Quantcast

Someone (on this site) who is supportive of the freedom to abortion asserts "abortion is none of the government's business". That SAME someone argues in support of taxpayer funding of abortion. Do these two opinions contradict each other?

Howler 2012/05/08 14:30:58
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • The Black Dagger 2012/05/08 14:46:11
    YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other
    The Black Dagger
    +23
    It's definitely contradictory. If they don't want the government to tell them they can't have an abortion then they have no right to expect the government to force me to pay for the abortion.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Batou 2012/05/08 23:22:40
    NO - the two opinions are DEFINITELY NOT CONTRADICTORY to each other
    Batou
    +3
    There is no contradiction to be had here.

    Right to end pregnancy is based on woman's right to privacy.
    Advocacy of subsidization of reproductive health care in no way contradicts the right to privacy.

    That would be like saying that because government provides Medicaid funding to the poor, the poor should no longer have doctor-patient confidentiality rights.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/08 23:29:33 (edited)
    Howler
    +2
    So, you agree that the government should make doctor-patient confidentiality part of its business?
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/09 07:12:44 (edited)
    Batou
    I don't really understand what you mean by "make part of its business".

    As far as I know in vast majority of cases government respects doctor-patient confidentiality rights regardless of whether doctor's services were paid through government subsidies or in some other manner.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/09 13:37:19
    Howler
    "business" as in --- "none of your business": concern, affair, responsibility, duty, function.
  • HAlex1972 Batou 2012/05/09 02:58:12
    HAlex1972
    You have a point there. I didn't think of it that way.
  • D D Batou 2012/05/09 06:12:20
    D D
    +3
    I'm sorry but why women want to keep having abortions and wants them to be free is not about privacy. It is about having someone else pay for the abortion. And if you have a tax paid for abortion the gov is going to know about it. (the gov already knows everything about us anyway but just saying...)
  • Batou D D 2012/05/09 07:52:37
    Batou
    A woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a private matter regardless of whether she wants it to be free.
    Those who pay for medical services have no say whatsoever in patient's decision to receive the medical services.
  • D D Batou 2012/05/09 08:30:19
    D D
    +1
    The government is going to know. I don't think any lists are being published to the public about who used tax payers money to get an abortion. It is private, at least to the public.
  • Batou D D 2012/05/09 15:41:53
    Batou
    I don't really understand what difference you see between government subsidization of medical services for the poor and for women terminating their pregnancies.

    Certainly there are individuals within the government that know what medical services are being paid for when a claim is filed and being processed by the state, but that doesn't make the information public.

    Are there lists being published to the public with the names of people on Medicaid using tax payer moneys to pay for medical services they received?? No? Then this is a non-issue.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/09 17:09:43
    Howler
    +2
    You say - "Those who pay for medical services have no say whatsoever in patient's decision to receive the medical services."

    If that is what you believe, support, and really, really want, then you better hope that the healthcare law up for a Constitutionality verdict in the SCOTUS is ruled UN-constitututional.

    When the government gets more control of the medical services "purse strings", the government will have whatever say it wants...And in some instances with Medicare, it already does...There are denials every hour of everyday with Medicare, even as it stands now...And the government does not even (yet) pay the entire tab.
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/09 18:29:15
    Batou
    Claims are denied by private medical insurance providers every hour of every day as well, so I don't see how hoping the healthcare law is ruled unconstitutional is more in line with the statement I made.

    Nor am I aware of any provisions in healthcare law that state US Government will decide for the patient whether they'll receive medical services.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/09 18:53:43 (edited)
    Howler
    You say - "Claims are denied by private medical insurance providers every hour of every day as well".

    I never said they were not....That is not the reason for my reply to you.

    The reason for my reply to you is that you first stated -
    "Those who pay for medical services have no say whatsoever in patient's decision to receive the medical services."

    I stated that you are incorrect with that statement regarding the government provision of Medicare, and you stated you are incorrect in that statement with your statement -

    ""Claims are denied by private medical insurance providers every hour of every day as well".

    As far as provisions in the healthcare law recently presented to the Supreme Court, are you aware of ANY of its provisions?

    As far as Medicare goes in the new law, the government is not relinquishing its privilege or right to deny coverage simply because the patient might want it -- even if the patient is willing to pay a share of it out of pocket.

    Do you not already know this?

    How much do you actually know about Medicare even as it has been since its inception?
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/09 21:56:46
    Batou
    What I said is true. Government can choose to deny Medicare or Medicaid claim and a patient can choose to receive medical service. These are two separate decisions made by different parties.

    Though if I remember correctly Medicare and Medicaid claims are made by health providers for services rendered, which means regardless of whether the claim is approved or denied the medical services have already been received by the patient.

    What concerns healthcare law I'm aware of a number of provisions. However, none of them result in US Government deciding for patients, which medical services the patients will receive. So if you are aware of such provisions feel free to list them all.
  • D D Batou 2012/05/10 07:28:59
    D D
    Obamacare will be making the decisions of peoples medical care just like private insurance is doing today.
  • Batou D D 2012/05/10 14:40:37
    Batou
    Private insurance makes decisions whether to cover a medical service or not. It doesn't decide for the patient whether the patient will receive a medical service.

    It is fairly ironic that you are arguing essentially the same point as US Solicitor General in defense of the healthcare law, which is that there is no difference between medical insurance and medical care. If both of you are correct, then the conclusion that US Government has the authority to regulate medical insurance market, since everyone is a part of it, because everyone needs medical care at a certain point in their life is virtually inescapable.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/10 15:18:51 (edited)
    Howler
    When you state that a patient can simply "choose to receive" a particular medical "service" upon the denial of Medicare and/or private insurance precertification, isn't there a condition that must be met for that to be absolutely TRUE?...A condition that you are leaving out of the statement?

    I will address the healthcare law "provision" comment later.
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/11 00:16:58
    Batou
    Well, in that case it is up to the patient to come to some sort of agreement with healthcare provider regarding compensation for the medical services.
    So I suppose if the patient was paying for the medical services what I said before wouldn't be the case, since the patient would be paying for the services and they would have a say in what services they receive.
    Though it seems to me the patient has ultimate say in what services they'll be receiving regardless of whether they are the ones paying or someone else is.
  • D D Howler 2012/05/10 07:25:41 (edited)
    D D
    +1
    Your privacy will be completely gone with Obamacare. They will have direct access you your body. They could shoot you up with anything. Take samples from you. Women want the gov out of their bodies, well, it will be in them in ways they cannot fathom!

    Insurance companies already deny people everyday. Some people might feel different when it is the government doing it.
  • Batou D D 2012/05/10 15:06:57
    Batou
    Which provisions of the healthcare law completely eliminate privacy? Which provisions give government direct access to a person's body? Or give government the power to force a person to take medication of any kind? Or give government the power to force a person to provide samples without their say-so?

    Without any evidence to support the claims, I'll be dismissing them as completely baseless paranoia.

    The healthcare law essentially forces everyone to buy insurance from the private insurance providers. So it won't be the government denying claims. Not to mention that it makes denying claims more difficult for the private companies.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/10 15:33:09 (edited)
    Howler
    Uh, it is the government which has now passed into law as to what coverage or claims can and cannot be denied BY the insurance companies.

    Thus, there is essentially no difference.
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/11 00:26:20
    Batou
    Really? There is a provision in healthcare law that states that US Government will be reviewing and validating every denial?? Which provision is that?

    And denying or not denying a claim and deciding which claims can and cannot be denied is not the same thing. If it was then US government could deny claims for the insurance company instead of reviewing and validating denials, though I don't recall any provisions in healthcare law that give US government the power to review and validate every denial either.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/11 03:34:08
    Howler
    I am talking about the government's outlawing of the denial of private insurance coverage for exams, treatments, imaging, etc. related to pre-existing conditions that would have otherwise been eligible for potential denial.

    Insurance companies have historically insured individuals WITH pre-existing conditions, yet possibly EXCLUDED any use of the insurance for the pre-existing condition -- sometimes indefinitely, sometimes for a specified period of time, and after that time passed, such coverage could be included.

    Now, the companies do not have that flexibility because the GOVERNMENT says so.

    You say, "And denying or not denying a claim and deciding which claims can and cannot be denied is not the same thing."

    I have NO idea what you are talking about there...An insurance company will (or has) only deny something that does not legally align with the contractual agreement, which is AGREED upon by the signing of such contract by the insured which puts the coverage into activation.

    ______________________________

    How many "provisions" in the healthcare law do you recall?

    You mention it like you know it well.

    I have always wanted to know someone who understands and comprehends this law in full and its specific provisions.

    I am sure there must be many since the bill was close to a couple of ...

    I am talking about the government's outlawing of the denial of private insurance coverage for exams, treatments, imaging, etc. related to pre-existing conditions that would have otherwise been eligible for potential denial.

    Insurance companies have historically insured individuals WITH pre-existing conditions, yet possibly EXCLUDED any use of the insurance for the pre-existing condition -- sometimes indefinitely, sometimes for a specified period of time, and after that time passed, such coverage could be included.

    Now, the companies do not have that flexibility because the GOVERNMENT says so.

    You say, "And denying or not denying a claim and deciding which claims can and cannot be denied is not the same thing."

    I have NO idea what you are talking about there...An insurance company will (or has) only deny something that does not legally align with the contractual agreement, which is AGREED upon by the signing of such contract by the insured which puts the coverage into activation.

    ______________________________

    How many "provisions" in the healthcare law do you recall?

    You mention it like you know it well.

    I have always wanted to know someone who understands and comprehends this law in full and its specific provisions.

    I am sure there must be many since the bill was close to a couple of thousand pages.

    What in your opinion are the TEN most important, specific provisions that come to mind regarding that monstrous bill?
    (more)
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/13 17:44:40 (edited)
    Batou
    Yes. I'm well aware of the provisions prohibiting denial of claims based on pre-existing condition that are part of the healthcare law, however that is a far cry from the claim you seemed to be making that government is the deciding party on the coverage provided or denied by insurance companies for every claim.

    What concerns having "flexibility" in denying claims while it certainly boosts corporate bottom lines it not only does not contribute to better service to its customers, but actively harms it. So I see no reason in trying to preserve said "flexibility".

    “The bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims…They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.”
    --Mary Beth Senkewicz, former senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

    Not to mention that having one less excuse to keep the money without providing the service that the customers paid for isn't a significant blow to the "flexibility". Insurance companies are extremely creative and will have no problem with coming up with other valid and invalid reasons to deny claims.

    What concerns your belief that insurance companies deny only claims that do not align with contractual agreements that is certain...









    Yes. I'm well aware of the provisions prohibiting denial of claims based on pre-existing condition that are part of the healthcare law, however that is a far cry from the claim you seemed to be making that government is the deciding party on the coverage provided or denied by insurance companies for every claim.

    What concerns having "flexibility" in denying claims while it certainly boosts corporate bottom lines it not only does not contribute to better service to its customers, but actively harms it. So I see no reason in trying to preserve said "flexibility".

    “The bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims…They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.”
    --Mary Beth Senkewicz, former senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

    Not to mention that having one less excuse to keep the money without providing the service that the customers paid for isn't a significant blow to the "flexibility". Insurance companies are extremely creative and will have no problem with coming up with other valid and invalid reasons to deny claims.

    What concerns your belief that insurance companies deny only claims that do not align with contractual agreements that is certainly not the case. The denials of valid claims aren't rare.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/0...

    I haven't read the law in its entirety yet, nor did I spend my time memorizing its provisions. I'm still reading it.

    I'm not a lawyer so I can't claim to understand the law fully even the parts I've read, since so much of it references and modifies existing laws and statutes many of which I haven't read.

    The bill is around thousand pages long, but who's counting. ;)

    I can't really answer your question about ten most important provisions, since different provisions are important to different people and different businesses. I could probably find out if you asked more specific question, for example ten most important provisions for patients, but it would still be based on what I've read and essentially my judgement call.
    (more)
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/13 18:17:21
    Howler
    I will answer other assertions in your comment later, but you post this quote and source below -

    "“The bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims…They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.”
    --Mary Beth Senkewicz, former senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)"

    10 out of 10 people DIE...It seems you are trying to imply (and especially because it appears to be a quote from the NAIC) that the "death" of an insured individual is economically positive occurrence when it come to the possibility of paying on a claim for a procedure, treatment, etc.

    And, logically as well as practically, that is true IMO.

    But, the government knows this as well, and is no different when it comes to the expensing health services -- especially to those who the government deems to see as not economically worthy of such service.

    Robert Reich, former Labor Sec. under Bill Clinton, and non-appointed advisor to Obama says it well in this 2007 speech -



    To think that the government is ANY different and does not look at the DEATH of someone (merely a number) it is committed to expensing health services for is certainly anyone's prerogative, but it it is VERY NAIVE.
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 05:46:52
    Batou
    There is a significant difference between how government operates and how private insurance corporations operate. Insurance companies provide the service for profit and maximizing the profit is their main goal. For-profit insurance companies have mechanisms at virtually every level of corporate function that incentivize increasing the bottom line.

    While I'm not as familiar with function of government insurance services such as Social Security or Medicare judging by the growing deficits alone it seems profit maximization or minimization of spending hasn't been anywhere near the top priority in operation of the programs.

    I find it somewhat unusual that you seem to be suggesting that government operates much like a private for-profit business considering that railing against government spending and not being run like a business are frequent objections made by conservatives against government operations.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/14 14:09:35 (edited)
    Howler
    "I find it somewhat unusual that you seem to be suggesting that government operates much like a private for-profit business considering that railing against government spending and not being run like a business are frequent objections made by conservatives against government operations."


    Profit is not the core issue...At least not from my POV....Maybe from yours.

    The bottom line is the DENIAL and the discretion used to DELIVER the health and medical care to the patient.

    Private entities do it based on their business being profitable and according to the stipulations in the fine print of the contract, which only becomes active from the insured's free choice to accept it, and sign it.

    Government entities do it based on the best bang for the buck according to a bureaucratic analysis and decision on whether or not the money put out for the delivery of care to a certain individual is money well spent or money poorly spent...And it is called RATIONING.

    Both are DECISIONS based on COSTS and MONEY.

    You know it, I know it, Robert Reich knows it, and so does anyone on either side of the healthcare dilemma if they are honest and open about it.
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 16:56:16
    Batou
    Alright. Which government entities define the standards for determining whether the money is "well spent" or "poorly spent"? Also, can you tell me what percentage of claims the government entities denied in California let's say last year?

    Since you are suggesting there is no difference between operation of private for-profit insurance and government operated programs let's compare the actual numbers when it comes to denial of claims.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/14 19:05:48
    Howler
    Those government entities (bureaucratic panels) will have to be set up as the government becomes more and more involved in the industry.

    Even Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama's former Medicare "czar" knows that...He is on record stating to have a "love affair" with Great Britain's NHS.

    And the NHS rations care according to bureaucratically-made decisions..Of course, all care when received is no charge to the patient AS the patient -- just as a taxpayer.

    Why are you picking California?

    And how could a fair comparison be made when the U.S. has not yet seen the full implementation, evolution and ultimate intent of the Affordable Care Act in the flesh?

    Even some of the most notable of politicians advocating for the passage of the healthcare bill which is now law, made it openly clear that the goal was a single payer system.

    And it is no secret that the Act has intentions of moving more Medicare-eligible people into Medicaid (single-payer), which many states cannot even now afford to pay the bill for, which if forced to accept more enrollees would require assistance from the federal gov't., which would just be a roundabout way to instill and implement a federal single-payer system, which would REQUIRE bureaucratic monitoring with resultant rationing in order to make it economically feasible.

    A...

    Those government entities (bureaucratic panels) will have to be set up as the government becomes more and more involved in the industry.

    Even Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama's former Medicare "czar" knows that...He is on record stating to have a "love affair" with Great Britain's NHS.

    And the NHS rations care according to bureaucratically-made decisions..Of course, all care when received is no charge to the patient AS the patient -- just as a taxpayer.

    Why are you picking California?

    And how could a fair comparison be made when the U.S. has not yet seen the full implementation, evolution and ultimate intent of the Affordable Care Act in the flesh?

    Even some of the most notable of politicians advocating for the passage of the healthcare bill which is now law, made it openly clear that the goal was a single payer system.

    And it is no secret that the Act has intentions of moving more Medicare-eligible people into Medicaid (single-payer), which many states cannot even now afford to pay the bill for, which if forced to accept more enrollees would require assistance from the federal gov't., which would just be a roundabout way to instill and implement a federal single-payer system, which would REQUIRE bureaucratic monitoring with resultant rationing in order to make it economically feasible.

    As I illustrated with Reich's audio, anyone in government -- not just a president - who is honest about a government-run healthcare system, KNOWS the RATIONING is INEVITABLE.

    Then and ONLY then can a fair comparison be made as to the "denial" of treatment -- call it "claims" if it makes you feel better...I don't give a damn about a "claim"...The bottom line is all about the treatment, procedure being delivered, delivered quickly, and delivered with quality.
    (more)
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 21:18:50
    Batou
    I see. So you are judging government programs not on their performance, but on their future hypothetical performance for which you don't have any evidence or know anything about? Great. I'll be dismissing everything you said about it since you haven't cited a single fact in support of your assertions.

    I'm not interested in rhetoric or opinions of politicians they'll say and promise anything to anyone. I'm only interested in facts, facts which you don't seem to have.

    You have presented no evidence that mandatory purchase of insurance from private insurance corporations as required by healthcare law in any shape or form results in single payer system nor is there any reason to think that is the case.

    I find Reich's 2007 comment entirely irrelevant to the current reality. PPACA does not establish a government-run healthcare system, it doesn't even establish a government-run health insurance system considering "public option" didn't make it into the final bill.

    However, if you'd like to compare rate of denial of health insurance services in UK to the private insurance system in US go right ahead.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/14 22:39:06
    Howler
    Mr. Batou, if you think I have been discussing this issue with you because I consider whether or not you "dismiss it", you have been quite mistaken.

    And surely (and hopefully) it is likewise with you.

    I have never stated that I was presenting anything more than my opinion, and that is my opinion based on my years spent in the industry and what I hear and read regarding the speculative direction that the Affordable Care Act is GOING to take the healthcare industry.

    It HAS to be speculative because VERY FEW understand its depth, language, and intent.

    And knowing by admission from the legislative body that voted for the bill that the goal is to ultimately get the U.S.A. to a single payer system, and knowing by admission that many employers will be financially benefitted by dropping their group healthcare programs, etc., among other things, is enough for me.

    Not for you?...I never intended to persuade you of anything....You are a left-winger...I am not.

    Why would I try to persuade you and vice-versa?
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 23:18:15
    Batou
    I don't deal in speculation. I deal with facts and well-supported claims. I was under impression that when you were discussing government operations you were making well-substantiated claims, not simply engaging in speculation.

    If that is all you are doing there is really no reason for me to continue this.

    I don't particularly care how you view me, the healthcare law, or even the government. I was only interested in the basis for your opinions. Since you base your views on political rhetoric and speculation and don't seem to have much interest in discussing facts there is no point for me to persist in the exchange with you. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere as it is.

    Have a nice day.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/14 23:28:38
    Howler
    Oh you deal in speculation...Everyone does.

    It's just that you don't deal in it when it doesn't suit you.

    The healthcare administrators with whom I have worked over the years speculate from fiscal year to fiscal year -- EVERY year.

    Fine with me to end this.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/13 19:41:17
    Howler
    My opinion of the contents of the link to the Times article -

    It is a very emotionally-intensifying piece, no doubt.

    It is intended to be such, even though not ONLY for that reason, no doubt.

    It is intended to sway positive opinion AWAY from capitalistic support of the health insurance industry, no doubt.

    There is no specific information objectively states that the insurance companies got away with anything from a legal standpoint.

    The article certainly gave the impression that many policyholders take legal action as a result of their denials, and that is a good thing, IMO.

    I also read in it where settlements were made out of court with some policyholders, which is a good thing, and usually means that further legal expense is going to outweigh the expense of the claim and other expenses tied to it. It can also mean that the fine print in the contract offered to the insured by the insurer had legal loopholes in it which only a keen legal eye can find, and that is also a god thing.

    There is nothing in the article that would indicate that the government would do a better, more humanitarian, more caring, more economical, more efficient job with handling the long-term needs of the elderly..Not that you ever posted it for that purpose directly.

    But, indirectly it was posted for that purpose...








    My opinion of the contents of the link to the Times article -

    It is a very emotionally-intensifying piece, no doubt.

    It is intended to be such, even though not ONLY for that reason, no doubt.

    It is intended to sway positive opinion AWAY from capitalistic support of the health insurance industry, no doubt.

    There is no specific information objectively states that the insurance companies got away with anything from a legal standpoint.

    The article certainly gave the impression that many policyholders take legal action as a result of their denials, and that is a good thing, IMO.

    I also read in it where settlements were made out of court with some policyholders, which is a good thing, and usually means that further legal expense is going to outweigh the expense of the claim and other expenses tied to it. It can also mean that the fine print in the contract offered to the insured by the insurer had legal loopholes in it which only a keen legal eye can find, and that is also a god thing.

    There is nothing in the article that would indicate that the government would do a better, more humanitarian, more caring, more economical, more efficient job with handling the long-term needs of the elderly..Not that you ever posted it for that purpose directly.

    But, indirectly it was posted for that purpose -- by you as well as the Times in its original printing.

    Actually, one statement in the article does involve the government, yet does nothing to guarantee any better treatment of someone needing care -
    "Yet these concerns have been ignored by state regulators, advocates say, and have gone unnoticed by federal lawmakers who recently passed incentives intended to promote purchases of long-term-care policies, in the hopes of forestalling a Medicare funding crisis."

    This Times article was from 2007...Reich's speech that I featured in my previous reply was also from 2007.

    The ONLY way for the government to essentially take the healthcare industry into its hands, and to "forestall" a future Medicare funding crisis or with healthcare costs in general -- not just long-term care as specified in the Times piece -- is RATIONING according to bureaucratically established guidelines and restrictions.

    Tax increases, monetary wealth redistribution, etc., will not do it.
    (more)
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 18:18:31
    Batou
    I'm not sure why you think the article "sways positive opinion AWAY from capitalistic support of the health insurance industry" since you found so much goodness in it.

    There is no specific information about insurance companies "getting away with it" from legal standpoint, but that is not necessary either. Any time a valid claim is denied and the claimant does not pursue legal action for whatever reason the insurance companies "get away" with it from legal standpoint.

    Insurance industry is rife with lawsuits, which at least to me is evidence of the system not working very well. Though I suppose if you consider the alternative to be insurance companies not getting sued for violating contractual agreements with their customers it's an improvement. Personally I think the alternative where insurance companies actually do their job, instead of trying to make money by screwing their customers to be more preferable and what the society should be trying to achieve, but that's me.

    I also find it quite puzzling that you consider writing loopholes in contractual agreements that even lawyers have trouble understanding to be a good thing. I mean I understand how it might be good for lawyers, but I'm not sure how it's good for most customers, care to expand on your reasoning there?

    I also don't...






    I'm not sure why you think the article "sways positive opinion AWAY from capitalistic support of the health insurance industry" since you found so much goodness in it.

    There is no specific information about insurance companies "getting away with it" from legal standpoint, but that is not necessary either. Any time a valid claim is denied and the claimant does not pursue legal action for whatever reason the insurance companies "get away" with it from legal standpoint.

    Insurance industry is rife with lawsuits, which at least to me is evidence of the system not working very well. Though I suppose if you consider the alternative to be insurance companies not getting sued for violating contractual agreements with their customers it's an improvement. Personally I think the alternative where insurance companies actually do their job, instead of trying to make money by screwing their customers to be more preferable and what the society should be trying to achieve, but that's me.

    I also find it quite puzzling that you consider writing loopholes in contractual agreements that even lawyers have trouble understanding to be a good thing. I mean I understand how it might be good for lawyers, but I'm not sure how it's good for most customers, care to expand on your reasoning there?

    I also don't understand why you think settlements are a good thing. If an insurance company can't get a lawsuit dismissed it is generally willing to settle on terms unfavorable to the plaintiff. Most insurance companies have lawyers on staff, so usually legal costs are much less severe to the insurance company compared to individuals suing it. Insurance companies generally have no problem dragging out the lawsuits for years, and settle on less favorable terms only once it is apparent that they are likely to lose.

    The quality of services provided by government was out of scope of the article, though it did mention that government did provide Medicaid funding to Mrs. Derks. So at least in the case government has done better job than the health insurance company.
    Though if you'd like to do the comparison feel free to compare annual claim denial rates by private health insurance with claim denial rates by Medicare/Medicaid.

    I disagree with your view that nationalization of healthcare industry is the only way to forestall Medicare funding crisis, but that is neither here nor there.

    The reason why I linked to the article was to sprinkle some reality on your idyllic view of private health insurance industry.
    (more)
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/14 19:11:55 (edited)
    Howler
    I got as far as - "I also find it quite puzzling that you consider writing loopholes in contractual agreements that even lawyers have trouble understanding to be a good thing. I mean I understand how it might be good for lawyers, but I'm not sure how it's good for most customers, care to expand on your reasoning there?"

    lol...you can assert such as that and you (being one who is reading, or has read the Affordable Care Act) have no problem that many lawyers, much LESS "customers" can even minimally comprehend the Act?....Please, lol

    How is it that you understand the Affordable Care Act as you claim you do, yet have a problem with fine print in a private insurance contract?

    I will address the rest as I read it.

    I read that part, and just had to stop.

    Yeah, I'll never forget sweet Nancy and her statement that "we have to PASS the legislation to find out what is IN it"...how assinine.
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 19:37:25
    Batou
    There is no reason to misrepresent my views if you don't want to answer the question I asked.

    I never said that I consider all the legalese in PPACA to be a good thing, nor did I suggest that I have "no problem" with it. That's your view on legal loopholes in health insurance agreements.

    And I didn't claim to understand "Affordable Care Act". What I said is
    "I'm not a lawyer so I can't claim to understand the law fully even the parts I've read, since so much of it references and modifies existing laws and statutes many of which I haven't read."
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/14 19:56:38 (edited)
    Howler
    So, you DON'T understand the Affordable Care Act?..Oh, my bad...I was assuming you DID understand multiple parts of it.

    Oh well, that lumps you in with most of everyone else.

    But --

    then, how do you know when someone claiming to know something is, or is not "baseless" when someone else is making assertions about it contents just because they do not present evidence?

    And how would you understand the evidence -if presented - in response to your reply here to another SH?


    "Which provisions of the healthcare law completely eliminate privacy? Which provisions give government direct access to a person's body? Or give government the power to force a person to take medication of any kind? Or give government the power to force a person to provide samples without their say-so?

    Without any evidence to support the claims, I'll be dismissing them as completely baseless paranoia.

    The healthcare law essentially forces everyone to buy insurance from the private insurance providers. So it won't be the government denying claims. Not to mention that it makes denying claims more difficult for the private companies."


    And how do you know this is ESSENTIALLY what the healthcare law does?...I mean, we do know it forces other to buy insurance, or pay a penalty (which the Obama admin has stated IS a tax, and also NOT a tax).

    But, how do you know that THAT is the only ESSENTIAL in the Affordable CAre Act?
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 21:28:46
    Batou
    I don't understand what it is that you find confusing about my understanding of PPACA. There are parts I understand, there are parts that I don't understand. And I'm still not finished reading the bill.

    An assertion for which evidence hasn't been presented and can't be found is "baseless".

    I can research and verify presented evidence and if I don't understand find an explanation in other sources so that I can make sure that the cited evidence actually supports claim that was made.

    I never stated that mandatory purchase of health insurance from private insurance providers "is the only ESSENTIAL" in PPACA.
  • Howler Batou 2012/05/14 22:42:02
    Howler
    I never said you said it was the ONLY essential, now did I?

    If you do not understand the Act, then you would not know when evidence is presented to support claims regarding the Act.

    That is simple logic.
  • Batou Howler 2012/05/14 23:00:47
    Batou
    You did when you based your question on the premise that I "know that THAT is the only ESSENTIAL in the Affordable CAre Act".

    I don't have to understand every provision in PPACA to verify that a claim about it is correct. Though until evidence in support of the claims is presented this is quite irrelevant. As the saying goes "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence ".

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/21 15:02:37

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals