The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company ‘reprehensible.’
That appears to be the most an insurance company has ever been ordered to pay in a case involving the practice known as rescission, in which insurance companies retroactively cancel coverage for policyholders based on alleged misstatements – sometimes right after diagnoses of life-threatening diseases.
It takes a special class of lowlife to side with insurance companies over human beings. They’re called conservatives – Republicans and Democrats.
So the system worked, whats the problem.
Perhaps your most blatant smear yet, Oliver: “The ruling emerges from a conservative Southern state with one of the most pro-business climates in the country.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html
It’d take a real sociopath to decide that a system where terminally ill people have to sue their insurance companies for coverage is a system that works.
Yessir. It’d take a real sociopath…
We should slap something out of their mouths, that’s for sure.
“So the system worked, whats the problem.”
The problem is private insurers are motivated by profit to pay out less to their policy holder’s healthcare costs or in more severe cases, cut them off entirely.
There are more subtle mechanisms as well, such as limiting where a patient can be treated, it makes no difference to the insurer if the care provider is 50 or 100 miles away from the patient. Even if the patient can get to the care provider, they still may have to travel to yet another facility for blood tests or radiology, despite the fact that the facility they are at provides the same services. It happens, I speak from experience.
So maybe there’s this one case where Jerome Mitchell won a lawsuit. It took eight years and while the 10M payout is substantial, Fortis / Assurant is worth $20 billion in assets and $7 billion in revenue. Who’s to stop them from doing this again?
That’s a problem.
The fact that an HIV positive teenager got his coverage revoked at all is proof that the system does not, in fact, work.
No Jody, it showed it did work, he disagreed with the insurance company and had a venue to redress his grievance, and was awarded 10 million dollars for his issue.
No Jody, it showed it did work, he disagreed with the insurance company and had a venue to redress his grievance, and was awarded 10 million dollars for his issue.
Huh? So if you have Stage 4 cancer and your case gets hung up in court and die, well, that’s the awesome system that works.
And that happens. It’s called “rescission”. Look it up. See also Potter, Wendell.
Impaler, if you get rescission after being diagnosed with a terminal illness, the system most certainly won’t work, because any lawsuit is going to involve wrongful death and the damages will be paid to your next of kin.
he disagreed with the insurance company and had a venue to redress his grievance, and was awarded 10 million dollars for his issue.
seven effing years later.
It would have been a real shame if he’d died in the meantime. Or maybe that’s what they were counting on.
PD100, we do not know the underlying issue, did he lie on his application, or other such issues, as much as I bitch about California, healthcare is something we do right, and do not need the Feds to mess it up. Every Californian is covered for catastrophic care, and preexisting conditions must be covered under employer plans. We also have tort reform that has led the country in reducing the cost of Doctor’s malpractice insurance. It is not possible to look after every occurrence for over 300 plus million people, and certainly cases about coverage will continue. But to say this vast system doesn’t work is intellectually dishonest. It is up to the voters in that, or other states to address the problem.
But to say this vast system doesn’t work is intellectually dishonest.
Even if you’re one of the people left out of the system?
Yessir, a system that would deny an HIV positive person health care in the first place suuuuure ain’t broken. Not in the least.
Further, someone who can’t see that certainly isn’t willfully obtuse or a complete sociopath. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Nosiree…
preexisting conditions must be covered under employer plans
And if you’re one of the millions not covered under employer plans, tough tittie.
Ladies and gentlemen, the moral bankruptcy of the American right wing on glorious display.
I wonder if the kid would have prevailed if torts had been rerormed.
So the system worked, whats the problem.
What about people who can’t afford to sue, should they drop dead?
What state was that girl who died waiting for a liver transplant that Cigna didn’t want to cover? Wasn’t that California?
See, Vlad isn’t talking about the health care system working; he’s talking about the legal system working.
“I’ll never get cancer! I’ll never get in a car accident! My health insurance will never drop me!”-Rand cultists
Impaler: So the system worked, whats the problem.
That it had to get to the point that a law suit was required.
“The repeated wife-beater was caught and will spend the rest of his life in jail for killing her. So the system worked, what’s the problem?”
em>And if you’re one of the millions not covered under employer plans, tough tittie.
Wilber, They do cover pre-existing conditions just at a higher rate, why should I pay more if I am in good health to subsidize someone who is not.
If a fund is set up to take the tax monies paid by corporations to create medical insurance subsidies for people with those challenges then this is one potential fix. But we would still have to fix access to healthcare for illegal aliens, this is California’s major problem, estimated at 3-5 billion a year in cost. You can have the best system in the world, and we would still go broke with service to illegal aliens.
why should I pay more if I am in good health to subsidize someone who is not
Why indeed? Well, you keep thinking like that. We’ll keep worrying about rescission and people in good health who get sick and kicked off of insurance for bogus reasons. Mm-kay?
I’m guessing that Impaler is a white person of some privilege.
this is California’s major problem, estimated at 3-5 billion a year in cost.
1) Estimated by whom?
2) I assume this means you’re also gung ho about giving them back the money they’ve paid in FICA taxes, for which they will never see a dime in benefit. Fair’s fair, right?
Yessir, California’s real problem certainly isn’t the budget being held hostage by a bunch of ideologues or anything. Nope, not at all.
And if I’m in good health, there’s no reason to believe anything bad will ever happen to me and I might one day find myself on the losing side of a system designed to cause the most stress when it will do the most harm. That’s fer damn sure.
And no doubt about it, illnesses illegal immigrants get are never passed on to American citizens. Illegals aren’t actually human, and we can not contract their sub-human viruses. That’s god’s own truth…
But we would still have to fix access to healthcare for illegal aliens, this is California’s major problem, estimated at 3-5 billion a year in cost. You can have the best system in the world, and we would still go broke with service to illegal aliens.
That will soon be fixed, but not in the way you think.
Impaler: why should I pay more if I am in good health to subsidize someone who is not.
Because otherwise you end up paying a lot more for their trip to the emergency room. Unless you’re going to argue that nobody should receive medical care unless they can pay for it themselves, you’re going to be subsidizing the care of others.
Far better to pay a little for preventative care and to catch problems soon, than to have to pay a lot for emergency care or treatment for a now chronic condition.
“why should I pay more if I am in good health to subsidize someone who is not.”
Your party of “life” folks. Don’t bother arguing with Impy because none of it matters as long as he is covered. If a major illness or injury befalls him and his perfect insurance drops him, he will sing a different tune.
So to those who lick the boots of insurance companies and the “greatest healthcare system” please explain how insurance companies serve any actual healthcare purpose besides being crooked middlemen.
“We also have tort reform that has led the country in reducing the cost of Doctor’s malpractice insurance.”
Which of course is the goal of denying victims of malpractice justice. Did it reduce health care costs borne by the consumer? Not so much.
why should I pay more if I am in good health to subsidize someone who is not.
Because even though you’re healthy now someday you may get a bad case of acne and find yourself with hospital bills, doctor bills, bills from each individual nurse and anesthesiologist, bills from the guy who empties your bedpans, bills from the pencil pushers who fill out the forms for all those bills you’re getting from all those people. You’ll max out your insurance, max out your credit cards, lose your house, lose your car, lose your dog, lose your job because a) you’re sick and b) you’ve been spending so much time trying to deal with all these bills and all this bureaucracy. Then we’ll be subsidizing your sorry ass, sunshine.
Impala, I don’t think you understand the concept of insurance… You pay into a pool so that no single person has to pay for a catastrophic expense. That includes the sick and the healthy, because there is uncertainty about who will be the former and who the latter.
As for your ignorant optimism about California, you are obviously not an employer. Average cost is about 8K-10K per year. Not sure how that fits into an average household income.
‘No Jody, it showed it did work, he disagreed with the insurance company and had a venue to redress his grievance, and was awarded 10 million dollars for his issue.’
Are you out of your mind? The student didn’t ‘disagree’ with his insurer, the greedy, soulless insurance company reneged on his policy by deciding that his honoring their end of the contract was less profitable than finding any excuse to terminate his coverage. He had to sue them over a period of 8 years to get those evil bastards to provide what was his due.
Yet to you and people who care more about money than what is just, this is what should happen when people pay into a health insurance policy, and are then jettisoned by their insurers when they get sick.
WTF is wrong with you?
‘PD100, we do not know the underlying issue, did he lie on his application,’
Why are you so eager to find some form of justification for an insurance company to operate with these nefarious practices?
Apparently the student WINNING the case isn’t proof enough for you that the insurance company WAS IN THE WRONG.
‘Wilber, They do cover pre-existing conditions just at a higher rate, why should I pay more if I am in good health to subsidize someone who is not.’
Right; that never happens in other forms of insurance, like auto and home insurance.
Wilber, They do cover pre-existing conditions just at a higher rate,
Not always. An insurer can decide your pre-existing condition makes you too much of a risk and just turn you down. Good luck getting insurance anywhere after that.
Single payer. America needs it. And we’re going to get it.
The insurance industry makes me so sick with their pre-existing condition policy, and now come to find out that being a abused wife or having had a C-section are considered pre-existing condition. Sickening. Thank goodness old people don’t have to deal with pre-existing condition policy while on Medicare. Oh yea I forgot that’s the socialist health care. Geez
What in the world makes you think that any health care system is going to be free of mistakes, inequities and inefficiencies?
Especially the Federal Government.
Nice strawman, Frank. That’s a pretty lame strawman, Frank, even for you.
Nobody is arguing anything of the sort. But thanks for playing!
Hmm. The strikethrough tags and worked in preview, but then they didn’t show up in the actual post. Weird.
OK, strike that dripping-with-sarcasm first sentence up there and proceed as usual. That is all.
I think he was responding to the ridiculously lame strawman post just before his, Felix, but I shouldn’t speak for Frank. That’s just my interpretation.
Everything in its proper context.
If you’re talking about cj’s post, Dennis, I see no strawman. Care to point it out?
Shorter Frank: nothing’s perfect, so why bother changing anything?
Dennis:
Context? We don’ nee’ no e-stinkin’ context!
It’s all about rhetoric and sophistry — the same crap we used to do in 4th grade: “point to your head and say the abbreviation for Montana”
Yuk, yuk
The question “why should I…?” is pretty much the entirety of conservative response on this subject.
The problem is that it’s in response to a cry for help.
“I can swim. Why should I be required to throw a life preserver to somebody who can’t?”
I think some famous liberal once said : There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
He didn’t mean it, either.
It’s not the duty of conservatives to simply roll over, every time some wild – eyed liberal gets an idea.
The insurance industry makes me so sick with their pre-existing condition policy
I will amend my previous statement, F H :
What in the world makes you think that any health care system
is going to be free of mistakes, inequities and inefficiencieswill not have pre-existing condition policy (that might be abused)?Especially the Federal Government.
Single payer. America needs it. And we’re going to get it.
And then tomorrow, THE WORLD!
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The comically-pro-business Roberts Supreme Court will pick up the food off the ground, wipe it on our shirt sleeve, and put it back into the insurers’ mouths.
Impaler: I sincerely hope you never have to use the “system” as you describe it.
Frank: Go fuck yourself. With a broken bottle smeared in dog feces. Seriously.
Hey look, another example of race baiting for you, Indeed. I get the impression that you’d argue with a conservative person even if they complemented you.
“I get the impression that you’d argue with a conservative person even if they complemented you.”
That seems SOP for many on both sides.
True, but I like to think most go about it in good faith.
Hope so, too.
Quaker, Not always. An insurer can decide your pre-existing condition makes you too much of a risk True, and then California ends up paying anyway, at a much higher cost, this is a flaw in the system that needs to be fixed, but at the state level.
Hey look, another example of race baiting for you, Indeed.
Hey, whoa there, Party of Lincoln. Easy with the allegations. I have no idea if I’m right, just making an educated guess. I’d also speculate that Impaler is closer to 20 than 30 years of age, has never lived in a city (or at least has little or no memory of living in a city). But I have no way of knowing this or verifying it. I bet Ayn Rand is a major influence too–which explains the privileged and racial majority supposition. That’s all.
zadura, No this is not how insurance works, Car, Life, health, liability, insurance is a bet between the insurer and you, for life insurance the company is actually betting that you won’t die prematurely, if you do the insurance company loses (you win, well relatives win). This is the same with Auto and health insurance, Auto, that you won’t have an accident and with health that the premiums collected over the life of the premiums will be higher that their payouts for you. The insurance company is betting on you, not a pool, the pool that you refer to are sophisticated amortization schedules (population statistics) that weigh the insurance company’s risk on you, do you skydive, work for a bomb squad, police, fire, etc. and based on the risk, they are able to deduce a premium on you, as long as they win more than they lose the are profitable.
Enter the Politician, with legislation to force pre-existing coverage for employers the average health of the company employee is taken into account for the underwriting of the account, in this case they will reduce the highest premium and raise the lowest premium to come up with new premium schedules for the employees, pre-existing coverage is covered and the healthier, younger employee pays’ a higher rate than he could get individually, but in most cases a portion is covered by the employer. This is why in California Pre-existing conditions are only covered in employer plans. I hope this was helpful.
The insurance company is betting on you, not a pool, the pool that you refer to are sophisticated amortization schedules (population statistics) that weigh the insurance company’s risk on you, do you skydive, work for a bomb squad, police, fire, etc. and based on the risk, they are able to deduce a premium on you, as long as they win more than they lose the are profitable.
You just made zadura’s point. Those schedules (not amortization, actuarial) don’t measure probabilities on a single person. They measure probabilities on large groups of people. The insurance company tries to insure as many low-risk people as they can. If the insurer figures the probabilities correctly, they know some people they insure will file claims, but they’ll use premiums the collect from everyone else to pay the claims.
That’s pooled risk.
…and the trouble with ‘pooled risk’ for-profit companies is they only make money by minimizing said risk.
I.e., ditching insurance on the sick. Such as, you know, teenagers that contract HIV.
The mind reels.
Impaler’s logic is perfectly sound right up to the point when one considers that hu-mons are not immortal and can, at times, get very sick or otherwise disabled. Discounting those inconvenient factoids, it’s flawless.
Frank DiSalle: What in the world makes you think that any health care system is going to be free of mistakes, inequities and inefficiencies?
So if we can’t get something completely right and flawless the first time, don’t even bother to try to improve it?
Frank DiSalle: I will amend my previous statement, F H :
What in the world makes you think that any health care system
is going to be free of mistakes, inequities and inefficiencieswill not have pre-existing condition policy (that might be abused)?You haven’t changed what you’re saying in any meaningful way. You’re still arguing that if it can’t be perfect and totally abuse-free then we shouldn’t attempt to improve it.
OK, Frank. What if, under the current system, 1000 people are wrongly denied coverage each year because insurance companies abuse the current pre-existing condition policies, and a new system would cut that down to 500 people a year. Because the new system didn’t cut that down to 0 should we not bother to make the change?
Quaker, I was trying to surmise what pool zadura could possibly be referring too. sorry, and thank you for the correction, actuarial tables, I believe zadura You pay into a pool so that no single person has to pay for a catastrophic expense. was referring to a type of premium pool, which is why I also went into employer coverage in California, which is company pool.
Quaker, I agree that the use statistics to calculate the risk, but, its how the individual fits in the schedules that determine the individuals premium. Which is why they have a underwriting department to write the individuals policy.
SM don’t make it sound so easy. What if 2 or 3 million people have to pay for insurance they don’t use, because they are between the ages of 25 and 35?
The real question is : Can we legitimately expect more compassion or thoughtfulness than we get from private health care providers?
Can we expect more or less administrative errors from the government than we have had from private healthcare providers?
Frank DiSalle: SM don’t make it sound so easy. What if 2 or 3 million people have to pay for insurance they don’t use, because they are between the ages of 25 and 35?
Frank, don’t sound so obtuse. People don’t use health insurance because they’re in a particular age bracket; they don’t use it because they don’t happen to get sick.
And that happens with insurance. Be it health, auto, fire, travel, what have you. People pay in HOPING they won’t have to use it, but counting on it being there if they do.
The real question is : Can we legitimately expect more compassion or thoughtfulness than we get from private health care providers?
I think it’s more likely than you’ll get those things from a for-profit corporation.
Can we expect more or less administrative errors from the government than we have had from private healthcare providers?
Errors, or deliberate abuse? I don’t buy into the supposed axiom that just because something is gov’t run it will be less efficient and error prone. Be it corporation or gov’t bureaucracy, it’s a bureaucracy run by humans and the level on error is likely to be the same. But I certainly believe there will be fewer cases of abuse in a gov’t system where the profit motive is far less.
I agree that the use statistics to calculate the risk, but, its how the individual fits in the schedules that determine the individuals premium.
I guarantee you that every new customer fits neatly into one of the little boxes on the insurer’s actuarial charts. They’re not going to tailor a unique policy to each and every one of their hundreds of thousands of customers.
They’re going to categorize each customer based on history and lifestyle and use an average of risks for similar people to determine the premium. They set their premium rates based on their expectation of what their expected payouts will be for the entire group.
based on their expectation of what their expected payouts will be
An unexpected redundancy! Kindly ignore one of the instances of expect.
What if 2 or 3 million people have to pay for insurance they don’t use, because they are between the ages of 25 and 35?
Then they help pay for the other 295 million who do use it. Just like the insurance you have, Frank. You know, VA benefits, Medicare, like that.
I wasn’t expecting that.
“Can we legitimately expect more compassion or thoughtfulness than we get from private health care providers?”
I don’t know. Ask the guy that got his insurance canceled after contracting HIV. Then go see if that ever happens in Canada.
“Can we expect more or less administrative errors from the government than we have had from private healthcare providers?”
Oh, almost certainly more. Because, you know, we’ll actually be, like, treating more people, instead of refusing to cover them due to some pre-existing condition like being a battered spouse, or denying their coverage as soon as they get diagnosed with a severe illness.
The fact that we’re even having this conversation shows just how out of touch the right is in America. In other first world nations the debates we’re having never even come up, because everyone just uses the services when they need them. But in America they’re too busy shitting themselves because MuslObamitler is going to use health care to enslave everyone under his secret IslamoCommunoFascistAtheistKenyanFeministHomosexual agenda.
Quaker, guarantee you that every new customer fits neatly into one of the little boxes that may be true, but it took us 4 weeks to get through, underwriting, could be marketing because, if we wanted immediate coverage it was 75 dollars higher per month. I would hope with modern technology that they could fit us in the boxes faster.
I don’t know. Ask the guy that got his insurance canceled after contracting HIV.
Or this lady.
Impaler: Quaker, guarantee you that every new customer fits neatly into one of the little boxes that may be true, but it took us 4 weeks to get through, underwriting, could be marketing because, if we wanted immediate coverage it was 75 dollars higher per month. I would hope with modern technology that they could fit us in the boxes faster.
So, confronted with the real facts, you’re now completely backing off of your claims that there are no risk pools and “insurance is a bet between the insurer and you”, the individual. And are instead abandoning that discredited stance and switching over to complaining that they don’t put people into the pools (which you said didn’t exist) fast enough.
Just trying to keep up, Imp.
Duros62:<i.
The fault lies with Cigna, clearly and undeniably. Still… I can’t help thinking that the doctors could treat her (and save her life?) if they wanted to.
Granted, the generosity of doctors and hospitals to work pro bono is not sustainable. But it smacks a bit of the person who sees someone bleeding in the street and says “Sure, I could staunch that for you. Got to pay me first.”
There are two bottom lines here: affordability and accountability. Government-run health care is more affordable because it’s more efficient, has less overhead, and lacks a profit motive — which will result in more preventive care, which will lead to even lower costs as well as better health. Government-run health care is also accountable to the people, who can put pressure on their elected representatives in a way that they cannot do to corporate bigwigs.
Despite the silly strawmen of Frank and others, no one is arguing that government-run health care is perfect or free from opportunities for abuse; but, given the two bottom lines, it’s bound to be a damn sight better than the shite smorgasbord we’ve got now.
It’s not the duty of conservatives to simply roll over, every time some wild – eyed liberal gets an idea.
Like gays getting married? Teh horror!
I think some famous liberal once said : There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
How the hell is society supposed to progress both socially and technologically if people don’t come up with new ideas. If you want, I can submit that question on papyrus if that suits you better.
The real question is : Can we legitimately expect more compassion or thoughtfulness than we get from private health care providers?
Can we expect more or less administrative errors from the government than we have had from private healthcare providers?
Only if Democrats are in charge.
Zython: I am not opposed to gays getting married . Guess again.
How the hell is society supposed to progress both socially and technologically if people don’t come up with new ideas?
Is that one of those rules, that society is “supposed” to progress socially and technologically?
Who says?
Only if Democrats are in charge.
I am sure you can provide me with some examples of some government programs which worked well when run by Democrats/
Granted, the generosity of doctors and hospitals to work pro bono is not sustainable.
True. Odd that lawyers are more prone to working for free than doctors.
But to say this vast system doesn’t work is intellectually dishonest.
This is your brain on Fox News.
Sean D. Martin So, confronted with the real facts Did you read all the posts? (I believe zadura You pay into a pool so that no single person has to pay for a catastrophic expense. was referring to a type of premium pool, which is why I also went into employer coverage in California, which is company pool.)
I was attempting to make sense of things in the post, and other posts, Quaker and I got into Actuarial tables and the semantics on that issue, I know Quaker is not an Insurance Underwriter, nor am I. It was that just a friendly discussion.
My claims stand, there is no Premium Pool except as outlined in earlier posts. Actuarial Tables are just a means to figure risk.
Zython, “Only if Democrats are in charge.” Oh like Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, or how about ACORN, Oh and we know how good they are with their check books, perhaps we could have Charlie Rangel in charge of the Obamacare budget, or perhaps Tim Geithner, But one of my all time favorite politicians just got out of prison and I am sure he needs a job James Traficant.
FDS – “Is that one of those rules, that society is “supposed” to progress socially and technologically?
Who says?”
Who says not?
Duros62
True. Odd that lawyers are more prone to working for free than doctors. Lawyers can afford to with the way they bill paying clients, plus I’m sure its in their contract with Satan.
C B , when you say something like “supposed to happen” you are suggesting some sort of compulsion or requirement (in American English, anyway.) I am asking Zython from whence came that ‘requiremnt or compulsion’.
Of course, if you’d like to answer … ?
My claims stand, there is no Premium Pool except as outlined in earlier posts. Actuarial Tables are just a means to figure risk.
Have you ever taken a statistics course, Impy? Insurance risk is based on statistical analysis.
Take car insurance for example. If you look at one driver, male, age 30, no previous tickets or accidents, suburban resident and worker, it’s very hard to determine the probabilities that he’ll have an accident in the next year.
On the other hand, if you look at 1,000 drivers with similar profiles, you can go look at the records and find out how many such drivers have accidents each year. (For the sake of discussion, let’s say it’s 31.)
If the insurer could determine which 31 drivers were going to have accidents in the next year, they could just deny them coverage and avoid paying claims. But, in fact, they don’t know who is going to have accidents. So they figure out how much they think 31 claims are going to cost and calculate their premiums for all 1,000 drivers on that basis.
Risk pool.
Zython: I am not opposed to gays getting married . Guess again.
Fair enough. However, I DO remember you whining about gays in the military, so let’s go with that.
Oh like Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac,
Dear Conservatives,
Please stop referring to FM&FM. It’s really annoying. Not because it’s embarrassing, but because it’s a pain in the ass to keep finding this graph every time it’s brought up. I really don’t want to have to bookmark it.
I am sure you can provide me with some examples of some government programs which worked well when run by Democrats/
Social Security. Oh, and before you say anything, remember that if Bush & McCain had their way 2 years ago, it would already be in the toilet.
<i.C B , when you say something like “supposed to happen” you are suggesting some sort of compulsion or requirement (in American English, anyway.) I am asking Zython from whence came that ‘requiremnt or compulsion’.
Progress improves the quality of life of man. Then again, judging by your tone, I wouldn’t be surprised if you get upset when the doctors won’t drain your humors.
Quaker, Risk pool, not a premium pool, yes I know statistics, and if you would read all of the posts and to whom I was responding, I explain all of that. The point is there are other factors taken into account, Credit history, medical history, a bunch of other things, but what I said stands.
Are you an Underwriter? Have you ever underwritten any Insurance contracts? Just Curious, if it was Astrophysics, I would defer to you, but I have held a California Life and Disability License, Different from medical to be sure, but the concept remains the same, if it was a bunch of neat little boxes it would be easier, and perhaps this was the higher “immediate” rate I talked about earlier, but as stated if you go through the underwriting process that took weeks for my wife and daughter, then I would have to believe there is something more, If it would help I can get my AFLAC agent to blog here next week.
Zython: I remember you whining about, well, everything…
Social Security: Zython, you have no idea what a fiscal disaster Soc Sec has become,since LBJ pulled off his subterfuge
Progress improves the quality of life of man.
Sometimes it does , sometimes it doesn’t. That was not my question: My question was, where does the requirement that we must progress come from?
if it was Astrophysics, I would defer to you,
You’re confusing me with Southern Quaker.
Quaker, Risk pool, not a premium pool,
Wait. Now you’re saying that the insurance companies don’t pool the premiums?
That’s just nutty.
Social Security: Zython, you have no idea what a fiscal disaster Soc Sec has become,since LBJ pulled off his subterfuge
AGAIN, it would’ve been far worse in the hands of the Republicans.
Sometimes it does , sometimes it doesn’t. That was not my question: My question was, where does the requirement that we must progress come from?
First off, can you name some examples of progress making people’s lives worse? Secondly, I’m pretty sure that improvement of quality of life is a pretty good reason for progress. I could come up with other reasons, but those are less pragmatic and more philosophical, which I don’t think is what you’re looking for.
Frank DiSalle: I am sure you can provide me with some examples of some government programs which worked well when run by Democrats/
Impaler: Oh like Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, or how about ACORN
ACORN is a gov’t program now?
Spare me.
Frank DiSalle: Is that one of those rules, that society is “supposed” to progress socially and technologically?
Not sure about it being a “rule”, but progress certainly seems to be what does happen. OK, we can call it “change” if that makes it easier for you. But the fact is it does change, and never back into what it was (despite repeated calls at times for it to do that) so progress is a more appropriate word.
It doesn’t revert, it doesn’t stagnate. It progresses.
Social Security: Zython, you have no idea what a fiscal disaster Soc Sec has become,since LBJ pulled off his subterfuge
And so you won’t be taking it anymore, right, Frank?