Hey, I ask to list those that satisfied all the 3 criteria not just "non-profit." Jeez...
I have an experience. But it is quite different from what you think. A friend of mine, who was an international student, was involved in a small accident. She was admitted to a hospital famed for treating such injuries and very affordable, that is, if the patient were poor and had no health insurance since the it was run by apprentice doctors. My friend, of course, had an insurance and she naively told the staffs there she had an insurance. In the next week, that hospital charged her ~24,000$. Unfortunate for her, that hospital was not in the list of the insurance company from which she bought her insurance.
The insurance company only agreed to pay 5,000$ since it was the maximum fee to treat her injury in one of its facility. And 5,000$ was also the fee for an uninsured patient treated in that hospital.
What did I think about it? On one hand, I really appreciated that hospital's effort to help the poor. On the other.... It's so f*** up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vexx
You've repeatedly sidestepped or ignored questions that you don't want to answer in favor of nitpicking at the posts of others with snarky one-liners. You reject or ignore any attempts from posters who patiently try to explain how the current system works. For all intents and purposes, you simply appear to be trolling to divert energy away from a constructive discussion in which all sides might learn something. Its rather like you've entered a discussion about quantum mechanics and keep interrupting with questionable assertions about basic algebra.
|
Constructive discussion? So if I talk about anything but how to fix the insurance policy, I am a troll. That's a lovely attitude you have here. Let me try to summerize everything up:
Problem: Joe had a cancer and received a bill of 500,000$ which obviously he cannot pay. His insurance company only agrees to pay 300,000$ which is stated clearly in its policy. And there are many people like Joe in the society.
Proposed solutions:
Yours: how to make the insurance company pays for 500,000$.
Kamui4356's: how to prevent Joe from having that cancer in the first place.
Mine: how to make the it 20,000$ instead of 500,000$, or even less.
Personally, I find it more constructive to debate with Kamui4356. At least, he wanted to reduce to cost even though I find his suggestion would lead to adverse effect. Yours, on the other hand, doesn't solve anything. The obscene price tag is still there.
If you want to attack me, go straight to the fact that doing what I suggested would initially destroy millions of people who are so used to the system. And for me, they have done nothing wrong. But others are also not at fault so why must they deserve this crappy system?