Gov't Shutdown

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#104 Oct 3, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
The cure is to make insurance companies not-for-profit like all other major countries but that isn't going to happen any time soon.
For lots of folks, the cure would be worse than the disease. I don't see any folks flying off from the US to Russia or China for their medical care. And like many you obviously believe that by making health insurance companies not-for-profit, one can ignore the basic rules of economics.

So let's take one simple rule. If I'm running a not-for-profit insurance company, why would I offer health insurance when I make $0, while I make $$$$ in auto/home/life/etc. insurance. What company stays in a business that never turns a profit? How does this impact the "supply" side of the equation? Do more companies enter or leave? How exactly does making health insurance companies not-for-profit incent companies to invest in drugs, medical technology, etc?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#105 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beef isn't with ACA, its with the For-Profit interests of insurance companies and everyone else who's making a killing off the current system. You're being scammed not by ACA or Obama, rather your employer and the insurance companies who set the premium rates and every other aspect of the business.
Sorry, but I don't have a beef with the insurance companies. I deal with statistics every day. I completely understand how insurance companies figure out rates for auto, life and health insurance.

If you think you are being scammed by the insurance companies, you should either finish high school or go back and take some classes in statistics and actuarial mathmatics. Along with Econ 101 of course.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#106 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
I responded to your claim that the ACA was THE Cause for UPS changing its rules on coverage, suggesting it was the only cause. I'm saying its not THE ONLY reason, nor is it even a MAJOR reason.
What you don't seem to understand is that the govt. does not exist solely to represent the interests of a few thousand employees or even 10s of thousands of employees or their spouses with respect to what they want in options/coverages health insurance coverage. There's a BIGGER picture out there. Costs associated with health are killing us. Insurance companies are raping people in every way possible. Something needs to be done about it before it destroys the country. The ACA may not be perfect, some aren't going to like it, but millions more will have some form of health insurance coverage now, and in the long run its going be better for the country. The ACA is a start in the right direction.
Govt. is FOR the PEOPLE, By the people, OF the people and that includes ALL the people - everyone - even those 30 million who are uninsured, unable for whatever reason, to have health insurance coverage. You ought to try harder to understand WHY the ACA came about and WHAT it is trying to do before you blame it as the reason a few thousand workers will be inconvenienced by the decisions/actions of their employers. Think about it.
Those of us against it have thought about it, a heck of a lot more than those for it.

You say the government is "FOR the PEOPLE, By the people, OF the people and that includes ALL the people - everyone - even those 30 million who are uninsured, unable for whatever reason, to have health insurance coverage." That is true.

It is also for the people, by the people, of the people and that includes all the people - everyone - who ARE insured, ABLE to pay for medical services, can PAY TO HAVE health insurance coverage and CAN PAY their medical bills.

As soon as the government takes money from those who can pay and gives to those who can't, the government is NO LONGER FOR EVERYONE.

So which is it? Is the government FOR EVERYONE or just for some?

And if it is for those who can't afford health insurance, why can't it be for those who aren't Jewish/Muslim/Christian?

If it is for those who have created their pre-existing condition like obesity, why can't it also be for those who oppose abortion under any circumstance?

If it is for those who are here illegally and have sick kids, why can't it be for those who want to arrest and deport all those who are here illigally?

When you say the government is for the people but then restrict who the government is really for, you've lost the argument.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#107 Oct 3, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I don't have a beef with the insurance companies. I deal with statistics every day. I completely understand how insurance companies figure out rates for auto, life and health insurance.
If you think you are being scammed by the insurance companies, you should either finish high school or go back and take some classes in statistics and actuarial mathmatics. Along with Econ 101 of course.
The pipester can't do statistics or math for that matter and Econ 101 would be so over his head he would think he was being buzzed by a jet. He would not survive without Obama telling him how to think and what to say. Save yourself some frustration and discuss it with Wiggley, not pipester.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#108 Oct 3, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Those of us against it have thought about it, a heck of a lot more than those for it.
You haven't thought about Jack $hit except your own selfish self-interests Sherlock. And you want to defend insurance companies because you think because you work in the industry you know more than everyone else? lol Insurance companies have been screwing people for a hundred years and you still think they are not a probem IF NOT THE problem? You really need to step back and pull your head out of your ass -- or your employers ass -- and smell something besides bull $hit all day long.

Also, the topic here or at least the one we're engaged in, is health care vis-a-vis the current for profit system and the ACA, what it is, and what it proposes to do, not the myriad of other issues you want to side track off to, I guess because you want to blame all those problems and issues on the Obama administration, liberals and progressives, and all of the others you think are making your life so miserable.
YuuuP

Bellevue, MI

#109 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't thought about Jack $hit except your own selfish self-interests Sherlock. And you want to defend insurance companies because you think because you work in the industry you know more than everyone else? lol Insurance companies have been screwing people for a hundred years and you still think they are not a probem IF NOT THE problem? You really need to step back and pull your head out of your ass -- or your employers ass -- and smell something besides bull $hit all day long.
Also, the topic here or at least the one we're engaged in, is health care vis-a-vis the current for profit system and the ACA, what it is, and what it proposes to do, not the myriad of other issues you want to side track off to, I guess because you want to blame all those problems and issues on the Obama administration, liberals and progressives, and all of the others you think are making your life so miserable.
you are the best fleshpipe smoker on these topix boards. enjoy your aca suckers!

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#110 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't thought about Jack $hit except your own selfish self-interests Sherlock. And you want to defend insurance companies because you think because you work in the industry you know more than everyone else? lol Insurance companies have been screwing people for a hundred years and you still think they are not a probem IF NOT THE problem? You really need to step back and pull your head out of your ass -- or your employers ass -- and smell something besides bull $hit all day long.
Also, the topic here or at least the one we're engaged in, is health care vis-a-vis the current for profit system and the ACA, what it is, and what it proposes to do, not the myriad of other issues you want to side track off to, I guess because you want to blame all those problems and issues on the Obama administration, liberals and progressives, and all of the others you think are making your life so miserable.
I'm not in the insurance industry. Never have been but then reality isn't a place you feel comfortable in.

Self-interest and selfish pretty much go hand in hand. And it's pretty much a given for all life forms.

I'm not defending them since they don't need to be defended any more than Kellogg's or your local grocery store needs to be defended. OTOH I'm not attacking them out of ignorance and jealousy. I'm curious, assuming you have them, what's the difference between a company selling auto insurance, health insurance and say a cell phone? Or are you one of those who think that all businesses and employers "have been screwing people for a hundred years."
Sassy

Grand Rapids, MI

#111 Oct 3, 2013
Hi Mr. Wiggly

How about the thought that UPS is just using this as an excuse. In reality, I am quite surprised that they never did it prior to this. It is more standard in companies that if your spouse is employed and has access to health insurance weather or not that they have to pay for it or not through their employer they are not allowed on their other spouses' coverage. Also, the first birthdate of the year is standard practice, in most companies, that have to carry the children or not weather or not paying for it is involved. I didn't see to many people complain when they could keep their college kids until they were 26 when that practice came into effect with Obamacare. In fact they embraced it.
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Sassy,
I'm well aware that this practice has been going on for a long time...that's not the point in this case. UPS specifically said the ACA is what drove them over the edge.
That's not to say they might not have done it anyway in the future, it's the admission that Obamacare forced their hand.
I believe there will be more of
It's all about money and the bottem line.
Have a nice day!!!
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#112 Oct 3, 2013
Sassy wrote:
It is more standard in companies that if your spouse is employed and has access to health insurance weather or not that they have to pay for it or not through their employer they are not allowed on their other spouses' coverage.
Name some that had that as a policy prior to Obamacare and prove that the majority of companies follow that policy (and did prior to Obamacare). You made the claim...back it up with some solid proof.
Zed

Chicago, IL

#113 Oct 3, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
Name some that had that as a policy prior to Obamacare and prove that the majority of companies follow that policy (and did prior to Obamacare). You made the claim...back it up with some solid proof.
My company has had that policy for years. It actually states that if your spouse has coverage available you can still cover your spouse but at a much higher rate that makes it more expensive than if your spouse was to just insure themselves through their own job. My wife's job has had the same policy for years also. We're two for two in that regard.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#114 Oct 4, 2013
Hahaha

I woke to this.

Mitch McConnell Rails Against Ted Cruz

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/mitc...

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

#115 Oct 4, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Those of us against it have thought about it, a heck of a lot more than those for it.
You say the government is "FOR the PEOPLE, By the people, OF the people and that includes ALL the people - everyone - even those 30 million who are uninsured, unable for whatever reason, to have health insurance coverage." That is true.
It is also for the people, by the people, of the people and that includes all the people - everyone - who ARE insured, ABLE to pay for medical services, can PAY TO HAVE health insurance coverage and CAN PAY their medical bills.
As soon as the government takes money from those who can pay and gives to those who can't, the government is NO LONGER FOR EVERYONE.
So which is it? Is the government FOR EVERYONE or just for some?
And if it is for those who can't afford health insurance, why can't it be for those who aren't Jewish/Muslim/Christian?
If it is for those who have created their pre-existing condition like obesity, why can't it also be for those who oppose abortion under any circumstance?
If it is for those who are here illegally and have sick kids, why can't it be for those who want to arrest and deport all those who are here illigally?
When you say the government is for the people but then restrict who the government is really for, you've lost the argument.
I am a government onto myself, of myself, by myself, and for myself. In my opinion that was the original intent. Now we have government in spite of the people.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#116 Oct 4, 2013
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
<quoted text>I am a government onto myself, of myself, by myself, and for myself. In my opinion that was the original intent. Now we have government in spite of the people.
o you are are you? got that banshee scream down, yelling and clucking as your charge the line with your AR-15, bandolier, confederate flag, a bible, and an original copy of the U.S. constitution? lol

You better take cover, because you've just made yourself a target. Good luck. lol
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#117 Oct 4, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
And since 9 Michigan reps voted for it and 5 Michigan reps voted against it, why are the Michigan Senators ignoring the will of Michigan voters and voting against the bill sent by the House? Shouldn't they both be voting in favor of defunding the ACA? Do the Michigan Senators represent the voters of Michigan or not?
You really don't understand this whole constitution, separation of powers, how gov't works thing do you? Under your vision, why do we even need a Senate, or for that reason, a President.

Can we assume that you were against the Republican filibusters in that same Senate back when there was a democratic majority in the House?

Somehow, I get the feeling that your warped views changed in the last couple of years...... Imagine That!
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#118 Oct 4, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
For lots of folks, the cure would be worse than the disease. I don't see any folks flying off from the US to Russia or China for their medical care.
Perhaps not those two countries, but I guess that among your other weaknesses, a Google search for the term Medical Tourism is beyond your abilities.

Let Me Help....

https://www.google.com/search... .

Sorry to burst your bubble again......

NOT!
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#119 Oct 4, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
For lots of folks, the cure would be worse than the disease. I don't see any folks flying off from the US to Russia or China for their medical care. And like many you obviously believe that by making health insurance companies not-for-profit, one can ignore the basic rules of economics.
So let's take one simple rule. If I'm running a not-for-profit insurance company, why would I offer health insurance when I make $0, while I make $$$$ in auto/home/life/etc. insurance. What company stays in a business that never turns a profit? How does this impact the "supply" side of the equation? Do more companies enter or leave? How exactly does making health insurance companies not-for-profit incent companies to invest in drugs, medical technology, etc?
I guess you've never heard of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan either.

You sure had a bad day yesterday.... The Senate is only there to rubber stamp whatever the House passes, No such thing as people going to more affordable places for medical care, and the only way to run a health insurance organization is to discriminate in favor of profits over people....

Your homeschool principle would be proud of you!

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#120 Oct 4, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't understand this whole constitution, separation of powers, how gov't works thing do you? Under your vision, why do we even need a Senate, or for that reason, a President.
Can we assume that you were against the Republican filibusters in that same Senate back when there was a democratic majority in the House?
Somehow, I get the feeling that your warped views changed in the last couple of years...... Imagine That!
I'm not sure where your questions and comments are coming from unless you were responding to someone else, or you haven't been paying attention.

We need a Senate and the House so that we have checks and balances in our system. The purpose of government is NOT to make as many laws as possible. So what the House and Senate are doing right now is exactly what they were designed for.

Why would I have been against the Republican filibuster in the Senate back when there was a democratic majority in the House?

And no, my views have pretty much stayed the same over the past decades, at least in these areas.

It's probably beyond you, but if you'd like to take another attempt, feel free to actually answer my (or anyone else's) questions.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#121 Oct 4, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not those two countries, but I guess that among your other weaknesses, a Google search for the term Medical Tourism is beyond your abilities.
Let Me Help....
https://www.google.com/search... .
Sorry to burst your bubble again......
NOT!
Actually you supported my point. From the link "The avoidance of waiting times is the leading factor for medical tourism from the UK, whereas in the US, the main reason is cheaper prices abroad."

As I said, the cure may be worse than the disease.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#122 Oct 4, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you've never heard of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan either.
You sure had a bad day yesterday.... The Senate is only there to rubber stamp whatever the House passes, No such thing as people going to more affordable places for medical care, and the only way to run a health insurance organization is to discriminate in favor of profits over people....
Your homeschool principle would be proud of you!
Not only have I heard of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, it is what I have.

I disagree. The Senate is not only there to rubber stamp whatever the House passes.

Lots of people go to more affordable places for medical care, just as lots of people eat at McDonalds instead of a high end steak house or have a "staycation" instead of going on a 14-day cruise. Tradeoffs is one of the many economic principles that liberals don't get.

I also disagree with you that the only way to run a health insurance organization is to discriminate in favor of profits over people. Lots of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. provide free care, and not just here but around the world. There are a multitude of Christian organizations that do so. Heck I think there is even a Christian medical ship that goes around the world providing free care.

And I am still waiting for your answer to my question: If you are running a not-for-profit insurance company, why would you offer health insurance when you make $0, while making $$$ in home/life/auto insurance?

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#123 Oct 4, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again Mr. Wiggles. That may be what UPS said was their reason, but those who can look past their big noses into the distance can see reality for what it is. UPS saw an opportunity to position their bottom line by shedding costs onto their employees and they took it. Take off your rose colored glasses and step away from the sewer hole your standing on and you might actually get smart. You're very ignorant. You probably are also having a hard time with ACA because your selfish little self might have to find alternatives to health care now.
All indications at this point are that UPS did what they did because of ACA...that's obvious from the article you posted that I used to make you look silly, as well as other articles and news media.
Unless you can prove your claims via written internal memos or other means, they are nothing more than speculation, and you know it.

You don't do very well when you are losing a debate. ASSuming on your part that I have any dealings with ACA is a childish move on your part. Children like you always try to divert attention away from their failures/weaknesses/ by trying to insult others.
Sorry little one, you fail.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grandville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 3 hr stewart scott 2,497
Review: Motorhomes 2 Go 4 hr wtf 2
News Two DNR rangers charged with poaching in Oceana... (Apr '08) Thu Fabian Vasquez 88
Bike licenses for road maintenance Aug 26 knobhead 5
Review: TerryTown RV Superstore Aug 26 RVer 1
Why does French Onion soup give me such foul sm... (Mar '09) Aug 25 Nixon Hardockles 52
News Food Town closing temporarily Aug 23 Lambertville shopper 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grandville Mortgages