Has the thought ever occurred to you to take care of yourself and make it your responsibility? Why do you feel you deserve to get in someone else’s pocket for your wants or needs? Just asking because I think Americans are losing the fiercely independent attitude that’s made us the greatest nation the world has ever known.
TRCP and sportsman and women for biden.
- Thread starter Glockster
- Start date
What other service provider is expected to make very little profit? But with that said the reason profits are so high is because government has set up a situation that allows for such abuse.
maconbacon
Active member
id love for you to look my patients in the eye that are dying from cancer and leaving their families with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt (despite good insurance) and tell them maybe if their attitude had been better, none of it would’ve happened
You’re right socialism is cool and works every time good point.
Schaaf
Well-known member
Derail coming. This is ridiculous.
My insurance company had a net profit of 13.8 billion dollars in 2019. They spent 3 months arguing back and forth with me about whether or not the 80k worth of bills from my 4 year old son being flown out of rural Montana for a week long stay in a regional hospital for a blood infection that almost cost him his leg would be covered by in network or out of network. They can go to hell. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that people shouldn't be required to file for bankruptcy because of healthcare when their provider has a net profit of 13.8 billion in 2019. gmafb.
Sorry to hear that. It’s all about choices in life everyone has them everyone makes them.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Oh, come on Schaaf, take cogreeny's advice, you should have just showed some personal responsibility and saved more to cover that 80K in unforeseen medical bills. Find that fierce independent attitude...
Are you trying to tell me that just because only about 65% of personal bankruptcies are caused from medical bills that we have a problem?
Hey, don't feel bad, only 137 million of your fellow Americans are struggling with some sort of medical debt.
Are you trying to tell me that just because only about 65% of personal bankruptcies are caused from medical bills that we have a problem?
Hey, don't feel bad, only 137 million of your fellow Americans are struggling with some sort of medical debt.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Right because blood infections are a choice...
I didn’t say that buzz not 100% of everything is a choice. But having insurance that doesn’t cover 100% of everything after say a $5k deductible is a choice I choose to provide my 80 employees with this top notch insurance just so that problem doesn’t arise. Once again a choice.
Edit: I pay the 5k deductible each year for each one as well so there’s $0 out of pocket for any of them for anything they need.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Since we are veering, here's a rail spur link
prospect.org
Biden Winks at the Insurance Industry - The American Prospect
By offering to expand Medicare to 60-year-olds, the candidate also telegraphs to insurers that his help is on the way.
prospect.org
BuzzH
Well-known member
Right, and what percentage of employers provide health insurance?
What percentage of employers have an attorney on staff to read, understand the insurance policies, and fight multibillion dollar insurance companies that have a whole stable of attorneys on staff to deny claims and screw people out of their claims? Let me be the first to inform you, in your naïve notions...you aren't fighting an insurance company on your own...I don't give a chit how "independent and fierce" you think you are.
The entire health/health insurance industries in the US are a complete disaster...and the numbers and facts prove it.
JFC, I shouldn't have had to lobby D.C. for federal, seasonal, fire fighters to have health insurance...yet, I did. Small example of the gigantic problem.
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,997
I'm not opposed to sensible gun control. What we have here in Ontario is easy enough for me to live with. A federal possession license to buy guns and ammo makes a lot of sense. I can mail order guns direct to my home as long as I provide a PAL. No costly FFA middleman. Also obtaining a license requires taking a course and criminal background check (latter is updated every five years on renewal). No waiting for background check everytime I buy a gun. People who don't legally own guns should not be buying ammo. At least we know legal gun owners know which end of the gun to point at the target and are informed of gun laws before owning one.
I will say that I DO NOT entirely approve of the Liberal's recent feel good gun regulation banning "1,500 assault weapons". First, assault rifles were already restricted weapons here which requires an additional license (+test) and very strict use allowances. Legally, like handguns, they were effectively already bound to the gun safe or the target range. Also all magazines here, no matter the weapon, are limited to seven shot capacity so legal ARs were not potential weapons of mass destruction. And finally, most of the weapons on the list were either grenade launcher types, machine guns, or obscure military guns. I was surprised at some of the weapons not included (eg SKS). It was obviously a regulation thrown together rather arbitrarily and with NO legislative approval. Written into law after the Nova Scotia tragedy ... but would have had no effect since that nut job didn't have a restricted license for his ARs anyway which were obtained illegally in the States. This gun law is purely cosmetic. Though I don't own an AR and never will, I do not support cosmetic ineffectual regulations of guns or anything else (eg $85M to aboriginal groups to help them deal with their special stress of COVID19 lockdown). Probably of no consequence as there is a two year grace period before the ban is enforced and it is doubtful given recent corruption scandals the Liberal's minority government will last that long.
I certainly approve of gun and hunting groups getting involved in shaping sensible gun legislation. The "don't give an inch" advocates leave it to the antis to make changes that they know nothing about. And changes will come. The world is not static.
I will say that I DO NOT entirely approve of the Liberal's recent feel good gun regulation banning "1,500 assault weapons". First, assault rifles were already restricted weapons here which requires an additional license (+test) and very strict use allowances. Legally, like handguns, they were effectively already bound to the gun safe or the target range. Also all magazines here, no matter the weapon, are limited to seven shot capacity so legal ARs were not potential weapons of mass destruction. And finally, most of the weapons on the list were either grenade launcher types, machine guns, or obscure military guns. I was surprised at some of the weapons not included (eg SKS). It was obviously a regulation thrown together rather arbitrarily and with NO legislative approval. Written into law after the Nova Scotia tragedy ... but would have had no effect since that nut job didn't have a restricted license for his ARs anyway which were obtained illegally in the States. This gun law is purely cosmetic. Though I don't own an AR and never will, I do not support cosmetic ineffectual regulations of guns or anything else (eg $85M to aboriginal groups to help them deal with their special stress of COVID19 lockdown). Probably of no consequence as there is a two year grace period before the ban is enforced and it is doubtful given recent corruption scandals the Liberal's minority government will last that long.
I certainly approve of gun and hunting groups getting involved in shaping sensible gun legislation. The "don't give an inch" advocates leave it to the antis to make changes that they know nothing about. And changes will come. The world is not static.
Last edited:
You so smart buzz I wish I could be like you and employ no one and help good hard working Americans get good insurance.
El Jason
Well-known member
To continue the derail:
My daughter went in for a procedure on her back, through a network provider. I later get a bill to the tune of hundreds of dollars for anesthesia. I call and ask why. The answer I get is the anesthesiologist isn't within the network. I ask why not, when we used a network provider. The answer I get is they were the on call anesthesiologist that day. Tough luck. This amount is paltry compared to Schaaf's, but yes, GMAFB. I guess I should have made better choices.
Fast forward. My daughter has an ACL replacement. Has limited mobility afterwards. Follow up consult with the physician and he says it's scar tissue and we can't progress forward until that's removed. He consults with a board for the insurance, they concur with his diagnosis. Insurance denies the procedure and says to do more PT. PT says I can't do shit for her until we fix the scar tissue problem. Insurance says too bad, too sad. We go four more weeks before they finally authorize it. I guess she should have made better choices.
My daughter went in for a procedure on her back, through a network provider. I later get a bill to the tune of hundreds of dollars for anesthesia. I call and ask why. The answer I get is the anesthesiologist isn't within the network. I ask why not, when we used a network provider. The answer I get is they were the on call anesthesiologist that day. Tough luck. This amount is paltry compared to Schaaf's, but yes, GMAFB. I guess I should have made better choices.
Fast forward. My daughter has an ACL replacement. Has limited mobility afterwards. Follow up consult with the physician and he says it's scar tissue and we can't progress forward until that's removed. He consults with a board for the insurance, they concur with his diagnosis. Insurance denies the procedure and says to do more PT. PT says I can't do shit for her until we fix the scar tissue problem. Insurance says too bad, too sad. We go four more weeks before they finally authorize it. I guess she should have made better choices.
westbranch
Well-known member
The insurance paid by the company is tax free compensation to employees and a business deduction for the business. Self-employed people or people with an employer that doesn't offer health insurance and they pay out of pocket don't get the same tax benefits. And they also get stuck in different insurance pools so their insurance premiums and deductibles are typically much higher. So the current system is setup to only benefit certain groups. Its like socialism with extra steps. Having health insurance tied to employment also stifles entrepreneurship when someone has to worry about quitting their job to start a business but can't afford the insurance that will cover their kids leukemia treatments. Current system is a mess of crony capitalism that benefits large corporations.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, I only helped about 16,000 people that risk their lives saving peoples homes, public lands, etc. from wildland fires get health insurance...
El Jason
Well-known member
They should have been more fiercely independent.
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Norway...damn those commies and their socialized healthcare
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,997
Yes, it is terrible up here. I had three spontaneous retina detachments to left eye requiring major surgery and multiple laser repairs to both eyes while I was in school finishing up my PhD. If it weren't for our health care system I'd probably be blind today or never finished the program or lost our home ... or all of above. What a burden on society I would have then become. Family might not have survived and we all know what that can do to the next generation. Socialism isn't all about just paying out. As often as not it pays returns in the long run.
