Comments on: Stacie Ritter speaks at “Big Insurance: Sick of It!” rally

By: NShutterbug

NShutterbug — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:26:43 +0000

People who PAY their premiums out of their own pockets have been DENIED care by the insurance providers – so that they can pocket millions. I think this is a violation of providing a service for payment. It has nothing to do with your pocket.

By: EchoTangoSuitcase

EchoTangoSuitcase — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:23:45 +0000

EITHER:
a)Stacey Ritter is contractually entitled to the medicine she is seeking, in which this is an issue of contact law and instead of standing in front of a crowd telling her story she should be seeking redress in court, or;
b)She has NO entitlement to this medicine and should consider herself lucky that the big bad pharmaceutical company is covering the meds.
Either way, NONE of this entitles you bunch of whiny looters to reach into MY pocket for YOUR health insurance.

By: EasyEs

EasyEs — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:24:34 +0000

It probably is..but I don’t think insurance CEO salaries are the problem.

The problem is fruad and rising health care costs.
The costs are going up because we demand more for cheaper but miss the fundamental component of lowing prices. Consumer pressure. Instead Americans hand over the decision making to insurance companies and get angry about the results.

It is absurd to believe that you get cheap services of any kind with out pressure applied to be competitive.

By: NShutterbug

NShutterbug — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:28:13 +0000

Tell me where in the constitution it states that if somebody pays for a service it can be denied. That is fraud. You miss the point.

By: fctchk

fctchk — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:39:54 +0000

If Ritters case were the exception we might consider buying your specious legalistic song and dance, however, denying payment/cherry picking customers is THE business model of the industry.

Any issues with being reached into your pocket for almost a $trillion now for failed nation building (after we destroyed them) adventures overseas?

By: NShutterbug

NShutterbug — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:17:29 +0000

Actually, low administrative cost run entities such as Medicare, Veteran’s Health, etc are efficient because no-one is denied health. People on Medicare love their health care. Nonsense about state lines. Companies should be efficient regardless. If you are implying that it is a lack of competition, then govt run healthcare should provide competition. Your arguments are sweeping generalizations.

By: NShutterbug

NShutterbug — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:34:38 +0000

The fraud goes where? To insurance pockets., part of which goes to lobbyists. Take the insurance companies out of the equation – they take 30% as opposed to MediCare which takes about 3%.

By: EasyEs

EasyEs — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:54:21 +0000

If you don’t want companies to lobby. Don’t threaten to shut them down.

Take what? Money out for administrative cost plus profit?

I don’t know where you think that low administrative cost is a sign of efficiency or better health care outcomes.

Many of the costs are compounded by government regulations and not allowing companies to compete across state lines.

By: EasyEs

EasyEs — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:29:50 +0000

No yours are. Medicare is inefficient they overpay for services and equipment. And they have worse health outcomes. Plus it is going broke.
State lines isn’t nonsense companies should be efficient but for many reasons they are not often due to perverse regulations and incentives not to be. Your government has passed numerous laws to help medical practitioners enforce their monopoly on numerous medical services.

If you want more competition just allow it for gods sake.

By: EasyEs

EasyEs — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:41:55 +0000

You simply don’t understand business. Your states each have different regulatory structures, that big companies must spend loads of money adhering to. How much money would it take do you think to adhere to 50 different regulatory bodies? Many companies wouldn’t bother and as a result competition suffer.

Still health care is expensive because no one shops around for it.. the cost benefit decisions are made by other parties. Yet some how you expect downward pressure on prices.