| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:44:51 -0400, HK
wrote: On 3/19/10 11:45 AM, Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be made by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs. I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening conditions. If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are available only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those who can't pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live? Eisboch There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra. I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera. I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects or injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I don't consider boob jobs in that category. Eisboch Unless for reconstruction after breast removal surgery. At heart, I'm really opposed to for-profit health insurance. For-profit health insurance companies add nothing of value to the process of staying well or getting well. Doctors, nurses, technicals, hospitals, therapists, drug companies...they help you get well. This is an alarmingly naive statement. It is inherently in the "for-profit" insurance company's best interest to persuade, encourage, and cajole insureds into "staying well." This is why most bona-fide insurance companies will offer some type of health-and-wellness program for their insureds. Many plans include memberships to Curves and typical stay-n-shape type of progams. Too, it is implicitly not in the health insurance company's mission statement to be a health care provider. They provide 'financial' protection against catastropic loss. To be opposed to "for-profit" health insurance in conflating the health care responsibilities (or value) of both is the product of confused thinking or the product of disinformation. |