Insurance coverage

M Rothwell wrote:
 >
 > That's not what the op said. "for passage of the bill that forces
your
 > employer to cover you with health care if your injured on a
motorcycle."
 > This says nothing about discriminatory health insurance. It says
that
 > the employer MUST insure for motorcycle accidents.
 >
 > The employer MAY offer a benefit of insurance, but they should not be

 > required. If you dont like the insurance that they offer - dont take

 > it. It's up to you, but should not be a requirement. I pay for my
own
 > insurance, so I choose what I want.
 >
 > It's bill's like this that are causing insurance rates to skyrocket.

You don't understand what the bill does.

It's not requiring your employer to provide something called
"motorcycle accident coverage insurance," as the original wording
indicated. It simply states that insurance providers can't refuse
coverage for motorcycle-related injuries within regular policies.

Also, you seem to misunderstand how insurance works in this country. If
you are covered by an employer's policy, no matter how pathetic that
policy is, you lose considerable tax benefits of buying your own -- and
the more money you make, the bigger that loss is. This means that the
one option their employer offers is most people's only option. There is
also the concept of no coverage for pre-existing conditions. You make
is sound like people can switch insurance policies like they can switch
cable TV providers. That's a ridiculous idea.

And, if you want to know what's making health insurance rates skyrocket
in this country, it's the cost of health care. And what's making the
cost of health care skyrocket? In many cases, it's the cost of caring
for the uninsured -- you know, guys who after breaking their back in a
motorcycle accident are told the next morning in the hospital, "We're
sorry, sir, your insurance policy doesn't cover motorcycle-related
injuries. Will that be cash or Amex?"

James
00CR250<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance coverage 

"M Rothwell" <ThisIsABadAddress.TakeThisOut@toobad.com> wrote in message
news:41ab675e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...

 > And WHY should it be someone else's responsibility if I get hurt doing
 > something on my own time?
 >
 > I really hate this "entitled" mentallity.

Are you saying that you medical insurance shouldn't cover
*anything* you do outside the work place? Car
accidents? Laundry mishaps?

The original poster was referring to discriminatory health
insurance that some companies are forcing on their
employees. If you are engaging in an unsanctioned
activity (aka riding dirt bikes), then your injury costs may
not be covered under the insurance.

-Jeff Deeney- DoD#0498 NCTR UTMA BRC COHVCO AMA
'99 ATK 260LQ-Stink Wheels '94 XR650L-DreamSickle
We don't stop riding because we get old, we get old because we stop riding.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance coverage 

Jeff Deeney wrote:
 > "M Rothwell" <ThisIsABadAddress DeleteThis @toobad.com> wrote in message
 > news:41ab675e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
 >
 >
  >>And WHY should it be someone else's responsibility if I get hurt doing
  >>something on my own time?
  >>
  >>I really hate this "entitled" mentallity.
 >
 >
 > Are you saying that you medical insurance shouldn't cover
 > *anything* you do outside the work place? Car
 > accidents? Laundry mishaps?
 >
 > The original poster was referring to discriminatory health
 > insurance that some companies are forcing on their
 > employees. If you are engaging in an unsanctioned
 > activity (aka riding dirt bikes), then your injury costs may
 > not be covered under the insurance.

That's not what the op said. "for passage of the bill that forces your
employer to cover you with health care if your injured on a motorcycle."
This says nothing about discriminatory health insurance. It says that
the employer MUST insure for motorcycle accidents.

The employer MAY offer a benefit of insurance, but they should not be
required. If you dont like the insurance that they offer - dont take
it. It's up to you, but should not be a requirement. I pay for my own
insurance, so I choose what I want.

It's bill's like this that are causing insurance rates to skyrocket.


 >
 > -Jeff Deeney- DoD#0498 NCTR UTMA BRC COHVCO AMA
 > '99 ATK 260LQ-Stink Wheels '94 XR650L-DreamSickle
 > We don't stop riding because we get old, we get old because we stop riding.
 >
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance coverage 

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:26:29 GMT, "Jeff Deeney"
<jeff.deeney DeleteThis @removespam4good.hp.com> wrote:

 >
 >"M Rothwell" <ThisIsABadAddress DeleteThis @toobad.com> wrote in message
 >news:41ab675e$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
 >
  >> And WHY should it be someone else's responsibility if I get hurt doing
  >> something on my own time?
  >>
  >> I really hate this "entitled" mentallity.
 >
 >Are you saying that you medical insurance shouldn't cover
 >*anything* you do outside the work place? Car
 >accidents? Laundry mishaps?

I still think you could have disguised that trail accident as
something better than a laundry accident. Like, say, dropping a boat
motor on your hand, er, foot.

 >The original poster was referring to discriminatory health
 >insurance that some companies are forcing on their
 >employees. If you are engaging in an unsanctioned
 >activity (aka riding dirt bikes), then your injury costs may
 >not be covered under the insurance.
 >
 >-Jeff Deeney- DoD#0498 NCTR UTMA BRC COHVCO AMA
 >'99 ATK 260LQ-Stink Wheels '94 XR650L-DreamSickle
 >We don't stop riding because we get old, we get old because we stop riding.
 >
 >

John
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately for insurance purposes, I usually
have witnesses for the stupid stuff.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance coverage 

<midwestmotocross.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1101765404.796621.113170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
 >M Rothwell wrote:
  >>
  >> That's not what the op said. "for passage of the bill that forces
 > your
  >> employer to cover you with health care if your injured on a
 > motorcycle."
  >> This says nothing about discriminatory health insurance. It says
 > that
  >> the employer MUST insure for motorcycle accidents.
  >>
  >> The employer MAY offer a benefit of insurance, but they should not be
 >
  >> required. If you dont like the insurance that they offer - dont take
 >
  >> it. It's up to you, but should not be a requirement. I pay for my
 > own
  >> insurance, so I choose what I want.
  >>
  >> It's bill's like this that are causing insurance rates to skyrocket.
 >
 > You don't understand what the bill does.
 >
 > It's not requiring your employer to provide something called
 > "motorcycle accident coverage insurance," as the original wording
 > indicated. It simply states that insurance providers can't refuse
 > coverage for motorcycle-related injuries within regular policies.
 >
 > Also, you seem to misunderstand how insurance works in this country. If
 > you are covered by an employer's policy, no matter how pathetic that
 > policy is, you lose considerable tax benefits of buying your own -- and
 > the more money you make, the bigger that loss is. This means that the
 > one option their employer offers is most people's only option. There is
 > also the concept of no coverage for pre-existing conditions. You make
 > is sound like people can switch insurance policies like they can switch
 > cable TV providers. That's a ridiculous idea.
 >
 > And, if you want to know what's making health insurance rates skyrocket
 > in this country, it's the cost of health care. And what's making the
 > cost of health care skyrocket? In many cases, it's the cost of caring
 > for the uninsured -- you know, guys who after breaking their back in a
 > motorcycle accident are told the next morning in the hospital, "We're
 > sorry, sir, your insurance policy doesn't cover motorcycle-related
 > injuries. Will that be cash or Amex?"
 >
 > James
 > 00CR250
 >

partialy correct on the inflating cost.....
the public now thinks insurance is a given (thanks to the tax code
making the employee use pre tax $ to buy insurance on your
behaf) once the consumer is out of the loop on paying for services
you have little or no insentive on the consumer or the provider
to contain cost. (third party pays) once third party gets tired of the
consumer & provider taking them for a ride they put in the lawyers
to write up acceptable claims & reasonible fees for services.....
price fixing and pidgenholing treatments into common solutions to known
problems... the issue is health care in order to improve needs change
and insentive )(*&^)(^^T& forget it look at it this way
would you want 7 grand raise or me to provide health care?
now that you have no health care, or no raise... who are you mad
at? yep the employer, why, because the tax code made it easy to
make folk expect him to buy crap for you....
now that the employer can no longer economicaly afford to provide
stuff for you who is going to step in and save the problem? you got it
the ones who caused the problem gov't<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance coverage 

john wrote:
 >
 > partialy correct on the inflating cost.....
 > the public now thinks insurance is a given (thanks to the tax code
 > making the employee use pre tax $ to buy insurance on your
 > behaf) once the consumer is out of the loop on paying for services
 > you have little or no insentive on the consumer or the provider
 > to contain cost. (third party pays) once third party gets tired of
the
 > consumer & provider taking them for a ride they put in the lawyers
 > to write up acceptable claims & reasonible fees for services.....
 > price fixing and pidgenholing treatments into common solutions to
known
 > problems... the issue is health care in order to improve needs change
 > and insentive )(*&^)(^^T& forget it look at it this way
 > would you want 7 grand raise or me to provide health care?
 > now that you have no health care, or no raise... who are you mad
 > at? yep the employer, why, because the tax code made it easy to
 > make folk expect him to buy crap for you....
 > now that the employer can no longer economicaly afford to provide
 > stuff for you who is going to step in and save the problem? you got
it
 > the ones who caused the problem gov't

How about a seven grand pay cut and a 150% increase in the employee
contribution? That's closer to the reality of the past three years,
especially for my tech industry friends.

The tax code hurts both ways. Many of us would be better off if we
could select our own policy instead of using the one sponsored by our
employer. This situation is further blurred by the recently created
medical savings accounts. Like the old FLEX accounts, they let you put
away pre-tax dollars for medical expenses. Unlike FLEX accounts, the
balances roll over every year. But you only qualify for them if you
have a "high deductible" insurance policy, which doesn't describe the
vast majority of employer-sponsored plans.

In a perfect world, employers would get out of the benefits business.
In a perfect world, people would be smart enough to make their own
choices, but no matter how smart you are, if the system doesn't allow
free choice and free competition, it's not a free market.

James
00CR250<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance coverage