1 Jan 2014 3:54 pm
Again, which would be more cost effective?RichClem » 01 Jan 2014 11:43 am » wrote: I should have used a term other than "emergency." If someone develops cancer or some other sickness or condition that required extensive treatment, I personally would want insurance that covered it.
But I wouldn't want my plan to cover routine tests and treatment, doctor's visits, etc.
Routine tests and doctor's visits that would diagnose cancers early, or treating cancer in it's advanced stages?
And don't give me some **** about how people should pay out of pocket for routine tests and treatment, doctor's visits, etc.
Unlike you, I live in the real world, where many people are struggling just to put food on the table.
BTW, you never did tell us what kind of health insurance you have Puss?
Sounds to me like when you said, " I personally would want insurance that covered that"
you are speaking hypothetically about health insurance.
So do you even have any?
If not, who do you expect to pay if you come down with a serious illness that is very expensive to treat?