By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 21 September 2013
Edit Thread
snyps said:
Kasz216 said:



0. Sry if thought i'd try it out. I agree it makes for an awkward discussion.

1. The article says the nonprofit is holding on to 7 times the state minimum and could instead use the a small % of the money to keeps rates lower. My only point is to dispell your myth that it's a black & white issue. Btw way, 9% profit margin is huge when everyone must buy and everything costs tens or hundreds of thousands. Not to mention lots of revenue goes toward employees of insurers. With out a health insurance system, health care would cost 80% less.

2. atleast with burger king it's cheap and i have a choice to go somewhere else cheaper. I even implied in my post that doctors should make $400 an hour. But the system is so screwed up I can't even begin to explain their justification for the current costs. Point is a hospital visit for the smallest of minor injuries, in which nothing is even done, should not cost thousands of dollars.

3. you said one of the reasons rates go up is because ppl with insurance get everything treated. i didn't. i said that's a scam.

4. your statistics doesn't prove that Europeans can't save lives like we can. And expecting (read forcing) ppl to pay 10% of they're annual income every year so that machines that work can be replaced with machines that work a little better is bad business practice. They only get away with because patients (read customers) have no alternative system. Except if you are lucky you have a no-insurance clinic which, while highly profitable, are being force to start using insurance.


1. It says that, but nowhere in your article does it actual prove 7 times the minium is in anyway excessive.  Consdiering that money is just sitting in the reserves to act as protection it almost assuridly isn't.

I mean, think for a second.  What exactly is their motive for holding the cash and raising rates?   Keep in mind, it's a non profit, so nobody is making any money off of this.  This is all money the insurance holders are going to make use of eventually one way or another.

2.  It's all honestly not that hard a thing to figure out, it's mostly based on the fact that you can't refuse someone treatment.

3.   You individually not using your healthcare isn't going to mean shit to healthcare costs.  Nor does it sound like your the type of person that has that type of healthcare.  It's essentially what Obama calls a "Cadilliac" plan.  Think, Union worker at a car factory and up for example.   Those kind of plans are super expensive because they get used all the time.  Other plans have stuff like co-pays and benefit limits (though not anymore) to reign in costs so peopel use them when they need them.

4.  Not true.  Something like two thrids of hospitals lose money.  If they could make money by not using insurance, or by using lesser equipment, they would. 

Sure when it comes to icecream or something, people are more then willing to pay 20% less to get somethign almost as good.   Healthcare?   People want the best treatment possible, and are willing to pay for it.

The solution of "make it so people can't get the best equipment possible" doesn't seem like a good idea to me.