An honest assessment of Islam

[nyantler]

perhaps..

[virgil]

So therefore smokers cost more than non-smokers, and no its not the main reason the insurance industry is messed up, that has more to do with medicare and or welfare abuse.  They only pay back a portion of what a hospital or dr charges, so we the general public pay the difference.

Not sure what you mean by this one.  MC is separate from private insurance companies.  And all payors, MC or private, only pay a percentage of charges.  The percentage that they pay is negotiated via contracts- this is why people go ballistic when they see a hospital bill that shows a $100 charge for an aspirin.  what most people don't understand is that their insurance company is only going to pay their negotiated rate, regardless of the charge.

Legally an employer would have a problem  not hiring someone because they are a smoker.. they could refuse to pay for their health insurance maybe, but to not hire them for smoking would be discrimination...but putting that all aside... as an employer health insurance costs the same for every employee regardless of whether they smoke or not

Not true.  it's being done across the country in many large corporations and healthcare networks.  it's entirely legal.  and, the issue is more than just the fact that smokers drive up the cost of healthcare.  one of the other primary reasons why employers are going in this direction is that, as employees, smokers also miss more work time due to illness, and are generally less productive due to 'smoke breaks'.

[nyantler]

health care still costs the same for all employees...  and health care costs have never gone down and are 6-7 times higher now despite the fact that the number of smokers has lessened by half in the last 50 years... so what we have with smoking is just a scapegoat to justify insurance companies charging ridiculous premiums, nothing more. How can the cost of health care be so much more expensive because of smokers when we have half as many smokers as in 1970?? smoking down 50%... health care costs up 400-700%... that just doesn't add up

I don't know of any employer (find me one if you know of any) who saw their health insurance costs go down in the last 10 years no matter how many smokers they did not hire ... its BS and you know it.

Neither my wife or I smoke and my premium has gone up $400 in the last 18 months

[virgil]

health care still costs the same for all employees    You're still missing the point- maybe purposely.  the costs are the same because the insurance companies are not charging higher premiums for smokers, even though it costs them more to provide coverage for them.  they are passing the cost on to everyone else.  for those of you who argue against the healthcare bill because you don't want to subsidize the cost for people who can't afford coverage, i can't understand why you're not up in arms about footing the bill for smokers.

[nyantler]

i'm not up in arms because its ridiculous.. the people who can't afford coverage can not be denied healthcare by law ... and we already have programs in place that would be the failed medicare and medicaid systems run by our government.

[virgil]

the people who can't afford coverage can not be denied healthcare by law

Again, not really true.  Where are you getting this information? 

[nyantler]

It is  the Law.. a hospital cannot deny any person treatment because they can not pay

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)

[virgil]

It is  the Law.. a hospital cannot deny any person treatment because they can not pay

that's what i thought you were referring to.  that law covers emergency care only.  what about someone with a chronic condition- cancer, HIV, heart disease?  should they not have the right to healthcare?  these conditions are not treated in the emergency department, and, by your rationale, anyone who cannot afford health insurance would not be able to receive treatment.

[Doewhacker]

"Not sure what you mean by this one.  MC is separate from private insurance companies.  And all payors, MC or private, only pay a percentage of charges.  The percentage that they pay is negotiated via contracts- this is why people go ballistic when they see a hospital bill that shows a $100 charge for an aspirin.  what most people don't understand is that their insurance company is only going to pay their negotiated rate, regardless of the charge"

Right, but the % that is paid back is significantly lower from MC than it is from Ins companies is it not? What I meant was the rest of the general public with ins and jobs makes up difference that hospitals and dr.'s are not getting from MC through higher pay back rates. Not to mention the major lag in the time it takes to get the bill paid, but thats a different subject all together.

All of this has lead to hospitals having to change the way they do business, form mergers, and freeze raise's, its deffinetly a changing environment thats for sure.

[virgil]

Right, but the % that is paid back is significantly lower from MC than it is from Ins companies is it not? What I meant was the rest of the general public with ins and jobs makes up difference that hospitals and dr.'s are not getting from MC through higher pay back rates.

Actually, that is not necessarily the case.  It entirely depends on the individual provider's (Hospital, practioner, clinic) contract with each individual private payor.  MC is government sponsored- MC decides how much they will pay for treatment, regardless of what is charged.  You can charge $300 for an office visit, but they will only pay their published rate.  However, in many cases, MC pays much better than private insurance.  When you refer to 'insurance companies', you're referring to private 'for profit' businesses.There are a lot of private insurance plans that pay only a few dollars per visit- which is why so many providers are choosing not to accept these plans.  Nobody is making up the difference between what is charged and what is paid.  That is why hospitals are going out of business and primary care physicians are in short supply.

[SteveB]

It is  the Law.. a hospital cannot deny any person treatment because they can not pay

what about someone with a chronic condition- cancer, HIV, heart disease?  should they not have the right to healthcare?  these conditions are not treated in the emergency department, and, by your rationale, anyone who cannot afford health insurance would not be able to receive treatment.

Everyone has access to those treatments. Just as everyone has access to hier a lawn service. I don't want to pay one cent for anyone to avail themselves of either. There is no right to any service one cannot pay for and there is no way I should be made to cover it for them.

[virgil]

Everyone has access to those treatments. Just as everyone has access to hier a lawn service. I don't want to pay one cent for anyone to avail themselves of either. There is no right to any service one cannot pay for and there is no way I should be made to cover it for them.

so, how would you suggest we handle it?  do you not think that society would be impacted by having massive amounts of people without access to healtcare?

[2BRKnot2B]

If you feel guilty about the plight of native American's, find one and give him all of your property.

Just the type of answer I would expect from you patriots.  I am as guilty as anyone else living in this country for the plight of these people.  I however don't tout all of America's great virtues without acknowledging this very sad fact in our nations past.  Holding ones freedoms to such a degree is nothing short of hypocrisy if we don't give a rats ass about the freedoms we took away from others to get it.

Yep, so typical. Lip service. I admit it, but ain't willing to give up what I have to support my belief, but I'll do whatever I can to tax you to take what you have away to give to these others who deserve your wealth, but not mine. Bunch of leftist jerks. These troll types are on every right thinking group.

[virgil]

Yep, so typical. Lip service. I admit it, but ain't willing to give up what I have to support my belief, but I'll do whatever I can to tax you to take what you have away to give to these others who deserve your wealth, but not mine. Bunch of leftist jerks. These troll types are on every right thinking group.

Huh???

[2BRKnot2B]

Yep, so typical. Lip service. I admit it, but ain't willing to give up what I have to support my belief, but I'll do whatever I can to tax you to take what you have away to give to these others who deserve your wealth, but not mine. Bunch of leftist jerks. These troll types are on every right thinking group.

Huh???

Yep, didn't think you'd understand it.

[virgil]

      Quote from: virgil on Today at 11:56:15 am  <blockquote>Yep, so typical. Lip service. I admit it, but ain't willing to give up what I have to support my belief, but I'll do whatever I can to tax you to take what you have away to give to these others who deserve your wealth, but not mine. Bunch of leftist jerks. These troll types are on every right thinking group.

Huh???

</blockquote>   

Yep, didn't think you'd understand it.     I didn't understand it because it doesn't make any sense.  Or, maybe it was just the fourth grade level grammar. 

[2BRKnot2B]

If you read the quote which I used for the supposition of what I said, then mayhaps you would have understood.

    http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4254/trollsa.gif

[virgil]

You guys do like your cartoons.

[Mr VJP]

Just trying to post things in a manner you might be able to understand them.

;D

[virgil]

Just trying to post things in a manner you might be able to understand them.

Then, try encouraging him to make a coherent argument, instead of defending him for acting like a clown.

[Mr VJP]

I understand his point perfectly.  But maybe that's because I'm logical and analytical.

[2BRKnot2B]

I understand his point perfectly.  But maybe that's because I'm logical and analytical.

Virgil & his pal are most likely paid by the administration to keep hard working folks from their other duties. Protecting our country happens to be something I believe important. Protecting us against further intrusions into our 2A, and other rights starts with being able to have that right. The foolish cannot understand this because their mids are wrapped around a concept other than our constitutional republicanism. they support leftist programs, and denials of right, or even portion of right, so as to advance that agenda. I understand their reasons, i know exactly what they are trying to do. It's trying to get our goat so as to get us mad. Then, they feel they have the moral high ground, because rather than shoot out on the field of battle for their priorities, they have won some major victory in the political, or alliterative, or vocal battlefield. Problem is, I reject their leftist philosophy. I reject their nonsensical admission that they are right, while I am wrong. that they have some superiority by being amoral, then complaining that I am immoral because I wish to give money to those projects I would support instead of the projects they would support. And, worse, their projects proposed, and paid for by the power of the government to tax me to aid them. Socialism is a bad deal, except to the person who receives its benefit. Thus, I can only assume that someone who likes, or is drawn to it, likes taking from others, stealing, in essence, to support their belief. That, is immoral, and against God's commandment that "Thou shalt not steal." 

[steve863]

Thus, I can only assume that someone who likes, or is drawn to it, likes taking from others, stealing, in essence, to support their belief. That, is immoral, and against God's commandment that "Thou shalt not steal."

So you clowns think some of steal from you??  Maybe you guys should get educations and find better jobs?  At Christmas I got a $28,000 bonus from my employer, maybe I can send some money to you fellas?  I'd be more than happy to give to the poor.

[virgil]

Virgil & his pal are most likely paid by the administration to keep hard working folks from their other duties. Protecting our country happens to be something I believe important. Protecting us against further intrusions into our 2A, and other rights starts with being able to have that right. The foolish cannot understand this because their mids are wrapped around a concept other than our constitutional republicanism. they support leftist programs, and denials of right, or even portion of right, so as to advance that agenda. I understand their reasons, i know exactly what they are trying to do. It's trying to get our goat so as to get us mad. Then, they feel they have the moral high ground, because rather than shoot out on the field of battle for their priorities, they have won some major victory in the political, or alliterative, or vocal battlefield. Problem is, I reject their leftist philosophy. I reject their nonsensical admission that they are right, while I am wrong. that they have some superiority by being amoral, then complaining that I am immoral because I wish to give money to those projects I would support instead of the projects they would support. And, worse, their projects proposed, and paid for by the power of the government to tax me to aid them. Socialism is a bad deal, except to the person who receives its benefit. Thus, I can only assume that someone who likes, or is drawn to it, likes taking from others, stealing, in essence, to support their belief. That, is immoral, and against God's commandment that "Thou shalt not steal." 

Forget what i said before- maybe you should cut the pills in half instead.  Nice job though- interjecting religious overtones always makes a person seem more rational.

[virgil]

Socialism is a bad deal, except to the person who receives its benefit. Thus, I can only assume that someone who likes, or is drawn to it, likes taking from others, stealing, in essence, to support their belief. That, is immoral, and against God's commandment that "Thou shalt not steal." 

Again, what exactly are you talking about?  I know that you guys like to use words like 'socialism'.  But, how is it relevant to this conversation?