What is your response to this liberal that claims private medical insurance is "greedy"?
I bet she isn't even married to a doctor, but let's play devil's advocate and pretend she is. How would you respond to that?
Answers:
But it's true.
There is some truth contained by what she says. But if she thinks private drug is greedy, where does she think the money will come from to pay packet for socialized medical care? The greedy, spineless politicians in Washington are not spending their money, but the rates payers money. The more they spend, the more they want to tax the public. It is now freshly beginning to be publicized how the politicians are getting kickbacks, also contained by the form of dinners, gifts, and campaign contributions. As with the petroleum industry, the pharmaceutical companies are over pricing the product merely to get more money.
She is a blatant liar. She is not married to a doctor. She is spewing a compilation of the liberal lies.
I would gurgle at her and boldly tell her that she needs to find other nation like her who are mentally challenged (democrats) to spew her lies to.
I've had private health insurance for olden times 2 years. I just came past its sell-by date my parents, and I feel safer this way. I don't surface limited in my provider access, medication, or any other services I need. Private insurances keep doctor bills lower..usual and customary charges are negotiate b/t them and providers! Is the gov't going to do this? or I guess they [gov't] think that they are so efficient that they can somehow"control and control" what each medical issue would be...NO, gov't run health consideration will turn into a MESS!
And is this person defending Medicare?? She needs to achieve a clue, b/c it is being run into the ground! Source(s): Pharmacy Student
I think she know exactly what she's chitchat about. I have a couple of friends that are Md's and they are constantly person pursued by drug companies to push more prescriptions. For profit medical care is not the way to be in motion. Most doctors are nothing more than well erudite drug dealers trying to make a buck.
It is.
However, greed goes both ways and switching systems isn't going to remove it from the equation. Some family are greedy and they will exploit a private health care system. Some ancestors are greedy and they will exploit a government run health nurture system. The question is which system has the smaller number collateral?
I am not liberal....she IS RIGHT. Source(s): I have four doctors within my family.
The drugs those companies ask them to peddle vary...but the story is matching.
Anyone who has more than you is in a minute "Greedy" if they don't give you some.
This is the childhood idea of "fairness".
A more beloved socialist conception I cannot think of.
Fairness is a child's failed benevolent of "Justice".
Fairness is when a child buys gum, brings it to class, and the teacher says, "Did you bring ample for everyone?" as if the child owes everyone.
Justices is when a child buys gum, brings it to class, and the childred whine that they want gum, too, and the teacher teachers them how to earn money so they can buy their own.
Justice. Not Fairness.
If someone is call Greedy, look closely at why they say it and decide.
Are you socialist? Or do you believe contained by justice?
Lets also drag the greedy trial lawyer and their sue for cash clients. The big piece missing from reform is tort change around.
I come up with she's making personal claims that may not be true, but the insurance industry DOES put money before health and DOES deny general public care in lay down to protect their bottom line.
The #1 problem with robustness care in America is the insurance industry.
I would ask her why Her husband charges money to see patients.They should practice what they preach.Sell the Mercedes,Live in the Ghetto and barrios where on earth people need the safekeeping she would want Her husband to provide.you know PRO BO NO!
I have an idea that she is brilliant & you are too cause there is no bearing you put this here & don't agree with her...if you honestly don't agree with her & shared this beside everyone than all I have to read out is that you are a true republican.
Vioxx has been taken bad the market-- 5+ years ago? Where did this cut and past job come from? Sorry I don't really know how to answer this.
Despite the bad sentence structure, she does have a bit of a point. There are a lot of greedy medical providers out in that. And a ton of greedy doctors as well.
Ofcourse she's telling the truth.
Let a former CIGNA Executive, that testify before Congress enlighten you:
"When I disappeared my job as head of corporate communications for one of the country's largest insurers, I did not intend to turn public as a former insider. However, it recently became in great amounts clear to me that the industry's charm offensive — which is the most visible slice of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns — may well shape streamlining in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans...
The average line doesn't understand how Wall Street's dictates determine whether they will be offered coverage, whether they can keep it, and how much they'll be charged for it. But, within fact, Wall Street plays a powerful role. The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate base on companies' quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls near investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key information: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical "benefit ratio," as the industry now jargon it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it have left over to cover sales, marketing, underwrite and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.
To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even hugely profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admit they've failed to trim medical costs. I have see an insurer's stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single light of day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous term. The smoking gun was the company's first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year next.
To help meet Wall Street's relentless profit expectations, insurers routinely dump policyholders who are smaller quantity profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. One is policy rescission. They look vigilantly to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and after they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee have never missed a premium payment. Asked directly about this practice a short time ago last week in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, executives of three of the nation's largest robustness insurers refused to end the practice of cancel policies for sick enrollees. Why? Because dumping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom rank. Ten percent of the population accounts for two-thirds of all health carefulness spending. The Energy and Commerce Committee's investigation into three insurers found that they canceled the coverage of roughly 20,000 people in a five-year extent, allowing the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims."
Wendell Potter Source(s): http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/071020…
She is Damn right! We must take the profit out of health protection it is not like an automobile where you can lately refuse to buy that particular brand it is a necessity and we must remove the profit motive
She sounds close to a liberal troll to me or else she is ignorant for ranting in the region of what she and her husband does!
I am not sure the points meeting the reasoning, but private medical insurers are the very definition of greedy.
I'd ask her why she is married to such a horrible human being. And if her dad knows how little she thinks of him.
Welcome to Capitalism. We can't pick and choose what industries should fall under it and which shouldn't.
The Medical Community has created an artificial shortage of Doctors by putting severe confines on the number of Students that are admitted to Medical School in the United States of America every year.
The purpose is to keep hold of Doctor's wages high.
Only a small fraction of the number of well qualified students that want to become Doctors is in fact admitted to a Medical School in The United States of America.
If we admit all of the well qualified students that want to become Doctors, the resulting competition for patients would drive down Doctor's fees dramatically.
She's right, the private companies are scumbags.
Look. I have closely of friends that are doctors/becoming doctors, and they keep telling me that everywhere they turn, every class they take, every other doctor they talk to is relating them to get out and leave the medicalprofessionn while they still can. The drive is because withsocializedd medicine and with the command soon to be running (or attempting to run) the medical industy, being a doctor wouldn't be worth they YEARS of hard training, studying, 30 hour shifts, that they hold gone through preparing to be a doctor.
Because it is greedy. I work for one and we are told to veto all claims that are over a specific amount no matter what.
I would say..
Newsflash you Dumb Liberal!
Consumers are greedy too...!
You see them stampeding Wal-Mart Workers during Christmas
The medical fraternity is full of greedy people.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
I devise the evidence is that they are greedy by looking at their CEO salaries and their profits . . . both outrageous since we are considering people's health.
I agree beside her.
Why didn't you have a comeback?
Congress picks from a document of private health provides paid for by the toll payers. Military and Medicare are underfunded, paying only 64% of the fees for procedures and ration care, and drugs.
Unfortunately, Obama isn't offering the plan Kennedy is on. Welbutrin is not $450 a month and it's not new.. I guess what she doesn't know is that it's not "everyone for themselves" presently. The government already has so frequent mandates as to what insurance companies HAVE to cover, such as a psychiatrist, regardless of the patients' needs. This is the pretext private health insurance is so high today. With this plan, the political affairs would implement more mandates, increasing premiums because even if you don't need it, the insurance company by ruling has to offer it. All surrounded by all, punishing the healthy. With insurance premiums raise because they have to cover this and that, everyone would switch to the public option (especially employers) because it's cheaper. This would force private insurance companies to bring to the fore premiums sky high just to hold on to their head above water. Eventually everyone would switch to the public selection, forcing the private industry out of business, therefore enacting socialized healthcare. So when ethnic group say this is not socialized healthcare, even though it may not be when it's enacted (which won't be until 2013), it will be ten years down the flash. Which inevitably will lead to rationing. Every country near socialized health care rations to some point. So enlighten her either she can make the telephone call on her healthcare or she can let the government pass her a pain pill to make it adjectives go away. By the way, she's isn't married to a doctor.
Oh yeah, and you can transmit her to get ready to never see her husband because he's going to enjoy "47 million" new patients.
First. The coverage that congress gets, they pay for it themselves out of pocket. They enjoy a group of insurance companies to choose from that pool their risk in order to lower their premiums... But they still enjoy to pay for it themselves.
Second... If she is the wife of a doc she would understand that it is not the insurance company that decide what HE charges for his service. The price of insurance is first and foremost determined by the price of SERVICES that they PAY for! Insurance companies don't make money when someone gets SICK, they own to pay out to DOCS and HOSPITALS. What the insurance companies want is they guy that pays his premiums every month and NEVER GETS SICK!
Related Questions:
Answers:
But it's true.
There is some truth contained by what she says. But if she thinks private drug is greedy, where does she think the money will come from to pay packet for socialized medical care? The greedy, spineless politicians in Washington are not spending their money, but the rates payers money. The more they spend, the more they want to tax the public. It is now freshly beginning to be publicized how the politicians are getting kickbacks, also contained by the form of dinners, gifts, and campaign contributions. As with the petroleum industry, the pharmaceutical companies are over pricing the product merely to get more money.
She is a blatant liar. She is not married to a doctor. She is spewing a compilation of the liberal lies.
I would gurgle at her and boldly tell her that she needs to find other nation like her who are mentally challenged (democrats) to spew her lies to.
I've had private health insurance for olden times 2 years. I just came past its sell-by date my parents, and I feel safer this way. I don't surface limited in my provider access, medication, or any other services I need. Private insurances keep doctor bills lower..usual and customary charges are negotiate b/t them and providers! Is the gov't going to do this? or I guess they [gov't] think that they are so efficient that they can somehow"control and control" what each medical issue would be...NO, gov't run health consideration will turn into a MESS!
And is this person defending Medicare?? She needs to achieve a clue, b/c it is being run into the ground! Source(s): Pharmacy Student
I think she know exactly what she's chitchat about. I have a couple of friends that are Md's and they are constantly person pursued by drug companies to push more prescriptions. For profit medical care is not the way to be in motion. Most doctors are nothing more than well erudite drug dealers trying to make a buck.
It is.
However, greed goes both ways and switching systems isn't going to remove it from the equation. Some family are greedy and they will exploit a private health care system. Some ancestors are greedy and they will exploit a government run health nurture system. The question is which system has the smaller number collateral?
I am not liberal....she IS RIGHT. Source(s): I have four doctors within my family.
The drugs those companies ask them to peddle vary...but the story is matching.
Anyone who has more than you is in a minute "Greedy" if they don't give you some.
This is the childhood idea of "fairness".
A more beloved socialist conception I cannot think of.
Fairness is a child's failed benevolent of "Justice".
Fairness is when a child buys gum, brings it to class, and the teacher says, "Did you bring ample for everyone?" as if the child owes everyone.
Justices is when a child buys gum, brings it to class, and the childred whine that they want gum, too, and the teacher teachers them how to earn money so they can buy their own.
Justice. Not Fairness.
If someone is call Greedy, look closely at why they say it and decide.
Are you socialist? Or do you believe contained by justice?
Lets also drag the greedy trial lawyer and their sue for cash clients. The big piece missing from reform is tort change around.
I come up with she's making personal claims that may not be true, but the insurance industry DOES put money before health and DOES deny general public care in lay down to protect their bottom line.
The #1 problem with robustness care in America is the insurance industry.
I would ask her why Her husband charges money to see patients.They should practice what they preach.Sell the Mercedes,Live in the Ghetto and barrios where on earth people need the safekeeping she would want Her husband to provide.you know PRO BO NO!
I have an idea that she is brilliant & you are too cause there is no bearing you put this here & don't agree with her...if you honestly don't agree with her & shared this beside everyone than all I have to read out is that you are a true republican.
Vioxx has been taken bad the market-- 5+ years ago? Where did this cut and past job come from? Sorry I don't really know how to answer this.
Despite the bad sentence structure, she does have a bit of a point. There are a lot of greedy medical providers out in that. And a ton of greedy doctors as well.
Ofcourse she's telling the truth.
Let a former CIGNA Executive, that testify before Congress enlighten you:
"When I disappeared my job as head of corporate communications for one of the country's largest insurers, I did not intend to turn public as a former insider. However, it recently became in great amounts clear to me that the industry's charm offensive — which is the most visible slice of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns — may well shape streamlining in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans...
The average line doesn't understand how Wall Street's dictates determine whether they will be offered coverage, whether they can keep it, and how much they'll be charged for it. But, within fact, Wall Street plays a powerful role. The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate base on companies' quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls near investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key information: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical "benefit ratio," as the industry now jargon it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it have left over to cover sales, marketing, underwrite and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.
To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even hugely profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admit they've failed to trim medical costs. I have see an insurer's stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single light of day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous term. The smoking gun was the company's first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year next.
To help meet Wall Street's relentless profit expectations, insurers routinely dump policyholders who are smaller quantity profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. One is policy rescission. They look vigilantly to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and after they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee have never missed a premium payment. Asked directly about this practice a short time ago last week in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, executives of three of the nation's largest robustness insurers refused to end the practice of cancel policies for sick enrollees. Why? Because dumping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom rank. Ten percent of the population accounts for two-thirds of all health carefulness spending. The Energy and Commerce Committee's investigation into three insurers found that they canceled the coverage of roughly 20,000 people in a five-year extent, allowing the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims."
Wendell Potter Source(s): http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/071020…
She is Damn right! We must take the profit out of health protection it is not like an automobile where you can lately refuse to buy that particular brand it is a necessity and we must remove the profit motive
She sounds close to a liberal troll to me or else she is ignorant for ranting in the region of what she and her husband does!
I am not sure the points meeting the reasoning, but private medical insurers are the very definition of greedy.
I'd ask her why she is married to such a horrible human being. And if her dad knows how little she thinks of him.
Welcome to Capitalism. We can't pick and choose what industries should fall under it and which shouldn't.
The Medical Community has created an artificial shortage of Doctors by putting severe confines on the number of Students that are admitted to Medical School in the United States of America every year.
The purpose is to keep hold of Doctor's wages high.
Only a small fraction of the number of well qualified students that want to become Doctors is in fact admitted to a Medical School in The United States of America.
If we admit all of the well qualified students that want to become Doctors, the resulting competition for patients would drive down Doctor's fees dramatically.
She's right, the private companies are scumbags.
Look. I have closely of friends that are doctors/becoming doctors, and they keep telling me that everywhere they turn, every class they take, every other doctor they talk to is relating them to get out and leave the medicalprofessionn while they still can. The drive is because withsocializedd medicine and with the command soon to be running (or attempting to run) the medical industy, being a doctor wouldn't be worth they YEARS of hard training, studying, 30 hour shifts, that they hold gone through preparing to be a doctor.
Because it is greedy. I work for one and we are told to veto all claims that are over a specific amount no matter what.
I would say..
Newsflash you Dumb Liberal!
Consumers are greedy too...!
You see them stampeding Wal-Mart Workers during Christmas
The medical fraternity is full of greedy people.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
I devise the evidence is that they are greedy by looking at their CEO salaries and their profits . . . both outrageous since we are considering people's health.
I agree beside her.
Why didn't you have a comeback?
Congress picks from a document of private health provides paid for by the toll payers. Military and Medicare are underfunded, paying only 64% of the fees for procedures and ration care, and drugs.
Unfortunately, Obama isn't offering the plan Kennedy is on. Welbutrin is not $450 a month and it's not new.. I guess what she doesn't know is that it's not "everyone for themselves" presently. The government already has so frequent mandates as to what insurance companies HAVE to cover, such as a psychiatrist, regardless of the patients' needs. This is the pretext private health insurance is so high today. With this plan, the political affairs would implement more mandates, increasing premiums because even if you don't need it, the insurance company by ruling has to offer it. All surrounded by all, punishing the healthy. With insurance premiums raise because they have to cover this and that, everyone would switch to the public option (especially employers) because it's cheaper. This would force private insurance companies to bring to the fore premiums sky high just to hold on to their head above water. Eventually everyone would switch to the public selection, forcing the private industry out of business, therefore enacting socialized healthcare. So when ethnic group say this is not socialized healthcare, even though it may not be when it's enacted (which won't be until 2013), it will be ten years down the flash. Which inevitably will lead to rationing. Every country near socialized health care rations to some point. So enlighten her either she can make the telephone call on her healthcare or she can let the government pass her a pain pill to make it adjectives go away. By the way, she's isn't married to a doctor.
Oh yeah, and you can transmit her to get ready to never see her husband because he's going to enjoy "47 million" new patients.
First. The coverage that congress gets, they pay for it themselves out of pocket. They enjoy a group of insurance companies to choose from that pool their risk in order to lower their premiums... But they still enjoy to pay for it themselves.
Second... If she is the wife of a doc she would understand that it is not the insurance company that decide what HE charges for his service. The price of insurance is first and foremost determined by the price of SERVICES that they PAY for! Insurance companies don't make money when someone gets SICK, they own to pay out to DOCS and HOSPITALS. What the insurance companies want is they guy that pays his premiums every month and NEVER GETS SICK!
Related Questions:
- If your medical insurance possessor call you and is CD you short notification, is it a federal crime?
- Help i obligation medical insurance but I'm contained by a bind.
- I enjoy a fairly hulking medical bill ( $6500) and no medical insurance...I file for state medical aid, but hold
- Medical insurance philippines?
- Are parents responsible for 21-year-old son's medical bills if he have no insurance and lives at home?