"... one of every four American wage earners is making less in real terms than did minimum wage earners in 1968..."

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You do realize you can shop around for your own insurance plan and a lot of times it's cheaper than the employer plans, right? Oh that's right, people don't use their heads and think logically in a "gimme gimme gimme" society.

and yes "agreed to" - He signed up for it, he chose to take it, and therefore agreed to those terms. As far as "record profits" go, you do realize that insurance companies don't make their "profits" off of the premiums, right? They would be out of business if they did that. Insurance is also heavily regulated on top of that of what they can/cannot do with the money from premiums and the way they must secure/invest the money.

People get all "angry" when premiums go up, but then fail to realize what INSURANCE is. What happens when you run a red light and get a ticket? Your car insurance goes up, right? Same if you get into an expensive accident. Insurance = risk. The more of a risk you (or your company is) the more you are going to pay. If you work for a company with a lot of old people who need care all the time, buy your own plan, it will be cheaper. Each company is its own "pool" of people and when that "pool" uses the plan alot, premiums will go up. It's the way it works, because insurance isn't supposed to be for "every day" use.

The argument in this country on Health Care needs to be about Health Care, not insurance. It's the "cost" of the care that's the problem. Nothing more, nothing less.

Most policies with employers cost more as a whole, but are cheaper for the employee. I have insurance through work that is about 275 a month which I pay 0 of. Its a part of my salary. My wife has her own policy which is 200 or so which she pays in full as she is self employed.

Anyway, you don't have all of the details of Susita's family to make the rash judgements that you are making. It is very possible that contractually the insurance company did have an obligation to cover the costs, but instead have used tactics to get out of the claim. Likewise, the family may not have the funds to take legal action which is their only recourse.

You do realize that the US legal system is one that favors resources right? IE often its less about whether someone is contractually right and wrong and more about fiscal attrition.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Most policies with employers cost more as a whole, but are cheaper for the employee. I have insurance through work that is about 275 a month which I pay 0 of. Its a part of my salary. My wife has her own policy which is 200 or so which she pays in full as she is self employed.

Anyway, you don't have all of the details of Susita's family to make the rash judgements that you are making. It is very possible that contractually the insurance company did have an obligation to cover the costs, but instead have used tactics to get out of the claim. Likewise, the family may not have the funds to take legal action which is their only recourse.

You do realize that the US legal system is one that favors resources right? IE often its less about whether someone is contractually right and wrong and more about fiscal attrition.

I understand how it all works. I'm simply saying there are always options.

Insurance companies aren't there to keep you happy/healthy. They are there to make money. As I said before, Insurance companies don't make their money off of premiums. Hell most of the time they pay more out than they take in. Again, people fail to realize this. The "record" profits line that's given is a joke when you stop and look at their actual "profit margins."

The legal system might be better for those with more money, but it's that way because lawyers are just like anything else. The higher quality of product, the more expensive it's going to be. It's not that because you have more money, your buying the judge/jury. It's your buying the resource used to study/undertand the law better than the other legal team. A lawyer is a service, just like insurance is a service. It's there for you under certain circumstances, but beyond contract it has zero obligation to you. Remember, despite what we all say/think insurance companies are made up of people too who have their own goals/aspirations. We use "corporation" as an evil term when at the end of the day, it's just a bunch of people who are a lot smarter and successful than everyone else. This creates jealousy in society and certain people to revolt.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing is stopping anyone from becoming their own lawyer, insurance company, business, etc.. if they think they can do it better.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I understand how it all works. I'm simply saying there are always options.

Insurance companies aren't there to keep you happy/healthy. They are there to make money. As I said before, Insurance companies don't make their money off of premiums. Hell most of the time they pay more out than they take in. Again, people fail to realize this. The "record" profits line that's given is a joke when you stop and look at their actual "profit margins."

The legal system might be better for those with more money, but it's that way because lawyers are just like anything else. The higher quality of product, the more expensive it's going to be. It's not that because you have more money, your buying the judge/jury. It's your buying the resource used to study/undertand the law better than the other legal team. A lawyer is a service, just like insurance is a service. It's there for you under certain circumstances, but beyond contract it has zero obligation to you. Remember, despite what we all say/think insurance companies are made up of people too who have their own goals/aspirations. We use "corporation" as an evil term when at the end of the day, it's just a bunch of people who are a lot smarter and successful than everyone else. This creates jealousy in society and certain people to revolt.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing is stopping anyone from becoming their own lawyer, insurance company, business, etc.. if they think they can do it better.

There aren't really options once the diagnosis has been made. On the legal front I specifically used the term "attrition". IE a judgement can be strung out for years. To an organization that means nothing, to an individual its everything - in medical cases....well its life and death.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Sousuke

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I understand how it all works. I'm simply saying there are always options.

Insurance companies aren't there to keep you happy/healthy. They are there to make money. As I said before, Insurance companies don't make their money off of premiums. Hell most of the time they pay more out than they take in. Again, people fail to realize this. The "record" profits line that's given is a joke when you stop and look at their actual "profit margins."

The legal system might be better for those with more money, but it's that way because lawyers are just like anything else. The higher quality of product, the more expensive it's going to be. It's not that because you have more money, your buying the judge/jury. It's your buying the resource used to study/undertand the law better than the other legal team. A lawyer is a service, just like insurance is a service. It's there for you under certain circumstances, but beyond contract it has zero obligation to you. Remember, despite what we all say/think insurance companies are made up of people too who have their own goals/aspirations. We use "corporation" as an evil term when at the end of the day, it's just a bunch of people who are a lot smarter and successful than everyone else. This creates jealousy in society and certain people to revolt.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing is stopping anyone from becoming their own lawyer, insurance company, business, etc.. if they think they can do it better.

My mom worked in the attorney racket for years as a paralegal and it has nearly nothing to do with being able to afford better lawyers and all to do with having the resources (money) to outlast your opponent. Litigation lives off of billable hours and they can literally keep a case going until their opponent runs out of funds.

It's like a no limit poker game.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

My mom worked in the attorney racket for years as a paralegal and it has nearly nothing to do with being able to afford better lawyers and all to do with having the resources (money) to outlast your opponent. Litigation lives off of billable hours and they can literally keep a case going until their opponent runs out of funds.

It's like a no limit poker game.

Exactly!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There aren't really options once the diagnosis has been made. On the legal front I specifically used the term "attrition". IE a judgement can be strung out for years. To an organization that means nothing, to an individual its everything - in medical cases....well its life and death.

this all goes back to, why are you relying on insurance to pay for your health care.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

this all goes back to, why are you relying on insurance to pay for your health care.

We could always cut out the insurance companies. No need to pay them anything...just go straight to the source and cut them out all together. I mean why pay them?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

We could always cut out the insurance companies. No need to pay them anything...just go straight to the source and cut them out all together. I mean why pay them?

Insurance serves a purpose, but the problem is that we've started relying on it to pay for routine things.

Insurance shouldn't have to pay for a physical/checkup, etc..

Insurance shouldn't have to pay for your prescription drugs, etc.

Insurance and the point of insurance is to be there if/when you "need" it, in a serious situation.

People get mad at insurance companies for their premiums going up, when they really need to get mad at congress, state legislatures for demanding more items to be covered and then their co-workers for using it all the time.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Insurance serves a purpose, but the problem is that we've started relying on it to pay for routine things.

Insurance shouldn't have to pay for a physical/checkup, etc..

Insurance shouldn't have to pay for your prescription drugs, etc.

Insurance and the point of insurance is to be there if/when you "need" it, in a serious situation.

Health insurance pays for routine annual check-ups because it saves money in the long run. Much like you pay for oil changes and other routine maintenance for your car simply because it's cheaper in the long run than not getting it done. Same goes for prescription drug coverage - improving access and affordability makes sense because if people do not take their meds, they are likely to cause higher cost for health care down the road.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

this all goes back to, why are you relying on insurance to pay for your health care.

Well, because there are enough people out there who cannot afford to pay for all necessary care out of pocket. You couldn't either if you had a child that requires several hundred thousand dollars worth of care a year just to survive. You know that, of course, but that reality disturbs your ideology.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well, because there are enough people out there who cannot afford to pay for all necessary care out of pocket. You couldn't either if you had a child that requires several hundred thousand dollars worth of care a year just to survive. You know that, of course, but that reality disturbs your ideology.

No, reality is 2 things here:

#1 - It shouldn't cost hundreds of thousands annually

#2 - Don't have kids if you cannot afford to fufill their needs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, reality is 2 things here:

#1 - It shouldn't cost hundreds of thousands annually

#2 - Don't have kids if you cannot afford to fufill their needs.

The reality is that there are many conditions a person can suffer that will run up huge medical bills that no average American is in a position to pay for. In fact, most above average Americans could not possibly afford them. Only a tiny sliver of the population could. What you try to sell under #1 there is your personal wishful thinking. It would be nice if that was the reality, of course. But no matter how nice it would be, it is not the reality we live in. And it won't be. Not in our lifetimes. With that said, your #2 now amounts to saying that unless you have a few million dollars in the bank, do not have kids. Having kids then becomes a priviledge that maybe 5% of the population could actually afford. And that is about as ridiculous a suggestion as anyone can possibly make.

[slim 1,514]

#2 - Don't have kids if you cannot afford to fufill their needs.

BINGO!!!

[Danno 1,228]

"... one of every four American wage earners is making less in real terms than did minimum wage earners in 1968..."

Got news for you, it is not just cash in our pay check which has been in decline since 68'.

Danno Prediction-

The economy will get better but just as the waves still run up on the beach when the tide goes out, each new wave returns with diminishing reach.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

BINGO!!!

Nobody but a select few - very few - could then consider having kids. With such approach, the US would cease to exist within a few short decades. Why do you guys hate this country so much that you want to see it discontinued?