:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:


Buying back stock, to increase stock price and therefore bonuses...is what a lot (most?) of publicly traded companies are doing with their 'new found money.'

Yeah, sure, a few have given $1,000 one-time bonuses to employees to try and avoid criticism, but smart folks know the real goal of paying less taxes...is for upper management to increase their own compensation.

And denying as many medical claims as possible, is also how health insurance companies increase their profits...and stock price. :mad:

Wow we all have our own prejudice
 

The goal of any corporation is to make money for the stock holders. You mention toothpaste, tech and utilities. Same exact thing-THE GOAL IS TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE STOCK HOLDERS. You declare you do not own united healthcare for,"ethical," reasons. .I refuse to buy any of the tobacco stocks. I think if bother were to check, if you have a pension, owns a fund, an ETF, you might well find that YOU
OWN stock in many companies that you would not buy due to your morals.

RE: Medicare changes.
We will ALL be screaming. Our current debt is stated as 20 TRILLION DOLLARS. Of that 20 TRILLION DOLLARS, a sum that WE/I simply can't comprehend, SOCIAL SECURITY hold just over 40% of that and their is no payback period or stated interest. That BILL will be paid as government pays all it's bills-INFLATION, combined with SERVICE CUT BACKS.
To pay this bill you simply can't cut the small stuff and pay it. You need to cut the SACRED EXPENSES-the BIG ONES.
MILITARY,EDUCATION AND WELFARE-INCLUDING SOCIAL SECURITY. No one wants to see it and that includes me.

IN THE END, THROUGHOUT HISTORY, EVERYONE WANTS BUT WANTS SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT.

While making money on stocks is always the goal, doing it while knowing that it's being done to the detriment to other citizens health or life, is well..... :ohdear:

And there's a very simple way to change it, which every other developed country on the planet, except us...have figured out. :oops:

/////

Not sure how that conclusion is reached. UHC dropped Alliant. Medicare didn’t.

It’s UHC—not Medicare—who is the bad guy. This is scary for those with UHC Advantage Insurance that they can arbitrarily drop a provider with seemingly no responsibility to their (UHC) customers.

I wish Casper had posted the letter from UHC.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

//////

OK...TO save folks time and effort and a strain on PMs and the Moderator, I have deleted all my posts.

Does anyone find it curious with The Villages Health rapidly expanding their specialty practice that their privately negotiated " approved " UHC " insurance plan is no longer available to what might be a rival specialty practice ? I think I read everything correctly and stand to be told I did not. Might be our cardiologists are next to get the notice. I've always been reminded whenever I post on the subject of the Villages Health that it is a business and thus must act accordingly when it comes to producing a profit. I also know the easiest way to produce a profit is to establish a monopoly and that a geographic monopoly works perfectly well for that purpose.

The specialists in TV Health do NOT restrict insurance providers for patients over 65. They take essentially all insurances, most importantly Medicare. So, your "rival specialty practice" example is meaningless.

This is not the same for TV Health primary care physicians, as we all know.

I can state this from first-hand experience.

Thanks for that information, champion6. That is very good to know.

The vendetta rages on
 

Speaking of insurance coverage:

I hope everyone makes sure to read the very recent news about how the protection for pre-existing conditions is being actively targeted. They are cranking up the heat — “they” who hold the power and will never have to worry about their own healthcare.

Then there are us regular Americans, the majority of whom like the idea of pre-existing conditions protection —

— although I am constantly confused by those who continue to rail against the thing that has allowed them or their spouse or their adult child to be insured. I just don’t get it. I want to say, “Hellooooo, let me draw you a picture of where you actually are in this thing.” —

— But I never bother to say that. I just think about how Pogo was right.

A lot of news on how pre-existing conditions protections are still, and even more so, in peril came out yesterday.

If those protections get thrown out, here is what will follow:

Anyone who gets downsized and has a pre-existing condition could find themselves with no access to healthcare.

Also, anyone who can remain insured but has a pre-existing condition could be carved out for higher premiums.

Or people could be sold policies that are basically useless if they get really sick.

Sound familiar?

Even if you are among those feeling smugly swaddled in Medicare or employer plans, I hope you will take the time to read the recent articles on the current crank-up of the war on pre-existing conditions protections.

///

I get your logic. I really hope you’re wrong.

It applies DIRECTLY to the thread and health care in general.

It is not aimed at anyone.

It is in the news each day and applies to ALL, or at least most of who post on this forum.

It is not a discussion of politics but a discussion of the happening that will affect ALL HEALTH CARE.

EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW what is happening relative to Health Care no matter the political party or leaning.

That and the floundering Social Security (we need to dip into the back up fund for the first time since the 1980's....the mortality prediction on not only Social Security but also Medicaire.

These are subjects that YOU may find political for whatever reason but the politicians have control and with our HUGE deficit those who live in The Villages, who have any conscience should be discussing these issues daily.

Perhaps you have the wealth to not worry at all, but most of us have children or grandchildren and our own health care costs to worry about

Uncle.