Argument For Health Care Reform: Over and Underweight Children Denied InsuranceThe insurance companies have recently refused coverage to two very young children because of their weight and size, one was too small and one was too large. I suppose that Scrooge would say that they if they are going to die anyway they they should do it quickly and "decrease the surplus population." Arguably, the only preexisting condition these children had was one we all share, birth.
Bank of America posts $2.2 billion quarterly lossI love this, BoA is heading for a 15 billion dollar loss this year and they are setting aside billions of dollars for bonuses. Now, the way bonuses have worked for me is that if the company does really well, (or if I do really well), I get a bonus, otherwise I get nothing. So... Where do I sign up to get a job where I can loose 15 billion dollars and still consider that grounds for getting a bonus? I would venture a guess that if any nonexecutive employee of BoA was responsible for 1/10th of 1% of that loss they would find themselves on the street faster than you can say "stock option".
Comments (7)
The problem with insurance companies is they're heavily regulated by big government already and as a result have practically no competition. The solution is to simply minimize any government involvement in the insurance companies. If the government takes absolute control of health care, all you will see are more children being denied coverage.
As for Bank of America, I don't bank with them, so whether it's true they were formed in San Francisco by the mafia or not, I don't care.
@Chibi_Son_Gokou - Of course - the same government that wants all people covered has mandated that the insurance companies not cover people who might get sick so that their CEO can make 8 digit salaries. Wait... that makes no logical sense. So I take it that you support the business model that insurance companies are pushing for where you give them money and they give you nothing. That actually fits with the "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly" plan.
They haven't mandated it, but the restrictions that the government has put on the industry has caused problems with health insurance in general. For example, insurance companies aren't allowed to compete across state lines, which has dampened competition. And do you seriously believe all people will be covered under a government plan? The same government that can't even run a small car trade in program properly? Just take a look at the states where free government health care has already been implemented, like Oregon for example. The government can't pay to cure an elderly woman's cancer, but they can pay for her euthanasia.
The whole notion of having health insurance is bogus. The purpose of insurance is to cover you in the case of an accident. I mean, do people buy car insurance in order to pay reduced costs on oil changes, tire changes, etc.? No, they buy it to cover accidents. Same with homeowner's insurance. But with health insurance, people have to have it just to get a checkup or else they end up paying over $100. The reason is because health insurance has driven up the price of health care in general.
@Chibi_Son_Gokou - Ok - first, you need to talk to any recipient of Medicare and see how anxious they are to give up their coverage under the government run health care plan.
Second then next time your water pump dies in your car what do you do? You check your warranty. You can even extend your warranty by paying more and the are thied party plans that will allow you to extend that out to 200,000 miles. Just because they don't call it car health insurance doesn't make it that. Just as most health insurance companies separate out types of medical coverage, so does the auto industry.
Last, and finally, because you are so far over in right field that you have left the ball park, It is much cheaper for a health insurance company the deny you converge than it is for them to pay for a "checkup". Their business model is built on insuring healthy people, and just as you failed to discuss these two children, so you have failed to do anything but try and confuse facts with spun fiction. The preamble to our constitution, which by the way was the founding fathers EXPLANATION of what they wanted to do, said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere does it talk about starting wars or using our money to kill people, just life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would consider "life" to mean we keep them alive, but then, I don't see things though the eyes of people who only want to kill people by action OR inaction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/health/policy/25view.html?_r=2&ref=business
@Chibi_Son_Gokou - I can see that you are still far more willing to let people die than to help them.
@erehwyna - If you research history, you will know that government assistance is an ineffective means of helping people. Just look up The War on Poverty or LBJ's "Failed" Society.