On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:42:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
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.


Yeah right. As soon as you get sick, they'll look for a way to drop you.
Submit a bill and it takes an act of Congress to get them to pay in a timely
fashion. Lose your job and can't afford Cobra, too bad. You can't get
private insurance if you have any kind of pre-existing condition. The
insurance companies are only interested in one thing: profit. That's fine,
except that has little to do with public health. They provide financial
protection against catastrophic loss unless they can find a way to weasel
out of it.

Learn to read, and learn to think, ma'am.