Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So... if this guys insurance was actually administered by the Federal Government, who denied the claim, who exactly would "problem solvers" complain to? The government. Ha!
This is a perfect example of how a competitive market encourages proper behavior...
Which is why I support public option. Private corporations have proven to work together (or gobble up smaller competition) and against the people. With you and I getting to decide which work best... how can that be bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Bump
Bumping threads is a violation of TOS. It is better to post something related to the subject than simply bump up a thread.
Which is why I support public option. Private corporations have proven to work together (or gobble up smaller competition) and against the people. With you and I getting to decide which work best... how can that be bad?
Bumping threads is a violation of TOS. It is better to post something related to the subject than simply bump up a thread.
I was unaware that bumping (not excessivily) was against the TOS.
Suppose I just expected the partisan hacks would continue a debate, even when "OMG GW BUSH" arguments meet logical discussion. Apparently they aren't capable of such intellectual debate.
So... if this guys insurance was actually administered by the Federal Government, who denied the claim, who exactly would "problem solvers" complain to? The government. Ha!
This is a perfect example of how a competitive market encourages proper behavior and the ability of the consumers to play hardball. United Health Care ended up picking up the tab after it realized that bad publicity was less desirable than $148K.
The reversal wouldn't have happened if he was dealing with the feds. Thus why a UHC and any form of expanded government is dangerous.
Before Napientek was wheeled into an operating room Oct. 27, his doctor obtained a preauthorization number. The surgery went well, and within weeks Napientek was feeling much better.
Until April. That's when the couple began receiving a series of letters from the insurance administrator with chilling news: Claims for the surgery had been denied, leaving them on the hook for the heart-stopping total of $148,000.
So... if this guys insurance was actually administered by the Federal Government, who denied the claim, who exactly would "problem solvers" complain to? The government. Ha!
This is a perfect example of how a competitive market encourages proper behavior and the ability of the consumers to play hardball. United Health Care ended up picking up the tab after it realized that bad publicity was less desirable than $148K.
The reversal wouldn't have happened if he was dealing with the feds. Thus why a UHC and any form of expanded government is dangerous.
You're acting as an apologist for these thieves?
That's pretty rich.
Talk with your friends, it's happened to them.
What most people see as outrageous behavior you see as th wonderful workings of a free market encouraging proper behavior?
Where is the proper behavior in this scenario.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
