TerraPrime Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Oh. Wait. That actually happened. Repeatedly. You're right, it is awful, but...... here in the U.S. among some sectors of people, this is called "Life is tough and full of tragedies. Toughen up cookie. Now where's my cocktail?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 This sounds to me a little bit like the argument against an individual mandate because people can't afford it.Huh? Mandated health insurance purchase from private providers are paired with government assistance programs to those who cannot afford it, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Huh? Mandated health insurance purchase from private providers are paired with government assistance programs to those who cannot afford it, no?That would be the non-stupid way to do it, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 Okay, here we have what seems to be part of the problem in the 'health care debate'. Opponents really are just talking out of their asses. Watch as this woman cleverly catches out Rep Wiener in this exchange.Ah yes. "If Medicare is so good, why aren't you on it?" What a devastating argument.Seriously? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Ah yes. "If Medicare is so good, why aren't you on it?" What a devastating argument.Seriously? Seriously?*sighs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Then go to www.ehealthinsurance.com and search for a policy.I did, and was turned down by every insurance company that was not a guaranteed-issue** because I have - ta-da! - a preexisting condition. It's nothing life-threatening or crippling, but every single prospect told me that either they wouldn't cover me at all (one insurer said, 'As far as we are concerned, you might as well have cancer") or would do so only with an exclusion. So as simple as your advice sounds, the reality is far different. I can only imagine what things are like for people with serious preexisting conditions.**These of course will cover me, but they'll also exclude my preexisting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 TN, why did you go and get yourself a preexisting condition? Weren't you aware that this would screw up your chances to get a decent insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 TN, why did you go and get yourself a preexisting condition? Weren't you aware that this would screw up your chances to get a decent insurance?I know, I know...at the time I thought, "Wow...I've always wanted to develop an unexplained, persistent and annoying infection, but 2009 just seems like the time." Now I see how foolish I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yeah, easy mistake to make. Too many people chose to become ill without thinking about the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Also, I did this entering in TN's age and location (sorry, had to profile snoop), and while plans under $200 all have either prohibitively high deductibles and/or ridiculously low annual limits, This one is really better than I thought I would find, for $300/month. No maternity coverage, but who cares if you're a dude. What am I missing here? That's just much lower than what I could find five or six years ago.You are missing the words "preexisting condition", which I have explained upthread.I feel compelled to tell a little story here. My company, a major law firm in Philadelphia, closed down in May, leaving numerous long-time employees stranded. (Since the firm folded the health plan, there was no COBRA for anyone to use.) I got to hear one of these, a 37-year veteran, on the phone trying to arrange health insurance for herself. She suffers from bladder cancer, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and glaucoma, and accordingly there isn't one insurance company who will touch her. She's more than a year from qualifying for Medicare. Overhearing her, I wanted to cry. My situation is not ideal, but she is completely screwed. Ehealthinsurance.com is not going to help her, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Bootstraps TN. I'm sure if you pull on them hard enough, they cure bladder cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share Posted September 3, 2009 Okay, now I'm beginning to wonder whether we can't split up HCR into multiple bills. How about we have one that just addresses preexisting conditions. Makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate based on that. A general overhaul of how insurance companies do and don't deny coverage, so to speak. That should get enormous bipartisan support and pass easily. No controversy, and be done in a breeze. Right?Then we can move on to other stuff? Because it just seems like we're floundering here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Okay, now I'm beginning to wonder whether we can't split up HCR into multiple bills. How about we have one that just addresses preexisting conditions. Makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate based on that. A general overhaul of how insurance companies do and don't deny coverage, so to speak. That should get enormous bipartisan support and pass easily. No controversy, and be done in a breeze. Right?Then we can move on to other stuff? Because it just seems like we're floundering here...Will we also make certain that insurance companies aren't charging folks with preexisting conditions $800 a month for crappy coverage? In return, the insurance companies will likely want a mandate that everyone purchase insurance to spread out the cost, which will make Commodore and those like him scream about fascism and socialism and the end of Western civilization. Then we'll have another summer of loudmouthed assholes holding up Hitlerized Obama pictures for Fox News. That's less a breeze and more a gale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share Posted September 3, 2009 Well if you made it illegal to discriminate based on preexisting conditions, that should mean that it wouldn't be something they could use as factor in determining what plans they offered you.I mean, since I'm covered by an employer-based plan (through my wife), it doesn't matter if I have a preexisting condition or not. I feel like it should be the same for someone forced to buy a plan on the open market, so to speak.Another important part of this would be to have a mandate for insurance, along with support for poor individuals who couldn't otherwise afford it. By making sure that everyone is covered, risk is properly spread out. That's the point of insurance, after all. And this would ameliorate the cost of bringing in people with preexisting conditions, by also bringing in people who choose to not be covered because they figure they're healthy and are willing to gamble.And I'm sick and tired of people complaining about fascism and socialism. Everyone loves the socialized military and its health care... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Another important part of this would be to have a mandate for insurance, along with support for poor individuals who couldn't otherwise afford it. By making sure that everyone is covered, risk is properly spread out. That's the point of insurance, after all. And this would ameliorate the cost of bringing in people with preexisting conditions, by also bringing in people who choose to not be covered because they figure they're healthy and are willing to gamble.Well, that's the nut of the problem, isn't it? Support for those who can't afford the premiums must be paid for somehow, and Republicans only approve debt when a Republican president incurs it. Also, once you mandate that Americans purchase coverage you cue the right-wing strappers who will rave about fascism and Hitlerism and whatever other nonsense Fox News concocts. All that noise drowns out rational discussion of the problem and makes a solution nearly impossible to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Well, requiring everyone to have coverage is no different than just providing coverage for everyone and funding it with tax dollars. Apparently we have fascist roads, national parks, policing, and, primary education, because everyone is forced to be a plan member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Mandating insureance is only solves half the issue. We still need to address the cost of health care. Without solving that all other efforts will fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Well if you made it illegal to discriminate based on preexisting conditions, that should mean that it wouldn't be something they could use as factor in determining what plans they offered you.No, but they can easily make their plans basically fuck anyone over with pre-existing conditions. They'd then happily take you on, but anything that was related to that condition would not be covered. That's what I'd do if I was an evil bastard. The law really doesn't have any teeth in it, and it won't until the healthcare system is changed. Health insurers don't have any money in giving people with preexisting conditions healthcare. They're a loss from the getgo. Until they're forced to give exactly the same care to everyone, it won't matter. And they'll never be forced to do so; either they'll have to to compete with others (who won't do it either) or they'll have a mandate to offer certain kinds of coverage from the government, which is exactly UHC as done by other countries. Which is fine by me, mind you - but they know it too, and they'll scream bloody murder about it.Fuckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 That's why the goal should be Community Rating* based insurance and not just "no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions".*From Wiki:Community Rating is a concept usually associated with health insurance, which if implemented in its pure form requires health insurance providers to offer health insurance policies within a given territory at the same price to all persons, regardless of their age, sex, or health status.That's the basic idea anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Right, but that doesn't help either. All that would do is simply make them change their plans so that they don't cover people with pre-existing conditions as well as those who do. They'll happily sell them the same plan...but it won't actually do anything for them, or it'll have such a high deductible that it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.