Aetna jacks sm.biz healthcare rates 30% in California

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

We all have it, and it ain't free. We just don't have people making huge amounts of money off of it.

This does sound nice

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Rex E.

This does sound nice

It cost me 0.8% on my taxable income and $54 per month for the family coverage when I lived in Ontario. Picked my own doctors and no waiting for appointments.

[BlueStreak]

Hey! You want healthcare benefits work for them, like I do! And if you're too sick to work and can't pay for your own.......We'll charge you more so others don't have to carry your load!

There, fixed!

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by bobabode

My objection was to these asswipes making 27% and then jacking up their premiums 30%. Where does free come into play?

But they earned it.


Right Whelly?

[barbara]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Death panels

We already have death panels.
Anyone who doesn't think ins companies don't make those kinds of decisions, based on their potential profit rather than what is best for the patient, is delusional .

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

We already have death panels.
Anyone who doesn't think ins companies don't make those kinds of decisions, based on their potential profit rather than what is best for the patient, is delusional .

Another straw dog comment out of the lefty manual on health care.

Its called a certificate of coverage. Its a comprehensive guide to an insurance policy that describes in detail what the insurance policy will cover, and what they won't cover. Its the same guide that nobody is interested in reading when they buy their policy, either on their own or through their employer. Its usually not something that is read until the insurance company denied coverage for a procedure. Then once the individual reads the section on exclusions, the individual who is denied coverage screams bloody murder about being "denied coverage from their evil insurance company."

[CarlV]

The state of Arizona had their own death panel and it was their state gov't.

Gov. Grim Reaper and the fallen angels of the Republican-controlled Legislature do not like being called a death panel.
But that is what they are.
If elected officials make budget decisions that determine whether sick people live or die - and they choose the latter - they are a death panel......


But the governor says that she first wants them to come up with a solution to the state's $1 billion budget deficit.
It's a cruel political card to play.
The budgetary savings projected from allowing gravely ill working people to die for lack of transplants has been described as somewhere between $1.4 million and $5 million for a year.
Arizona's budget is about $8.5 billion.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ticles/2010/12


IIRC, after 3 of these deaths by budget Gov Brewer had a change of heart though. Thankfully.


Carl

[barbara]

Originally Posted by whell

Another straw dog comment out of the lefty manual on health care.

Its called a certificate of coverage. Its a comprehensive guide to an insurance policy that describes in detail what the insurance policy will cover, and what they won't cover. Its the same guide that nobody is interested in reading when they buy their policy, either on their own or through their employer. Its usually not something that is read until the insurance company denied coverage for a procedure. Then once the individual reads the section on exclusions, the individual who is denied coverage screams bloody murder about being "denied coverage from their evil insurance company."

Partially wrong.
Those guides you are talking about are based on what is best for profit and not the patient.
And, there are, indeed, death panels in ins companies. Your denial is simply conservative rhetoric. My family has been greatly impacted by these panels and we have excellent insurance of which I am extremely knowledgeable about since I actually do read the policy from front to back (even every year upon renewal).
But then, I have been involved in the study of our health care system for over twenty years now and probably know more than the average consumer.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

Partially wrong.
Those guides you are talking about are based on what is best for profit and not the patient.
And, there are, indeed, death panels in ins companies. Your denial is simply conservative rhetoric. My family has been greatly impacted by these panels and we have excellent insurance of which I am extremely knowledgeable about since I actually do read the policy from front to back (even every year upon renewal).
But then, I have been involved in the study of our health care system for over twenty years now and probably know more than the average consumer.

..and your assertions are guided by your own bias. To call an exclusion under an insurance policy the equivalent of a "death panel", or health care rationing, is an abuse of the language at the very least. Or, to extend your lame analogy, I guess we also have death panels for houses and cars, since exclusions exist under homeowners and auto owners insurance policies as well.

[djv8ga]

She's an expert on race relations too...just ask her.