If grocery stores worked like liberals want medical insurance to work...
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 9, 2009 10:02pm CST
You go to the grocery store to pick up a few items. You walk around the store, putting the items you need in the cart. Eventually you find yourself at the checkout counter...
The clerk rings up your groceries, and tells you the price...
Clerk: That will be $82.50 please".
You pay the $82.50, for that food, but then you pull another cart of food past the check out counter, unpaid for. The clerk asks you about that food, and why you aren't paying for it.
You explain that you absolutely need the food in the other cart, and since you have been shopping at that store for years, the store should have to pay for all the food you need, not just what you have paid for.
The clerk calls the manager to explain to you how it works. The manager explains to you that, no matter how much you might need food, it's not the job of the store to provide you with food you never paid for. You try to explain that your family will starve to death if you don't bring the food home.. both the stuff you paid for, and the stuff you coudn't afford.
The manager asks you why the owners of the store should have to pay for food you eat. He explains that the owners have already paid for the food, and it isn't yours to eat until you pay.
You continue to insist that you and your family's life and health depend on getting this food. You tell the manager that you have spent a lot of money at that store and the owners owe you food, whether you can pay for it at the time or not.
~~~~~~~
When we buy insurance, we are paying for a specific service, and paying a specific price for it. We make an agreement with the insurance company. You will pay your part of the premium, as well as any co-pays, and they will pay the part they agreed to.
When we insist that the insurance company pay for services we didn't pay for, we are no different than the "you" in the above scenario.
For years people have turned to the government to force the insurance companies to pay for services they never paid for. In other words, they want the governmenet to force someone to agree to give us things we don't want to pay for.
~~~~~~~~~
There are times when insurance companies change the agreement without our knowledge, refuse to pay for services we DID pay for, or try to pull other shenanigans. Those are called crimes, and should be treated as such. If we are going to get the government to do anything, it should be to prosecute people for those crimes.
When we try to get the government to force the companies to give us things we didn't pay for, we are the ones pulling the corrupt shenanigans.
3 people like this
10 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
10 Sep 09
Screw that! Food is a basic human right! The government should be GIVING food to people like me and raising taxes on the rich to pay for it. After all, those rich people have more than enough food. I'm also sick of the way companies like Walmart are making huge profits by selling food. It's WRONG for them to profit off of my basic human needs.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 09
Can you believe that Farmers actually expect to profit off the hunger of Americans?
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
10 Sep 09
Well everyone knows farmers are ba$tards. I'm sick of seeing them with tractors, overalls, and all those other fancy luxuries. All they do is live, eat, and breathe their job and they expect to make money off our hunger. They're almost as bad as doctors.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Sep 09
Thanks, wouldn't it be great if people woke up? :~D
@Debs_place (10520)
• United States
11 Sep 09
I don't understand how our current insurance system works at all. This new 'plan' will confuse things even more.
For example, I have foot problems. Orthotics could alleviate most of the pain, the insurance company will not pay the $400, yet they will pay several thousand for surgery which is not a guarantee of pain free.
Next case, I have a condition in my brain, I had surgery. I spent 5 days in the hospital in intensive care, I lost my hearing on one side. I spent 4 months out of work. It cost over $30K 10 years ago.
The problem is back. I want laser surgery. Cost total
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Sep 09
That is why insurance reform is needed, but like you said, we don't need to make it more complicated just to "fix" it.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
12 Sep 09
The problem there is that you have some moron at a desk making the decisions about your treatement instead of a doctor. How will government health care change this? The jerk working behind the desk will be paid by taxpayers to make decisions about your healthcare.
@Koriana (302)
• United States
10 Sep 09
ahhh....
but some go into the store, fill up their cart with all kinds of goodies, shrimp, candy, sodas, whatever, and they are allowed to walk out of the store with around $100 of groceries free and clear. while others, well, a pound of hamburg, a bag of potatoes, some hot dogs and bread, well, they have less than fifty dollars for their weekly food budget....
same family size, same housing arrangements, same heating needs, ect. ect.....
only one is given $100 of free food for the week, the other ends up eating every other day just to make ends meet.
maybe we need some sensible welfare reform more than we need the healthcare reform? either increase the guidelines for eligibility, or decrease the handouts, so that the two about equal each other...
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 09
Are you saying that since some people make more than others the government needs to be the great equalizer?
@Koriana (302)
• United States
10 Sep 09
ya know, we recently had a life insurance company that went under, seems that they had built their nestegg on the railroad tracks that the subprime train just sped through at a thousand miles an hour.
what if the health insurance companies had their nest on the same tracks....
if it was worded differently and they came out with this, well, we need a bailout for these companies, they are too big to fail!!!
would your opinion change?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Sep 09
No, because I don't think any company is "too big to fail". The only thing all the bail outs proved is that throwing money at the problem doesn't fix anything.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Sep 09
Obama, Pelosi and Reid have no intention of bringing costs down, in fact, the CBO points out that their plan will actually cost more.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Sep 09
It seems a simple concept, but when it is put into the context of health insurance people get their emotions involved instead of their analytical thinking. Suddenly the grocer (insurance company) is evil and money-grubbing, probably making obscene profits and vacationing in lush resorts while you and your family die.
Insurance is a contract, and it has always been a business. Insurance has always been a security against a risk. Health insurance is a slightly different case in that it's much more likely that the company will pay out a large amount of premium dollars collected on a regular basis, whereas with other types of insurance - auto, property - the company charges premiums that reflect their expectation that they will not be paying out except in the rare case of accidents or fire or other disasters. Even given the number of auto accidents, your auto insurance premiums are going to be a whole lot lower than your health insurance premiums. The auto insurance company knows that you aren't going to have claims very often that require payout. The health insurance company knows that you will.
But I don't hear a demand that property insurers drop premiums on flood insurance for people who build homes on the coastline or insisting they are bankrupting people by refusing to underwrite bad risks. People read the contract and make decisions about which company will give them the best deal for their money.
A contract is a contract. You know what is in it when you agree to it. If you know that something isn't covered, you can't cry foul when they don't pay for it.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 09
Nope, in fact the same people who want something for nothing when it comes to health insurance insisted that the insurance companies pay out money to Hurricane Katrina victims, even if they aren't customers in the first place.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
10 Sep 09
I don't think the insurance companies should be forced to pay for anything. Government health coverage should be independent of the insurance companies. One of my beliefs is that the purpose of a government is to protect its weaker citizens. That includes finding a way to provide them with, at a minimum, life saving health care whether they can afford to pay for it or not.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Sep 09
That's already been accomplished. Obama's plan is medical coverage for everyone, whether they need it or not, whether they use it or not, whether the care is necessary or not.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
10 Sep 09
I think what we need in this country is health care insurance reform. NOT gov. healthcare.
I agree health insurance is a big issue. But throwing money at it is not going to solve jack.
What I want to know and Obama did not answer these questions is this.....
Obama said he is going to charge a "fee" for the exspensive plans to the insurance companies. WHich means those companies are going to pass it down to the customers. So does that mean sense I decided on the PPO instead of HMO that my policy is going to be more exspensive? Sense the money from this "fee" will be used to help pay for other people's insurance that means I will be paying more in and not recieving anything for it....because I will be paying for someone else's healthcare. The gov. is going to penalize people for buying the exspesive plans?
Also with EVERYONE being forced to buy healthcare, getting rid of pre existing condiditons and not being able to drop anyone.....does that mean that the insurance companies are going to raise rates on EVERYONE? I am agree that they should not be able drop people and get rid of pre existing conditions clause.
But I want real answers. Obama said he was not going to raise taxes to pay for this. He talked about how the gov. was not going to change things for people that already have insurance. What he did not talk about was how the insurance companies may change things (ie....cost and pricing) due to what the government is doing.
That is what I want to know.
I also think he is living in la la land with this plan. There is no way he can make enough "budget cuts" to pay for the plan he outlined. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. I want to know EXACTLY where. But I see three years from now (right before this plan goes into effect) congress telling everyone....we need more money, there are not enough cuts to pay for it...sorry we are going to have to raise your taxes. Then what do we do? The bill will already have been passed and we will be stuck.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Sep 09
His whole plan for private insurance is to make it so expensive and cumbersome to run and for the consumers that everyone will eventually go to the "public option".
