Health care victory

[Loyal Rogue]

A claim cannot legally be denied if it is for something that is legitimately covered by a persons insurance policy.

Unless the insurance company doesn't want to pay in which case they use a loophole to deny the legitimate claim... like hiring an in-house medical reviewer to claim a treatment is "experimental" which is wholly subjective and based on that person's opinion alone.

I guess in your world major corporations don't ever hire accountants to find loopholes so that they can cheat on their taxes either?

[FlashLackey]

the USPS is failing because there are better and easier solutions now then there were back before the internet. if i want to send someone some funny pictures i can instantly send them via the internet, and save myself a trip to the post office and the cost of a stamp, and the cost of developing film.

How then do you explain UPS and FedEX outperforming USPS?

looks at other health care systems around the world there are some that are way better then ours, but people are not making billions of dollars in profits off of them so they will never happen here.

I don't think that is remotely true. Over-all, the US has the best quality of health care in the world. It just arguably costs too much.

As for Matt Damon, yes i think the Oscar winning actor is very good at what he does, show me one movie he has been bad in.

Show me one that he was good in.

While I'm sure there is some merit in the idea behind what you say, the reality is that most of our medical innovation comes from non-profit university researchers funded by the government.

28% funding from NIH. That indicates that more than double that comes from industry.

Furthermore, which organization innovations come from does nothing to contradict jeff2a's point. Researchers are paid to work for the NIH and if they create some innovation there, it greatly advances their careers and financial possibilities just as it would at any other company.

Unfortunately in the real world large, corporations like insurance companies do win cases of basic claim denial just by bankrupting the other side through a long drawn out court process.

Most people who are in that position are already in financial trouble and cannot afford the attorney fees for a courtfight in the first place.

If a person has a winnable case, there are attorneys like Edwards and Brokovich there to represent and profit from it. Someone not being able to sue a giant company with billions of dollars is an indication that they never had a case.

Unless the insurance company doesn't want to pay in which case they use a loophole to deny the legitimate claim... like hiring an in-house medical reviewer to claim a treatment is "experimental" which is wholly subjective and based on that person's opinion alone.

If the company has paid for someone else to have the treatment, they have no case denying someone else. One sentence wins that case "Have you paid other clients with the same policy for this treatment?"

I guess in your world major corporations don't ever hire accountants to find loopholes so that they can cheat on their taxes either?

I guess in your world, you hysterically speculate that they do. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Another good subject that should be touched on in high school economics.

[Loyal Rogue]

I don't think that is remotely true. Over-all, the US has the best quality of health care in the world if you don't use any of the metrics commonly used by any authority in the world that measures overall quality of medical care and just focus on a single type of illness.

Fixed.

28% funding from NIH. That indicates that more than double that comes from industry.

And as I mentioned, the funding from for-profit industry does not go to the same kind of research as non-profit university and government research.
There is a huge difference both in profit margins and actual medical benefits between something like a polio vaccine and something like a heartburn drug clone.
One saves lives, the other is a billion dollar a year industry.
Guess which one the "industry" is pursuing with it's dollars.

If a person has a winnable case, there are attorneys like Edwards and Brokovich there to represent and profit from it. Someone not being able to sue a giant company with billions of dollars is an indication that they never had a case.

In a single word... Bull****.
That may be the most ridiculous and out-of-touch-with-reality assumption you've ever made.

You are stating unequivocally that every single legitimate case is prosecuted in court and won or it wasn't a legitimate case to begin with?!?

You are also stating unequivocally that every bankrupt patient with a simple claim denial can just call up a famous attorney and have them represent the case for free?!?

We're talking about ordinary, everyday claim denials for expensive medical treatments, not some one-in-a-million case of a defective product killing a child.

If the company has paid for someone else to have the treatment, they have no case denying someone else. One sentence wins that case "Have you paid other clients with the same policy for this treatment?"

The problem being that most people that get screwed by the insurance industry cannot afford to hire an attorney, take a few years off from work, and continue to pay the mounting legal fees in order to see the case through to the end.
However, the insurance company can afford to put you in exactly that situation.
Your hypothetical question is moot if it never gets the chance to be uttered in court.

I guess in your world, you hysterically speculate that they do. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.

And I guess you don't understand the difference between right and wrong so long as you can get away with it.

Trivia question for you... guess who paid the IRS more taxes this year, me and our little web design company, or General Electric who made over $10 billion last year?
If you guessed me, you are correct.
GE paid $0 by exploiting loopholes and diverting profits to overseas tax shelters.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-...ate-taxes.html

[silverx2]

How then do you explain UPS and FedEX outperforming USPS?



I don't think that is remotely true. Over-all, the US has the best quality of health care in the world. It just arguably costs too much.



Show me one that he was good in.

really? i mean are you seriously trying to compare Parcel services such as fedex/ups to postal service usps?

UPS and FEDEX are doing better because we dont have ****ing replicators from star trek, when i order a physical item online, in order for it to get to me someone needs to deliver it. Sending a 15lb box of crap != sending 15 word documents to Dave in Wisconsin.

As for the movies, he won an oscar for goodwill hunting, which is pretty good. all three bourn movies changed the way action spy movies are made, and he was very convincing in that part despite alot of people questioning the casting initially. the rain maker also a good movie which ironically is about healthcare. he was just nominated for the movie invictus, which apparently was really good but didnt seem like my type of movie, the departed was a pretty good movie if your into mob thrillers, courage under fire showed how committed he is to his rolls losing an unhealthy amount of weight.

[gerbick]

Matt Damon sucks. So does this thread now.

[FlashLackey]

Fixed.

You mean metrics used to manipulate statistics to further a political ideology.

There's no metricking out of the bottom line that if you get cancer in the US, our health care system has a significantly better chance of keeping you alive than those in countries that supposedly have better over-all systems.

Cancer is nearly tied with Heart Disease as the two leading causes of death in the world. The next cause down (stroke) has 1/5th the rate of occurrance of either. In other words, other countries could theoretically be better at saving lives for most other leading illnesses and still wouldn't net more saved lives than the US due to their ability with cancer. Of course, the reality most likely is that the US leads in other illnesses as well. The idea that they would be good with cancer and not with other less complicated illnesses isn't very plausible.

And as I mentioned, the funding from for-profit industry does not go to the same kind of research as non-profit university and government research.

Substantiate this.

You are stating unequivocally that every single legitimate case is prosecuted in court and won or it wasn't a legitimate case to begin with?!?

How is an indication unequivocal. An indication is a reference to evidence in one direction. And I stand by that. The burden is on you to substantiate that any significant number of legitimate cases are lost in the way that you theorize.

You are also stating unequivocally that every bankrupt patient with a simple claim denial can just call up a famous attorney and have them represent the case for free?!?

No. I'm saying that if a patient has a legitimate case, there is an entire industry of lawyers in every state that pursues such cases full time on a contingency basis. They don't need to be famous.

We're talking about ordinary, everyday claim denials for expensive medical treatments, not some one-in-a-million case of a defective product killing a child.

If an insurance company denies legitimate coverage that results in medical harm, that is a high value case. The law firms that make huge profits in that business aren't getting by on one-in-a-million cases alone.

The problem being that most people that get screwed by the insurance industry cannot afford to hire an attorney, take a few years off from work, and continue to pay the mounting legal fees in order to see the case through to the end.
However, the insurance company can afford to put you in exactly that situation.
Your hypothetical question is moot if it never gets the chance to be uttered in court.

A person getting legitimately screwed by an insurance company does not need to pay legal fees or take any significant time off of work if they indeed have a case. Law firms will take such cases on a contingency basis and do the work for their client. That's how they justify taking a large percentage of the settlements.

Just because there are people out there that are angry that something they want covered isn't doesn't mean that the insurance company did something wrong.

And I guess you don't understand the difference between right and wrong so long as you can get away with it.

Do you write off business expenses or take tax credits?

Trivia question for you... guess who paid the IRS more taxes this year, me and our little web design company, or General Electric who made over $10 billion last year?
If you guessed me, you are correct.
GE paid $0 by exploiting loopholes and diverting profits to overseas tax shelters.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-...ate-taxes.html

Thanks for the article, it includes what the problem is, high US tax rates for corporations:

But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.

Anyway, your comparison between you and GE regarding tax is absurd, of course. Capital gains, the profits seen by the actual owners and beneficiaries of the company GE are taxed. So is the income on all of the jobs they produce. So, the amount of tax collected on behalf of GE business AND profit remains astronomical.

really? i mean are you seriously trying to compare Parcel services such as fedex/ups to postal service usps?

Umm, they compete in the same business. So, yes, they are very comparable. Just, some are private, one isn't. Guess which is performing better at the same thing?

As for the movies, he won an oscar for goodwill hunting, which is pretty good. all three bourn movies changed the way action spy movies are made, and he was very convincing in that part despite alot of people questioning the casting initially. the rain maker also a good movie which ironically is about healthcare. he was just nominated for the movie invictus, which apparently was really good but didnt seem like my type of movie, the departed was a pretty good movie if your into mob thrillers, courage under fire showed how committed he is to his rolls losing an unhealthy amount of weight.

I'll be fair and give some credit for goodwill hunting. That's it. The rest is rubbish. How did bourn change the way spy movies are made?

Matt Damon sucks.

Thank you.

[david petley]

health care + movie stars = degenerate thread

[Loyal Rogue]

Neo-conservative voters + rightwing talkingheads + Republican politicians + multinational corporations = Human Centipede

[FlashLackey]

Ad hominem = Not able to support a position.

[gerbick]

Neo-conservative voters + rightwing talkingheads + Republican politicians + multinational corporations = Human Centipede

You forgot their push to lack of regulation and how that's led to more cannibalistic and predatory type of tactics.

[jAQUAN]

I can't help but consider the irony in dismantling enforcement and deregulation is the white colar way of saying "F*ck the po-lice."

[Loyal Rogue]

You forgot their push to lack of regulation and how that's led to more cannibalistic and predatory type of tactics.

Bah... not forgotten... I've just reached the point of getting so bored with speaking to deaf ears that it's not worth the effort.

Besides, when it comes to these kind of political discussions on the interwebs there really isn't any difference in the end results between a well thought out and researched post and a simple poke with a sharp stick.

[hanratty21]

Neo-conservative voters + rightwing talkingheads + Republican politicians + multinational corporations = Human Centipede

I really hope that, if nothing else, human centipede becomes part of the daily lexicon.

...also, would Matt Damon be able to participate in the centipede?

[Loyal Rogue]

The Bourne Centipede ?

I smell another Oscar.

oh...wait. That's not what I smell at all...

[david petley]

Besides, when it comes to these kind of political discussions on the interwebs there really isn't any difference in the end results between a well thought out and researched post and a simple poke with a sharp stick.

That's why I am definitely in the sharp-stick school of debate these days.

d

[FlashLackey]

Besides, when it comes to these kind of political discussions on the interwebs there really isn't any difference in the end results between a well thought out and researched post and a simple poke with a sharp stick.

I think the difference is pretty obvious. One makes a valid point and the other fails to do so.

[gerbick]

Two words: human centipede.

[FlashLackey]

One word: yarr.

[Loyal Rogue]

One word: yarr.

Now you're starting to make sense.

[gerbick]

Ye actually used less words than nonsense. Yay.