If a procedure has a reasonable chance of curing a condition, they normally cover it. When the procedure has more of a chance of causing complications than it does of curing the condition, they don’t. If a doctor is just experimenting with little hope of actually working, they don’t cover it. Insurance companies are not there to fund the doctors private science experiments.Even when not doing it, means death? Something like oh, a brain tumor?
youtube.com/watch?v=aiIBs0mZb9o
I was denied coverage for appendicitis surgery for example, by using pre-existing condition clauses. They said my transsexuality ‘caused’ it, which quite dumbfounded all my doctors and every doctor I’ve ever met since.
but yet you want some government paper pusher making decisions for all of us. isn’t that ironic.Because I have a grandmother who was a nurse not overly long ago , and my wife has a cousin who is a nurse, who actually woiked with my grandmother for a little time. I can tell you it’s not as rampant as you think it is. The doctor or doctors doing the diagnosis shoud be the people that decide if a certain procedure is needed, not some paper pusher at an insurance comapny. They should just do thier pen pushing and leave medical decisions to those liscensed to practice medicine.
If these companies were all so bad, there would be new companies popping up and taking customers away from the bad companies.Iv’e got to say I never thought I’d see some many so stridently defending eveil greedy insurance comapnies as I have seen in this thread. Makes me wonder if someone isn’t being paid a few bones to make an evil industry sound incocent, in the current climate. I know people in all parts of the political spectrum, but no one I know would defending health insurance comapanies like they are being defended here. Something is rotten in Denmark, I smell a rat.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. Sounds like my mom should of been everybody’s mother. I never got away with them, and I’ll spend a good day in hell before I allow other to get away with what I wasn’t.If a procedure has a reasonable chance of curing a condition, they normally cover it. When the procedure has more of a chance of causing complications than it does of curing the condition, they don’t. If a doctor is just experimenting with little hope of actually working, they don’t cover it. Insurance companies are not there to fund the doctors private science experiments.
It is highly likely that if Obama get’s his way I will loose my insurance.Royal Archer, do you think it’s possible that you could lose your insurance?
I don’t think most people believe it’s possible that such a thing could happen to them.
I’ve been reading a book - started it this morning - called “Sick;The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis - And The People Who Pay The Price.” By Jonathan Cohn. It’s a sobering read. One interesting early part of the book is a history of health insurance in the United States.
I recommend it.
That principle works great in small business, and even in medium business, not at all with big busines. Main street rules do not allply to Wall street.If these companies were all so bad, there would be new companies popping up and taking customers away from the bad companies.
Aids is considered a fatal disease. Instead of so much focus on how to fund those who get it, we should be putting more attention into preventing the lifestyle choices that that have made it so prevalent.This is a link to a Georgetown University study on how accessible individual health insurance is.
kff.org/insurance/upload/How-Accessible-is-Individual-Health-Insurance-for-Consumers-in-Less-Than-Perfect-Health-Executive-Summary-June-2001.pdf
please note in the study it affirms that those who are HIV positive are considered 'uninsurable. What are they supposed to do?
But it did work. There’s nothing experiment on removing tumors, they can remove them from just about anywhere now.If a procedure has a reasonable chance of curing a condition, they normally cover it. When the procedure has more of a chance of causing complications than it does of curing the condition, they don’t. If a doctor is just experimenting with little hope of actually working, they don’t cover it. Insurance companies are not there to fund the doctors private science experiments.
That is silly, we have a system that provides health care to all of which 90% have insurance and 10% get free care on a case by case buisness and you want to scrap it for a system where everyone gets mediocre care at a higher price?Anyone who is honest intellectually has to admit the governemt has both falures ans successes, a mixed record. Right now private insurance has a record that gives the word abismal a bad name. We need to do something new.
We don’t get free care. We get free EMERGENCY care. Emergency treatments are not healthcare, those are merely to stop imminent death.That is silly, we have a system that provides health care to all of which 90% have insurance and 10% get free care on a case by case buisness and you want to scrap it for a system where everyone gets mediocre care at a higher price?
90% has insurance!!! Who paid you to say that? And you are forgetting the underinsured. Figures lie and liars figure. One reason to trust my own eyes first.That is silly, we have a system that provides health care to all of which 90% have insurance and 10% get free care on a case by case buisness and you want to scrap it for a system where everyone gets mediocre care at a higher price?
You seem to have little experience working with the government then because they tend to opperate at extreme innefficiency. And it sounds like for some their idea of evil is anyone who does not give them what you want for free.Maam. You defend an industry wrought with greed and responsible for tons of deaths in the name of money. Trust is not something I grant. It has to be earned from me. By defending the health isurance industry you are doing something that has no logic to it whatsoever, and you do it extremely stridently. it funny how your side says the end doesn’t justify the mean, until it has something with corporations making profits, then that end justifys any mean. Actually if I had my ultimate way I wouldn’t have whats being proposed, but have all decision making people of all the health insurance companys be tried and convicted of murder and fraud. But thats not going to happen so I’m being pragmatic. I’m more interested in getting things done than priniples that somehow make me look good to some. I’m a getting done mode person, If something does’t work I try another way promptly. I don’t care about doing things a certain way, all I care about is results. It was expected out of me all of my life, by reciprocity I expect it out of others, or I move on.
The successes our counrty has had are becaues of the limitations of government. Why would you want to move closer to the form of government that destroyed Nazi Germany and the USSR?Yes the government has corruption and greed but nevertheless its track record is better than the private sector. Corporations are not accountable. You and I have little to no say in their policies. Government officials however, we can fire.
Corporations in this country have a long history of trying to get away with every sort of underhanded scheme that is imaginable, and ironically enough its always had to be the government that stepped in to straiten them out. Indeed many of the problems that the government gets blamed for were encouraged by the private sector.
While it is healthy to keep an eye on the government we need to remember a few things. One Capitalism != Democracy. Two, it is our system of government that made America something special and unique NOT our corporations. We are a land of laws setup by our fore fathers to protect the citizenry from the depravations of the powerful. We exercise our power through our votes in the democratic process, not in loyalty to corporate interests. America has sacrificed its ideals on the alter of greed, and have giving our power over to a plutocracy because we were fed a lie that their success equaled “liberty”.
And what about the people on the other side of that fence? The ones who force them selves to get up and go to work because they know that if they don’t, they will loose their health care coverage.I have a question that came up as a major argument against health care back in the 90s. The argument was about being forced to take care of irresponsible people.
Commercials classically present us with the little girl or grown adult who through no fault of their own developed a disease or a broken leg from an accident. Of course, this sounds like something every caring person would want taken care of.
What about the guy next door who sleeps around and drinks all night? He occasionally becomes ill via an STD or an injury from his drunken state. He is warned by doctors and everyone else to stop doing these activities. Not surprisingly, he continues his destructive behavior and a serious health condition arrives costing him a ton of money.
At some point, do we not expect people to reap what they sow? I realize it sounds cruel and not particularly charitable, but there is only so much of the public pie (money) to go around.
The woman with breast cancer did nothing wrong. The drunken guy knowingly destroyed himself. This was one of the dominant arguments during the 90s, but it seems to have disappeared today without being addressed.
Running parallel to this is the decision about who is acting responsibly. It would appear that government or a group of insurance companies will be determining this question. It also conjures up issues like freedom concerning your eating habits and lifestyle.
But after they are treated they sould be held accountable for the debt. Even if it is only the symbolic act of putting it on their credit report.As an emergency room nurse for more than 20 years, I can attest to the fact that most people seeking health care for behavior related issues (drugs, alcohol, STD’s etc) far outweighed the people that had no funding and sought care through ER because they couldn’t afford a primary care provider! Almost everything is about choice. When giving prescriptions more often than not, people would state they coudln’t afford meds, but had on false fingernails, a cell phone, tobacco products and often smelled of alcoholic beverages! No one deserves to have care withheld, and God bless this country, they don’t. By law anyone presenting to the emergency room requesting care, gets it! Tax payers foot the bill!
They are frequently putting unreasonable demands for military stuff to do everything well forcing the developers to use exotic high cost solutions and then complain about the cost.Military procurements
…And now they want all of health care?
Most people have access to good health care. There are very few people who do not have access to it through no fault of their own. And there is plenty of charity to cover them.Bad is better than none.
So show us an option to provide health care to the truly needy that does not reward freeloaders and other bad behavior.Right now, some of us have no choice but to use the ER as our Primary Care Provider…and you want to talk about inefficiencies?
Bottom line is that there is a vocal 5% who want something for free. They don’t care who gets hurt as long as it is not them and they don’t care if it will destroy the national ecconomy since they think that won’t happen in their life time. And they can spin a sorrowful story that appeals to the hearts of some who do not take the time to think about all of the negative reprocusions.Let me see if I get this right.
The United States system of health care is imperfect. So we are going to install a Canadian system only a version of it that is much more strict so that basically there will be no private insurance and no private health care providers, only the government provided system will be allowed.
BUT, …
And criticizers of the present system deliberately mix discussions of health CARE and health INSURANCE.