Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:31 PM
 
5,915 posts, read 4,811,170 times
Reputation: 1398

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Frankly, I prefer the government.
Visit your local DMV and you'll see your future doctor's office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:33 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,388,406 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
The world is full of great attorneys that do nothing BUT sue insurance companies.

This guys and my favorite and close friends.


Michigan Auto Accident Attorneys - Lawyers Handling Personal Injury Cases For Car, Truck & Motorcycle Accidents
That is auto insurance/personal injury also known as negligence. With health insurance you are suing under an entirely different theory of recovery. The two are apples and oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:35 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,388,406 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik View Post
Visit your local DMV and you'll see your future doctor's office.
I would rather deal with my DMV then health insurer, speaking from experience the former is much more easy, and quick then the latter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:35 PM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,329,809 times
Reputation: 11538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
That is auto insurance/personal injury. That is negligence, with health insurance you are suing under an entirely different theory of recovery. The two are apples and oranges.
No they sue insurance companies.

It does not matter why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:36 PM
 
Location: west central Georgia
2,240 posts, read 1,385,562 times
Reputation: 906
Really? Thanks for the info, I might delve into it a bit myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,800,800 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik View Post
I have no idea.
None do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:39 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,388,406 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
No they sue insurance companies.

It does not matter why.
Oh, yes it does. Suing a health insurer for denying your claim is an entirely different animal from suing an auto insurer for their client's negligence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,856 posts, read 24,091,732 times
Reputation: 15123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
They also don't have anywhere near the incentive insurance companies do to raise rates, and not pay out claims since the big wigs need to win elections and obviously don't care about profitability.
They also don't care about waste. Medicare is all the proof needed - $60,000,000,000 per year in fraud alone.

The problem with putting the government in charge of something like this is that they're spending other peoples' money. A billion here, a billion there... It never impacts them, so they have no reason to care about it.

Private companies, on the other hand, DO have an incentive to not waste and to keep fraud in check. That profit motive you despise so much is exactly why they are better than having the government run things.

Costs need to be addressed; nobody's arguing that, although some people on this site would have you believe otherwise. They're wankers, though, and just arguing for the sake of arguing. People involved in a reality based discussion know that the cost of care is too high, and the debate is about how to get it down. Obama's health insurance law doesn't address reducing costs - only increasing coverage. I don't care if you're a (D), (R) or Other - any reasonable and objective person should see the mandate for the unconstitutional abomination that it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:49 PM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,329,809 times
Reputation: 11538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Oh, yes it does. Suing a health insurer for denying your claim is an entirely different animal from suing an auto insurer for their client's negligence.
Only the reason changes.

Last edited by Driller1; 01-31-2011 at 07:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2011, 05:53 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,388,406 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
They also don't care about waste. Medicare is all the proof needed - $60,000,000,000 per year in fraud alone.

The problem with putting the government in charge of something like this is that they're spending other peoples' money. A billion here, a billion there... It never impacts them, so they have no reason to care about it.

Private companies, on the other hand, DO have an incentive to not waste and to keep fraud in check. That profit motive you despise so much is exactly why they are better than having the government run things.

Costs need to be addressed; nobody's arguing that, although some people on this site would have you believe otherwise. They're wankers, though, and just arguing for the sake of arguing. People involved in a reality based discussion know that the cost of care is too high, and the debate is about how to get it down. Obama's health insurance law doesn't address reducing costs - only increasing coverage. I don't care if you're a (D), (R) or Other - any reasonable and objective person should see the mandate for the unconstitutional abomination that it is.
One, I am not entirely convinced this mandate either is, or is not unconstitutional. The commerce clause is tricky, and because the constitution is so ambiguous about most things, including "commerce" I tend to think looking at it with a definite view on whether a policy is, or is not constitutional is just silly in most cases. Second I image most people on Medicare are there because they prefer it to the private alternatives available. Third, Enron, WaMu and the like should demonstrate that private companies are not all that great at dealing with issues of fraud and abuse. Finally, in theory if everyone was required to carry insurance, it does reduce costs, because the insured would not have to eat the healthcare costs of the uninsured who need medical treatment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:42 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top