about that...government.

Please do me a favor, invest a half hour at your leisure to listen to this interview. It is very enlightening.

The man's name is Wendell Potter. He is a former CIGNA executive with 15 years experience in the health insurance industry.

Yeah, government can have a "proper" role as opposed to an improper role in the life of the citizen consumer. There are very few people who do not think so. Regulating health care insurers is that proper role. Working with states to streamline portable coverage; open up state lines to more competition; allow for health care co-ops to bring costs down for individuals who work for or own companies with too few employees in order to get bargain discounts...these would be GREAT FREE ways to aid the citizen employer and create an environment where insurers have to compete for your business JUST LIKE AUTO insurers do!

I will watch your video at some point...promise. I think it has been said to you that no one thinks that health care does not need revision, only that numerous people do not think going to a governmnet run health care industry is the answer.
 
No one here is an anarchist calling for no government. Government has a role to play that is defined by the Constitution.

I can't speak for Ice Dancer but she'll probably give you a similar response to the video that Damo did.

Have you watched the video? Instead of trying to 'imagine' what he has to say, why don't you just find out? They are only words you know.
 
Yeah, government can have a "proper" role as opposed to an improper role in the life of the citizen consumer. There are very few people who do not think so. Regulating health care insurers is that proper role. Working with states to streamline portable coverage; open up state lines to more competition; allow for health care co-ops to bring costs down for individuals who work for or own companies with too few employees in order to get bargain discounts...these would be GREAT FREE ways to aid the citizen employer and create an environment where insurers have to compete for your business JUST LIKE AUTO insurers do!

I will watch your video at some point...promise. I think it has been said to you that no one thinks that health care does not need revision, only that numerous people do not think going to a governmnet run health care industry is the answer.

Fair enough, let me know your opinion afterward, OK?
 
Ok, so I watched the interview. The facts as I heard them are

  • That the health care insurers are in it for a profit.
  • That they will use the media and lobbyists to manipulate votes and policy to protect those profits.
  • That uninsured Americans have to find other means to get basic health care that the executive found demeaning and unfair.

On point one-duh?
On point two-double duh
On point three- This is the only real point that I think deserves to be addressed.

I believe that the best way to prevent fewer numbers of people being herded like cattle is not national health care. Yes, they may get a real building as opposed to a tent, but the herd mentality of government managed care will not go away. The second ignored fact about cost is with the clips of people quipping "it's free" is false. It is not free and indeed is causing the governments where it exists to refuse more and more services and care as they run out of the tax dollars to pay for it.

Both sides of the debate agree that cost really is the sticking point. I submit that forcing insurers to compete is the BEST way to accomplish the most in reducing costs and allowing consumers access. To do this as a first measure is certainly the most intelligent and cost effective place to start at a minimum...

Governments do not manage business the way a private entity can. The answer to abuses is good goverment regulation and industry oversight.
 
How about an opinion on my first paragraph?

I agree with almost all of what you said. I would take some exception with 'open up state lines to more competition' There need to be rules that won't create a race to the bottom.

My main contention and concern is that some things fit perfectly into a market based model, because all the incentives benefit all parties. Health insurance does not. There is incentive for health insurance companies to collect years of premiums, but little or no incentive for insurance companies to pay out when a major illness occurs to the customer. What is the customer going to do in protest, die? There are even employees at those companies whose job it is to find loopholes or conditions that will allow denials. They are even promoted on the basis of success. But that success for the insurance company is a death certificate for a human being.

I believe health care is a right, not a privilege. I site Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
I am obese. I happen to like the taste of food. Some of us equate food with pleasure. I know very few people who have to make themselves eat. No, make that no people...that I know personally. Getting together with family and friends always involves food and most times it ain't salad...though salad might be on the side menu. You know, to go along with the steak, fried deer, squirrel, fish or quail (most of the time we have cole slaw with fish), Tex/Mex food made with plenty of ground beef, peppers and cheese.

Now I might go to McDonald's once or twice a year but I sure don't want to pay the government a penalty for running short of time and having to grab some fast food along the way.

Well if you are happy and pleased with being obese, who are we to challenge that? I do know that heart disease, which is directly linked to obesity, is the number one killer of Americans.

I agree that enjoying good food is associated with good times and family. Nothing the matter with that, but when it threatens your health it should be concerning. Why not still enjoy those foods but not over indulge?

I am sure your family would like to have you around for many more years.
 
I agree with almost all of what you said. I would take some exception with 'open up state lines to more competition' There need to be rules that won't create a race to the bottom.

My main contention and concern is that some things fit perfectly into a market based model, because all the incentives benefit all parties. Health insurance does not. There is incentive for health insurance companies to collect years of premiums, but little or no incentive for insurance companies to pay out when a major illness occurs to the customer. What is the customer going to do in protest, die? There are even employees at those companies whose job it is to find loopholes or conditions that will allow denials. They are even promoted on the basis of success. But that success for the insurance company is a death certificate for a human being.

I believe health care is a right, not a privilege. I site Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The incentives of which you speak are profit driven. That is why regulation that allows for the consumer to participate in deciding those profits is the best way to lower costs to the consumer. The ideas I and numerous others have put forth are ALL about the consumer.

The fact of the matter is this: Health care is NOT a right any more than dinner on the table is. Asking our government to regulate business to make getting dinner and affording health care easier is an appropriate role for government.
 
The incentives of which you speak are profit driven. That is why regulation that allows for the consumer to participate in deciding those profits is the best way to lower costs to the consumer. The ideas I and numerous others have put forth are ALL about the consumer.

The fact of the matter is this: Health care is NOT a right any more than dinner on the table is. Asking our government to regulate business to make getting dinner and affording health care easier is an appropriate role for government.

I think you missed or ignored some very important points in the video:

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It's the way the American system has evolved, the political system. But it does offend me, that the vested special interests, who are so profitable and so powerful, are able to influence public policy in the way that they have, and the way that they've done over the years. And the insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.
 
I appreciate that information. I surmised the only recourse a consumer had was through the government...how about that...government.

Please do me a favor, invest a half hour at your leisure to listen to this interview. It is very enlightening.

The man's name is Wendell Potter. He is a former CIGNA executive with 15 years experience in the health insurance industry.


Profit Before Patients - Wendell Potter


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI

Your wasting your time. Southern American red necks are the most brainwashed people on the planet. Due to the fact they were among the least educated. They have been indoctrinated from birth to distrust big government, but they take it a couple of notches too far.

Government agencies are accountable to the people. Private corporations are only accountable to their share holders.

America's god is the almighty dollar. Profits above morals/ethnics.

The objective of every single politician, is to get into office and figure out how to steal tax payers money(for themselves and their campaign donors), and pass the cost down to the tax payer/consumer. That is why every year, the costs of living goes up and never down.(At one time one person(husband) could support a family. Now two people(husband and wife) are having a hard time making ends meet.

They never reduce taxes. Just add them.

And it doesn't surprise me that insurance companies are now charging people for things that were once free. Again, stealing money and passing the loss down to the consumer, via increased premiums or high deductibles(which come out of your pocket).
 
Last edited:
I think you missed or ignored some very important points in the video:

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It's the way the American system has evolved, the political system. But it does offend me, that the vested special interests, who are so profitable and so powerful, are able to influence public policy in the way that they have, and the way that they've done over the years. And the insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

So much for capitalism and competition. Its like a government agency but the profits do not go to the people, they go to a small group of investors. Absolutely shameful. Americans are so clueless......
 
Your wasting your time. Southern American red necks are the most brainwashed people on the planet. Due to the fact they were among the least educated. They have been indoctrinated from birth to distrust big government, but they take it a couple of notches too far.

Government agencies are accountable to the people. Private corporations are only accountable to their share holders.

America's god is the almighty dollar. Profits above morals/ethnics.

The objective of every single politician, is to get into office and figure out how to steal tax payers money(for themselves and their campaign donors), and pass the cost down to the tax payer/consumer. That is why every year, the costs of living goes up and never down.(At one time one person(husband) could support a family. Now two people(husband and wife) are having a hard time making ends meet.

They never reduce taxes. Just add them.

And it doesn't surprise me that insurance companies are now charging people for things that were once free. Again, stealing money and passing the loss down to the consumer, via increased premiums or high deductibles(which come out of your pocket).

Since you're just a kid that lives in Canada, your opinion isn't worth the cost of a cup of coffee.
 
Since you're just a kid that lives in Canada, your opinion isn't worth the cost of a cup of coffee.

USfreedumb is the perfect example of the least educated.lol

You want to see how dumb the south is? Go talk to a religious fanatic and you will get the picture. The smart ones just play along and profit off their stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Since you're just a kid that lives in Canada, your opinion isn't worth the cost of a cup of coffee.

USfreedumb is the perfect example of the least educated.lol

You want to see how dumb the south is? Go talk to a religious fanatic and you will get the picture. The smart ones just play along and profit off their stupidity.

Thanks for verifying that you're just a pathetic Canadian whiner.
 
Thanks for verifying that you're just a pathetic Canadian whiner.

The only thing I verified, is your ignorance.

You are a perfect example of the dumbification of America.

There is at least one board moron on every message board. You know, the ones that have nothing intelligent to say and just posts insults.lol
 
The only thing I verified, is your ignorance.

You are a perfect example of the dumbification of America.

There is at least one board moron on every message board. You know, the ones that have nothing intelligent to say and just posts insults.lol

First: you have to have intelligence to be able to speak of ignorance, so that leaves you with nothing.

Second: You're just a chump Canuck talking out of your ass.

Third: At least you have this area well covered and no one's apt to take the title from you.
 
Back
Top