Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (10383)	10/13/2009 6:37:46 AM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

This is another example of the pathetic system you guys love to defend... And your reaction is another example of an overreaction that results in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You've damned the whole system and the whole country over a kink. Of course there are some anomalies that need to be fixed. So fix them. You don't need to upend the whole health care system to fix a problem like this. It is patently absurd to reject a baby that is still breast feeding. This case is now fixed. No legislation was needing, only publicity and common sense.

To: John Koligman who wrote (10383)	10/13/2009 10:14:51 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

>> The family didn't want a 'free ride'. The company apparently was established with the goal of providing a lower grade of product at lower costs. You can have cheap insurance but don't expect it to cover everything and everyone. It sounded like a big blunder. But a company selling cheap insurance is going to have to be tight on its rating processes.

To: John Koligman who wrote (10383)	10/13/2009 10:58:56 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

medicare rejects more treatment percentage wise than any private insurance company

To: John Koligman who wrote (10383)	10/14/2009 8:33:42 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The family didn't want a 'free ride'. They simply wanted to buy an insurance policy, The current system of mandated coverages increases the cost. People are being priced out of the market. Removing state mandates will make it affordable for more people.

To: John Koligman who wrote (10383)	12/7/2009 3:28:27 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Stats show private insurers deny fewer claims than Medicare By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer beltway-confidential 12/04/09 3:38 PM EST Speaking on the Senate floor today, Sen. Chris "Where's the mortgage paperwork?" Dodd, D-Conn., was telling another sob story about someone being denied treatment by a private insurer. This supposedly demonstrates the need for government run insurance. "That would not have happened under Medicare. Had she been just under Medicare, she would have gotten that help, no questions asked," said Dodd. But is it really easier to get medical treatment under Medicare than private insurance? The idea that government-run health care would deny fewer claims than private insurers callously concerned about maximizing profits is an article of faith among Democrats. It also happens to be a total myth. In fact, according to the American Medical Association's 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card, "Medicare Denied 6.85% Of Submitted Claims – A Higher Percentage Than Any Private Insurer Sampled By The American Medical Association." Oh and when a private insurance company denies your claim, you at least have legal recourse. Good luck suing the government. As for whether Medicare gives help to people "no questions asked" -- Medicare should ask a lot more questions about the claims they do pay out. Even the White House admits over 12 percent of Medicare claims are fraudulent. So Medicare denies more claims than private insurance, and of the ones they do accept, 1 in 8 are fraudulent or improper. By some estimates, Medicare loses seven times as much money in fraud every year than the combined profits of the 14 health insurance companies on the Fortune 500. If congressional Democrats weren't constantly telling me they know better, I'd say it sure looks like profit-driven insurance companies are more efficient and fair -- than government run health care. washingtonexaminer.com