|
 Pay It Forward (2000)
IMDB rating: 6.70
Plot: A school social studies assignment leads to social changes that spread from city-to-city. Assigned to come up with some idea that will improve mankind, a young boy (Haley Joel Osment) decides that if he can do three good deeds for someone and they in turn can “pay it forward” and so forth, positive changes can occur. What appears to initially be a failure, is indeed a success that is not immediately known but is traced backwards by a reporter who is a benefactor. The initial recipients of the boy are a drug addict (James Cavaziel), his badly scarred school teacher (Kevin Spacey), and his alcoholic mother (Helen Hunt). While physically and mentally scarred by past events, the teacher is not the only one bearing scars. The young boy fears his mother’s fate, particularly at his brutal, alcoholic father’s (Jon Bon Jovi) hands. The mother also bears scars from her childhood with a homeless, alcoholic mother (Angie Dickinson).
|
Download
Available versions:
DivX Version (Normal Quality), DVD (Good Quality), PDA Version
Directors: Leder Mimi
Actors: Spacey Kevin,Osment Haley Joel,Mohr Jay,Caviezel James,Bon Jovi Jon,Ramsey David,Werntz Gary,Donato Marc,Drama,Romance,
Download Full Version>>
Is the Healthcare Bill Sensible at All?
If the Healthcare Bill Becomes Law, Will Any Private Company Write Policies?
If your answer is "Yes, private companies would still write health insurance policies", then please tell me, "Why would they?"
Once the rules change so that companies writing new policies have to write them for all applicants including those with pre-existing illness and disability, is that really insurance?
Isn’t that just harnessing up the shareholders of the corporation to pay the ongoing costs of the applicant with an existing illness of disability?
Why would the shareholders to that? What would be in their heads? What would their business model be?
Maybe something like "Oh yes, we get to pay the costs of this applicant’s illness or disability, and look how much money we will be able to give to help that applicant. Then we can fail to breakeven, and become bankrupt and see our shares go to zero value, oh that would be fun, how wonderful!"
When I got my MBA, I never saw a company with a business model like that. AIG may have had that, but they weren’t doing it on purpose.
Keep in mind that after the rules change, the old policies can stay in place. The old "book" of existing contracts can become the entire insurance business of the corporation. As long as they don’t write new policies, they don’t have to take all comers and insure people with pre-existing illness or pre-existing disability. They don’t have to go into the charitable payment for sick people business, which doesn’t seem a very smart business model for a profit seeking corporation.
Ceasing writing new health insurance won’t put these companies out of business, but continuing to do so surely will.
So, they will apply their talents to other forms of risk-related trading. The Cap and Trade Bill, if it is enacted into law will create a vast market for pollution permissions. These will be actively bought and sold by firms that have experience in forward projection of financial values — like health insurance companies. It’s an Enron style business. Then there’s also fire insurance, liability, flood, inability to work insurance, long-term care, all sorts of elements in the risk projection business that could be smoothly integrated into their business models to replace writing new health insurance policies, and would be.
So the public option would become the only option for persons seeking health insurance who don’t already have a policy.
How would that work? That’s the Bad Business Model company, and it would work by massive draws on the Federal Treasury until the moment when Congress realizes that it made a huge mistake, and that the Federal government is bankrupt because of operating a business that is well and truly not sensible.
When would that happen? It would only take about two years for the Congress to figure this out.
What would they do?
They would have to close down the public option companies.
So what then?
Then nobody can get health insurance from any source.
You mean the private corporations would not get back into that business?
Right, I don’t think they would. Once burned, twice shy.
So with no health insurance, would healthcare costs be lower for the average American family?
They might be, as long as nobody in that family got sick. But the number of bankrupt families due to unexpected health problems would go up dramatically.
Would this be better than what we have right now?
No, it would not be better.
Is there a good reason to enact the Healthcare Bill?
No, there’s no good reason to do that.
"Once the rules change so that companies writing new policies have to write them for all applicants including those with pre-existing illness and disability, is that really insurance?"
Yes, of course. That’s the whole idea of insurance, shared risk, and it’s the way health insurance used to work. The insurance companies are actually *in favor* of this provision.
Josh | Nov 19, 2009
Your question is so long, it’s hard to follow, my friend.
But, I do want to say that I disagree with the health care bill.
I do agree that something needs to be done, but she should start by allowing companies to cross state lines for better competition and put limits on medical lawsuits. That would change things a great deal.
Also, everyone should have tax credits for insurance premiums.
Lastly, no one should be put in jail for not having health insurance, it’s their decision.
WinonaGal | Nov 19, 2009
Not if you are poor and cannot afford to pay for mandatory health insurance or the fine if you don’t.
Think Outside the Ballot Box | Nov 19, 2009
Anybody who has done any research on the subject knows this is just a way to get to complete government run health care. It’s not up for debate, it’s a fact. Even liberal parties are saying that the conservatives are right that it will create a government run system. The difference is they are happy it will.
I bet you people can’t wait until pregnant women are giving birth in hospital bathrooms or dieing of colon cancer before they can get examined. Just like Britain or Canada.
Check you facts. Research what goes on in other countries with government health care.
This isn’t about helping people, it’s about government control.
………..
Quote from Josh:
""Once the rules change so that companies writing new policies have to write them for all applicants including those with pre-existing illness and disability, is that really insurance?"
Yes, of course. That’s the whole idea of insurance, shared risk, and it’s the way health insurance used to work. The insurance companies are actually *in favor* of this provision."
———
Are you serious Josh? Do you even think about why this is a bad thing? The whole point (and fairness) of insurance is that you pay IN CASE you get sick. Not WHEN you get sick. Why should an insurance company pay for your coverage when you haven’t been paying into the pot until that point? Getting sick and then going to a company and saying, "Pay for my expenses." is not insurance.
If you don’t buy insurance ahead of time, it’s nobody fault but your own if you get sick without coverage. No insurance company can survive when people only come to them after they have gotten sick. And it certainly is NOT shared risk! It’s called a handout!
…………….
Wow to the person below me who actually believes all this will "lower the deficit". Good luck with that. If this passes, just saying now that I told you so. Our debt is going to crush us, and this will add to it.
mcygee | Nov 19, 2009
Reduces the deficit by 127 billion dollars adds 31 million insured people that would mean 94% of everyone in America would have health insurance, while 45,000 people are dying every year… ya I would say it’s a good reason.
purrsephanie | Nov 19, 2009
Marion Hunt