Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Do you have an intelligent response to those "big numbers"?

No he usually doesn't. This is what happens when you don't actually have logic and reason on your side.

Throwing around big numbers is completely meaningless. PROFITS INCREASED 200%!!!11!!oneoneone.

Populist clowns.

Only "meaningless" to you, because tossing out that conclusion was a smokescreen for your complete lack of any intelligent rebuttal. The rest of us quite plainly see that those "zOMG 200% increase" of profits at twice the rate of inflation are obviously an unsustainable trend, and is especially probematic given that it's known that much of that boost to profits has come at the expense of heavy-handed practices against legitimate "customers."


It's becoming pretty clear that you'd wish all of these facts would just go away, since you've run out of sensible things to say. It's also pretty clear that ignorance of the facts doesn't deter you in the least. Smoke-blowing clown....

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on August 11, 2009 9:51:12 AM]

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Ah, I love the smell of morons in the morning.

If only it was similar to the smell of burning napalm,...

Quote: Original post by Eelco
To solve these problems by demanding insurers can not refuse new clients, or refuse payment for conditions not specified in the contract, is however the end of insurance in any meaningfull term of the word. If redistribution relative to the current status quo is the aim (and it is), there are ways to do it without making insurance effectively illegal.

Ahhhh.... still arguing against "factoids" that you pulled from your ass, completely ignorant of the details of the US debate? You just like to ramble about libertarianism, even if you have to fabricate strawmen arguments to do so, am I right?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Set price controls on medical practicioners, and outline a minimum coverage plan that you will subsidize as a government. Now im not saying i am looking forward to the long term unintended consequences of that, but it seems like the least invasive way to redistribute.

Wow .... if you think that's the best "solution," I can't wait for you to tell us what US heathcare problem you think it solves.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on August 11, 2009 10:11:01 AM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Only "meaningless" to you, because tossing out that conclusion was a smokescreen for your complete lack of any intelligent rebuttal. The rest of us quite plainly see that those "zOMG 200% increase" of profits at twice the rate of inflation are obviously an unsustainable trend, and is especially probematic given that it's known that much of that boost to profits has come at the expense of heavy-handed practices against legitimate "customers."

Can you explain the part where two datapoints make a trend?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
The point is that it doesnt matter a whole lot who rations the medical care, the visible or the invisible hand. People die, and the government isnt going to change that in any qualitative way.

Eelco makes another bare assertion. Witness the power of his fallacies!

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Deciding life and death by the bureacratic wheel of fortune seems less attractive to me than deciding it as members of a free society.

That's because you're willfully ignorant to the fact individuals already have their life decided by a bureaucratic wheel of fortune ... it's only that the bureaucrat is a CEO who gets paid more when he ensures that people don't have their healthcare claims paid.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Can you explain the part where two datapoints make a trend?

Are you refering to the "fun fact" I posted about the growth over 7 years, (partly fueled by steady declines in the medical loss ratio, as already pointed out).



Doesn't look like you've had much to contribute to the actual topic at-hand, and now you're throwing more willful ignorance at me. So long as this is your mainstay, I'm done with you.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on August 11, 2009 12:31:38 PM]

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
A) Show me a person who pays $4000/mo in taxes and I'll show you a person who can easily afford to pay for the drug on their own. Get real. That's $50,000 of taxes a year, more than most people in this country even make.

B) You're making an awfully huge leap assuming that a private insurance company, who has a higher priority to its shareholders to make profit than it does to its customers to keep them alive, is going to pay for the drug. Hah, fat chance of that my friend. The insurance company is under no obligation to pay that. It's a liability to their profits now and will pull every dirty trick in the book to not pay for it.


Perhaps the real question ought to be, "Why does this drug cost $4000/mo?". I'm willing to bet it's due to supply and demand. It's probably a rare condition and therefore the "efficient" market decides it's not worth making that much of it because there aren't enough customers, so therefore the supply is low and the price skyrockets. Another case of profits taking precedence over humanity, no doubt.

Perhaps my message came across differently than I meant, but it was merely entertaining a thought, a much simplified one. You could make the assumption I'm all for our nanny statates (Nordic Countries) and base your view of my opinion on that.

<edit...
And perhaps I was expanding this to more fundamental issues. I guess Eelco knows my position already and I see no real need to pursue social theories in this thread. What I'd like to know is an answer to my last question on insuring, say, children. That is, basing the answer to current situation, I'd like to know his option. Perhaps it was a bit long prelude to that question, but I felt there has been too much number throwing based on ideology and I'd like to know his take on that question based on his view of world. I haven't seen a definite answer yet, though. An idealogy piece and a note resources could be spent otherwise, but not an answer to the question.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron

Quote: Original post by Naurava kulkuri

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron
Wow, according to this Stephen Hawking is dead.

Or that he would be dead if he lived in the UK

That's my point, if Stephen Hawking would be dead if he lived in the UK, then Stephen Hawking must be dead.

Yep, dead as a doornail

To be even more explicit: Stephen Hawking lives in the UK. Stephen Hawking was born in the UK. Stephen Hawking is British. [smile]

I can't say for certain, but I think there was a lot of sarcasm in some of the discussion you're responding to, Oleseyi.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Throwing around big numbers is completely meaningless. PROFITS INCREASED 200%!!!11!!oneoneone.

Populist clowns.

These types of comments are going to get you in trouble -- HostileExpanse, you're treading awfully close to the line in spots too. Don't forget that the Lounge continues to be an extreme moderation zone, especially these threads. If your post doesn't have content for the discussion, don't post it.

From here down I'll start dealing out warnings or worse.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I can't say for certain, but I think there was a lot of sarcasm in some of the discussion you're responding to, Oleseyi.

I think that the "can't say for certain" is why he's making it explicit [smile]

Quote: Original post by Promit
HostileExpanse, you're treading awfully close to the line in spots too.

Admitted. I actually deleted the post that sparked the Eelco response you've quoted. (Wasn't quickly enough, though.)