Sport Bikes banner

61 - 76 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Jiggly said:
I would rather shell out the $300 every 2 years for a windshield or other expense to keep my insurance record claim free and my premiums lower, so if/when I get into an accident that is a total loss the insurance company wont sit there think it was planned out because I had milked them over the years to get all of my preiums back in frivolous expenses.
Dude seriously...don't you think you should spend more time understanding what's being said before more BS?

That response wasn't to you and it wasn't about car insurance!

Next, I don't "milk" anyone! The insurance company rightfully pays for claims that are part of the contractual agreement I am paying for. If a rock breaks my windshield and a windshield is covered by the comprehensive policy I pay for, THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE I PAY FOR!

If you're so concerned how people respond to what you say, you really should put more thought into considering what you are saying.

I'll give you a hint...the discussion was HEALTH insurance, and the question was meant to elicit some consideration that the premises upon which the previous post was based might be faulty or incomplete.

For example: Healthcare insurers and employers both benefit from prevention and early detection of catastrophic illness, that is one of the primary reasons they "pay for the little things" and pass along those costs in the premiums. Your end cost for the same preventive services could potentially even be MORE if you paid it individually and not offset the savings in health insurance premiums because you would not have the group bargaining power for those services.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Jiggly said:
Like why does the guy who adopted his wife's daughter have to pay child support from the divorce when her biological father is still alive? BECAUSE HE MAKES MORE thats the only reason. I firmly beleive in just taking responsibility for your own actions.
That's exactly what an adoption is...legally taking responsibility...so no, the reason you suggest is NOT the "only reason".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Jiggly said:
I have been to 3 different univs. and I still beleive the college of hard knocks was the one that tought me the most.
Was the college of hard knocks in this universe or one of the other two?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
BusaDave said:
Have you considered that insurance began covering the small stuff because in the long run they determined that taking care of the small stuff reduces extraordinary losses from claims? How about the idea that companies support such plans for the same reasons? How about the fact that the costs of these services are costs passed along in your premiums that you would have paid anyway; assuming that you got the recommended checkups and preventative care?
With health insurance, I'm really not sure what they are thinking, at least in terms of short-run vs. long-run. I can still remember my mother telling me about the public bathroom in Blue Cross's office complex in Pittsburgh...there was enough marble in there to sink a battle ship. The offices were opulent, and still are to this day. I mean, the company is sitting on cash reserves of about $1.2 billion (yes, billion with a "B"); yet they continue to annually raise rates. When you look at that, or you look at the corporate functions they sponsor or attend, you really begin to wonder.

If you were looking at an insurance company from a financial viewpoint (completely disregard the committment to client health), covering more short-term vs. the heavy hitters later on makes more sense. Primarily because office visits and checkups are cheap....surgery and hospital stays are not. Cover both for the first few years, and you have the financial justification to cry for a rate increase due to increased costs. After that, you begin to pare back benefits slowly yet with the increased cost structure in place. Financially you as a company are better off, but your clients pay more for the same services.

I guess the reason I question the motivation of the insurance industry has to do with the cash reserves. At what point do you say, "Hey, we've got enough in reserves. Our cash inflows far exceed our outflows. Maybe we should cut rates, etc." I'm a frugal guy, especially when it comes to a business. I want the most bang for my buck. So I cut back on the opulent crap, hold a moderate amount in reserves, then cut rates to a point which is financially justifiable, yet allows me to increase the client base that I want. But I'm a cheapskate... :)

I won't deny that it makes better sense to focus on preventative medicine vs. reactive medicine. I don't know a doctor/nurse alive that will disagree with you there. But to deal with the original statement, do I think that short-term care or the long-term care of other individuals is my responsibility? Not really.

I will say that there are companies out there who do support employee health plans, as much as they can. Having helped run the family business (until we sold it to our employees), I know first-hand the difficulties involved in providing insurance, many of which the average guy doesn't know about. Case in point: Up until, I think it was 1997, we fully funded our employee healthcare plan. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, full indemnity, etc. Basically it was the most expensive plan out there. We weren't the highest paying company in the area, but we had a good benefits package, so overall it averaged out. About that time, the HMO concept really started to hit in the Pittsburgh area. To get more folks to switch over, insurance companies like BC/BS and UPMC pumped up the rates for full coverage plans to astronomical levels to encourage employers to switch to the lower cost option HMOs. Needless to say, we had to switch. Every year on until about 2003 we received annual rate increases. I think it was 2001 when we first req'd employee contributions. In 2002, the family plan and husband wife plan rec'd 60% rate increases. We covered a good portion of that increase, but had to pass more on to the employee (especially during a recession). As of 2004 when we sold it, our individuals were paying about the same for the HMO plan with less coverage and more co-pays than they did when we had full indemnity a decade before. I really do think there are a lot of companies out there that care, but they've also got to balance the care for their employees with the overall financial health of the corp.

As to the medical malpractice consumption of healthcare dollars, my view of this is taken from a more personal level. Knowing doctors who have malpractice insurance bills of $100K+ each year makes it hard for me to swallow that this is an inconsequential cost. If I were a doctor facing that sort of insurance bill, yet having the gov't or insurance company dictate what they will and will not pay for a service, I can see why folks get out. Yes, I do think insurance companies are partially at fault. But so are several others. First off, gov't regs requiring hospitals to stay non-profit...sorry but that's dumb. To hide the profit from services, hospitals don't cut, they build. But as they build, they have a higher fixed cost, which then requires them to charge more; the cycle just keeps escalating. Allow a hospital to make money, keep it in reserve, basically operate like a business rather than as a charity. You might see better fiscal management then. Then allow people the choice of where to go & pay for services. You won't see any level of efficiency however if everyone is required to be covered medically. Second problem is lawyers. When you see lawsuits for everything under the sun and an abundance of personal injury attorneys, you know the cost of insurance is going to go up. Every multi-million dollar jury award for a claim makes it more expensive for the rest of us. The third problem is individuals...us, the consumer. Go to the emergency room for a cold or the flu bug? Seriously, is this necessary? Get NyQuil & OJ like the rest of us. Cut yourself with a paring knife? Hydrogen peroxide, Sayman's Salve and a bandage. If it doesn't heal in a day or two, then you hit up the hospital. Having dated someone who dealt with this on a daily basis, these are actual cases. Piddly crap like that raises costs for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,583 Posts
Triple_Z said:
Go to the emergency room for a cold or the flu bug? Seriously, is this necessary? Get NyQuil & OJ like the rest of us. Cut yourself with a paring knife? Hydrogen peroxide, Sayman's Salve and a bandage. If it doesn't heal in a day or two, then you hit up the hospital.
+1
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
Great, now we're giving medical advice like we canfigure out where our ass is compared to that hole in the ground over there, and applauding it to save people money.

People are not as important as money and paperwork, how silly of me to forget this occassionally. OUth to be real proud. But I think I know what type of "paper" some of us are not worth, but I just sent some of it downstream.
 

·
Show them to me...
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
license2ill said:
His pride was based on the false assumption that he's done something spectacular based on the perceived behavior of others that may not have similar oppurtunities that his narrow vision doesn't see.

The difference is liberals aren't standing on anybody, until those that are start crying about being victims of society from the bottom up get mouthy.
Since when does making your own way on life mean that you are standing on others. By your view, anyone who is not sucking the wellfare system dry is the bad guy. If these same people that you like to whine about being so oppressed picked got off their asses and made something of their live, I suppose they would then be the bad guy in your opinion. I have held no one down. I have simply picked myself up in this world. The majority of those who can't do the same are victims of nothing but their own choices in life. I got where I am because of my choices, and I won't feel bad about that putting me in a better position that people who made worse choices in their life. If that is holding someone down, well maybe they should have made better choices in their life where they would not be held down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
EEfz6 said:
Since when does making your own way on life mean that you are standing on others. By your view, anyone who is not sucking the wellfare system dry is the bad guy. If these same people that you like to whine about being so oppressed picked got off their asses and made something of their live, I suppose they would then be the bad guy in your opinion. I have held no one down. I have simply picked myself up in this world. The majority of those who can't do the same are victims of nothing but their own choices in life. I got where I am because of my choices, and I won't feel bad about that putting me in a better position that people who made worse choices in their life. If that is holding someone down, well maybe they should have made better choices in their life where they would not be held down.
Having known hundreds of people who are collecting Social Security Disability Insurance and sometimes Welfare, I'd have to say that you don't know what you're talking about regarding how they got there and why or about who they are. Among this group, there are the same mix of good souls and assholes, hard workers and slackers as among a similarly-sized group of quite rich people I also know.
 

·
Show them to me...
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
jim schmidt said:
Having known hundreds of people who are collecting Social Security Disability Insurance and sometimes Welfare, I'd have to say that you don't know what you're talking about regarding how they got there and why or about who they are. Among this group, there are the same mix of good souls and assholes, hard workers and slackers as among a similarly-sized group of quite rich people I also know.
From what you stated, I will assume that the vast majority of people you are talking about are on disability. I am not speaking of people who can not physically work, and draw disability. I am speaking of the unskilled, uneducated people who work in low end jobs, live in the lower class, and draw money from the government rather than making something of their lives.
 

·
Show them to me...
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
jim schmidt said:
That doesn't describe the welfare demographic. It's mostly women with kids who were married and abandoned by a spouse. Most stay on for less than two years.
You did not payt atention to what I said. The ones that use it while it as a temporary crutch to make something of themselves is not who I was speaking of. Re read what I said. (posted to l2ill)


EEfz6 said:
By your view, anyone who is not sucking the wellfare system dry is the bad guy. If these same people that you like to whine about being so oppressed picked got off their asses and made something of their live, I suppose they would then be the bad guy in your opinion.
These people that stay use government assistance just long enought to make something of themselves (I would say about 4 years, give or take a little) suddenly become the bad guys in the eyes of one dimwitted individual, because they are no longer struggling, and based on practically every post he has ever made, if you are not struggling, you are oppressing.

EEfz6 said:
I have held no one down. I have simply picked myself up in this world. The majority of those who can't do the same are victims of nothing but their own choices in life.
Many people that I know off use their circumstances in life to justify living off of the government. Using the single mother example that you brought up, I know off some that use this as an excuse to basically live off of welfare while working their low end job. Unless they were raped, the either chose to have kids, or chose to have sex and it resulted in an unwanted preganancy, before they were ready to handle the responsibility on their own. Maybe they were abandoned by a spouse of boyfriend, or maybe their spouse died. I have no problme with helping these people, but only as long as they are working towards a better job (getting an education or learning a trade). You say that this includes most of them. If that is true (I don't know, but I will take your word) then I have know problem with most of them. I only have a problem with the people content in their lives who continue to suck the welfare system dry for years.

I do not remember making the claim that the people I described made up the majority of the people on welfare, just that they are the people the l2ill seem to want to be the champion off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
jim schmidt said:
That doesn't describe the welfare demographic. It's mostly women with kids who were married and abandoned by a spouse. Most stay on for less than two years.
Cough.. (bullshit).. cough.

By stating they "were married and abandoned" you are trying once again to
lend credibility where none exists. Even as of 1992, over 55% of AFDC
recipients were NEVER "married" to the "baby-daddy".

Now, if you said, they are "unmarried women with kids" you'd hear no
argument from me.

However most of the "unmarried" are "never married"..

(an dat's a fac, Jack)

Census statistics are borne out via the real observations of my good friend who
happens to provide a certain type of necessary/non-optional medical care to
a LARGE cross section of "the downtrodden" in this state in his practice.

(As he is one of the few in his profession who still accept new patients on
Medicare/caid/AFDC/etc)

I might add that they get provided this same care as the "evil rich patients"
by a full-on conservative REPUBLICAN (que: evil Death Star music).

Imagine that, huh.

All those children.. never had a father..

Generally the product of unprotected "sportfucking" to which you profess such
an adept nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
jim schmidt said:
Well sure, we all dislike the few people who are actual cheaters. But a much higher percentage of people make great incomes and cheat on their taxes than the percentage of welfare recipients who cheat.
Once again.. let's play:

MAKE UP A STATISTIC.. with your hosts "JS" and "FB".

Christ, the 2 of you should go work for Uncle Sam or maybe See BS News.

Show me the PROOF of your accusation that "people with great incomes"
are CHEATing on their taxes. CHEATing as in BREAKing the LAW. In greater
NUMBERS than the recipients of "welfare" cheat to be come eligible.

I think you'll find the numbers of actual individuals are opposite of what you are
trying to sell to the crowd here at SBN.

Hell, I'll bet you a cold beer that if you could somehow visit all the "unmarried"
recipients of AFDC in this country you'd find a SIGNIFICANT percentage of
them (illegally/secretly) cohabitating with the "baby-daddies" they say that
they "cannot find".

Reality sucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
and as usual...jimschmidt walks away instead of providing the foundation of his argument and the facts to prove his points...
 
61 - 76 of 76 Posts
Top