Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Insurers' warning shot has Democrats scrambling

World Oct. 13, 2009 - 04:14AM JST ( 18 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

18 Comments

0

HehehohohahaOct. 13, 2009 - 07:22AM JST

remiums for a single person would go up by $600 more

So the insurance industry has just booked a $600 increase over 3 years. That's a clever way of informing the public without worrying about a backlash.
0

zurcroniumOct. 13, 2009 - 08:28AM JST

This is rich, the industry that double the cost of healthcare in the last 10 years, invented the term pre-existing condition, has prevented 45 million Americans from being insured and if you are insured dump you once they have to pay is saying "trust me"?

Even the slowest republican knows what they are saying is simply self-serving lies.
0

GJDailleultOct. 13, 2009 - 08:32AM JST

Any American who listens to anything these bloodsucking lobbyists say and believes a word of it deserves everything they get.
0

zurcroniumOct. 13, 2009 - 08:34AM JST

And Price Waterhouse was one of the firms that audited AIG and Enron and said everything was just fine with them before they collapsed. These companies go to the highest bidders. Currently PWC is paying out $100 million in damages to those that bought AIG stock based on PWC clean audits.
0

skipthesongOct. 13, 2009 - 08:59AM JST

This is rich, the industry that double the cost of healthcare in the last 10 years" That's really not 100% correct. Much of the costs have been due to lawsuits as well as government regulations forcing insurers how to operate.

Any American who listens to anything these bloodsucking lobbyists say and believes a word of it deserves everything they get." You don't think there are lobbyists on the other side of the fence? don't you know who is the highest paid recipient of health care lobby money was???? Hint, it's not a repub!

zurc: now you have it right. PWC has been one of the companies that gets business easy and sits back smoking cigars!
0

rajakumarOct. 13, 2009 - 09:24AM JST

First we have Bush's war presidency, now we have Obama health issues fight presidency.

Cut the crap,produce results.
0

adaydreamOct. 13, 2009 - 10:38AM JST

rajakumar

First we have Bush's war presidency, now we have Obama health issues fight presidency.

I agree with the bush part. This is about the health insurance industry telling you that they will continue to screw you no matter what, matter of fact here's how much we plan to do it. They are coming out with this change in co-opporation.

Now it's up to your congressman what happens. If they have balls and want what's good for the country, they pass the health care issue on through the process. Or, if they can only bend over and bare their butts to the insurance industry and take another one for the team. < :-)
0

NolivingOct. 13, 2009 - 10:51AM JST

" invented the term pre-existing condition, has prevented 45 million Americans from being insured"

Not exactly, a good portion of those 45 million can actually afford health care insurance but they choose not to get health care insurance, others just simply can't afford health care insurance. Not all 45 million of them or even a good portion of them can't get health care because of a pre existing condition, however though a few of them can't get healthcare because of a pre-existing condition
0

adaydreamOct. 13, 2009 - 11:00AM JST

Noliving you're correct.

Some of these people, however were born with these preexisting conditions. Under the insurance companies privy, some people will never be allowed to purchase health care insurance. Nothing help defray the cost of health care or prescriptions.

Insurance companies are just beside themselves and this health care program. < :-)
0

skipthesongOct. 13, 2009 - 11:52AM JST

Of those who "can't afford it" I'd like to ask if they have a car, cell phone, PS3/Xbox, drink, but cigarettes, and all those things that are so necessary.

I won't to meet, personally, a person, who actually shopped around to tell me and prove to me they couldn't get insurance with a pre-existing condition. If they can prove to me, as it depends on state to state due to government regulation, then I want to ask them why they don't opt for medicaid.

For those that are all for this and like me living overseas, are you still paying into your medical insurance or are you just paying for the Japanese national plan? You are part of the problem.
0

GJDailleultOct. 13, 2009 - 11:59AM JST

You don't think there are lobbyists on the other side of the fence?

Lobbyists do not sit on either side of the fence. They and the people they work for own the fence. Why would anybody think lobbyists care about political orientation or be surprised that Democrats were the biggest recipient??? Their job is very simple - remove money from your pocket and put it into theirs and their clients.
0

skipthesongOct. 13, 2009 - 01:01PM JST

GJDailleiuit: Maybe you misunderstood my point.
There is going to be a lot of money to be made no matter which way this decision goes. Why should anyone be surprised? Well, unless I was dreaming, but I thought one of the campaign promises was to get rid of all the lobbyists tying up DC.

I am also pointing out that insurance companies should not be ganged up for the reason the posters above claim.
0

YelnatsOct. 13, 2009 - 02:27PM JST

How do they prove you had a pre existing condition. Just do not tell them.
0

adaydreamOct. 13, 2009 - 08:14PM JST

One insurance company refused to insure babies born that are overweight at birth. How does that happen? They have just revered that policy, but it's just that easy for them to not insure whoever they decide not to insure. < :-)
0

SargeOct. 13, 2009 - 08:34PM JST

"threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority"

What! With his party controlling both houses of Congress?

"pre-existing condition"

Everyone's got a pre-existing condition.
0

skipthesongOct. 13, 2009 - 08:52PM JST

aday: that's in today's news. What you are not reading into is that that family can find an insurer. Just because one won't doesn't mean another won't. Again, not knowing the state, as that is who regulates the insurers, is hard to make this case. And since it was in today's news leaves me with there are probably many more who have been insured. Remember, before you blame the insurer, you need to know the state regulations. its easy to by pass that, but it should be bypassed when talking about this. I'm willing to bet there will an insurer who has experience in such cases that will insure the kid
0

adaydreamOct. 13, 2009 - 09:01PM JST

Yes skipthesong, I know. But my point is they make the rules as they go, change them as they want and you're at their mercy.

The insurance company changed their own rules later, but initially you have one insurance for the family and they had to search for a separate insurer for another child.

My point is insurance companies can put you over a barrel at anytime. They make the rules and they change them at their whims. < :-)
0

skipthesongOct. 13, 2009 - 11:44PM JST

aday: again, you need to look at what the state law says about it. In most cases, unbeknown to most, it is the state law more at fault. Now, I now you are pro-public option and had I not been married to a doctor in Japan, I would agree but listening to her and Japan's system is rated as one of the best, I have changed and I personally think moving in that direction is going to be bad. One thing in Japan that is overlooked when they rate this system is how tight the family is here whereas in the US, the family is a word almost as bad as a curse word. Notice how you can see many parents of special children here walking around with those kids? That's because the state doesn't cover anything. Now why do you think the US is going to put out something better?