Interview with former Cigna executive

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:08 pm

Those families should look into Healthwave for their children.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

Not familiar with healthwave. One of the guys who dropped his family plan could squeeze a turd from a buffalo nickle anyways, so if he thinks a government freebie is available he'll take it. Not sure what the others did.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:02 pm

my employer pays my insurance but only for single plans have BCBS through them

All Star Number of posts : 1936 Age : 64 Registration date : 2008-03-26

we have BCBS thru my wifes employer. she is covered at no charge to us, but for me and the kids to be on is about 800 bucks a month.. it sucks

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:44 pm

I pay for my own insurance for my family. Yeah, If I got on the freebie plan I'd have a bunch more $$ in my pocket, BUT I sure as hell trust BCBS more than the Federal Government when it comes to medical coverage.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

I called at 8:00 this morning needing to see a doctor. Got in at 9:20, X-rays by 10:30, the rest of the tests will be done Thursday. I'll stick with my BCBS.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:24 pm

Until you become too expensive and you're dropped from the plan.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

Dropped by BCBS, or put on a waiting list don't make much difference if you need treatment now.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:42 pm

Bighead wrote:: Until you become too expensive and you're dropped from the plan.

As opposed to being too old and dropped from existance.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

A guy I worked with was over 60 and had a quad bypass. He wasn't dropped and if it's worse than that I'm probably dead anyways.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:27 pm

Link to 0bama's plan for Amerika

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

That's one of the big worries. Just how long will you have to wait if you have a serious condition? And if no one is going to be left out, just how big will the taxes need to be to pay for all the uninsured who rack up $100,000 or bigger bills?

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:33 am

Despina D. Karras wrote:: A reader asks: what will ObamaCare cost me?
Last week, I shared my thoughts on why Americans are turning on ObamaCare here on AIP. A reader named Liz commented on my post, asking for information on how the current proposals before Congress would impact her premiums. Like me, Liz has a high deductible insurance linked to a health savings account. Her annual premium for a family of four costs $6,000. If Liz finds herself insured under the public option, either by choice or because it becomes her only viable option, what will her premiums cost?

I set out to do some research to see if there were any hard numbers floating around on the internet because, as Liz guessed, there certainly aren't any in the bill. While there haven't been any premiums set by Congress, analysts have been able to make some predictions as to how premiums will be impacted. Here's what we do know.

This WSJ article offers great insight into the trajectory premiums would surely take under ObamaCare.

Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit "discrimination against the sick"—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.

Another proposed reform known as "community rating" imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.

New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.

Of course, it's no surprise that these additional regulations on insurance come at a price. If people can purchase insurance at any time and have every medical problem covered, assuming the premiums are more expensive than the penalty fees one would pay for not having insurance under ObamaCare, which is most likely a safe assumption to make, it is inevitable that many would only opt in when facing a medical issue. And everyone else who is responsible and maintains coverage in both good and bad times would foot the bill.

In addition, if doctors are under-reimbursed under ObamaCare, as they are under Medicare and Medicaid, they would try to recoup those losses somewhere else, namely by shifting the costs onto private insurers. This would, in turn, drive up insurance premiums for private insurance. One study suggests that premiums would increase between 75 and 95% under ObamaCare. And of course, as the cost of private insurance increases, more individuals and employers will be forced to switch to the public option. This is why private insurance cannot endure in a system with a public option.

In addition to the higher premiums individuals like Liz would face, there is also the penalty that small business would incur if they cannot afford to insure their employees. Jimmie Bise crunched the numbers for us here at AIP last month. He assumed a 4 or 6% penalty on small business with payrolls (not profits, payrolls - an important distinction) of $250,000 or more. The current floor for the penalty begins at 2% for payrolls of $500,000 or more and increases to 8% as payrolls increase. These penal costs will have serious consequences. Businesses will be forced to let employees go, adding more people to the unemployment lines. Or, they might try to recoup costs by raising prices, which in this economic climate, is not good for private businesses or consumers.

And finally, there is also the matter of the tax hikes that will have to be implemented to pay for this huge government program. Taxes will surely be raised on the top income brackets, which include small business owners and investors who will not have that capital to invest and will not create new businesses, opportunities and jobs they otherwise could have. However, with health care costs adding to the deficit above and beyond the $239 billion figure originally estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, it might not just be the so-called rich facing tax increases.

ObamaCare’s deficit hole will eventually have to be filled one way or another—along with Medicare’s unfunded liability of some $37 trillion. That means either reaching ever-deeper into middle-class pockets with taxes, probably with a European-style value-added tax that will depress economic growth. Or with the very restrictions on care and reimbursement that have been imposed on Medicare itself as costs exploded.
Going back to Liz's original question, Liz and others like her, including as many as 88 million Americans that could be forced into the public option (according to a study by the Lewin Group), can expect to pay premiums that are increased by as much as 75 to 95% under ObamaCare. Add in the penalties for small business owners and tax hikes, along with the collateral damage to the economy, and the cost of this program is astronomical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Star Number of posts : 3675 Registration date : 2008-03-25

One Woman's View

"Throughout this ordeal, I've never received one dime from lawsuits, disability funds, welfare, or any entitlement program … and our family continues to live on a modest salary. At the end of 2008, our current debt for my nearly $9 million in medical bills, including more than $10,000 in ongoing monthly prescriptions, is zero. That's right … no debt!
Due to extreme diligence, my family thrives in this medical nightmare. Although considered "uninsurable," we have changed insurance companies six times since my accident without experiencing an even one-hour gap in coverage. I wear the best prosthetic limbs on the market, and whatever my doctors deem medically necessary … is readily available to me. The answer is not because I am a privileged member of society, nor is it because I am wealthy (you'd laugh … or cry…if you saw our checkbook). No, the answer comes from the one topic everyone seems to avoid: personal responsibility."

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:00 pm

So I think what you're saying, EP, is that when people are uninsured and can't afford medical care- or when they're bankrupted just to stay alive... it's their fault. Do I understand you correctly?

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

I think the point is that if you need insurance, and want it bad enough, you'll work to get it, or at least try. But if you voted for Obama you probably want to sit and drink 40 ouncers in front of the tube all day while big bro pays for everything.

All Star Number of posts : 3675 Registration date : 2008-03-25

Bighead wrote:: So I think what you're saying, EP, is that when people are uninsured and can't afford medical care- or when they're bankrupted just to stay alive... it's their fault. Do I understand you correctly?

Not my words.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:47 pm

So then what exactly was your point, EP? 'Cause it sounds to me like you're accusing people of going without adequate medical care and/or going bankrupt due to sheer laziness. Am I misunderstanding you here?

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:05 pm

Ratzilla wrote:: I think the point is that if you need insurance, and want it bad enough, you'll work to get it, or at least try. But if you voted for Obama you probably want to sit and drink 40 ouncers in front of the tube all day while big bro pays for everything.

How about I just sum up all of your posts on the topic so far:

"I got mine so FUCKk YOU".

All Star Number of posts : 3675 Registration date : 2008-03-25

Bighead wrote:: So then what exactly was your point, EP? 'Cause it sounds to me like you're accusing people of going without adequate medical care and/or going bankrupt due to sheer laziness. Am I misunderstanding you here?

No, but there is such a thing as choices. At least until you and BO get your way. Many of these "poor" people are young, single and make the choice not to carry insurance, even though group insurance is offered by their employers. They don't want the expense, and since they feel invincible, why do they need it? They're not lazy, but they choose to spend their money on other things. The same people who wouldn't think of spending $150 a month on health insurance have no problem with borrowing $35,000 in order to drive that "cool" car they want, many times ending up with $500 per month car payments. They also have no problem with paying $125 or more per month for every tier of cable or satellite programming, including every movie channel in the sky. And don't even think about suggesting that they give up the cell phone and get a land line or VOIP. Add to that, they download ringtones as fast as they can. "It's only $1.99!" Yeah, and you download 30 a month.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:26 pm

Bighead wrote:: So then what exactly was your point, EP? 'Cause it sounds to me like you're accusing people of going without adequate medical care and/or going bankrupt due to sheer laziness. Am I misunderstanding you here?

Yeah, pretty much. The woman that he quoted was simply an example of many people who punch holes in one of the talking points that Obama and the rest of the liberals are trying to convince the public of:

If you have a pre-existing condition, NO insurance company will insure you and you will be be bankrupt.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:27 pm

$150/month for health insurance?? Do you work for the government?

Actually, that's about what I paid for health insurance when I lived in Hays. But that's hard to come by in my line of work these days.

But yeah, you have a point. And you and I would both agree that the ONLY workable long-term solution to this whole healthcare mess is more competition and less regulation (though what I mean by 'less regulation' is quite likely different from what Rush Limbaugh means by 'less regulation'.)

But I have a few problems with this obvious solution:

1. Nobody is SERIOUSLY proposing the necessary changes and introducing any real competition. The ONLY reason that Republicans are even talking about the issue is to oppose the Democrats. As soon as the Socialist Boogey-man threat has passed, they'll never utter another word about it (except perhaps to slide in a few more buddy-buddy deals under the radar).

2. You're defending a damn near indefensible industry that thrives on a LACK of competition. What we have now is NOT capitalism. This isn't a nazi-comparison- it's a simple economic statement: What we have right now is fascism (an unholy collusion of government and industry), in an economic sense.

3. While the Democrats' proposal is a LONG way from ideal IMO, at least they're willing to address the issue. And despite your talk-radio rhetoric, socialism (while inefficient) does ROUTINELY work- even in this country. Hell, these Dems might accidentally improve things.

So yeah, I'm still not really on-board with ObamaCare, despite my devil's-advocacy. But I'm pretty sick of the Republicans' obvious lies and hyperbole... and their complete lack of interest in the issue.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:29 pm

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:: So then what exactly was your point, EP? 'Cause it sounds to me like you're accusing people of going without adequate medical care and/or going bankrupt due to sheer laziness. Am I misunderstanding you here?

Yeah, pretty much. The woman that he quoted was simply an example of many people who punch holes in one of the talking points that Obama and the rest of the liberals are trying to convince the public of:

If you have a pre-existing condition, NO insurance company will insure you and you will be be bankrupt.

I think a little more detail would be in order before we can say that those holes have been punched. How'd she do it? And how can others do the same?

One single example with no details whatsoever hardly dispels the FACT that some people with preexisting conditions simply can't afford health insurance.

All Star Number of posts : 3675 Registration date : 2008-03-25

Bighead wrote:: $150/month for health insurance?? Do you work for the government?

I'm talking single coverage with the employer picking up a good percentage. I actually pay about $75 per week for family coverage.

Bighead wrote:: But yeah, you have a point. And you and I would both agree that the ONLY workable long-term solution to this whole healthcare mess is more competition and less regulation (though what I mean by 'less regulation' is quite likely different from what Rush Limbaugh means by 'less regulation'.)

Then what's the huge hurry? Why do they have to shove a bill down our throats that they haven't read, can't explain and don't understand? Why not back off this urgency and do it right?

Bighead wrote:: But I have a few problems with this obvious solution:

1. Nobody is SERIOUSLY proposing the necessary changes and introducing any real competition. The ONLY reason that Republicans are even talking about the issue is to oppose the Democrats. As soon as the Socialist Boogey-man threat has passed, they'll never utter another word about it (except perhaps to slide in a few more buddy-buddy deals under the radar).

Then we, the electorate, should get them talking about it. The Democrats have already moved on to reintroducing the amnesty bill.

Bighead wrote:: 2. You're defending a damn near indefensible industry that thrives on a LACK of competition. What we have now is NOT capitalism. This isn't a nazi-comparison- it's a simple economic statement: What we have right now is fascism (an unholy collusion of government and industry), in an economic sense.

3. While the Democrats' proposal is a LONG way from ideal IMO, at least they're willing to address the issue. And despite your talk-radio rhetoric, socialism (while inefficient) does ROUTINELY work- even in this country. Hell, these Dems might accidentally improve things.

"Doing something" and "doing the right thing" are not one in the same.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:53 pm

Yes, but the Republican approach to healthcare is "do nothing". This has been demonstrated year after year. Don't know how much more proof you need. Now, I'll grant that MAYBE now that the Dems have brought the issue to a head, MAYBE the Repubs will be forced to act on it. And depending on what they come up with, MAYBE I'll support them. But I have my doubts.

I agree that they should take their time with this. I'm glad that the Dems have been bit in the ass by trying to ram this through too quickly. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

But I'm still just plain disgusted with how the Repubs have responded to all this. I can understand principled opposition. Hell, I can even understand just plain partisan opposition. Even the outright LIES don't surprise me. But what disgusts me about this whole 'debate' lately is just how willing and even EAGER the Republican base has been to swallow and act on obvious lies. You know, over the years, I've almost ALWAYS come to side with whichever party is NOT in power. But I'm having a real hard time taking you ass-clowns seriously.

Death panels... for fuckk's sake. Even the whole socialism thing is a stretch- it's ENTIRELY based on the notion that the 'government option' is a 'camel's nose'.

All Star Number of posts : 3675 Registration date : 2008-03-25

All Star Number of posts : 3675 Registration date : 2008-03-25

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

Bighead wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:: I think the point is that if you need insurance, and want it bad enough, you'll work to get it, or at least try. But if you voted for Obama you probably want to sit and drink 40 ouncers in front of the tube all day while big bro pays for everything.

How about I just sum up all of your posts on the topic so far:

"I got mine so FUCKk YOU".

Taking lessons from slider now? There is "NO" reason that I should be agreeable to any system where those who are not American citizens, or are but don't want to work for a living should get medical care by way of my taxes. For this to be even a remotely good idea there would have to be a few things considered. Such as....

1.. Only American citizens should be eligible.
2.. You must be employed and a taxpayer, or the dependant of someone who is.
3.. If not employed you must be either retired or certified as disabled by at least two physicians or mental health professionals unknown to each other.

And that's just for a start. We already have enough trouble covering the medical needs of seniors, and they already need to carry extra insurance for what medicare doesn't cover. If you just open the doors to healthcare for all without serious guidelines it'll suck us dry.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:47 pm

A few obvious points, Ratzilla:

1. NOBODY is proposing a national health plan that would cover illegal aliens. It's a lie that's been thoroughly debunked, and you'd know that if you were interested in the truth of the matter rather than the latest spin and hyperbole.

2. Millions of people who DO work and pay taxes can't afford basic healthcare. And considering your age, wage, and skill level... you could EASILY join those ranks at any moment.

3. I agree with your last point. But the current system in BULLSHIT, and I'm glad that at least the Socialists are willing to address it. The Fascists don't give a rat's ass about healthcare, other than protecting their buddies' profits.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

1.. Illegals already get healthcare, and welfare. And so do lazy asses that just want to suck on the government tit. Are you saying that won't increase dramatically if no one can be turned away?

2.. There's nothing to argue there. The working uninsured/underinsured are getting hosed. But I think the greed of insurance companies and the medical community need to be addressed rather than just lay the bill on the taxpayers.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:50 pm

You know, I'm not a huge fan of welfare. And I have mixed feelings about illegal immigration. But I don't rant a whole lot on either subject, 'cause it isn't nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.

Well, and there's that whole xenophobia thing. But that's just part of life in Hays.

Have a look here:

http://www.tindallfoster.com/immigrationresources/policypapers/IllegalImmigrantsOnWelfare.pdf

Quote :: Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction?
The Houston Chronicle
January 25, 2008
Illegal immigrants swarm into our country and quickly jump on the welfare rolls. They cost hard-working U.S. citizens billions and billions of dollars in taxes because of this subsidy.
That's a familiar, easy charge leveled by critics of illegal immigration. But is it fact or fiction?
It's actually a myth, according to the Congressional Research Service, the investigative arm of Congress. This point is highlighted as one of the "top five immigration myths of the campaign season," a list put out by the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Here's their look at welfare:
MYTH #3: The nation spends billions of dollars on welfare for undocumented immigrants.
FACTS: To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive.
As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits -- ever.
Legal permanent residents (LPRs) must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for approximately 10 years before they are eligible to receive benefits when they retire. In most cases, LPRs can not receive SSI, which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards.
A 2007 analysis of welfare data by researchers at the Urban Institute reveals that less than 1 percent of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5 percent of households headed by native-born U.S. citizens.
A 2007 analysis of U.S. Census data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes clear that it is the U.S.-born, U.S.-citizen children of undocumented immigrants who are eligible for programs such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The analysis found that, between 1995 and 2005, the share of low-income, non- citizen immigrant children (either undocumented or legally present) who received Medicaid or SCHIP dropped from 36 percent to 30 percent.

Less stats and more perspective here: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-04-02.asp

Now I know that you have personal reasons for begrudging Mexicans. We all have personal reasons for our opinions. But you're largely talking out your ass on the subject, and you'd do well to read up on it.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

Quote :: A 2007 analysis of welfare data by researchers at the Urban Institute reveals that less than 1 percent of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5 percent of households headed by native-born U.S. citizens.

Less than 1/10th of 1% is ten times too much. How many needy US residents do you suppose recieve cash assistance from the Mexican government?

Quote :: A 2007 analysis of U.S. Census data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes clear that it is the U.S.-born, U.S.-citizen children of undocumented immigrants who are eligible for programs such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program

They're called anchor babies. Come across the border, pop out a kid and get welfare, housing benefits, food allowance cards, etc.

By the way, I notice you use Tindall Foster Legal services as your source. Immigration lawyers, yeah I'm sure they're unbiased.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:21 pm

Yeah, anchor babies... aka American Citizens. Sorry if you don't like how the law is written, but the vast majority of the 'welfare' that you're whining about goes toward these kids who are American citizens.

Also, not sure if I understand you here- correct me if I'm wrong. But if you're going to begrudge people who use mandatory emergency care, then I'm really not interested in discussing the matter. You're an idiot.

Quote :: 2.. There's nothing to argue there. The working uninsured/underinsured are getting hosed. But I think the greed of insurance companies and the medical community need to be addressed rather than just lay the bill on the taxpayers.

That's kinda what the Dems are trying to address. You may not agree with their methods- hell, I have my doubts. But at least they're willing to look into the issue. You'll get NOTHING from the Other party.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

Bighead wrote:: Yeah, anchor babies... aka American Citizens. Sorry if you don't like how the law is written, but the vast majority of the 'welfare' that you're whining about goes toward these kids who are American citizens.

Them anchor babies must be whippy smart in Wichita, because around here it's their mothers who are getting the checks and punching food assistance card pin numbers in at the Dillons checkout line.

Bighead wrote:: Also, not sure if I understand you here- correct me if I'm wrong. But if you're going to begrudge people who use mandatory emergency care, then I'm really not interested in discussing the matter.

First off, I didn't know any medical care was mandatory. If so alot of EMT's are in trouble for allowing patients to sign refusal of treatment forms.

I don't recall saying we should deny "emergency" treatment to the uninsured or anyone. I didn't always have insurance and did go to the ER a time or two. After it was done they sent the bill to me and I paid it. You think that's wrong?

Bighead wrote:: You're an idiot.

You wish.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:44 pm

Ratzilla wrote:: I think the greed of insurance companies and the medical community need to be addressed.

I always thought the idea of going into business was to make money? I guess I've been doing it wrong. The folks have too. Thanks for the heads up.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:15 am

Go ahead, Nitro. Let's hear you defend an industry that profits massively in a restricted (meaning NOT free) market, taking advantage of regulations written by their OWN lobbyists, and whose main incentive is to deny coverage to people who have paid for it. Ever wonder WHY your mom has those 'battles' with the insurance industry all the time? They screw up on purpose- its in their direct interest. So please explain to us how these business practices benefit anybody except the insurance company and its investors.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead wrote:: Also, not sure if I understand you here- correct me if I'm wrong. But if you're going to begrudge people who use mandatory emergency care, then I'm really not interested in discussing the matter.

First off, I didn't know any medical care was mandatory. If so alot of EMT's are in trouble for allowing patients to sign refusal of treatment forms.

Told you you were an idiot.

Quote :: I don't recall saying we should deny "emergency" treatment to the uninsured or anyone. I didn't always have insurance and did go to the ER a time or two. After it was done they sent the bill to me and I paid it. You think that's wrong?

You've whined quite a bit about free medical care for illegal immigrants. And mandatory emergency care (meaning that it's mandatory that emergency rooms provide at least some level of care, dumbass) is the main 'free medical care' that they get. Maybe I misunderstood you. Or maybe you misunderstood the situation entirely. Probably both.

And they'll be billed for it- I never said that that's wrong. But it's a simple fact that it'll be damn near impossible to collect from people who are broke and/or are in the country illegally. That's what makes it 'free'.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:: You're an idiot.

You wish.

I won't hold it against you though like I do with Nitro. All idiots are not created equal.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:08 am

Bighead wrote:: Go ahead, Nitro. Let's hear you defend an industry that profits massively in a restricted (meaning NOT free) market, taking advantage of regulations written by their OWN lobbyists, and whose main incentive is to deny coverage to people who have paid for it. Ever wonder WHY your mom has those 'battles' with the insurance industry all the time? They screw up on purpose- its in their direct interest. So please explain to us how these business practices benefit anybody except the insurance company and its investors.

I'm not going to defend them. They can defend themselves.

What I do get a kick out of is how you and others bitch about lobbyists knowing full well that if you were in the same industry(or others that use this practice), that you would be doing the same damn thing. If you deny it you're a liar and a hypocrite.

Who do the insurance company's lobbyists lobby to? The Government.

Who do they want to run healthcare? The Government.

The great pillar of effiency. The Government.

The "battles" will still happen. Only difference will be who you have to battle with.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:18 am

And you would prefer what? That the current system remain unchanged?

Quote :: What I do get a kick out of is how you and others bitch about lobbyists knowing full well that if you were in the same industry(or others that use this practice), that you would be doing the same damn thing. If you deny it you're a liar and a hypocrite.

Sure I'll deny it. But I won't deny being a liar and a hypocrite.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

After reading your replies to me Bighead, I won't call you an idiot. I don't want to insult any idiots.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:: I think the greed of insurance companies and the medical community need to be addressed.

I always thought the idea of going into business was to make money? I guess I've been doing it wrong. The folks have too. Thanks for the heads up.

nitro, Do your mom and dad fly in Lear jets and live in a mansion while their customers scrape to make payments? Being in business to make money and sucking every last cent possible out of the customer while expecting to live in luxury yourself isn't quite the same.

Might be if corporate execs could suffer along on half a million a year salaries instead of ten million it might be easier. Greed has gripped America strong man. Everyone has to have what that other guys got.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:11 am

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:: Go ahead, Nitro. Let's hear you defend an industry that profits massively in a restricted (meaning NOT free) market, taking advantage of regulations written by their OWN lobbyists, and whose main incentive is to deny coverage to people who have paid for it. Ever wonder WHY your mom has those 'battles' with the insurance industry all the time? They screw up on purpose- its in their direct interest. So please explain to us how these business practices benefit anybody except the insurance company and its investors.

I'm not going to defend them. They can defend themselves.

What I do get a kick out of is how you and others bitch about lobbyists knowing full well that if you were in the same industry(or others that use this practice), that you would be doing the same damn thing. If you deny it you're a liar and a hypocrite.

Who do the insurance company's lobbyists lobby to? The Government.

Who do they want to run healthcare? The Government.

The great pillar of effiency. The Government.

The "battles" will still happen. Only difference will be who you have to battle with.

Ok, so your argument boils down to this: government interventions in the free market won't work. Something close to that?

Well government interventions into the free market are working SPECTACULARLY for insurance companies and much of the healthcare industry. Interventions that the industry lobbied for in many cases. So tell me exactly why government interventions into the free market can't work for ME. Are industries the only entities that you reckon should lobby for their own interests?

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:41 am

Bighead wrote:: tell me exactly why government interventions into the free market can't work for ME. Are industries the only entities that you reckon should lobby for their own interests?

They Can. Go ahead. Start a diesel mechanics lobby. However you will be expected to vilify yourself when you start:

Bighead wrote:: taking advantage of regulations written by their OWN lobbyists

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:59 am

Ratzilla wrote:: Do your mom and dad fly in Lear jets and live in a mansion while their customers scrape to make payments?

Nope, but I do remember many years ago how they caught grief for buying a USED cadillac simply for the fact that it was a cadillac.

Ratzilla wrote:: Might be if corporate execs could suffer along on half a million a year salaries instead of ten million it might be easier. Greed has gripped America strong man. Everyone has to have what that other guys got.

More like jealousy and entitlement.

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

Bighead wrote:: And mandatory emergency care (meaning that it's mandatory that emergency rooms provide at least some level of care, dumbass) is the main 'free medical care' that they get. Maybe I misunderstood you. Or maybe you misunderstood the situation entirely. Probably both.

I understood.

Interview with former Cigna executive - Page 2 Foghorn

All Star Number of posts : 6902 Registration date : 2008-03-27

nitromaxx98 wrote:: Nope, but I do remember many years ago how they caught grief for buying a USED cadillac simply for the fact that it was a cadillac.

Funny too. Knowing how local mentality works some of those who got all excited about them getting a caddy probably own $100,000 tractors and $40,000 pickups.

Subject: Re: Interview with former Cigna executive Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:21 am

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead wrote:: And mandatory emergency care (meaning that it's mandatory that emergency rooms provide at least some level of care, dumbass) is the main 'free medical care' that they get. Maybe I misunderstood you. Or maybe you misunderstood the situation entirely. Probably both.

I understood.

Interview with former Cigna executive - Page 2 Foghorn

LOL!!

» Sponsor an Executive
» Interview
» Westboro Baptist protesters interview
» Lauer to interview Palin on Tuesday's Today Show