Page 10 of 37 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141520 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 726
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    ... the problem isn't them, it's the fact that even with plummeting malpractice cases and settlements, the insurance companies have refused to lower their premiums...
    do we have a source that shows a plummet in malpractice cases and settlements?

    do we also have a source showing average premiums for malpractice insurance? I'm sure they have gone up, but maybe the rate of increase has slowed? dunno.
  2.    #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    do we have a source that shows a plummet in malpractice cases and settlements?

    do we also have a source showing average premiums for malpractice insurance? I'm sure they have gone up, but maybe the rate of increase has slowed? dunno.

    1. Look at the quote in post 168.
    2. If you take the mean, states with tort reform have somewhat lower insurance rates. Even Texas' rates have decreased somewhat. But that means nothing if the overall healthcare cost has not decreased because of that change. There are two reasons why it won't: first, the decrease isn't enough to make a difference, and second, there needs to be significant effort in getting physicians to change their ingrained behaviors to order too many tests.

    Again, regardless of state variability of tort reform and malpractice rates, there is NO evidence that tort reform has decreased health care costs anywhere.
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Medicare Advantage costs up to 20% more than Medicare, and the quality of care is no better in most cases, and clearly worse in some. It has turned out to be a great handout to private healthcare and many feel the taxpayers are not getting their moneys worth out of the program. While it's unlikely that Pilgrim will have major quality issues, the plan to tie Advantage reimbursement to the demonstrated quality of care provided, which sure seems to make sense, has private insurers concerned. They shouldn't be; they should embracing the idea of monitoring and improving the quality of care they provide.

    Medicare Advantage Quality Study: Seniors Not Signing Up For The Best Plans
    I also don't see the point of posting something every time an insurance company somewhere in the country farts. Isn't it to be expected that insurance companies will change aspects of how they do business in the light of healthcare reform? If they didn't, that would be news.
  4. #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    I also don't see the point of posting something every time an insurance company somewhere in the country farts. Isn't it to be expected that insurance companies will change aspects of how they do business in the light of healthcare reform? If they didn't, that would be news.
    It's a conservative view point. The whole point of the conservative view is to slow or prevent change so when something changes abruptly it stands out to them. It'd be nice if they could start including a real analysis of if the change was positive or negative. Saying that customers are being inconvenienced because they have to look at new plans isn't really a positive or negative. What makes it one or the other would be what they end up with from the change. If they end up better off then it's a positive, if worse it's a negative, and if no change then it was ineffective.

    That's the kind of reports that we should be looking at, not just reports that something has changed.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    It's a conservative view point. The whole point of the conservative view is to slow or prevent change so when something changes abruptly it stands out to them.
    That is such a skewed and distorted viewpoint, I have no idea where to start to address it.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6.    #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    That is such a skewed and distorted viewpoint, I have no idea where to start to address it.

    Well, then, obviously you must have a number of exceptions to that gross generalization. Please list some abrupt changes implemented by conservatives. Except for invading Iraq and saving Granada, of course.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Well, then, obviously you must have a number of exceptions to that gross generalization. Please list some abrupt changes implemented by conservatives. Except for invading Iraq and saving Granada, of course.
    It's not even about speed, and you know it. It's about principles. But bringing down slavery was a pretty big change, I'd say.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8.    #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    It's not even about speed, and you know it. It's about principles. But bringing down slavery was a pretty big change, I'd say.
    Yeah...it's a good thing it got done when it did. Otherwise it would have been filibustered. But hey, going back 145 years to find something isn't bad.
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    It's not even about speed, and you know it. It's about principles. But bringing down slavery was a pretty big change, I'd say.
    We aren't talking about Republicans but Conservatives. Back then Republicans were the liberal party and Democrats were the conservative party.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    We aren't talking about Republicans but Conservatives. Back then Republicans were the liberal party and Democrats were the conservative party.
    Lol! That's funny!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    It's not even about speed, and you know it. It's about principles. But bringing down slavery was a pretty big change, I'd say.
    But today's Republican Party bears little resemblance to its 1860s namesake. Heck, it bears almost no resemblance to its 1960s namesake at this point. Back then, some Republicans could actually vote for something like Medicare--on the basis of principle, I guess--without being exiled by the ideology police/talk radio/etc.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Lol! That's funny!
    LOL! That's also the truth! I would suggest you read up about the "Dixiecrats"...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    LOL! That's also the truth! I would suggest you read up about the "Dixiecrats"...
    Yes, I'm familiar with all of the spin, thanks.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Yes, I'm familiar with all of the spin, thanks.
    LMAO Proven historical facts = "spin?" You're not even trying anymore!!!

    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Yes, I'm familiar with all of the spin, thanks.
    Well here's another historic "spin." Apparently the few conservatives involved in the founding of the Republican party were merely interested in restoring the Missouri Compromise. The liberal founders, numbering much higher, insisted that compromise on slavery was no longer and option.

    A minor change, or what could even be considered a backward change, verse abrupt change.
  16. #196  
    Are we still arguing this? This arguement always turns into -

    If you are against Obama's Healthcare bill, you are obviously a right wing nut who cares more about big business and corporate big wigs than for your fellow man.

    If you are for Obama's Healthcare bill, you are obviously a Communist, Socialist, neaderthal who spends the unborn masses money millenia before they are born.

    Maybe it could possibly be that.....

    You are against the Healthcare bill on the priniciples of less government and personal responsibility. Accountability means something to you and you find it appalling that self-reliance has morphed into governement-reliance.

    If you are for the Healthcare bill, you believe it is the best chance you have to help support those less fortunate than you. You feel that the most prosperous nation on earth can and should be able to take care of its own.

    I just want both sides to consider the very likely possibility that those in Washington now (whether for or against) do not see it the same way you do. Both parties in Washington have motives that do not serve America which is why things need to change.
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  17.    #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by pogeypre View Post
    Are we still arguing this? This arguement always turns into -

    If you are against Obama's Healthcare bill, you are obviously a right wing nut who cares more about big business and corporate big wigs than for your fellow man.

    If you are for Obama's Healthcare bill, you are obviously a Communist, Socialist, neaderthal who spends the unborn masses money millenia before they are born.

    Maybe it could possibly be that.....

    You are against the Healthcare bill on the priniciples of less government and personal responsibility. Accountability means something to you and you find it appalling that self-reliance has morphed into governement-reliance.

    If you are for the Healthcare bill, you believe it is the best chance you have to help support those less fortunate than you. You feel that the most prosperous nation on earth can and should be able to take care of its own.

    I just want both sides to consider the very likely possibility that those in Washington now (whether for or against) do not see it the same way you do. Both parties in Washington have motives that do not serve America which is why things need to change.
    Yeah...aren't you special! I'm glad everyone seems to think that you are very sensible and insightful with your post. I don't, because it doesn't solve any problems. This is not about "parties with motives that do not serve America", it's about people dying or being bankrupted by our health care non-system. You are concerned about the perspective of those on this board, including myself, that argue one side or the other. That is nothing but an excuse to avoid solving the problem.

    What I care about is making sure that every American has accessible, reasonably priced health care. I don't care how they get it, whether via private or public sources. If private insurers can do that and not bankrupt the country, fine. I just know by experience that they can't, and won't. A two-tiered system? Fine. Accountability and self-reliance are just fine examples of stereotyping those without care as lacking those characteristics....and the vast majority of them don't. The vast majority of them work, have families that they support, and cannot afford health care. Personally, I'm sick of excuses for denying people care. I see people dying from lack of care on a regular basis. Health care should not be subject to a philosophical exercise in political theory. When the hacks who think they're above it all agree to the simple proposition that every American should have access to affordable quality care, then we'll be getting somewhere. Instead, what I hear is that 30 to 40 million of our citizens lack accountability and self-reliance...and that's manure. Thankfully, we apparently are going to be able to begin fixing this mess in spite of the misinformation being ladled out to the public by the nay-sayers.
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I see people dying from lack of care on a regular basis.
    You know....you've been saying this in here since I can remember. What hospital do you work in and exactly how many people die each day in your hospital from lack of care? If not in your hospital, where do they die at? I'm not doubting that you see people die on a regular basis (you are in a profession where you would obviously see this on a regular basis), but are you saying that these people that die, die because of lack of care? Do you see people die with health care? I never hear that, but I assume you do. And by the way, one person dying who shouldn't is one too many....so don't go get up on your pedestal....I'm just wondering what kind of numbers you personally see each week die...it must be a really high number. Seems like you could get some of your wealthy doctor friends together and donate more time and maybe money to help these people.

    Also, just another update....apparently what insurance companies are concerned with is whether they are going to be allowed to only have to enroll children during an open enrollment period or if children can be enrolled whenever. In other words, since there is no mandate that children have coverage, parents can just wait till their children get sick, and then enroll, get the treatment needed, and then drop the coverage. Then, if 6 months later they get sick again, they then go get coverage again and drop the coverage after they have been treated. So, what they (insurance companies) would like is a set time (maybe in December of each year?) where children can be enrolled without having to be held to pre-ex conditions. Surely people in here don't believe children should only be enrolled when they are sick, right? Seems like a simple thing that could have been put into the obama bill....but....it's like they received no guidance....or maybe no one really read what they were voting on?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Also, just another update....apparently what insurance companies are concerned with is whether they are going to be allowed to only have to enroll children during an open enrollment period or if children can be enrolled whenever. In other words, since there is no mandate that children have coverage, parents can just wait till their children get sick, and then enroll, get the treatment needed, and then drop the coverage. Then, if 6 months later they get sick again, they then go get coverage again and drop the coverage after they have been treated. So, what they (insurance companies) would like is a set time (maybe in December of each year?) where children can be enrolled without having to be held to pre-ex conditions. Surely people in here don't believe children should only be enrolled when they are sick, right? Seems like a simple thing that could have been put into the obama bill....but....it's like they received no guidance....or maybe no one really read what they were voting on?
    I have some questions in regards to that.

    First, I assume if they are being added under a parent's policy they have to be added in the enrollment period right? That should be something that cascades down from the parent's policy right?

    Second, are there any laws preventing the insurance companies from writing those policies so that they can protect themselves from a drop and add exploit? Especially since the individual child policy seems to be more of a niche market, can they write the policies requiring a term commitment from the parent for the child?
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I have some questions in regards to that.

    First, I assume if they are being added under a parent's policy they have to be added in the enrollment period right? That should be something that cascades down from the parent's policy right?
    Honestly....not sure of your question. I have clients who actually want individual children only policies. I explained why before, so won't bore you with that. There is no "enrollment period" under an individual policy. In fact, there are not "enrollment periods" under all group plans. Usually this is reserved for groups of over 50. Anyway, not sure I'm getting your question, can you clarify it? I'm being sincere here....hopefully I can answer it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Second, are there any laws preventing the insurance companies from writing those policies so that they can protect themselves from a drop and add exploit? Especially since the individual child policy seems to be more of a niche market, can they write the policies requiring a term commitment from the parent for the child?
    That is what they are looking for. My understanding is under the current bill there is no way to protect themselves from a "drop and add exploit". This is why they had to stop writing these policies until some clarification can be received on this. Maybe they will allow such a requirement? I really don't think that is such an unreasonable request. Hopefully davidra can even understand that basic principle.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Posting Permissions