You DENY Heath Care to the poor. You let the poor DIE for PROFIT!!!
You allow RICH Corporations to kill you by denying medical treatment and operations so some Rich Bastard can get a higher percentage point on their profits.
USA - Do you realize that the WORLD looks upon you with DISGUST and CONTEMPT?
You KILL your own sick and poor citizens....all for the benefit of the RICH!!!
FOX-CBS-NBC-The facts are simple....We will be a better Country..once Health Care Reform passes. We all pick up the tab for people who don't pay taxes and don't have medical insurance... Let everyone pay into the system so that everyone has coverage. No Brainer and for those who are nick picking at every line in the proposal... leave the country...you don't belong here anyway.
@rawraw41 It good to see positive change over the health care system in the US. In Australia we have universal health care called medicare and the system works fine. US citizens have to get over this fear of having to pay 'for somebody else'
Imagine this ....320+million americans. Over 250+ million americans in the work force. Everyone contributes $ 2 dollars to a tax from their pay check that goes to this new health care system. Estimate that at a year end surplus of 24 billion a year in universal health care for all. If they can take money out for social security benefits for the sick and elderly then why won't they do this for all. So many families have lost everything because of medical bills. That isnt right....
Finally, it's also why Obama offered a "government option," as yet another choice, while NOT wanting the "single payer" concept. The gov't would NOT earn any money at this; it would merely pool ALL the funds of EVERY citizen into ONE fund--exactly what Soc. Sec. has proven it does so well for generations. (It's SO successful, the gov't borrows from it regularly to balance the budget.) But insurance co.'s & their investors do NOT want to lose out. Thus, they're BOTH fighting change so hard. See?
The INSURED must think like insurERS if we're to arrive at any kind of "negotiation" here. As long as insurance companies are included, this incredibly complex bargaining process will be a part of health coverage. Insurance companies make up an entire industry that is ALSO an investment fund. Investors don't risk their money to LOSE it--they do so to come out ahead. And THIS is why the "single-payer" folks say it's vital to REMOVE insurance companies from this health care process.
Insurers can invest a fund's pool IF they've a handle on how long they'll have how much--will it always be paying out high claims? (Such as homes in fire-prone areas of Calif.) Same with health insurers--HIV/AIDS comes with a high cost over a long period, as do cancers, heart disease--for surgeries, treatments, visits, drugs. If you'll pay for these high-cost treatments, premiums MUST cost more; the invested pool of funds must YIELD more: you CAN'T have switches with each insured's new "need."
Nearing the end here: The data tells them their "chances" of house fires, thefts, floods, etc., so they know how long they'll have hold of that sum of money--which they then invest short-term, long-term, wherever to earn the most they can WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. They know they're going to pay out something; but RARELY everything, not all at once. (For example, insurers never considered a Katrina--and look what what happened.) They thus try to LOWER the chances of paying out more than they've got.
Stay with me here... Retirement funds invest in insurance companies ALL THE TIME. You don't invest in what'd give a poor yield, but in what promises a good one. Just as insurers (and banks) compute "risks," so do investors. Even a loan shark'll loan any bum some money--at a cost, charging more for a poor risk, less for a good one. Banks do the same; thus, higher interest rates if your credit history's grim. Insurance MUST use the same concept: What are the "chances"? Thus, they compile data.
My point is: The insurance companies aren't just there to TAKE and/or PAY OUT money, receiving nothing for their efforts. They USE that vast sum to INVEST, which then EARNS MORE money--that's theirs. As the insured, we tend to see only the perspective of premiums, and what we might get back in return. Unless our income level's high enough to make investments, we don't see the INVESTING aspect of the insurance "industry." THIS is what is key. Those funds otherwise would lay idle, earning zip.
Obviously, every policy holder didn't have a daily house fire; nor did most in the fund--leaving all that money sitting there, idle. The insurance fund's administrators, thus, invested that "pool" of money into something that produced some interest, to "earn" more money. True, this is using "other people's money," but the added value comes only via the insurance administrator's efforts--not the insured's efforts (only their money). The insurers thus earned something for their efforts.
The ONLY way they can pay the costs is by "pooling" resources. Thus, the first insurance policies WERE (in actuality) for house fires. The risks were common, as every house had to use fire to heat and cook. They "pooled" their funds into one; whenever those who'd done so had a fire, they drew from that fund for repairs. Some homes may've had faulty chimneys, and had fires frequently, while homes with better designed chimneys didn't, making fewer claims. The concept's the same.
When engaging in any argument, it always helps to take the "opponent's" position, and to think from their perspective. I don't know the insurance business, but I can grasp the basic concept of how they do and must operate. The very basis of it is "risk"--always. It's a legitimized form of gambling. They ask "What are the chances of a house fire?" and they get the data (# of house fires per year in "X" region); crunch costs, divide among policy holders, and that's what they charge per policy.
Something I don't understand. Obama says we can keep the health care that we have if we like it, but we don't have a choice as employees on which health care we have now. The company chooses. What if the company chooses a plan we don't like? We are off finding our own then, right? Isn't that what people are doing now?
If you have a plan currently that you like, then you needn't leave it for something else--you can keep it. If we enact a plan akin to that which covers federal employees (which includes government workers such as the Congress and administration) you'd get to choose among the many options they have. IF we enact one more choice (the "public option"), you may also choose from that, as well--good if you can't afford private plans, or have been turned down by insurers for a pre-existing condition.
But my point is that I get whatever insurance my company chooses. If my company decides to change my plan, I have no choice (because I don't want to go look for one on my own - that would be worse!).
It'd work just as ALL plans do. ALL are created by insurers, not the insured. You may choose Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, but never this item from Plan A, that from B, another from C., in an "a la carte" choice. "Plans" are "programs," devised by insurers, not the insured. You may choose from among different plans, but can't "mix" plans' options. It''s like ordering a "combo pizza" and eating only the onions, but not the peppers; you can't order "half peppers" "half onions"--it's a "combo" pizza.
Our complex system (and thus a complex problem) requires more than a grunt that most sites allow--and more than a couple sentences of explanation. I've replied to you; but space limits had me go "forward" in the column. Please just search for my name and then, rather than reading from top to bottom, read according to the order of entries made--from bottom to top. (While others may be familiar with posting order, not everyone is). It's truly vital we figure this out--with sense. This is a start.
You hit the nail on the head - our national debt will sink us sooner or later. Welcome to china!
Why doesnt the govt offer catastrophic care instead of mandates??
For example: Govt covers expenses over 5X your annual salary. This limits insurers liability while immediately reducing premiums to small business & people.
For those who can't afford insurance - isn't that what medicaid is for?
We certainly can't "copy" other socialized programs - that equals rationed, substandard care!
30% of 2.5 trillion spent on health insurance will not go to care. Cut out the middle man. Our senators have no problem tossing the auto workers under the bus, why not the insurance companies. Could it be the money they get from lobbyists?
This morning I sat down in five hotels writing about GOD,LOVE & WORLD PEACE in 11 languages & handing my works over to 10 glorious individuals representing 7 nations.
4 of them were in the investment sector & adore my partners Albert Arnold Gore Jr (Al Gore) & Sir Richard Branson. Google those names with World Peace.
I shall continue for PEACE is what most of the world desires.
I enjoy Manhattan for its diversity & being wired to the internet & google.
E:\D'Ro\The Horror\Health care horrors presentation_files\frame.htm
copy link and paste
THEValleyGurl16 1 year ago
America...you are an EVIL people.
You DENY Heath Care to the poor. You let the poor DIE for PROFIT!!!
You allow RICH Corporations to kill you by denying medical treatment and operations so some Rich Bastard can get a higher percentage point on their profits.
USA - Do you realize that the WORLD looks upon you with DISGUST and CONTEMPT?
You KILL your own sick and poor citizens....all for the benefit of the RICH!!!
You evil people.......
PaulDougouba 2 years ago 3
FOX-CBS-NBC-The facts are simple....We will be a better Country..once Health Care Reform passes. We all pick up the tab for people who don't pay taxes and don't have medical insurance... Let everyone pay into the system so that everyone has coverage. No Brainer and for those who are nick picking at every line in the proposal... leave the country...you don't belong here anyway.
rawraw41 2 years ago 4
@rawraw41 It good to see positive change over the health care system in the US. In Australia we have universal health care called medicare and the system works fine. US citizens have to get over this fear of having to pay 'for somebody else'
seesaw148 2 years ago
Imagine this ....320+million americans. Over 250+ million americans in the work force. Everyone contributes $ 2 dollars to a tax from their pay check that goes to this new health care system. Estimate that at a year end surplus of 24 billion a year in universal health care for all. If they can take money out for social security benefits for the sick and elderly then why won't they do this for all. So many families have lost everything because of medical bills. That isnt right....
RickRomo 2 years ago 2
Finally, it's also why Obama offered a "government option," as yet another choice, while NOT wanting the "single payer" concept. The gov't would NOT earn any money at this; it would merely pool ALL the funds of EVERY citizen into ONE fund--exactly what Soc. Sec. has proven it does so well for generations. (It's SO successful, the gov't borrows from it regularly to balance the budget.) But insurance co.'s & their investors do NOT want to lose out. Thus, they're BOTH fighting change so hard. See?
Zootallors 2 years ago
The INSURED must think like insurERS if we're to arrive at any kind of "negotiation" here. As long as insurance companies are included, this incredibly complex bargaining process will be a part of health coverage. Insurance companies make up an entire industry that is ALSO an investment fund. Investors don't risk their money to LOSE it--they do so to come out ahead. And THIS is why the "single-payer" folks say it's vital to REMOVE insurance companies from this health care process.
Zootallors 2 years ago
Insurers can invest a fund's pool IF they've a handle on how long they'll have how much--will it always be paying out high claims? (Such as homes in fire-prone areas of Calif.) Same with health insurers--HIV/AIDS comes with a high cost over a long period, as do cancers, heart disease--for surgeries, treatments, visits, drugs. If you'll pay for these high-cost treatments, premiums MUST cost more; the invested pool of funds must YIELD more: you CAN'T have switches with each insured's new "need."
Zootallors 2 years ago
Nearing the end here: The data tells them their "chances" of house fires, thefts, floods, etc., so they know how long they'll have hold of that sum of money--which they then invest short-term, long-term, wherever to earn the most they can WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. They know they're going to pay out something; but RARELY everything, not all at once. (For example, insurers never considered a Katrina--and look what what happened.) They thus try to LOWER the chances of paying out more than they've got.
Zootallors 2 years ago
Stay with me here... Retirement funds invest in insurance companies ALL THE TIME. You don't invest in what'd give a poor yield, but in what promises a good one. Just as insurers (and banks) compute "risks," so do investors. Even a loan shark'll loan any bum some money--at a cost, charging more for a poor risk, less for a good one. Banks do the same; thus, higher interest rates if your credit history's grim. Insurance MUST use the same concept: What are the "chances"? Thus, they compile data.
Zootallors 2 years ago
My point is: The insurance companies aren't just there to TAKE and/or PAY OUT money, receiving nothing for their efforts. They USE that vast sum to INVEST, which then EARNS MORE money--that's theirs. As the insured, we tend to see only the perspective of premiums, and what we might get back in return. Unless our income level's high enough to make investments, we don't see the INVESTING aspect of the insurance "industry." THIS is what is key. Those funds otherwise would lay idle, earning zip.
Zootallors 2 years ago
Obviously, every policy holder didn't have a daily house fire; nor did most in the fund--leaving all that money sitting there, idle. The insurance fund's administrators, thus, invested that "pool" of money into something that produced some interest, to "earn" more money. True, this is using "other people's money," but the added value comes only via the insurance administrator's efforts--not the insured's efforts (only their money). The insurers thus earned something for their efforts.
Zootallors 2 years ago
The ONLY way they can pay the costs is by "pooling" resources. Thus, the first insurance policies WERE (in actuality) for house fires. The risks were common, as every house had to use fire to heat and cook. They "pooled" their funds into one; whenever those who'd done so had a fire, they drew from that fund for repairs. Some homes may've had faulty chimneys, and had fires frequently, while homes with better designed chimneys didn't, making fewer claims. The concept's the same.
Zootallors 2 years ago
When engaging in any argument, it always helps to take the "opponent's" position, and to think from their perspective. I don't know the insurance business, but I can grasp the basic concept of how they do and must operate. The very basis of it is "risk"--always. It's a legitimized form of gambling. They ask "What are the chances of a house fire?" and they get the data (# of house fires per year in "X" region); crunch costs, divide among policy holders, and that's what they charge per policy.
Zootallors 2 years ago
Something I don't understand. Obama says we can keep the health care that we have if we like it, but we don't have a choice as employees on which health care we have now. The company chooses. What if the company chooses a plan we don't like? We are off finding our own then, right? Isn't that what people are doing now?
Anyone wanna comment and help me out here?
thanks!
ZexMerquise 2 years ago
If you have a plan currently that you like, then you needn't leave it for something else--you can keep it. If we enact a plan akin to that which covers federal employees (which includes government workers such as the Congress and administration) you'd get to choose among the many options they have. IF we enact one more choice (the "public option"), you may also choose from that, as well--good if you can't afford private plans, or have been turned down by insurers for a pre-existing condition.
Zootallors 2 years ago
But my point is that I get whatever insurance my company chooses. If my company decides to change my plan, I have no choice (because I don't want to go look for one on my own - that would be worse!).
ZexMerquise 2 years ago
It'd work just as ALL plans do. ALL are created by insurers, not the insured. You may choose Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, but never this item from Plan A, that from B, another from C., in an "a la carte" choice. "Plans" are "programs," devised by insurers, not the insured. You may choose from among different plans, but can't "mix" plans' options. It''s like ordering a "combo pizza" and eating only the onions, but not the peppers; you can't order "half peppers" "half onions"--it's a "combo" pizza.
Zootallors 2 years ago
Good Point!
Dayonetheone 2 years ago
Our complex system (and thus a complex problem) requires more than a grunt that most sites allow--and more than a couple sentences of explanation. I've replied to you; but space limits had me go "forward" in the column. Please just search for my name and then, rather than reading from top to bottom, read according to the order of entries made--from bottom to top. (While others may be familiar with posting order, not everyone is). It's truly vital we figure this out--with sense. This is a start.
Zootallors 2 years ago
The USA health care system is a disaster.
SillyGrandpa 2 years ago
We will never get out of debt, there's not any natural resources left to make that much money with.......:(
mrdalewilsondw 3 years ago
You hit the nail on the head - our national debt will sink us sooner or later. Welcome to china!
Why doesnt the govt offer catastrophic care instead of mandates??
For example: Govt covers expenses over 5X your annual salary. This limits insurers liability while immediately reducing premiums to small business & people.
For those who can't afford insurance - isn't that what medicaid is for?
We certainly can't "copy" other socialized programs - that equals rationed, substandard care!
traditionalistx100 2 years ago
30% of 2.5 trillion spent on health insurance will not go to care. Cut out the middle man. Our senators have no problem tossing the auto workers under the bus, why not the insurance companies. Could it be the money they get from lobbyists?
FluxCapacitor2008 3 years ago
$ 6 thousand dollars a year per employee. Wow!
cheddyrod 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To the WORLD
This morning I sat down in five hotels writing about GOD,LOVE & WORLD PEACE in 11 languages & handing my works over to 10 glorious individuals representing 7 nations.
4 of them were in the investment sector & adore my partners Albert Arnold Gore Jr (Al Gore) & Sir Richard Branson. Google those names with World Peace.
I shall continue for PEACE is what most of the world desires.
I enjoy Manhattan for its diversity & being wired to the internet & google.
Jante Degaul
LoveAmericaStyle 3 years ago