Despite what the Republicans say, it isn’t for a lot of people, especially if you have insurance companies targeting people who want to, you know, actually use their insurance for anything but a money sink. Not saying a single-payer, government run system would be without problems, but if you’re like the guy in the article, it’s hard to imagine it being worse.
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell’s case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration’s health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away with controversial and unpopular industry practices.
Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of “rescission,” whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they’ve been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.
[...]
Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: “The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer.” In upholding Nettles’ verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that “Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell’s costly medical condition.”
On a vaguely related topic, ever wonder how many doctors and nurses are beaten up by patients?
#48 freddybobs68k
I am not saying other countries do not pay less per capita for health care. I also never said Europe was a country. What I am saying is that I do not see what this proves, and I certainly no not want to give up more of my liberties to achieve what other more socialized countries have.
One of the biggest reasons we spend more per capita on health care is because doctors have to cover their asses by ordering tests that are most likely not necessary in order to avoid lawsuits. But whether this is fixed or not, it does not follow that spending less per capita in health care will decrease our national debt, UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE. Most other countries pay a lot more for a gallon of gas than us. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are in more debt that us. Does it?
There is nothing in this bill that is going to miraculously decrease the cost of a doctor bill. It will simply redistribute who is paying for it. As much talk is there is for reducing costs, the fact is that demand will go up as more people have insurance, while supply of doctors will not go up. Every other talking point is secondary to this fact. If you want health care costs to go down (and I am not suggesting we do this), outlaw all insurance. Hospitals and doctors could then only charge what people would pay for their services. When no one has to pay out of their pocket, demand goes way up, and thus cost follows.
The illogicality of liberals on this forum is only matched by their apparent ability to spend their entire day commenting and replying to every minute detail of everyone who disagrees with them. Do you guys not have a job and is that why you want other people to pay for your heath care? If I keep posting and lose my job can Obamacare save me? Sorry, I think I have to stop at this point.
Thinking about “whiney”==who is being more whiney: the hard working community minded long term thinking socialist doing his good atheist best, or the self centered “I got mine, screw everybody else” LIEberetardian who thinks he “earned” everything by himself without the help/forbearance of anyone else? “Its slavery if I have to pay taxes just so other people don’t suffer from easily prevented illness”==sounds whiney to me, in spades.
I thought of that here:
http://newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/03/bye-bye-bluefin.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Seems the Japanese are LIEberetardians when in comes to Tuna. “Why can’t I fish hard and get all I can. You only want to save the Tuna because you can’t catch as many as I can!”====Scratch another species from the world diet. Sorry to be whiney==but YOU would be better off not to overfish that population. Or the idiot samon fishers in Alaska. Or the same idiot haddock fishers off the North Banks. Real long term thinkers.
Idiots all.
#61–cranky==everything you say has “a kernel” of truth, but then you go and make a mountain of BS out of your mole shit.
I would give you an education, line by line, but you already are going “la, la, la.”
Don’t let facts get in the way of your dogma.
#48 aslightlycrankygeek
“it does not follow that spending less per capita in health care will decrease our national debt, UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE”
No – it means as a system it is more efficient. That means more money for the country. To spend – perhaps on paying down the debt.
So it absolutely has to do with the debt because
1) It would be easier to pay down debt – if we had a more efficient system
2) Future projections show health care being the biggest contributor to our national debt. It being more efficient would make it less of a problem.
Presumably it would be a good thing if most Americans had some kind of health care. I could suggest that Americans should have no health care. That’d help the debt problem. My suggestion is that having a more efficient health care system can help with the debt.
Whether is government run or not is really by the by. It just so happens that generally government run systems are much more efficient and just as if not more effective. Make of that what you will.
This bill isn’t so great. Agreed.
Your last comment – well its great. Nice. You’ve got it all figured out there champ! Back to work dolt.
56, Bobbo,
I’d like to make things better, but we have a difference in opinion. You want big government through entitlements. I want less government, open state borders, and insurance reform as needed.
If what we are being taxed for is not something the government is required to provide to the citizens (as per the Constitution) or allows the Federal government to exceed its enumerated powers, then I am not supporting it.
If socialized health care takes place, what other taxes will we put onto Americans and Employers? It will continue to grow. Japan already fines employers for allowing their workers to get fat. There have been proposed sugar and fat taxes here in the U.S. All this to line to coffers of who exactly? All this to abridge people’s personal liberties because of the “no one is an island” socialist mentality.
Being anti-socialism is not about being self-centered. Personal responsibility and rewards for good work / choices are hardly self-centered. Socialism does punish people who try to get ahead in Life because it’s unfair for others if they can’t match your pace.
I have no problem helping people out of my own pocket who are either too young, too old, or handicapped. But when I say this, I’m not talking about through taxes and I’m excluding poor people who CAN change their situation. The problem is you socialists get traumatized over people having to deal with the choices they make in their lives.
As for the hypothetical vet scenario, he or she would be covered. It is HIGHLY unlikely that their ailment would be “undeclared” as you want to say. What can and often does happen is the medical officer tries to downgrade the severity of it when the veteran gets discharged from the military. However the level of disability / ailment can be appealed through the DAV (and often is).
Hardly ad hominem. It really doesn’t matter how you did in school, but you obviously had a memory triggered over your high school comment. Here’s what you were saying in a nutshell: Socialism is the smart and logical choice. Hard work and personal responsibility is selfish and egocentric. I disagree and feel that socialist mentality nurtures stagnate performance / life since people don’t have to deal with the consequences of their life choices.
Teach people how to fish instead of giving it to them through government force. IMHO, the root problem is the poor quality of education people get in the public education system. Start fixing that so our youth can have a good baseline to start from. For those too old, buffer them in for help. For the rest, they will have to work at changing their situation.
Ah, at least you’re admitting your love for socialism.
The problem is the level of quality isn’t as good in the socialist systems as they are here. The technological innovations and breakthroughs essentially happen here. Rich foreigners come here for the best medical care. Socialism will bring medical quality, breakthroughs, and innovation to a crawl. But sure, the same number of doctors will be required to see more people in less time, and oh the government will cap how much a doctor can make. Way to go! And the cost savings is often times because some costs are deceptively shuffled around or additional taxes are used which may not be counted. But hey, I’m sure you believe that the current proposed health plan is deficit neutral even though people are pre-paying for it for how many years?
Your liberal whining is deafening. We are all guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness. There is no guarantee of happiness. But I get it. Life isn’t fair and you want government to take care of every want you consider a need.
62, Bobbo,
The problem is as you eloquently put it with your tuna gripe, is that no one can escape your ire. If you had the power, you would force everyone to change to your standards through government force via your no one is an island mentality.
In the end, you could twist your “Maximum Freedoms” fascade around because then you will argue as you have been implying that maximum freedoms are bad because they are based on self-interests and are ultimately bad for everyone.
If the Japanese overfish, then the Tuna go extinct. No more food for the Japanese. If they are smart, they will manage their resources better and it will correct itself. But ultimately, this is about how you the socialist wants to control people’s lives.
You’re not interested in personal liberties or freedoms. To you, it’s just a game because having maximum freedoms is bad for socialism and you can’t have that now can you?
McGuyver==you keep framing the issues from the perspective of theology being implemented. I may say things from time to time that sound like that myself BUT I also touch base from time to time with PRAGMATIC REALITY == what “works.”
So lets see if we can stop the opposite sides of this coin each calling the other side “extreme” and see what works?
And lets go at it like this: hypothetically: if you could get the same healthcare you have today for 5% less money and a projection of only cpi increases for the foreseeable future vs unknowable rate increases in the future BUT to get this stability, other people who currently have no healthcare or who go to Emergency Rooms, or who have high deductibles will have the same plan you have paid for from other government revenues, would you be for it or against it?
Then, for yourself and for all others in USA, are you for paying twice as much as other Advanced Countries for the privilege of having the 34th Best outcomes across a large range of services?
To me, I don’t care WHAT you call the approach==one is stable and better. Call it socialism or extreme Capitalism==I don’t care===IT DEMONSTRABLY WORKS BETTER FOR YOU/ME AND EVERYONE ELSE.
Seems to me in reality YOU are being the idealillogical one whereas I am being only pragmatic.
How am I wrong?
“If the Japanese overfish, then the Tuna go extinct. No more food for the Japanese.” /// No, dimwad==no more Tuna for EVERYBODY!!!!!
So self centered and limited in scope.
There seems to be a lot of arguments of the form ‘if you take it to the limits’ then we’ll be screwed.
Socialism, conservatism, corporatism, liberalism etc taken to the limits isn’t going to work very well.
Heres a radical idea. Lets not take it to the limits.
Lets take the things that work best for certain situations and use them. And others for other situations.
There isn’t any one correct ideology. Get over it.
and as so often posted here, characterize the “ideas” behind the requested laws any way you wish, hide behind “constitutional rights” as you will, complain about deficit spending===all valid. But at the end of the day you have at least two groups:
One that wants to share the wealth as legitimately able to do so, and another that says “I got mine, screw you.”
Yes, two basic ways of looking at the same world.
54,47..
HARD WORK, is not liable to get you ANY success.
The company will love you and keep the wages, ABOUT the same.
I should ask:
DEFINE success..
1=
Pay bills,
Pay rent,
pay for car,
Pay repairs,
pay medical,
pay for food,
Pay for Fuel,
Pay for clothes,
Pay for everything, and still have money enough to go see 1 movie a month??
2=
Make at LEAST $18 an hour full time. WHICH is the min to pay for the BASICS..which is also 2.5 times HIGHER then min wage.
3=
you make enough money not to worry about the ABOVE.. $25 per hour full time.
I say full time for 1 reason. WHO do you want taking care of your kids? WHO is responsible for your kids? YOU ARE.
Having others care for your kids, COSTS “HALF to ALL” your wages for 1 person. It does NOT reinforce your role as a PARENT. you have little control over their lives or habits.
I sure hope this jag passes, but perhaps another cut at the same baloney:
I do happen to be very successful and blessed with perfect health. Thats why I don’t feel bad about “my money” going to those less well off. Every seen anyone who is chronically ill? Take ALL MY MONEY, but leave me my education and health.
No body should get upset if some of their money goes to people you would not want to trade places with.
I’ve often wondered about the money “I earn!” Sit at a desk, move the cursor around. Try to win a few more than I lose===make the big bucks. Compare that to a Coal Miner or any number of other jobs. Work hard, exchange your health for a pay check==make far less than me. Of the two, I would rather do what I do for the paycheck of a miner/farmer/fisherman/soldier/policeman/nurse/teacher etc. So===if my job is safer and more fun/more intellectually rewarding==why should I also get paid more? Why should I be jealous of those who have less????
Heh, heh. Silly liebertarians, haven’t grown up. Why do I have to share my toys? Everything I see is MINE!!!!!
http://campaigns.chcf.org/updates/00121.aspx
Maybe if people wouldn’t lie to insurance companies when signing up
Or do you think it is honest to say things like I am in perfect health when you are not?
It’s working great for me, and in a couple of years I will have to retire, lose it, and go on Medicare, which, I am afraid, the Democrats are in the process of ruining.
# – MikeN — Funny, I am sure that once someone states that they do not eat right, do not exercise, smokes, drinks and has a family history of heart attacks the insurance company will reward the person with a policy. If the insurance company does reward the person with a policy, it will cost so much that the person might as well not have a policy.
Insurance companies are not altruistic companies.
The situation as I see it some people do not gripe about some socialistic programs but when it comes to health care for people under 65 years of age, tempers flare.
There are estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and about 45 million unisured Americans. These people when in need, go to the emergency room for care. This raises premiums for the insured. For the people complaining that they do not want to pay for another person’s health care, you are paying. There is not much you can do about it either.
As for the cost of a national health care system, the US government can afford it if serious budgeting occurs. Cut Defense, homeland security, department of education and other program’s spending by some percentage. Drop all unnecessary wars. Freeing people in other countries is not necessary for USA’s existance. Make congress control their pork projects. Some of these cuts should be made anyway.
Now the argument comes down to should health care be on the same level as public education, policing, firefighting, unemployment, welfare, infrastructure (roads and bridges) and other government paid programs. If not, what makes those programs better to have than health care?
OK – here is THE crux of the matter….
IF you have problems with health insurance companies while there are at least several semi-independent companies providing the insurance, do you REALLY think the problems will be solved by eliminating ALL pretense at competition and having just ONE insurer – the government?
Like, the government is oh-so-competent at all the other things it does, you are willing to trust it with your health?
Government health plans are run by HUGE bureaucracies – not known for their kindness and ‘human touch’! And, patients become a real nuisance to be got rid of as quickly and cheaply as possible….
Let me give you an example: a man in Ottawa, Canada’s capital (with ‘state-of-the-art’ hospitals) died, on the bus, of a ruptured appendix. Why? He was turned away from the emergency room – denied treatment – because he did not have his government-issued health card with him!
No card = no treatment.
So, they sent him home to get it – and he died on the bus on the way home….
When I was renewing my son’s health card, in the waiting room of the place to renew health cards (Ontario Health Insurance Plan office on Albert St., downtown Ottawa), there was a man on crutches with one of his feet pointing the wrong way. Apparently, the emergency room refused to treat his complex leg fracture until he went downtown and got the ‘problem’ (whatever it was) with his ‘health card’ straightened out.
That is the face of bureaucracy-delivered health care! It does not matter whether the bureaucracy is public or private – they all behave exactly the same way!
And that does not even touch the issue of waiting lists! SO many people are dying – truly dying – before they even get to see a doctor who could treat them.
This is my own story: I have been diagnosed with hypopituitarism – something most often caused by a brain tumor. (Actually, as I understand it, it could be caused by several things, among them 2 different tumors – one bad, but not so bad (for a brain tumor), the other… kind of more bad.)
I have been diagnosed over a month ago. My family doctor has requested that I be seen by several specialists – urgently. So far, I have not as yet received ANY calls to tell me I have an appointment (specialists are not supposed to have waiting lists longer than a year, so people get put on a ‘waiting list for an appointment’ – so it will be less than 12 months’ wait when you actually get the appointment itself).
Though, I did get a letter informing me that the current waiting list for a brain scan to see if I the cause really is a tumor is 6-7 months. That is – a specialist – when I get to see one – will send me for a scan, which will then take another 6-7 months to get. Then I’ll wait a few more months after the scan to get in so see the doctor to learn the results…BEFORE ANY TREATMENT CAN BEGIN!!!
It’s just a brain tumor we’re talking about here…not like this is urgent!
THAT is the REALITY of government-controlled health care!
#72
Well bobo the totalitarian, it finally comes out. You see bobo the totalitarian feels a little guilty about how he earns a living, so instead of doing what normal people do and go see a therapist, or better yet maybe go to church and volunteer, donate to worthy causes or Children’s Hospital here in LA, no, bobo the totalitarian insists that the reason he feels guilty is a result of his GREEDY fellow citizenry.
So bobo the totalitarian believes that since there is unjust suffering in the world, and his fellow citizens are greedy, that he should force the citizenry to pay insurance companies, and force the insurance companies to take the money, and force MD’s to take the insurance money that bobo thinks is correct and then do the work so that bobo the totalitarian can feel good, regardless of what anyone has to say about it.
Oh and if you refuse to follow bobo’s plan well then he will fine you, and if you still refuse he will send the IRS to take your assets, and if you still refuse he will put you in jail. This is why the Left is totalitarian in nature, and will use any method to pass their stupid plans, because they believe the rest of the citizenry is either too greedy or too stupid to do the right thing. bobo you are so wrecked that you can’t even recognize you are wrecked and that’s what makes you dangerous, but I’m not going over the cliff with you.
The idea that health care insurers would have stockholders, seems perverse to me. It’s like saying, the money that was collected over time from policy holders, to help treat whoever needs it the most. Will instead be siphoned off a bit to pay some speculators. Who expect to profit more, by the insurer providing less treatment than necessary. When exactly did the government start allowing insurers to sell stock in their “denying coverage” scheme? Gee, I think that was under the Nixon. Another mess to thank tricky Dick for. Him and his pal Henry Kaiser.
#77–well Shitty==you have me quite right. Let me add to it as I woke up with this thought:
What I demand/force/require in a totalitarian way is a rightful recognition of why we are on earth.
Not the liebertarian “its all about me” frame of mind but rather your totalitarian view of “what can we do for future generations?”
In that mode, I will rephrase it this way: No sane person wants to live in a society where the young are not “given”/forced to have an education. Parents “choose” to have kiddies==why shouldn’t they pay for the kiddies education? Why am I enslaved and have the jackboots take my house if I don’t pay property tax to educate kiddies I have had? Its not fair!!!! Its not FREEDOM!!!!!! whaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa. I want all my money…
I really don’t want to live in a society that does not educate its young. Likewise, I really don’t want to live in a society that does not provide healthcare to its needy. All according to death panel standards and the resources available for such activities.