Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Again, I am feeling dense here, but I think your point is slipping past me. In the quote above, you are talking hypothetical, correct? In reality, US health insurance providers rarely evaluate individuals for their health conditions before issuing the policy.

This is because the vast majority of Americans receive their health insurance via group policies through their employers.

I admit to not being completely up to date on existing regulations regarding health insurance. Can you explain this more explicitly? I'm thinking this is a reference to pre-existing conditions clauses.

Yeah, althose irresponsible women getting breast cancer and those lazy bums contracting MS.

That cheap rate is therefore likely a combination of understanding that the general pool is likely above-average in terms of health and fitness and that it is subsidized by the US government to the tune of 72%.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Today in the news:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

we all gotta grow up sometime...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

they did this in **** germany too:

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

Where is that 1000 coming from? And how is this legal? And why is that fhaggot mayor?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

UrbanFuturistic

gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. I'll leave why is he mayor to your imagination.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Jimmy Conway: "You took your first pinch like a man and you learned the two greatest things in life."
Young Henry: "What?"
Jimmy: "Look at me. Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut."

UrbanFuturistic

Yeah, that's lost on me. What are you really trying to say?

Nvm. Goodfellas. Either way, what's it got to do with what I said?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

not much.

but they want you to violate the laws of the streets.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

It would indeed be *hypothetical* if it were just a hypothesis, but in reality, this is how health insurance was run before government regulations which effectively "governmentized" private for-profit insuranceEmployer group policies are extremely popular because it is a very effective way of getting healthy "low cost" people to buy (and pay for) health insurance. The idea is that the low-cost people see a lower price for insurance because the "employer" pays for a certain percentage of the insurance. (The second order effect here is that the employee receives a reduced compensation package in the form of lower wages, less vacation, skimpier raises, etc.) And of course, the less-healthy "high cost" people will most definitely purchase the group insurance, because they would have purchased it anyways if the employer hadn't financed part of it. You should note that tobacco users are becoming a BIG issue with some MAJOR companies - some companies are beginning to ban tobacco users from their work force (and they're testing for tobacco use, too). There are a couple reasons for this, but one of the main ideas is that tobacco use HUGELY increases health risk, and therefore insurance premiums. Companies who ban tobacco use are therefore able to purchase lower-cost group insurance, effectively reducing the cost of laborIn the past, there was no such phrase as "pre-existing condition" if you had a long term, high cost problem, your insurance company would drop you at the end of your policy, and (depending on what clauses you paid for), they would also stop paying for your medical treatment. (If your coverage paid for complete treatment of all conditions which began during your policy, then they would pay for all treatment after the termination of your policy, but you paid a higher premium during your policy because you were higher risk.) If you went to a new insurance company, and you had a "pre-existing condition", they would either refuse to insure you, or else your insurance contract would have a clause which relieved them from covering any medical issues related to or arising from your current medical issue. (If you started a policy with diabetes, they wont cover your diabetes, and they won't cover the costs of any medical expenses related to having a toe cut off which resulted from your diabetes) If you're responsible, you get mammograms regularly, and you catch the breast cancer in time for removal (case in point, my mommy). It doesn't make sense for the insurance company to drop your policy, because after they pay for the removal of the cancer, you will continue to be a healthy premium-payer. As far as the other-stuff which *is* a surprise, and *is* costly (such as your example of MS, to which the cause is still unknown), your opinion will likely vary, but my understandably disputable opinion is "survival of the fittest". Maybe one day I'll die by my words, too.Nope, it's not subsidized by the US Government. The US Government does not generate profits, and therefore cannot subsidize anything. It is subsidized by you... THANKS!! (Oh, and it also takes healthy people out of the pool of insurance buyers who would be paying a higher cost for other insurance plans, which in turn increases the rates that everyone else pays for their insurance)

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

A post encompassing two different subjects!

First off, I've actually gotten not so mildly irritated at well-respected press using statism completely..I don't know, effed upily. But blaming all - or even just part of - the bad in society on statism is as foolish as blaming all of - or even just part of - the good in society on statism. Saying statism is bad for (insert reason here) is logically equivalent to saying the entire Human race is bad because Hitler. Saying statism is good for (insert reason here) is equivalent to saying the entire human race is good because Joe Perez.

"Statism" is a category almost as encompassing as "the human race". Any form of government, except for one (anarchy) falls under it. Hearing news people go off on how it is good or bad because X makes me convinced the news /has/ gone full retard.

Secondly, and this is an interesting topic for me. I mean, I know how two people on here are going to react to this news article, but I'm interested in what other people have to say and the reasonings for them that will incur. Disclaimer: It's from the Daily Fail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ody-parts.html

Now, if the guy had thrown - even by accident - something at the train and it caused the lady to get a broken leg, wrist, and an injured shoulder, I do not think anyone in here would disagree with me in saying that the guy would be liable for her injuries.

Does this change when it is his body parts? Seriously, do people think the court overreached? Do you think it was a stupid decision, or a smart one? And, most importantly, why do you think this?

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

Stupid. Why is anyone liable? How are his parents/family liable? The kid is old enough to be on his own. If he was young enough to need adult supervision, and was killed because his parents were not paying attention then maybe.

Or maybe the train station is liable for not better notifying people that a train is coming. They said it was raining and he was using an umbrella. It's more reasonable to argue that the train station did not do a good enough job in notifying people of an incoming train. Or maybe they need to set up barriers to stop flying body parts. I mean since it is feasibly possible to predict that if someone was hit body parts would fly.

In the end, no one should be liable. The lady must assume the risk of things that could possibly happen in the world when she left that morning.

UrbanFuturistic

I agree with FRT. I think had he been acting with malicious intent, the lawsuit would be justified. But it was an accident, not even a suicide. Then again, this is Chicago were talking about here.

There should have been something that distinguished this train from other, slower moving trains, at the very least. So I could see a suit against Amtrak as being justified. But then, I never liked the same level crossings in the city anyhow. Where we lived in the suburbs, you always had to go over or mostly under to get to the platform.

Suing this boys family is only going to add insult to the injury of losing their child in such a horrific fashion. I could see both raising suit against Amtrak, but again, this is very left leaning Chicago were dealing with here, so it's not surprise to me that this woman is looking for what ultimately equates to a handout.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Isn't is common to sue the family of the teenager who crashed his car full of friends who all die the the accident?

how is this any different?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/

So, it's official. The DHS is interested in what YOU are saying about it - and are paying a company to spy on you to find out what you are saying about it.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

more jon stewart and rp