redkim's Comments (260)

“I made up my mind then and there, I would never cheat anyone on any claim I ever worked. There are others, however, who did not feel the way I did. I even had management at one point try to do something that wasn't legal. I stood up at the meeting and said there was no way I would participate in his scheme. I was the only one who stood up to him and he backed down. That does not always happen.

Insurance companies are there worst enemies and they should be regulated to keep them in line. Otherwise, they would take your money, deny your claims and keep raising your rates. Government MUST regulate them.”

“The problem with a state based co-op is they would not have the purchasing power to do what insurance companies do - get the best rates.

As a retired insurance (fraud investigator) employee, let me give you a little background on insurance companies. I worked in the industry for 35 years, and every single regulation I can think of was brought about by what insurance companies failed to do or did when they shouldn't have. Insurance companies (and other businesses) complain about regulations, but they bring them on themselves by doing things they shouldn't do.

When I was 18, I had a accident when an on-coming car was towing a car behind him with a chain (his wife was behind the wheel of the second car). The chain snapped and the car being towed veered into my lane causing me to take to the shoulder to avoid and striking a speed limit sign. Her company denied my claim because there was no contact. My damage was less than my deductible so my insurance company wasn't involved. When I started working for another insurance carrier, I learned that my claim should not have been denied.”

“The public option is a very limited pool that 85% of us won't be eligible to participate in, but those who can will receive some benefit. It will, however, still not cover everyone. And probably will not do as much as we hope to bring down premiums (unless the Wyden Amendment passes). So, in that respect, I am also against the public option, but not because it is a government plan. There are many government plans that work better than private insurance - Medicare, VA, Tri-Care. They're not perfect - no system ever is. They only way everyone will get coverage and the premiums will be controllable is through a single payer risk pool (which would mean you pay the premiums to the government and they disburse them to the providers).

HR 676 is a single payer plan that offers no deductibles, no co-pays, vision and dental and would cost a family of 4 about $2700 per year. It is still an employer based program, however. I prefer the Sanders bill (S 703) which is a 2.3% tax to cover your premiums. Again no deductibles, no co-pays and includes vision and dental. We need to eliminate employer based health insurance so wages can go up and businesses can be competitive with the rest of the world.”

“I'm not trying to be snide here, but I don't understand your logic. Insurance does have a place in that people pay into it and, therefore, share the risk. So those members who need it get reimbursed for their loss - no matter who they are. There has to be a place to pool the money in order to share the risk, otherwise everyone is on their own and you might be the one stuck with catastrophic bills and no way to pay them. For profit insurance has no place in health care, but there must be a non-profit risk pool to cover everyone. The only real solution to that is a single payer risk pool.”

“Same here. I refuse to buy insurance at all. It's a scam. I'm not paying hundreds or thousands a year just to get dropped when I actually need the care. I go to the doctor maybe once in five years. Last time was strep throat. The doctor fee was $100 and the antibiotics were absolutely free. And to think I could have spent hundreds of dollars a year for that kind of coverage! A few years before that was a tetanus shot required for a job, and before that it was strep throat again -- seven whole years apart. You can say, "Well you never know when you're going to have something more serious and without insurance you'll be screwed financially," but my reply will be, "If I get something more serious, the insurance company will find a way to screw me financially anyway." So what the hell is the point. I'd rather pay a fine to the gov't than give insurance companies any money. It would just make more sense if that money went towards a public plan instead.”

“Irony: You're telling a conservative former member of the Bush administration that everyone here agrees with one another. You may wish to read Michael Brown's profile.”

“Somehow I doubt the new Tea-PO will let us post our opinions without censor”

“I can respect that. It's just that I along with many other posters on here get pretty frustrated with the lack of rhyme or reason for what gets posted and what doesn't. There are a lot of caustic comments that get posted when a lot of my far more benign ones don't.”

“My comment was based on the fact that they are copying after the huffpost because it obviously reaches the right demographi­c...Of course they want to cash in on that...and yes...I believe they have 'envy' of the wide readership that the huffpost has. Complimenting the huff post while they are still going to try to get the same type of format just geared to right winger nuts no doubt the likes of which Glenn Beck would be proud.”

“forked tongue sun of a gun”

“Nope ... not me.”

“Dunno ... to what other site are you referring?”

“ladyfractal:

I definitely see your point. The problem I'm having though is with who gets to decide what is reasonable? If we say it's the state, then I think we have plenty of evidence where the state is entirely unreasonable in it's broad-stroke application of law. I have a major problem with this because I cannot foresee the state being able to tell the difference in a grave situation as this and a parent refusing to buy their kids braces.”

“While I recognize the point you are making, your solution is no solution at all. There IS, in fact, a way for the state to interfere in this situation which makes *no* judgement--for or against--the religious truth-claims of the parents.

If there is a *reasonable* case to be made that withholding of medical treatment will result in death, then parents are compelled by law to seek medical treatment for their minor children. Failure to do so could be seen as child endangerment and result in the child being taken to someplace where they *can* get medical treatment. Notice that this does not require the state to make ANY evaluation of the truth-claims of some religion or another. Everyone is held to the same standard---if you keep your child from medical treatment, when doing so puts the child at grave risk, then you are abusing your child. Your reasons for doing so become entirely irrelevant.

Cheers
LF”

“Okay. Can you elaborate on where I'm wrong in this post?”

“You are wrong.”

“The state absolutely should interfere when someone's life is at risk. What sucks is that people like you put religious freedom over the welfare of the individual. So if I allowed my child to die KNOWING that there was a cure I'm not at fault because I belong to a particular religion? I'm not at fault because I had good intentions? Now I know why the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" exists.”

“drunk drivers? apples and oranges. The drivers know that getting behind the wheel while intoxicated is dangerous, but their intention is generally not to kill someone.

The difference, of course, is that people like the Worthingtons do not know that what they are doing is dangerous and they have no intention of killing their child.”

“Drunk drivers don't "intend" to kill anyone, but they often do. Should we pardon them because their intent was to get home?”

“That's correct, I don't think that. The parents were praying for healing, which means that they had no intention of harming the child.”

“And you don't think your comment I'm replying to, applies equally to the child victim described in this post?”

“Subtle? Subtle????­??????????­?? Let's not be subtle when something is WRONG.”

“The state SHOULDN'T be subtle, in situations like this. The parents, and their friends, are murderers.”