P
pathia
Guest
I paid for it, I got zero services out of what I paid for, how exactly is that a good freemarket program?
- Status
R
royal_archer
Guest
You said.
"related to a condition I have they do not cover, "
If they don’t cover it you didn’t pay for it.
P
pathia
Guest
The claim was false, I’ve never met a doctor on this earth that thinks the non-covered condition, caused any of the issues I had, the insurance company falsely used them to do this to me, that’s the entire point of why I mentioned it. The entire point is that insurance companies will make up junk science to prove their denial of services.
Please explain to me how a mental health condition could cause appendicitis or kidney stones? It doesn’t even make logical sense.
While technically legal, it is morally and ethically dubious at best.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
A
Arwen037
Guest
I’m sorry for your situation, but my coverage should not suffer to give you coverage. The elderly should not be denied care because they are not worth it, so that you can have coverage. People should not have to pay for their own coverage and for yours as well. Reform in the insurance industry may be called for, but a government health care plan will not fix it.
P
pathia
Guest
So your solution for people who’s medical costs exceed their entire salary…is?
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
How about everyone get the exact same coverage!
R
rtconstant
Guest
So if people are to poor, or if the insurance that’s provided by their company doesn’t cover their conditions then just let’em die? Is that really your answer?
How about we cover everyone? The US already has the worst healthcare in the first world (if you’re not wealthy), and the insurance companies did a lot to get us there. A free market approach to healthcare fails because it has the wrong priorities. Healthcare is about one goal, making people healthy. But privatized healthcare is about dollars. It is not in an insurance company’s interest to cover your claims.
A
Arwen037
Guest
Still, tell me why I should be required by law to cover your health care? You are asking the government to take money that I work for, and give it to you to cover you. And I am to receive nothing in return.
P
pathia
Guest
This is all about what you get out of it? That’s all you care about? What you get?
F
fultonfish
Guest
There are existing approaches that include Medicare/Medicaid, appeal for charity, and the approach you have evolved (used by others as well) of emergency room + bankruptcy.
None of these are “nice”, but they get the job done.
There ARE reforms and changes that can be made to the present system that could improve things including wider government approval for certain drugs (such as the ones you have to import yourself), interstate competition for medical insurance so that all kinds of different groups could be set up as well as catastrophic insurance + HSA/MSA, charitable donations allowed for a fund for serious medical cases (such as yours), and much wider deductibility and tax credits for medical expenses (severely restricted now).
The tax code is so restrictive that not only can I NOT deduct my own medical expenses, but also I cannot deduct any medical expenses that I pay for my mother.
I tried to get HSA/MSA coverage for myself, but it was forbidden by law. The insurance company put me in touch with a broker who was able to craft a medical insurance policy that was legal, but still not nearly as helpful as an HSA/MSA approach. The enemy is the LAW. Because Congress and the states have “conspired” to restrict our freedom to develop our own medical insurance approaches.
But the idea that a socialized medicine system would solve the problem is contradicted by all the discussion of the government putting limits on how much medical care individual people would get because anyone who falls into the top 10% of medical expenses would have to be cut off.
Here is a post I made elsewhere.
Interesting perspective here:
stoptheabortionagenda.com/htt…in-baucus-bill
Pathia, under the proposed health care legislation, anyone who incurs high health care costs would have to be basically removed from the system — basically a death sentence.
Right now, you can get around it by the tactic of bankruptcy, but that would be countered by denial of service under the new system.
"During the continuous, extensive coverage of this proposed legislation, there has been only very limited mention of a section that penalizes doctors for Medicare patients who, for at least five years (from 2015 to 2020), authorize total treatments that wind up in the top 10 percent of national annual Medicare costs per patient.
"As the doctors struggle to keep abreast of the continually falling limit of the money they can authorize for their contingent of patients, consider what those patients will lose in the quality of their treatment.
"The bluntest assessment of this approach to health-care “reform” is by National Right to Life executive director David N. O’Steen:
“It takes the telltale fingerprints from the government: Instead of bureaucrats directly specifying the treatment denials that will mean death and poorer health for older people [and sicker people], it compels individual doctors to do the dirty work.”
F
fultonfish
Guest
I apologize for being so “heavy handed”, but there are all kinds of existing private sector approaches for treatment of rare diseases.
I have seen major pharmaceutical firms bend over backwards to make hand made bench quantity special drugs for rare cases. And they didn’t even bother to charge for them because they are so expensive there is no way anyone could afford them. They even compete with one another to supply rare drugs. And they don’t charge for them.
For another example, people have set up charitable foundations and private organizations to treat and / or research rare ailments. Go here and also check out the other groups that are found there:
rarediseases.org/
I have seen major pharmaceutical firms bend over backwards to make hand made bench quantity special drugs for rare cases. And they didn’t even bother to charge for them because they are so expensive there is no way anyone could afford them. They even compete with one another to supply rare drugs. And they don’t charge for them.
For another example, people have set up charitable foundations and private organizations to treat and / or research rare ailments. Go here and also check out the other groups that are found there:
rarediseases.org/
R
royal_archer
Guest
So how does anything change if the pencil pusher that made that decision now works for the government and you no longer have an avenue of apeal?
R
royal_archer
Guest
There is nothing compasionate about socialized medicine. but all of the discussionhas been around the left wing bennefits vs right wing oriented freedoms. The thread is discussing the right wing bennefits that could also be achieved with socialized medicine and do those bennefits warrant the indignities posed by the system.I truly feel very bad for you. Compassion is not high on this thread. I do not know what would have happened to me and my son if we did not get the services we needed to survive.Code:
R
royal_archer
Guest
medical costs in this country, if unrestricted, would exceed the GDP.
The solution is to give everyone access to the health care they can earn. then, add to that the billions of dollars of charity given out every year.
R
royal_archer
Guest
How about everyone pays the exact same amount?
R
royal_archer
Guest
Why attack Arwen because she (?) wants to keep some of the money she earned. The sin is in trying to take that moeny like several of those posters here are trying to do.
P
pathia
Guest
I guess I fail to see the appeal of having money, never having been able to save a dime in my life.
P
pathia
Guest
So you prefer the rationing to be entirely monetary based?
A
Arwen037
Guest
Pathia, the only thing you are thinking about is yourself, so don’t be too quick to judge me for wanting to keep the money I earn. You don’t care about the effects on other people. All you want is for someone else to pay your medical bills.
- Status