Don'tcha love their 'logic'?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, October 30, 2009 03:04
VIEWED: 11384
PAGE 4 of 19

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm just kind'a bothered by folks who believe that every company with more than a hundred employees is evil

I know how ya feel. I'm kind'a bothered by folks who believe that every company with more than a hundred employees is usually full of goodness & light, forsaking cut throat profit-making decisions in favour of the public good.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:08 PM

Hello,

Has corporate personhood become such an ingrained part of our psyche that we think corporations are people? That they have souls and independent morality? That they can be either good or evil?

Calling corps good or evil is silly.

Corps are indeed businesses whose only purpose is profit. The only way to make a corp behave in a 'good' way is to ensure that the 'good' way is more profitable than the 'evil' way.

As for popping champagne bottles when they deny coverage... of course they don't do that.

Rather, they pop champagne bottles when they cut costs or eliminate losses... which may come as a result of denying coverage to certain people.

I have no doubt that the Free Market has a solution for people with expensive and unprofitable medical conditions who are looking for insurance. The solution is this: Charge them tons of money.

In a Free Market, the only thing that can save such people is charity. That has never been in question. A Free Market society had better be a charitable one, or every newspaper will be filled with woeful tales.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIPWASH

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:33 PM

I've been hearing this lately and wanted to do a quick check. Though I'm sure Sig and Rue will claim otherwise - or at least tout how untrustworthy my source is - I found the following graph in a report from the AMA:

This is just a snipet of the entire report which can be found here:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

And I'm sure some here will say that the AMA is a right-leaning organization, but I've heard it's the opposite, so I suppose it's one of those "It depends on who you listen to" kind of thing.

My whole point here is that, by the looks of this report, Medicare, the government run health care, denies a larger amount of claims in terms of percentage than any private insurer. I beleive I'm reading that right, but please correct me if I'm wrong. So to blame "big insurance" for turning down coverage for those that need it? It certainly appears as if your government solution is no better and, in fact, might be an even worse offender.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 2:57 PM

Hello,

This is fascinating information.

It would seem that governments can't be counted on to have a morality, either.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIVERLOVE

Friday, October 23, 2009 4:03 PM

This one issue, this one little issue, is driving this country apart, and distracting us from the other issues and dangers we face in this messed-up world. I cannot see what the big problem is with doing the Public Option, or now the Medicare Part Plan. Doctors, nurses, and surgeons are still gonna be all that, and hospitals are still gonna be standing. It's all about who gets to shuffle the damn paperwork. The Govt. 'aint perfect, but they do a lot of things very well. I say the private sector has had too long of an un-challenged profit orgy, and some accountabilty is demanded. A percentage of competition is both healthy and All-American.

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 23, 2009 4:18 PM

Hello,

I do not mind at all if the government wants to enter the field of competition against private insurers. They can float bonds or stocks to pay for startup expenses. They can offer their insurance at whatever rates they feel reasonable. They can run the thing for profit if they like, using earnings from division A to pay for shortfalls in division B. If everything is optional, if everything is voluntary, and if no one is required by law to participate in any extremity, I think it would be gloriously fantastic.

I have yet to see such a proposal.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:02 PM

Quote:
BTW, per the Denver media both children are now insured.

But only after intense negative publicity. Just bc Sons of Maxwell got a guitar fix, and Ann Mich got her credit card rate un-hijacked by going viral on youtube doesn't mean No problem! For the few individuals who get paid special attention there are hundreds- if not thousands- who never see their problems redressed. And this is one area I KNOW from personal experience, and so do other peeps on the board. You will not be able to convince us that it is as comfortable as you ASSUME, because we know that it isn't.

Quote:
A Free Market society had better be a charitable one, or every newspaper will be filled with woeful tales.

Oh, I see. In other words... the average person has to dig out out their pocket to save insurance company profits, and profits in general? "We" have to make up for their greed by being nice???

Quote:
I'm just kind'a bothered by folks who believe that every company with more than a hundred employees is evil

EVERY company under curent law is driven by the profit motive, and every publicly-traded company has as their uppermost responsibiity fiduciary duty to their stockholders. What this all means is retaining earnings while transfering costs to "everyone else" by any means possible- including counting on "charity" to try to bandage the wreckage they caused. Its inseparably the nature of the beast, having nothing to do with corruption but everything to do with legalized theft as paradigm.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:07 PM

Geezer can be quite vocal about corruption in Darfur, but here at home the corruption inherent in the BUSINESS of insurance seems to elude him.

The laughing Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, October 23, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW, per the Denver media both children are now insured.

Yeah, because the insurance companies got bad press. Not because they're not scumbags.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME