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.
Before you agree with Sagran you'd better understand that he's for nationalizing insurance, health care...the works as he's been suggesting throughtout...
This is his post:
Sagran:
Imagine that focus on health care which all foreigners know is best in the USA and is why they come HERE seeking it. People in Canada in a rationed government controlled system and terminally ill come here all the time as do foreigners from other countries. I went for a cardiac consult last year to a noted heart specialist in New York and he had just done a difficult surgical procedure on some guy from Sri Lanka, wherever that is. I only knew about it, because I had to wait 40 minutes as he was running late.
That stuff has been debunked so often that I can't be bothered to do it again in detail. But here's the short version: Yes, we have good health care for those who have access to it which includes those with insurance, rich people (both from the US and other countries) Canadians whose health care program pays for their care in the US. It's the system that is a failure except for those with very good insurance plans (until they lose or exceed the coverage of those plans), the rich (provided their medical expenses don't become astronomic).
Quote:
An insurance bill. Don't make me laugh. What you got handed to you was PRECISELY WHAT YOU GUYS ARE PUSHING FOR HERE.
The bill is nothing but a bill requiring mandatory insurance coverage for everyone. Everything in it address accessibility to insurance. It doesn't address health care at all. If you don't understand the difference between mandatory insurance and national health care, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I read that article and you miss my point, I feel. Right now, because of my employer-based health insurance--if I lose my job, I lose my insurance. If I get sick--I lose my job. If my employer goes under--I lose my insurance.
Sure it would be great if that weren't the case--but it is the case. So what does an individual like me do? I have this policy because it is an option that is available with our screwed-up system and other options aren't.
The article says: a good reliable basic health insurance is better. This is fine advice if that is available but what I have been trying to explain is, it doesn't seem to be available. To me--employer based insurance is not insurance, for reasons I stated above.
I'm upset, I have to admit. I really had hopes this insurance mess would get fixed.
As the article said, many cancer patients are able to work for much of their illnesses. These "cancer policies" prey on people's fear of cancer. I don't have time to look up stats now, but I certainly know many people with all kinds of cancers who are working. If you have to quit work, you go on disability and you get medicare.
It provides a relatively small benefit, said Chuck Bell, a healthcare specialist at the Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Report and a watchdog group. It's preying on people's fears of experiencing a catastrophic illness
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo So, as I understand it, this company is insuring your ability to get insurance and not be declined. ... Another problem I see is that it's not universal (nationwide available) due to conflicting state laws. ... If one advocates for a 'private' insurance healthcare, should we also insist on uniformity of laws by having federal standards?
Yes. I think that would help. It's dumb that a person's policy only works in their state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo Nobody has mentioned having insurers consider a new concept in health coverage.
Above I mentioned the idea of requiring the insurance company to cover you for the length of your illness.
That is something that would be corrected by federal 'standardization'. The inequitable treatment due to differing state laws. It would also be able to deal with "portability" when one is forced to move across state lines. And also mandate that once a claim is initiated with an insurer said insurer is liable until that claim is completed. That's why I suggest that 'standardization' is so important an issue.
All I'm saying is there is MUCH that can be done to fix what's broken. Guys like Sagran, a confirmed quitter, want to concede defeat and opt for trusting the government to solve everything. Those are, as I'm saying for the umpteenth time, the same bums that got us where we are now. GOVERNMENT = POLITICIANS
As the article said, many cancer patients are able to work for much of their illnesses. These "cancer policies" prey on people's fear of cancer. I don't have time to look up stats now, but I certainly know many people with all kinds of cancers who are working. If you have to quit work, you go on disability and you get medicare.
It provides a relatively small benefit, said Chuck Bell, a healthcare specialist at the Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Report and a watchdog group. It's preying on people's fears of experiencing a catastrophic illness
Well, what do you suggest I do? And I have fears of a catastrophic illness, so they are correct to prey.
Guys like Sagran, a confirmed quitter, want to concede defeat and opt for trusting the government to solve everything. Those are, as I'm saying for the umpteenth time, the same bums that got us where we are now. GOVERNMENT = POLITICIANS
"a confirmed quitter"??? WTF is that suppose to mean?
Do you trust Big Business?? Like insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies? Do you think they care about you? Do you think they are accountable to you? Do you think they don't rip-off the government -- or try to -- every chance they get? Do you think they don't rip-off the consumer -- or try to -- every chance they get? THEY are the people who got us where we are, not the politicians/government.
I agree with Sagran...the problem is insurance itself. That needs to be reformed..not healthcare.
Healthcare itself is fine..it's paying for it.
No. Many of us see the problem is the high cost of healthcare. We need to get the costs of treatment way down. And find a better system to deal with malpractice claims. It's not enough to have the health insurance that can pay for the medical treatment, it's also about bringing down the medical treatment's costs.
Otherwise, what these healthcare bills are only doing is making sure that the doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are being paid for their overpriced services and goods to everyone. And the end result is that it will cost us all more in taxes and higher insurance premiums, whatever way it is that will enable us all to have health insurance coverage.
Also, we have to make all Americans start living healthier lifestyles. It's not fair to those Americans living a sensible and healthy lifestyle to use our health insurance premiums and taxes to pay for those who live an unhealthy lifestyle and having the health problems that go with those bad decisions. Wh should my premiums go towards paying for some overeating obese person's gastric bypass or lap band surgery? Or a cigarette smoker's throat or lung cancer treatments? Or an alcoholic's liver transplant?
Quote:
That is something that would be corrected by federal 'standardization'. ... It would also be able to deal with "portability" when one is forced to move across state lines. And also mandate that once a claim is initiated with an insurer said insurer is liable until that claim is completed. That's why I suggest that 'standardization' is so important an issue.
If you are saying that portability is the thing we need, and if by portability you mean--you get to keep a policy once you have it, even if you lose your job--I agree completely.
'Portability' thus defined seems so obvious a solution that I wonder if it won't happen simply because the insurance companies have analyzed the idea and concluded that 'portability' would hurt their profits.
No one is correct to "prey". You should educate yourself about cancer. You can keep your policy, but you may never collect much on it.
I am very educated. This is quite condescending. We have a crappy heath care system, and I am trying to do my best. If something better was available, I'd get it.
Anybody can get care right now. The problem is when the bill comes in the mail.
When the bill comes in the mail you can fight it. There are many ways you can get it lowered to a reasonable rate. I've done it ; colleagues have done it and I've counselled clients on how to do it.
A) When the bill comes in the mail scruitinze it. If you don't understand it call the billing department and ask them to explain the charges especially if they seem high. You want to get a description of the service for each CPT code and the price. Then you can go on-line and do a search for those particular codes. For example, the link below shows that the Medicare REimbursement rate for a Cholesterol Lipid Blood Profile CPT 80061QW is $18.72. If you had this same test done and they charged you more than double I'd complain.
B) I once had a situation where like in A above, I called to get an explanation for the charges and they wouldn't give it to me. They acted disgusted and said "Won't your insurance company JUST PAY FOR IT??" By the way, the bill was for $650 for a simple blood test. I told them I didn't want my insurance company to just pay for it because indirectly I was still paying for it. They wouldn't tell me and hung up the phone. So, in a letter I wrote to them saying I was outraged that when I called I wasn't given an explanation of what the charges were for and that they were WAY out of proportion to the service I had recieved. I said I was enclosing a check for $50 and if they had a problem with that, I told them I thought the readers of the daily paper would be very interested to learn how they intimidate gouge patients when they can and would be happy to send a "letter to the editor" to let everyone know how this hospital group did business and tried to take advantage where they could. They cashed my check and I never heard from them again.
C) If you are having elective surgery or having something done that is not covered by your insurance, go to the doctor and hospital ahead of time after researching rates ahead of time to get an idea of what you are looking at and set up a payment plan for that service.
NEVER BE INTIMIDATED. Legally you only have to pay a token amount each month of what you owe and they can't sic collection agencies on you. I've been able to negotiate great rates by giving the billing department an option of paying $5 per month until the bill was paid or giving them a cash payment of 60% if they accepted that as payment in full. They've always taken the cash.
Especially don't be intimidated or feel obligated if the doctor didn't cure you and you don't have your health back. Think about it: in just about every other buying situation you have a satisfaction guarantee. Medical care is the only industry where you pay through the nose and you get NO GUARANTEES! Imagine if they had to give us our health back before they could accept payment. Then you'd have a MUCH healthier America with MUCH LOWER medical care costs. THEN you'd actually HAVE REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS HEALTH CARE in this country.
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.
Karen59
