NationStates

Rikese wrote:I'm not. Engineers really don't get hit by an economic crisis, if ever. Some people who have done something to upset management or travel under the radar do get laid off. But the profession as a whole does not suffer because it is a profession which is always in demand due to the arduous process of becoming an engineer.

And where do the engineers go when say, Boeing lays off a whole bunch of its aeronautics engineers and nobody else is hiring due to the slowdown in demand for aircraft?

DaWoad wrote:nope, you want to claim that insurance companies don't have a vested intrest in making a profit?

Private insurance companies are for profit. What is your point? This does not change the fact that you have exactly the coverage provided for in your contract.

Hiddenrun wrote:

Niicha wrote:My question must have gotten lost in this 12+ thread.

Hiddenrun, given your economic views that individuals should be responsible for their own fiscal lives with no government interference, do you advocate the same for civil rights issues? Ex. Legalizing drugs, gay marriage, anything that let's people rise and fall based on their own merits

No. I'm only discussing fiscal matters.

So basically, you claim that the Government should not be allowed to interfere in services and tax people to pay for these services, yet fully support the Government being allowed to restrict gay marriage.

In short-hand: a hypocrite.

Hydesland wrote:

Treznor wrote:In fact, they do. They're the reason people avoid getting basic care by raising prices to the point where people have to choose between medical care and eating.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like total bullshit. Prove that health insurance companies are increasing prices for the specific purpose to force people to only buy their services when a serious emergency comes up (given that it would totally not be a profit oriented measure, by substantially decreasing their revenue and customer base and would cause the company to have a very undiversified risk base, another anti-profit measure).

Does it matter if it's deliberate or unintended? Prices are going up, health insurance are making record profits and more people are declaring medical bankruptcy. I can Google some links if you like. This trend began when insurance companies started taking over with the intent of "streamlining" healthcare and incidentally increasing profits.

Hydesland wrote:

Treznor wrote:The payout is greater for treatment than prevention. That's why more and more doctors become specialists instead of general practitioners. Pharmaceutical companies make their profits on new drugs for new diseases, so they wine and dine doctors to find reasons to use those new drugs. The insurance companies have to raise premiums to cover the expense of all these specialists and drugs, so people are less inclined to spend money on basic care.

Bold mine. Remember, we're talking about insurance companies, not other segments of the industry.

So, unintended consequences? Profit margins for health insurance companies are skyrocketing. Shall we assume it's merely coincidence?

Hydesland wrote:

Treznor wrote:All because there's profit to be made.

And yet, most of the world, including Europe, are almost entirely dependent on these competitive pharmaceutical companies, funny how that works.

I object to putting profits before people's lives. I find it offensive and immoral. Profit is fine so long as people aren't suffering for it, and that's what's happening in the US. Somehow, it's deemed an "American value."

Hydesland wrote:

Treznor wrote:Denial of coverage is real, and it's on the increase. Competition isn't helping this, and there's good reason to believe that the insurance industry is establishing "industry standards" to weed out "high risk" customers -- even people who are perfectly healthy. Maybe it doesn't make sense, but this is what's happening right now. Something needs to change.

I do support a health service , but there should also definitely be measures against these 'industry standards'. One thing I will mention is that living in Britain, having an NHS does not prevent abuses, I hear weekly reports of many terrible things happening under the system here, I am unconvinced that the bureaucrats the work in the industry are any more concerned about the people.

One of the ways we can introduce competition is by including a public option. Many countries have successfully combined public and private health insurance to keep costs low without driving health insurance providers out of business. We just need to cure people of their kneejerk response to "socialism."

Hiddenrun wrote:Right.

Do you want to jump on the bandwagon of people claiming that insurance companies discard insurance contracts willy nilly? Just so I know if I need to ignore you now or not.

Of course not, that would be stupid. No insurance company discards insurance contracts willy nilly. Why in the world would ANYONE do ANYTHING like that?
That's plain stupid.

No, what insurance companies ACTUALLY do is quite intentionally, deliberately, and often quite maliciously discard contract that have been rendered unprofitable, by any means necessary, and often have their contracts written in such a way to best enable them to do exactly that.

But I"m sure you WILL ignore that, since that seems your modus operendi, to make outragious, unsupported, and fundamentally erronious claims, and blatantly ignore anything that in any way contradicts it. But it doesn't really matter. You might ignore it, but everybody else sees it.

And if you want to try to pull out your "superior knowledge" of this, want to take a guess what field I work in?

Rikese wrote:

Poliwanacraca wrote:
I do hope you're joking.

I'm not. Engineers really don't get hit by an economic crisis, if ever. Some people who have done something to upset management or travel under the radar do get laid off. But the profession as a whole does not suffer because it is a profession which is always in demand due to the arduous process of becoming an engineer.

I rather fear that myself, but I'm holding out hope that maybe, maybe people aren't actually stupid enough to think that the only reason one could be laid off in the middle of an economic crisis is being "awful" at one's job.

Cute.

oh wow . . .you think engineers are somehow safe from recession by virtue of . . .what?
Look recesssions affect EVERYONE by the simply expedient that the finances of EVERYONE are linked to one degree or another. Do you not understandf this? There is NO recessionproof job and even if you are litterally the best at what you do there is no way to insure that you wont get laid off or get a paycut.

Rikese wrote:

Poliwanacraca wrote:
I do hope you're joking.

I'm not. Engineers really don't get hit by an economic crisis, if ever. Some people who have done something to upset management or travel under the radar do get laid off. But the profession as a whole does not suffer because it is a profession which is always in demand due to the arduous process of becoming an engineer.

Engineers are generally employed by companies for various things. If their company folds due to, oh I don't know, an economic recession or something, they're out of a job.

Hiddenrun wrote:If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have it.

What's so special about money, that it gets to override life?

In Christian and Muslim beliefs, isn't it required to give alms to the poor? I'm just saying this because most people I debate with on this topic are nutty Christians.

Hiddenrun wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Congratulations, you have now proven that you have no experience with or knowledge of insurance companies.

Ha, what field do you think I work in?

You people kill me

Considering your naivete, I think you don't work in any industry. I think you live in your mom's basement.

Rikese wrote:

Poliwanacraca wrote:
I do hope you're joking.

I'm not. Engineers really don't get hit by an economic crisis, if ever. Some people who have done something to upset management or travel under the radar do get laid off. But the profession as a whole does not suffer because it is a profession which is always in demand due to the arduous process of becoming an engineer.

I rather fear that myself, but I'm holding out hope that maybe, maybe people aren't actually stupid enough to think that the only reason one could be laid off in the middle of an economic crisis is being "awful" at one's job.

Cute.

I liked "impudent" better.

You honestly believe that losing your job is your own fault? That somehow, if you had just done a better job, the boss would have spared you?

Hiddenrun wrote:Private insurance companies are for profit. .

Yes, they are. That's the problem.

UNIverseVERSE wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have it.

What's so special about money, that it gets to override life?

Hiddenrun has it.

North Suran wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:He came very close to wishing death upon me, no matter how you want to sugar coat it. And considering it has nothing to do with you, I'd suggest minding your own business.

Oh, my mistake.

I was labouring under the misconception that this was a public forum.

Yeah, it's public. We're watching you.

North Suran wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:

Niicha wrote:My question must have gotten lost in this 12+ thread.

Hiddenrun, given your economic views that individuals should be responsible for their own fiscal lives with no government interference, do you advocate the same for civil rights issues? Ex. Legalizing drugs, gay marriage, anything that let's people rise and fall based on their own merits

No. I'm only discussing fiscal matters.

So basically, you claim that the Government should not be allowed to interfere in services and tax people to pay for these services, yet fully support the Government being allowed to restrict gay marriage.

In short-hand: a hypocrite.

No, I said I'm not following your hijack. I am only discussing fiscal matters in this thread. When reading comprehension escapes you, try reading things over again.

Hiddenrun wrote:

Niicha wrote:My question must have gotten lost in this 12+ thread.

Hiddenrun, given your economic views that individuals should be responsible for their own fiscal lives with no government interference, do you advocate the same for civil rights issues? Ex. Legalizing drugs, gay marriage, anything that let's people rise and fall based on their own merits

No. I'm only discussing fiscal matters.

Right, but I still think that it's relevant. How can one claim that fiscal matters and civil matters are seperate? It simply comes down to if you believe that the government should have control over your life or if you should. Now, I won't say I agree with you, in fact I differ by a wide margin on some issues, but I do believe in personal responsibilty in fiscal matters.

Hiddenrun wrote:

DaWoad wrote:nope, you want to claim that insurance companies don't have a vested intrest in making a profit?

Private insurance companies are for profit. What is your point? This does not change the fact that you have exactly the coverage provided for in your contract.

You have obviously never tried to claim what is due to you.

Grade F for not even trying.....

Hiddenrun wrote:

DaWoad wrote:nope, you want to claim that insurance companies don't have a vested intrest in making a profit?

Private insurance companies are for profit. What is your point? This does not change the fact that you have exactly the coverage provided for in your contract.

Right my point isthat if an insurance company is faced with a decision where it stands loose more fullfilling the letter of a contract than not doing so (and you'd have to take into account including public image etc. etc. etc.) they have a vested intrest in doing so.

North Suran wrote:

UNIverseVERSE wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have it.

What's so special about money, that it gets to override life?

Hiddenrun has it.

He's got his. That's where his concern ends.

Niicha wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:

Niicha wrote:My question must have gotten lost in this 12+ thread.

Hiddenrun, given your economic views that individuals should be responsible for their own fiscal lives with no government interference, do you advocate the same for civil rights issues? Ex. Legalizing drugs, gay marriage, anything that let's people rise and fall based on their own merits

No. I'm only discussing fiscal matters.

Right, but I still think that it's relevant. How can one claim that fiscal matters and civil matters are seperate? It simply comes down to if you believe that the government should have control over your life or if you should. Now, I won't say I agree with you, in fact I differ by a wide margin on some issues, but I do believe in personal responsibilty in fiscal matters.

Yet you advocate government control over fiscal matters and none over civil matters?

Farnhamia wrote:

Rikese wrote:

Poliwanacraca wrote:
I do hope you're joking.

I'm not. Engineers really don't get hit by an economic crisis, if ever. Some people who have done something to upset management or travel under the radar do get laid off. But the profession as a whole does not suffer because it is a profession which is always in demand due to the arduous process of becoming an engineer.

I rather fear that myself, but I'm holding out hope that maybe, maybe people aren't actually stupid enough to think that the only reason one could be laid off in the middle of an economic crisis is being "awful" at one's job.

Cute.

I liked "impudent" better.

You honestly believe that losing your job is your own fault? That somehow, if you had just done a better job, the boss would have spared you?

Or, even better, that the magical free market fairy will spare you :|

Neo Art wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:Right.

Do you want to jump on the bandwagon of people claiming that insurance companies discard insurance contracts willy nilly? Just so I know if I need to ignore you now or not.

Of course not, that would be stupid. No insurance company discards insurance contracts willy nilly. Why in the world would ANYONE do ANYTHING like that?
That's plain stupid.

No, what insurance companies ACTUALLY do is quite intentionally, deliberately, and often quite maliciously discard contract that have been rendered unprofitable, by any means necessary, and often have their contracts written in such a way to best enable them to do exactly that.

But I"m sure you WILL ignore that, since that seems your modus operendi, to make outragious, unsupported, and fundamentally erronious claims, and blatantly ignore anything that in any way contradicts it. But it doesn't really matter. You might ignore it, but everybody else sees it.

And if you want to try to pull out your "superior knowledge" of this, want to take a guess what field I work in?

Not that I don't doubt you Neo Art, but you got any sources for that? Just so I print it out and staple it to the foreheads of people who claim that insurance companies work for the interests of the people.

Hiddenrun wrote:

North Suran wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:

Niicha wrote:My question must have gotten lost in this 12+ thread.

Hiddenrun, given your economic views that individuals should be responsible for their own fiscal lives with no government interference, do you advocate the same for civil rights issues? Ex. Legalizing drugs, gay marriage, anything that let's people rise and fall based on their own merits

No. I'm only discussing fiscal matters.

So basically, you claim that the Government should not be allowed to interfere in services and tax people to pay for these services, yet fully support the Government being allowed to restrict gay marriage.

In short-hand: a hypocrite.

No, I said I'm not following your hijack. I am only discussing fiscal matters in this thread. When reading comprehension escapes you, try reading things over again.

Pointing out your blatant hypocrisy in being against Government intervention in fiscal matters yet fully supporting Government intervention in civil matters is not a "hijack".

Hiddenrun wrote:It's not just the whining about needing socialized medicine, it's the entire sense of entitlement that people seem to have. It should be very simple. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have it. Period. If someone wants to get it for you, great. I don't happen to care about you at all, and I resent greatly the belief that I should somehow pay for you to access anything you can't get on your own.

Where do you think this notion came from? This lack of self-sufficiency? Are children being too coddled by their parents? Is it wider social conditioning, top down? For those of you living on the public teat, what makes you think you should be doing so?

its the simple nature of people wanting to take care of others. having responsibility for your fellow human beings.

i mean, i don't want my taxes going to giving other people yachts or cars or tvs... if you don't have the money to buy them, then that's your problem, and not mine. but if someone doesn't have the money to have a necessary medial procedure, or to get the medication they need, then that's a very different story.

Neo Art wrote:

Hiddenrun wrote:Right.

Do you want to jump on the bandwagon of people claiming that insurance companies discard insurance contracts willy nilly? Just so I know if I need to ignore you now or not.

Of course not, that would be stupid. No insurance company discards insurance contracts willy nilly. Why in the world would ANYONE do ANYTHING like that?
That's plain stupid.

No, what insurance companies ACTUALLY do is quite intentionally, deliberately, and often quite maliciously discard contract that have been rendered unprofitable, by any means necessary, and often have their contracts written in such a way to best enable them to do exactly that.

But I"m sure you WILL ignore that, since that seems your modus operendi, to make outragious, unsupported, and fundamentally erronious claims, and blatantly ignore anything that in any way contradicts it. But it doesn't really matter. You might ignore it, but everybody else sees it.

And if you want to try to pull out your "superior knowledge" of this, want to take a guess what field I work in?

Oh, I've already heard of the fearsome powers of Neo Art, uber lawyer! Let the earth tremble at your passing, and let stray dogs howl your name as your shadow slithers by!

More problems are caused by people either refusing to get insurance, or not understanding their responsibilities or coverage under an insurance contract than are caused by shifty dealings in the industry itself. Most of the people crying about insurance either have none, or didn't bother to look into what they were getting. Rather like the fools who hand over their money to investment brokers and don't check back in.