Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as the denial of individual care question, so far I have only found one state that has laws that no on can be denied due to health reasons and in that state they have only one plan to choose from. I found 10 states and counting where the insurance companies can turn down anyone they please for any reason.
no one here as far as I know has any control over what the government decides to do.
This is PRECISELY the problem... isn't this a democracy?
Shouldn't voters decide about things, instead of sold corporate lobbysts?
DON'T kid yourself people... NONE of the proposed solutions will be the answer to this problem. It's just a quick patch.
It may work the way it IS, until the costs rise so high, that social unrests, or worse occurs.
Does it have to get to that point FOR people to see?
Remember that PHARMAS and insurance will NEVER ever give up profits easily. Unless government makes them to. But they are just their PAWNS.
pawns who sold their asses out for mansions.
We already know that, this is a theoretical discussion. The point of fighting for UHC is to change the system. This is just a discussion, no one here as far as I know has any control over what the government decides to do.
Okay. I apologize. I wont intrude on your discussion. Have fun.
As far as the denial of individual care question, so far I have only found one state that has laws that no on can be denied due to health reasons and in that state they have only one plan to choose from. I found 10 states and counting where the insurance companies can turn down anyone they please for any reason.
Yeah, this is a great system we have
Here's some irony for you. My mom battled her weight all her life... up and down like a yoo yoo. When my father died she went into a depression and got the heaviest she'd ever been. Then health problems kicked in.. sleep apnea, problems with joints.. blood pressure..etc. In her mid 50's she was on so many pills and was probably close to type 2 diabetes. At the time she was on my father's Cobra plan from the company he worked at until he got sick (since he'd been there over 30 years they were nice enough to extend my fathers coverage for quite some time). She had had enough of being ill and so finally decided the only way to fix it was the gastric bypass.
That surgery ws a MIRACLE. NOW ..she's healthier than she's been in a VERY long time and skinny to boot with great eating habits, mind you. As she shread the pounds..so did she shread those pills.. now.. she's not on nearly as many.. yeah.. still a few that comes with being in her late 50's now.. but again.. not nearly as many as before.
So.. cobra ran out and so she had to go get her own insurance (she is town clerk in a small town that doesn't offer insurance because they do not have enough employees..LOL). Ironically, it's been difficult for her to get coverage without paying an enormous premium because.. get this.. SHE HAD GASTRIC BYPASS!! . WHAT!! that surgery made her HEALTHY and in NEED of LESS medications. Well.. NOW she pays a pretty decent premium but has a $5000 deductable.. but avoids doing things she needs to do.. like go for monograms for breast check etc becasue she doesn't have the money she'd need to pay out of pocket to get the surgery done. She also sometimes purchases her prescriptions at a 50% discount from Canada (I believe there is a legal way to do this that she's found).
As far as the denial of individual care question, so far I have only found one state that has laws that no on can be denied due to health reasons and in that state they have only one plan to choose from. I found 10 states and counting where the insurance companies can turn down anyone they please for any reason.
Yeah, this is a great system we have
Yeah, it's truly great... almost 50 million and counting know it's "great". Who knows how many are insured, but still go broke.
First of all, EVEN if you can get coverage, what makes sure that you can afford it?
I know that some people in "high risk pools" or smth pay 1000+$ per month,
who can afford that?
Even if you get it, and manage to pay for it, how can you be SURE that it won't find a way to deny claims?
If you pass that point, can you cover all the deductibles, copays etc.?
Maybe you'll get something "not in the contract".
Ah, sry Sir, WRONG disease you have... we can't help you. We're glad that you paid 50k for our policy though!
This is PRECISELY the problem... isn't this a democracy?
No, we are not a democracy. We are a Republic
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiksi
Shouldn't voters decide about things, instead of sold corporate lobbysts?
Voters do decide - they decide who their elected representatives will be -
Voters - the people can and should be contacting their elected representatives about the issues important to them. The fact is, most voters do not contact their representative - they are apathetic
You are welcome to share your point of view in this discussion, I'm just saying it's theoretical.
What would you like to see happen?
So much . . .
First of all, lobbyists for pharma and insurance industries. Throw in AMA there, as well. They are too powerful, have too much influence and our congress funds their elections (in part) w/ donations from lobbyists and special interest groups.
B/c of the influence of these groups (and others involved in healthcare delivery) our gov't allows such things as outrageous drug prices.
So I would start there.
Second, I would re-examine how our insurance got tied to our jobs. it use to be - employers offered insurance as an optional benefit. Now, we all rely on our employers to provide insurance and we are at the mercy of whatever types of policies they can negotiate - and how much expense they are willing to foot the bill for - as to how high our premiums are and what types of coverage we receive.
Insurance coverage should not be tied to employment.
Those are the two places I would start. And I do help write policy for healthcare leaders, and I have been pushing for these two things for over 20 years.
Last edited by brokensky; 03-11-2008 at 01:28 PM..
Reason: misspell
First of all, lobbyists for pharma and insurance industries. Throw in AMA there, as well. They are too powerful, have too much influence and our congress funds their elections (in part) w/ donations from lobbyists and special interest groups.
B/c of the influence of these groups (and others involved in healthcare delivery) our gov't allows such things as outrageous drug prices.
So I would start there.
Second, I would re-examine how our insurance got tied to our jobs. it use to be - employers offered insurance as an optional benefit. Now, we all rely on our employers to provide insurance and we are at the mercy of whatever types of policies they can negotiate - and how much expense they are willing to foot the bill for - as to how high our premiums are and what types of coverage we receive.
Insurance coverage should not be tied to employment.
Those are the two places I would start. And I do help write policy for healthcare leaders, and I have been pushing for these two things for over 20 years.
Interesting..
well.. if it's not tied to employment.. then how would individuals be "pooled" to negotiate. (Although I don't believe insurance should be tied to employment either.. )
I think if you remove the tie to employment, but keep insurance in the same private sector like system we have now, we may find ourselves with even more uninsured and underinsured. Individual coverage is extremely expensive. And, it's not like car insurance.. if you can't afford to pay insurance on a car you drive,then you can't drive a car (in states that make it mandatory to have insurance for vehicles).. but if you can't afford health insurance it's not like you can prevent yourself from getting sick or just not Be.. if you know what I mean.
It's an interesting theory.. but until healthcare costs are more in line with salaries, it won't be a possibility. AS it is we're finding more and more are underinsured or uninsured as employers are cutting back on the coverage they offer and then families are unable to pick it up for themselves.
First of all, lobbyists for pharma and insurance industries. Throw in AMA there, as well. They are too powerful, have too much influence and our congress funds their elections (in part) w/ donations from lobbyists and special interest groups.
B/c of the influence of these groups (and others involved in healthcare delivery) our gov't allows such things as outrageous drug prices.
So I would start there.
Second, I would re-examine how our insurance got tied to our jobs. it use to be - employers offered insurance as an optional benefit. Now, we all rely on our employers to provide insurance and we are at the mercy of whatever types of policies they can negotiate - and how much expense they are willing to foot the bill for - as to how high our premiums are and what types of coverage we receive.
Insurance coverage should not be tied to employment.
Those are the two places I would start. And I do help write policy for healthcare leaders, and I have been pushing for these two things for over 20 years.
I completely agree. If we could get the drug prices down, decrease the power of big Pharma and insurance, and create alternate risk pools so everyone has access to insurance regardless of where they work we would be in a much better place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
