Why on Earth should Insurance companies, in particular, have to cover pre-existing conditions? (generations, financial)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

How do they get this health care?

Seriously.

open the freaking yellow pages


millions of doctors out there

call them..make the appointment, and recieve the service.....





its a real shame that some people WANT,, WANT, WANT, but are not willing to PAY for the SERVICE RENDERED

[jm31828]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

sure... a public option

so the taxpayer gets screwed again

The taxpayer doesn't get screwed by having a public option. Geez, the only people who should be saying things like this are the people who actually own insurance companies! For everyone else you are going against your own interests by trying to side with insurance companies in all this mess.
Having a public option, or more specifically universal medical coverage makes for a healthier society overall, and it is protection for ALL of us. It's not just a matter of you or I paying for coverage for some "bum" down the street who is always sick or doesn't work. Even for those of us who currently do have decent insurance, there is always the risk that we could lose our jobs- which would mean losing our coverage- then what? What if you get sick during that time? Need to go to the hospital for an emergency hernia surgery, for example? The answer is you are in big trouble. If medical coverage was not tied to your employment, that money you and your employer pay for private insurance could just go to the national system for your coverage- so it's not like you'd be somehow paying extra to cover other people.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by northnut

I hope you never have a condition that requires you to get blood tests every few months, take medication on a regular basis to control it, lose your job or simply change your job, etc. Would suck for you mighty hard.

So you admit that you're a racist. Okay.

Originally Posted by northnut

You do realize there are conditions that happen that you have absolutely no control over, right? Surely someone couldn't be that thick, could they?

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

Well, gosh. That's what I keep asking all the "pro-lifers". Where ARE all the charities for children to make sure every child in our country has the medical care they need?

Are you saying it is your right to live forever?

I sure hope not, because that would be silly.

Originally Posted by northnut

Really? You negotiated your benefits package w/your employer? Huh.

Originally Posted by Ringo1

Negotiating benefits and negotiating what is covered and what is not - two different ballgames.

Thank you so much for proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Free Market health care does not exist in America.

If you got rid of your Soviet-style Command Economic health care system, you might actually be able to afford health care.

Originally Posted by banjomike

Insurance companies do cover pre-existing medical conditions. They just charge through the nose for the coverage.

And why shouldn't they?

Originally Posted by banjomike

Obamcare was the best thing that ever happened to the industry.

Obamacare™ was the worst thing to happen to the health care industry, in part because it was written by the very same group who destroyed health care in America --- the American Hospital Association.

Originally Posted by banjomike

Their actuaries know this full well, and that's why many companies have already lowered their rates. They all want to be first in line when the exchanges are in place.

That is outrageous nonsense and you have no proof to support your claim. Obamacare™ violates every principle of Actuarial Science.

Originally Posted by Ringo1

Of course pre-existing conditions should not be excluded.

So someone with 5 convictions for drunk driving, including a conviction for vehicular homicide should get insurance?

Originally Posted by jojajn

Why on Earth should Insurance companies, in particular, have to cover pre-existing conditions?

I agree. We should have a national health care system instead of making insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.

You can't afford it.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

They do in Canada, where we are not nearly as selfish as the likes of you.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Cherry picking and dead out of date links from years ago....Canada's heath care system is just fine and certainly beats yours by a huge margin. The only way you could possibly compete is to get rid of private insurers altogether...They are the millstone.

Oh, yes, but, of course, I just knew someone would drag O Canada! into this.

The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study

However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.

Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.

The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study

PEOPLE DIE IN CANADA WAITING FOR TREATMENT, but who cares.....it's FREEEEEEEEEEE!


From....
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).

One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....

65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US

PEOPLE DIE IN CANADA WAITING FOR TREATMENT, but who cares.....it's FREEEEEEEEEEE!

Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.

June E. O'Neill, Dave M. O'Neill

NBER Working Paper No. 13429
Issued in September 2007
NBER Program(s): HC HE

Does Canada's publicly funded, single payer health care system deliver better health outcomes and distribute health resources more equitably than the multi-payer heavily private U.S. system? We find a somewhat higher incidence of chronic health conditions in the U.S. than in Canada but somewhat greater U.S. access to treatment for these conditions. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of U.S. women and men are screened for major forms of cancer. Although health status, measured in various ways is similar in both countries, mortality/incidence ratios for various cancers tend to be higher in Canada. The need to ration resources in Canada, where care is delivered "free", ultimately leads to long waits. In the U.S., costs are more often a source of unmet needs. We also find that Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S.

Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.

University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
PSC Working Paper Series Population Studies Center
7-1-2009

PEOPLE DIE IN CANADA WAITING FOR TREATMENT, but who cares.....it's FREEEEEEEEEEE!

Wanna talk about Diane Gorsuch?

Why not?

Let's talk about her.

How do you think she would rate Canada's health care system?

Well, actually she can't, because she's dead.

You see, after waiting and waiting, Diane was scheduled for heart surgery....but then the hospital cancelled it. After much waiting around, Diane had the surgery scheduled again, and after more waiting, her heart surgery was cancelled. After a lot more waiting around, she was scheduled for heart surgery a third time, but while waiting, she suffered a fatal heart attack

PEOPLE DIE IN CANADA WAITING FOR TREATMENT, but who cares.....it's FREEEEEEEEEEE!

Originally Posted by jojajn

We would all save because we would no longer have gouging insurance premiums to pay.

Um, why do you have "gouging insurance premiums to pay?"

The reason you have "gouging insurance premiums to pay" is due to the actions of a Special Interest Group, the American Hospital Association, and due to inference by your government at the federal and State level --- and most of that interference is the result of legislation lobbied by the American Hospital Association.

Originally Posted by jojajn

Also, every other country can afford it.

No.

Wrong.

Other countries cannot afford it....that is why every country rations health care......by denying health care to people so that they die and are no longer an economic burden.....by delaying health care to people so that they die and are no longer an economic burden.....and by diluting health care to people to cause them to die sooner so that they are no longer an economic burden.

I'll let the German Minister of Health debunk you....

"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)

"Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)

So...how does it feel to have the German Minister of Health say you have no idea what you're talking about?

Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.

Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.

The delay between the first hospital visit and starting treatment was 35-187 days (median 94);

Limited access to specialists is the reason most often advanced for the poor performance of the UK in treating lung cancer. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

Lung cancer treatment waiting tim... [Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

PEOPLE DIE IN BRITAIN WAITING FOR TREATMENT, but who cares.....it's FREEEEEEEEEEE!

So.....explain that.....in detail.....explain to everyone if other countries can afford it, then why do people die waiting for treatment?

Originally Posted by jojajn

Isn't capitalism working?

Capitalism is a Property Theory, and for the record, it works just fine.

The problem with your health care system is you have a Soviet-style Command Economic system created by a Special Interest Group -- the American Hospital Association --- instead of a Free Market System.

If.....and when...you dump the Soviet-style Command System for health care and replace it with a Free Market System, you'll be much happier.

Originally Posted by jojajn

Right..........so your solution is to disallow millions from accessing medical care.

If you had a Free Market System...they would have access....affordable access.....it is you and people like you who are blocking them from access.

You must feel really good knowing that you are denying care to people.

Originally Posted by jojajn

Medical bills is responsible for 62% of all bankruptcies. Who pays for that?

Daily Kos: Medical bills cause 62 percent of*bankruptcies

Originally Posted by jojajn

A Harvard study published in the American Journal of Medicine:

Medical Bills Cause More Than Half of Bankruptcies | Insurance Company Rules

Originally Posted by jojajn

The Harvard study only looked at bankruptcies filed in 2007. I don't know what your copy and paste job above is in reference to.

Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy - Businessweek

Hearing on “Working Families in Financial Crisis: Medical Debt and Bankruptcy”
Tuesday July 17, 2007 1:00 pm
Room 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT NO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS

Nor is there any evidence that medical bankruptcies are creating any sort of crisis for the bankruptcy system or that the percentage of medical bankruptcies has been rising over time.

A study by Ian Domowitz and Robert Sartain, for instance, find little correlation of medical debt with other sources of financial distress, such as job loss or income interruption.[1] Fay, Hurst, and White find that health problems by the head of a household or spouse that cause missed work are not a statistically significant factor in bankruptcy filings.[2]
[1] Ian Domowitz & Robert L. Sartain, Determinants of the Consumer Bankruptcy Decision, 54 J. Fin. 403, 413 (1999).

[2] Scott Fay et al., The Household Bankruptcy Decision, 92 Am. Econ. Rev. 706, 714 (2002).

Aparna Mathur similarly finds that poor health by the head of the household is not a statistically significant predictor of bankruptcy filings.[2]

She also reports that only six percent of participants in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics survey self-reported that illness or injury caused their bankruptcy filing and statistical analysis found no significant correlation between bankruptcy filings and individuals in poor health.
[1] Scott Fay et al., The Household Bankruptcy Decision, 92 Am. Econ. Rev. 706, 714 (2002).

[2] See Mathur, Medical Bills and Bankruptcy Filings (summarizing findings of PSID).

Most studies find no medical debt at all in about half of consumer bankruptcy filings and in the overwhelming number of cases where medical debt is listed it is relatively small in amount and unlikely to be a significant contributor to the bankruptcy filing.

A recent study of bankruptcy filers by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of the United States Trustee (USTP) is consistent with the findings of most studies. The USTP examined the records of 5,203 bankruptcy cases filed between 2000 and 2002, the most thorough study of the problem to date of those who actually filed bankruptcy. It reported that 54 percent of the cases in the sample listed no medical debt, meaning that the median amount of medical debt in the study was zero. Medical debt accounted for 5.5 percent of total general unsecured debt and 90.1 percent reported medical debts less than $5,000. There were a few cases where extremely high medical debt likely explained the subsequent filing—one percent of cases accounted for 36.5% of medical debt and less than 10 percent of all cases represented 80% of all reported medical.

Now......about that bogus study from Harvard.....let's look at that.....this is still Congressional Testimony...

First, the finding that half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical problems is based on a fundamentally flawed and over-expansive definition of “medical bankruptcies.”[1] The researchers, for example, count as “medical bankruptcies” such events as gambling addiction, a death in the family, or the birth or adoption of a child, in addition to unexpected illness or injury.
[1] See Mathur (“their classification of a medical bankruptcy is too broad”): Fleming (“the very definition of ‘medical bankruptcy’ in this study is a poor one”); Lemieusx (calling definition of health care bankruptcies “very broad”).

Moreover, although some substance abusers and gamblers are addicts, it is not clear why all those who gamble their way into bankruptcy should be assumed to be gambling addicts and thus classified victims of “medical bankruptcy.”

Moreover, they count as a serious medical problem any accumulation of unpaid medical bills of over $1000 within two years of bankruptcy.

They do not report any evidence on how many filers had substantially more than $1000 in unpaid medical bills, the median amount of medical debt, nor the distribution of debt—even after Dranove and Millenstein specifically identified this methodological flaw.[1] In fact, as noted above the study by the United States Trustee found relatively few filers with substantial medical bills and a very small number of filers with very large medical debts. Himmelsein, et al., provides no reason to question this conclusion that the problem of large medical debts is limited to a relatively few number of filers.[2]

[1] Dranove and Millenstein at p. W77.

[2] The United States Trustee’s office also examined almost three times as many petitions as the Himmelstein study.

They also do not control nor even provide any evidence as to the size of the other obligations of the “medical bankruptcy” filers. Thus, for instance, a debtor with $1001 in unpaid medical bills and $50,000 in student loan debt or tax debt would classify as a medical bankruptcy under the authors’ definition. It is not clear why this hypothetical situation would be classified as a medical bankruptcy.

Finally, they do not attempt to control for the possibility of strategic behavior as part of pre-bankruptcy planning, such as decisions by debtors to pay secured debts, such as mortgages or automobile loans, or nondischargeable unsecured debts, such as student loans, instead of medical debt, which is generally unsecured and dischargeable. Such strategic decisions would tend to inflate the amount of medical debt in bankruptcy relative to its actual proportion outside bankruptcy.

For instance, Mathur reports that in the PSID data she studied, 9 percent of those surveyed self-reported medical bills as the primary reason for filing and 7 percent claimed medical bills as a secondary reason, for a total of 16%.


Well....there you go.....your Harvard Study is garbage and it got trashed before Congress......better luck next time.

Originally Posted by jojajn

I bet these employers/job creators would do much better if they didn't have to provide health insurance as a benefit. Another great argument for a national health care insurance.

And why do employers offer health care as a benefit?

If you had done your homework, you'd be able to answer that question, or if you had any idea what you're talking about you'd be able to answer the question.

Originally Posted by jojajn

Do some homework and then get back to us.

No, you do your homework and get back to us.

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

These threads are pointless as the nay-sayers are always people who have never been faced with a major illness.

Not relevant....to the extent it might be relevant, it only proves that you are racist.

Originally Posted by Statutory Ape

Maybe only pharmaceutical companies should be alowed to sell health insurance.

Wouldn't that be a more honest form of fascism?

Originally Posted by revrandy

My guess is you take those out of the equation, along with allowing medicaid etc. to negotiate for bulk prescription pricing and the total bill will be radically less than what people pay today, government and private insurance together.

So.....what is the name of the God of Research & Development?

Oh, my bad, I was assuming that pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies just did a daily prayer routine to the God of Research & Development, and $Billions and $Billions just fell out of the sky.

Is there some kind of magical spell they cast?

R&D Funding
Necromancy

Level: 5th Level MBA

Components: V, S, Wishful-Thinking

Casting Time: 1 molecular event

Range: Unlimited

Target: All Laboratories

Duration: Permanent

Saving Throw: None

Spell Resistance: Vaccines

Choose one of the following three effects.

• Money for Research & Development bubbles up from the ground every other Thursday; or

• At Noon on the Equinox, a new drug complete with clinical trials and FDA approval appears in the lab; or

• At Noon on the Solstice, a new medical device complete with clinical trials and FDA approval appears in the lab.

The effects of the R&D Funding spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed by Democrats casting a Sphere of Socialism spell.

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

Because currently, the only affordable means to access healthcare is through a health insurance company.

And why is that?

All of you keep saying that, but none of you know why.

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

If you have pre-existing condtions, your access to health insurance is greatly restricted,....

And why is that?

All of you keep saying that, but none of you know why.

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

Healthcare costs have skyrocketed because we have insurance CEOs to pay out...

That is not why.

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

.... and every hospital wants to have an HDTV in every single one of their rooms.

Because that's what you demand.

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

It also doesn't help that our doctors spend years of their lives in expensive schooling that can be condensed to be more affordable and less time consuming.

Yeah, right, we should just make the entire program available on-line to anyone who wants to be a doctor.

Originally Posted by revrandy

Sorry, profit matters very much. Healthcare is not like buying a car, it shouldn't be for profit - somethings, like medical care should be provided on a not-for-profit basis.

Why?

Originally Posted by jmking

This topic has been played out so many times from the same dull posters over and over again, until it is shown how wrong they are in which they soon hide in the shadows only to create a new thread.

You got that backwards.

Every time I ask, "How much money should we spend on one person in an life-time for health care?" you all runaway.

So..."How much money should we spend on one person in an life-time for health care?"

If you cannot answer the question, then you cannot have any kind of national/universal health care system...because European States have answered that question.....and, no, you won't like the answer.

Originally Posted by jmking

The VA, medicare, medicaid, Indian Health exist because of the void for-profit insurance creates.

That is not why the VA and Native American programs exist.

Medicare exists because the idiots who wrote Obamacare™ --- the American Hospital Association --- are the same idiots that ruined your health care system.

Medicaid exists because the idiots who wrote Obamacare™ --- the American Hospital Association --- are the same idiots that ruined your health care system.

Last July, I wrote about a landmark study conducted at the University of Virginia that found that surgical patients on Medicaid are 13 percent more likely to die than those without insurance of any kind. The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.

Why Medicaid is a Humanitarian Catastrophe - Forbes

Originally Posted by jmking

What we have now is a fragmented system that rations our health care more than any modern nation on earth and costs trillions because it is so fragmented.

Right.....Americans die because there are no hospital beds available......or because there is no money in the budget to perform the surgery.

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

And I will ask again: should someone who has had a chronic illness since childhood be denied insurance because of their pre-existing condition?

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

So you WOULD deny insurance to anyone with asthma, Type I Diabetes, cystic fibrosis...

Fascinating.

What's fascinating is your criticism of something you don't even understand. I'll give you an hint:

Black's: Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.

Originally Posted by le roi

the question is: why do we continue to allow the insurance industry into our health care system ?

Wrong question. The insurance industry has caused you no harm.

The correct question is: Why do we continue to allow a Special Interest Group like the American Hospital Association to destroy our health care system and make it unaffordable for everyone?

Your lack of win is disturbing...

Mircea

[jm31828]

Originally Posted by northnut

I suppose you've never had a condition, right? Yes, all you conservatives are the picture of miraculous health.

Funny thing about those selfish conservatives, they truly do only care about themselves. I have an aunt who is a die hard conservative, thinks there should be no public funding for anything, people need to take care of themselves and be self-sufficient, rambles on about "big government", etc. Well funny thing was when she fell on hard times and lost her medical insurance and did have a medical incident, she was scouring the internet finding every government program she could to help her so she wouldn't have to pay her own money for the several thousand dollar procedure. And sure enough, she found it and only had to pay a small fraction of that out of her own pocket. She was also so excited when I let it slip that our county has a program offering to have the county pay half of her property taxes if she earns less than a certain amount per year (which she does), so she was immediately filing for that assistance. Funny how that works, conservatives don't want a penny of their money going to anything that MIGHT POSSIBLY go towards helping anyone else, but yet when something happens and they need it, they are more than happy to put their hand out and get some government funds to help them out.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

Because I should be allowed to insure anything I want.

but society already ensures care by forcing hospitals to admit patients for emergency care without any hope of payment

insurance companies are profit driven, they don't fit into this model of 'not letting people die'

[TigerLily24]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

open the freaking yellow pages


millions of doctors out there

call them..make the appointment, and recieve the service.....





its a real shame that some people WANT,, WANT, WANT, but are not willing to PAY for the SERVICE RENDERED

Who says they are not willing to pay?

What you are advocating for is a second-class set of citizens. Those who get rebates, discounts, etc. because they are deemed worthy of the privilege of buying health insurance and those who, due to no fault of their own, are not.

Do you consider people who do have health insurance and get discounts via co-pays, etc. leeches?

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

How do they get this health care?

Seriously.

And, your example presupposes that the only people in this pool are people with pre-existing conditions. Is that how car insurance works? Home insurance?
Does everyone in the pool file a claim?

I have no idea how they get the care. Talk to health care providers about lowering their costs. How I come up with the money to pay for my care shouldn't be your concern, and that is all insurance is; a way to cover UNEXPECTED costs.

Insurance is a FINANCIAL issue.

[TigerLily24]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Originally Posted by TigerLily24
And I will ask again: should someone who has had a chronic illness since childhood be denied insurance because of their pre-existing condition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
So you WOULD deny insurance to anyone with asthma, Type I Diabetes, cystic fibrosis...

Fascinating.
What's fascinating is your criticism of something you don't even understand. I'll give you an hint:

Black's: Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.


Mircea

No, what's fascinating is your assumption that I don't understand.


But, then, you get free healthcare, don't you?

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by le roi

but society already ensures care by forcing hospitals to admit patients for emergency care without any hope of payment

insurance companies are profit driven, they don't fit into this model of 'not letting people die'

We ENsure that hospitals don't turn away anyone in need of care.
I INsure my ability to pay for that care.
There's a difference.

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

So you're saying health insurance companies shouldn't insure people for health issues?