It’s more regulated now than it’s ever been and yet, you say that you’ve been rejected twenty times. How is more regulation going to help?No, they reject me purely based on my lifestyle. The reason why moving to another state would help, is that in some of them I am a protected class. Therefore, they cannot deny me coverage. They’re allowed to charge a higher rate, but not completely deny.
Regulation is the only way I can get coverage, or UHC.
How do you figure?And if we had a free market, consumer based healthcare system, you wouldn’t have this problem.
I agree, but that’s just the way bureaucracies work.Seems like a pretty lame excuse.
Actually, other nations have tried it with great success and it was highly successful here in the US when we had it.we have a vibrant private sector with a lot of really smart people working in it. If the free market is the answer to the health care problem, where are their solutions? Why hasn’t any other industrialized nation tried it?
I don’t know where you’ve been looking then. Everytime markets are allowed to work, they work.I’ve been hearing for years that the free market is the answer to everything, and I just don’t see facts in evidence that it’s true.
By the very fact that I CAN get insured in other states, twelve of them to be exact. Any of those, which have civil rights protections for me, will insure me. It is not an insurance regulation that fixes insurance for me, but the ‘homosexual agenda’. Even the very same companies that deny me here in Virginia will insure me! Alls they had to be told was ‘no, you cannot discriminate against this person’ and then they insure me. Whereas in Virginia, where it is legal, they do send me rejection letters due to my lifestyle.It’s more regulated now than it’s ever been and yet, you say that you’ve been rejected twenty times. How is more regulation going to help?
.
The problem is that they’re only cutting costs to themselves. They don’t pass those savings on to you.I thought the problem was that we have for-profit companies (HMO’s) making medical decisions that doctors used to make, in order to cut costs.
What did Mother Theresa ever invent? When did Mother Theresa ever participate in the distribution or affordability of goods and services?You can’t expect the free market to be Gordon Gecko and Mother Teresa at the same time – can you?
Oh, OK. That’s different.By the very fact that I CAN get insured in other states, twelve of them to be exact. Any of those, which have civil rights protections for me, will insure me. It is not an insurance regulation that fixes insurance for me, but the ‘homosexual agenda’. Even the very same companies that deny me here in Virginia will insure me! Alls they had to be told was ‘no, you cannot discriminate against this person’ and then they insure me. Whereas in Virginia, where it is legal, they do send me rejection letters due to my lifestyle.
I’m celibate, thank you very much. This isn’t an HIV issue, or anything like that. Insurance companies automatically reject all transsexuals and intersexed people if they can find any reason to do so, I’m both, and basically blacklisted as result.Oh, OK. That’s different.
Your problem isn’t with the system, itself, but the result of your own immoral behavior.
Well, exactly. But I think you missed my point. You’re saying the health care crisis is due to too much government regulation and not enough free market initaitive. But every analysis of the situation I’ve seen seems to say the opposite, namely that the HMO’s (which are private insurance companies) are the problem.The problem is that they’re only cutting costs to themselves. They don’t pass those savings on to you.
I think you’re missing my point, which is, how is the free market going to solve our health care problems if it exists to make a profit? It seems to me that if the free market had its way the health care system would cater mostly to celebrity athletes with sports injuries, because that’s where the money is.What did Mother Theresa ever invent? When did Mother Theresa ever participate in the distribution or affordability of goods and services?
OK. Then your point is moot.I’m celibate, thank you very much. This isn’t an HIV issue, or anything like that. Insurance companies automatically reject all transsexuals and intersexed people if they can find any reason to do so, I’m both, and basically blacklisted as result.
The fact I was born with ambiguous sexual characteristics (The old word for intersex is ‘hermaphrodite’ if you recognize that one better) is a choice and immoral behavior? Somehow I think God had more to do with my birth than myself, considering last time I checked we didn’t have free will in the womb.OK. Then your point is moot.
Your problem is one of justifying and redefining immoral behavior, not a failure of the healthcare system.
Actually, The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 created what we now know as “HMOs” and HMOs are very strictly regulated at both the federal and state level and, because of their relation to the government, are often exempt from laws applying to private insurance carriers.Well, exactly. But I think you missed my point. You’re saying the health care crisis is due to too much government regulation and not enough free market initaitive. But every analysis of the situation I’ve seen seems to say the opposite, namely that the HMO’s (which are private insurance companies) are the problem.
I think you’re missing my point, which is, how is the free market going to solve our health care problems if it exists to make a profit?
But that’s how they make a profit: by making goods and services available at higher quality and at lower costs to the largest number of people.
Actually, The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 created what we now know as “HMOs” and HMOs are very strictly regulated at both the federal and state level and, because of their relation to the government, are often exempt from laws applying to private insurance carriers.
I think you’re missing my point, which is, how is the free market going to solve our health care problems if it exists to make a profit?
Why wasn’t that working before HMO’s?
Skip_Wiley;4089180:
Actually, The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 created what we now know as “HMOs” and HMOs are very strictly regulated at both the federal and state level and, because of their relation to the government, are often exempt from laws applying to private insurance carriers.
It was working. Ted Kennedy (which should be your first clue that something’s wrong) authored the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 as a result of Johnson’s Great Society, which was a complete disaster.I think you’re missing my point, which is, how is the free market going to solve our health care problems if it exists to make a profit?
Fitswimmer;4089196:
I was on the FEHB plan until 1998, so I can’t really speak to what private insurance was prior to that.(same plan as the President and Congress, btw) I do know that our CEO has concerns about the increasing cost of healthcare and keeping our salaries at a living wage. We pay a portion of our benefits, but that portion gets larger and larger each year-and our COLA’s can’t keep up. He’s concerned that he will have to cut staff or benefits if something doesn’t change and soon. We’re fairly small business, but even large companies in the US are struggling. I would hate to see us get to the day when the majority doesn’t have healthcare before something gets done.Skip_Wiley;4089180:
Actually, The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 created what we now know as “HMOs” and HMOs are very strictly regulated at both the federal and state level and, because of their relation to the government, are often exempt from laws applying to private insurance carriers.
It was working. Ted Kennedy (which should be your first clue that something’s wrong) authored the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 as a result of Johnson’s Great Society, which was a complete disaster.
You’re asking me to take an awful lot on faith; until my faith in the free market grows, I will have to be in favor of uninsured children being covered by a government plan. It appears to me more compassionate and pro-family than the alternative, which is doing nothing.But that’s how they make a profit: by making goods and services available at higher quality and at lower costs to the largest number of people.
No, I’m asking you to take a look at history and economic principles that have proven themselves to be sound.You’re asking me to take an awful lot on faith
Who says it’s doing nothing?until my faith in the free market grows, I will have to be in favor of uninsured children being covered by a government plan. It appears to me more compassionate and pro-family than the alternative, which is doing nothing.
The more government regulates it, the less affordable it becomes and the less services become available. When government does not regulate it, then prices fall and services become more available.I’m a moderate. I don’t think government is the answer to all of society’s problems (not by a long shot) but neither is it always the problem.
So… what if you walk into an emergency room with a lump in your breast? Do you get all the tests and follow-up and then cancer treatment? Is a lump in your breast really an emergency?Just want to clear this up:
No one in the United States is ever refused necessary medical treatment. No matter how dirt poor you are, if you walk into an emergency room with a broken arm, they have to treat you. If you go to a state or county teaching hospital and have little or no income, you will likely be treated for free (which means that others will be absorbing the cost), or else have your bill adjusted. The hitch is that if your case is a non-emergency, you might have to wait a while, or be seen by a student doctor with an overseeing teaching physician.
Socializing healthcare – even for children – would result in one great mother of an HMO. No, thank you. :nope:
That’s kind of where I land too. Having worked for and with the government for over 20 years, I’m certainly not blind to it’s faults-but neither am I blind to what it can and does do well. It’s neither an absolute evil or an absolute good.You’re asking me to take an awful lot on faith; until my faith in the free market grows, I will have to be in favor of uninsured children being covered by a government plan. It appears to me more compassionate and pro-family than the alternative, which is doing nothing.
I’m a moderate. I don’t think government is the answer to all of society’s problems (not by a long shot) but neither is it always the problem.
I’ll take a look, and keep an open mind.No, I’m asking you to take a look at history and economic principles that have proven themselves to be sound.
It’s cheaper to provide preventative care in the long run than it is to provide catastrophic care all at once. Unless we’re all just hoping that the people who can’t afford preventative care will get so catastrophically ill that they’ll die off quickly and not cost us too much money.So… what if you walk into an emergency room with a lump in your breast? Do you get all the tests and follow-up and then cancer treatment? Is a lump in your breast really an emergency?
Or, does one have to wait until the cancer advances to the point where you collapse and it’s then an emergency?