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 02-03-2019, 06:10 AM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,610,245 times
Reputation: 14050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont View Post
Samaritan doesn't pay for tests, unless they are associated with an ailment that was not pre-existing. It's pretty simple.

Was this story advertised in Samaritan? I don't remember it. Is it even real? Is this story real?
Cheese.

Science. DNA. Etc.

Many people are trying to tell you a simple fact of biology. We ALL have genetic mutations (even more so among populations that tend to stay to themselves, but that is another matter)....

The majority of people - most - have what could easily be defined as pre-existing conditions. Let me give you a personal story.

One daughter had a serious (no inherited - mutation at birth) disease - we did not find out until she was 22 years old. It will cost millions over her lifetime.

Covered?

Another person we are close to had low platelets at 19 - 10's of thousands in tests did not find anything. Later (a decade later or more) they said "Lupus". Very costly or you die before 40.

Would both of these situations be covered? Remember, not a trace of either for decades?

Simple - Yes or No.

Or the more accurate question - is...

1. Do they truly mean pre-existing (most humans have that)?
2. Or do they mean symptomatic? (things happened to the patient that should have been clear were disease).
3. Or, do they mean actual knowledge of the condition?

Pick one......this interests me because I wonder how and who makes the determination.

 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:12 AM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,610,245 times
Reputation: 14050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont View Post
Yeah, alcoholism is a terrible thing. There is a reason Samaritan's bylaws prohibit alcohol abuse.
So sins are not forgiven in this case and the weak and meek shall not inherit the earth?

Sounds like Capitalism more than Christianity.
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:18 AM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,610,245 times
Reputation: 14050
Jetblue is owned by Mormons. Yet their fares are currently about double what Southwest charges. I don't think Marriott charges much less either.

Many oil companies are owned by Christians - even evangelical sects. Do they charge less than Hugo's (Citgo) and Islamic Aramco or Russian Lukoil and Valero? I haven't noticed it.

It's all good and well to start a business and be honorable. But do it the right way - get a license, have the billions in the bank needed to back up your promises and THEN tell us after a couple generations how the economics work.

BTW, this is really nothing new. Mass Mutual - Mutual means they are owned by the policy holders. Companies like that self-insure for health insurance up to a certain point. They buy "re" coverage for what they cannot cover.

Samaritan and others could do it right. Instead I think they are running a scheme that only works when they turn people down a LOT. You can't fool Mother Nature...and, as some have noted, the costs will end up falling on the taxpayer (me) eventually.

In this case I think what you have communicated to many is that these business are NOT honorable. They don't do it right. It would be like having a non-engineer design buildings and bridges and then say "hey, I saved money".

Do it right or don't do it at all.

BTW, the "margin" on Medical care is approx. 12% average, less on government (medicare) health care. That's all the administration and profit. There is no magic - the only way to save from that is to turn down coverage and other tricks.
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Long Island
8,840 posts, read 4,785,304 times
Reputation: 6479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont View Post
Samaritan cannot remain viable if they pay pre-conditions. It is not a welfare agency. That being said, Samaritan has a portal in which people can send money to individuals with needs that aren't covered. We often give extra for just this cause. Many members do. So quite often these non-qualifying needs are met. Can you imagine such a thing happening with the government running it?
There are medical gofundmes everywhere these days. I even know some atheists who have contributed to them!
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:22 AM
 
51,602 posts, read 25,617,156 times
Reputation: 37792
This thread is a lie.

Cost-sharing is not health insurance.

It is not a secret. A quick Google search turns up all sorts of articles.

It doesn't even sound Christian. Can you imagine Christ denying medical care to children? Or falsely accusing people of being alcoholics to avoid paying for medical treatment?

Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 02-03-2019 at 06:31 AM..
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:22 AM
 
19,387 posts, read 6,464,363 times
Reputation: 12310
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Jetblue is owned by Mormons. Yet their fares are currently about double what Southwest charges. I don't think Marriott charges much less either.

Many oil companies are owned by Christians - even evangelical sects. Do they charge less than Hugo's (Citgo) and Islamic Aramco or Russian Lukoil and Valero? I haven't noticed it.

It's all good and well to start a business and be honorable. But do it the right way - get a license, have the billions in the bank needed to back up your promises and THEN tell us after a couple generations how the economics work.

BTW, this is really nothing new. Mass Mutual - Mutual means they are owned by the policy holders. Companies like that self-insure for health insurance up to a certain point. They buy "re" coverage for what they cannot cover.

Samaritan and others could do it right. Instead I think they are running a scheme that only works when they turn people down a LOT. You can't fool Mother Nature...and, as some have noted, the costs will end up falling on the taxpayer (me) eventually.

In this case I think what you have communicated to many is that these business are NOT honorable. They don't do it right. It would be like having a non-engineer design buildings and bridges and then say "hey, I saved money".

Do it right or don't do it at all.
I just booked a trip to Florida, and JetBlue was by far the cheapest fare. Non-stop from a Northeastern city to southern Florida for $216.
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:26 AM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,610,245 times
Reputation: 14050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
I just booked a trip to Florida, and JetBlue was by far the cheapest fare. Non-stop from a Northeastern city to southern Florida for $216.
I just paid $83 on Southwest. We live in Sarasota and fly up to Hartford regularly. We used to use Jetblue, but they stopped with the free bags (two free on SW) and their fares went way up.

I think you will find overall they are higher than SW, Alligient, Spirit and other such carriers. Heck, we can fly to many places for $40 from here (pittsburgh, etc.) with Alligiant or Spirit.

Anyway, just an example. They don't offer special prices because they are Christian or not. Spirit is owned by an ultimate skinflint, which is why they are cheap. It's not really Christian for Jetblue to have built their entire brand on the free luggage and then start charging big time for even a single suitcase. No reason except greed.
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Long Island
8,840 posts, read 4,785,304 times
Reputation: 6479
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I just paid $83 on Southwest. We live in Sarasota and fly up to Hartford regularly. We used to use Jetblue, but they stopped with the free bags (two free on SW) and their fares went way up.

I think you will find overall they are higher than SW, Alligient, Spirit and other such carriers. Heck, we can fly to many places for $40 from here (pittsburgh, etc.) with Alligiant or Spirit.

Anyway, just an example. They don't offer special prices because they are Christian or not. Spirit is owned by an ultimate skinflint, which is why they are cheap. It's not really Christian for Jetblue to have built their entire brand on the free luggage and then start charging big time for even a single suitcase. No reason except greed.
I've flown JetBlue to Florida and Bermuda in the past. Now every time I check, their fares are the highest. Also, the nonstop from NY to Bermuda gets you there at 10PM for the dates I'm looking at - just enough time to pay for an expensive hotel room and get nothing out of the day.
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:30 AM
 
19,387 posts, read 6,464,363 times
Reputation: 12310
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I just paid $83 on Southwest. We live in Sarasota and fly up to Hartford regularly. We used to use Jetblue, but they stopped with the free bags (two free on SW) and their fares went way up.

I think you will find overall they are higher than SW, Alligient, Spirit and other such carriers. Heck, we can fly to many places for $40 from here (pittsburgh, etc.) with Alligiant or Spirit.

Anyway, just an example. They don't offer special prices because they are Christian or not. Spirit is owned by an ultimate skinflint, which is why they are cheap.
Was that rt? The $216 I am paying is for rt.

Also, I'd have to drive an hour to get to the airport serviced by SW. So while they could be cheaper, it ends up being more exoensive once you factor in the drive and extra time.
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,148,442 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont View Post
Your example is pure idiocy. Those kids had a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION when the parents approached Samaritan. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE NOT COVERED, as stated up front in the bylaws. I don't know why this was a problem. So my claim still stands. Not one review of a case Samaritan said they would cover up front that they didn't.
No. One of the kids had a preexisting condition, the other had a blood screen that was recommended by the physician for all international adoptions, he had no health problems. Unless you consider being adopted a pre existing condition.
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.


Closed Thread


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.

© 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