Harley, your sources are hardly the bastions of non-partisan ship. I’m sure the insurance companies who earn billions in profits even after giving their CEO 1 out of every 7 dollars they earn and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lawsuits have no blame in those matters. They’re always justified in how they deny or drop coverage. You betcha.
The “independent’ or “undecided” voter is a fickle crowd looking to support looking to support whoever tells them the best lies. No need for reason or facts for this crowd. It’s all about who they can fantasize having a beer with, not who will do the better job. No need to read up on the fall of the Roman Empire, you’re living it.
Harlyquinn, I can tell you’re an idiot because your posting a story that was debunked as soon as Fox tried to smear it across the news. McDonald’s has already stated it never said- or that it had any plans- to drop health care. A simple google search will tell you that, and they released a notice that fox, once again, LIED.
“The idea that government can create jobs is like the snake
eating its own tail.”
Really? That snake ate a whole lot of tail back in the 40s.
Gosh, that blog killed me. “Because the central planners of the Obama administration decided in their infinite wisdom that all insurers should spend at least 80-85% of their revenues on patient care, rather than administrative costs. That’s called a “medical loss ratio” in industry speak. But there’s no evidence that spending 80% of revenue on patient care is good for customers”
Yes, someone is arguing that spending a higher percentage of the health insurance money on.. health … is not necessarily good for the customer.
Spending the customer’s money on what he’s paying you for - healthcare expenses - is not necessarily good for the same customer. Good God, have those people no shame?
No evidence that spending more on the patient’s actual healthcare - rather than having that money end up in your pocket via “administrative expenses -” is good for the patient! Of course, if there’s one problem with healthcare insurance, it’s that all those plans are too bleeep efficient!
If a public service like medicare was having administrative expenses of 15-20%, it would be - justifiably - razed to the ground and have the soil seeded with salt. Yet somehow, private companies can claim that they should spend no more than 8 of 10 dollars on the actual insurance the customers are paying for, and that’s fine and dandy. Wasn’t private enterprise better because it was more efficient?
Bluejayz over 13 years ago
Don’t Do It! He’ll just give you another black eye, and then leave you with lots of little uninsured babies and a huge deficit.
Redeemd over 13 years ago
Maybe this time he’ll work for peanuts…
rottenprat over 13 years ago
Do it. Take that old elephant for all it’s worth.
Jason Allen over 13 years ago
Harley, your sources are hardly the bastions of non-partisan ship. I’m sure the insurance companies who earn billions in profits even after giving their CEO 1 out of every 7 dollars they earn and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lawsuits have no blame in those matters. They’re always justified in how they deny or drop coverage. You betcha.
The “independent’ or “undecided” voter is a fickle crowd looking to support looking to support whoever tells them the best lies. No need for reason or facts for this crowd. It’s all about who they can fantasize having a beer with, not who will do the better job. No need to read up on the fall of the Roman Empire, you’re living it.
idres Premium Member over 13 years ago
Harlyquinn, I can tell you’re an idiot because your posting a story that was debunked as soon as Fox tried to smear it across the news. McDonald’s has already stated it never said- or that it had any plans- to drop health care. A simple google search will tell you that, and they released a notice that fox, once again, LIED.
pirate227 over 13 years ago
“Run away, run away!”
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
“The idea that government can create jobs is like the snake eating its own tail.”
Really? That snake ate a whole lot of tail back in the 40s.
Gosh, that blog killed me. “Because the central planners of the Obama administration decided in their infinite wisdom that all insurers should spend at least 80-85% of their revenues on patient care, rather than administrative costs. That’s called a “medical loss ratio” in industry speak. But there’s no evidence that spending 80% of revenue on patient care is good for customers”
Yes, someone is arguing that spending a higher percentage of the health insurance money on.. health … is not necessarily good for the customer.
Spending the customer’s money on what he’s paying you for - healthcare expenses - is not necessarily good for the same customer. Good God, have those people no shame?
No evidence that spending more on the patient’s actual healthcare - rather than having that money end up in your pocket via “administrative expenses -” is good for the patient! Of course, if there’s one problem with healthcare insurance, it’s that all those plans are too bleeep efficient!
If a public service like medicare was having administrative expenses of 15-20%, it would be - justifiably - razed to the ground and have the soil seeded with salt. Yet somehow, private companies can claim that they should spend no more than 8 of 10 dollars on the actual insurance the customers are paying for, and that’s fine and dandy. Wasn’t private enterprise better because it was more efficient?
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
richgrise; And what if the rich decide not to create jobs?
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
The fact is that the abused most often return to their abuser. If that one dies, they even look for another in the same model.