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.
There is a difference between not supporting the health care bill as it is written and supporting health care reform.
This case does demonstrate the need for health care reform. I don't believe I have heard anyone claim that our health care system in the US is perfect or in no way of needing fixing. What I have heard is the continued assumption that the only aspect of our health care that needs reform is the insurance agencies. What about the hospitals and the doctors and the malpractice insurance and the pharmaceutical companies? Oh thats right --- lobbying.
Irrelevant, since denied coverage provisions were part of many of the democrat and republican plans for health care reform legislation and were thus not a point of debate. Other provisions of the health care legislature is - lets focus on that. Although I am sure you will get pages of nonsensical responses (I see you already have pages of responses which totally miss the point).
But you are working on antecdotes, which should not be part of this debate - hard facts should be.
It would seem to be a very poor business decision to accept this new client.
For those who find that offensive, donate money to the parents, become doctors and donate your time, do not stoop to becoming thugs and thieves to enforce your morality.
And that is why the goverement should stay away from making business decisions
This isn't about a right to lifers issues. But don't you find it ironic the most liberal countries (Netherlands...ie one of legalized sex shows and marijuana) has socialized medicine and they (liberal government) have to make tough decisions with their finite resources on how to treat their sick newborns or sick elderly.
Many "liberal socialized medicine societies" have almost automatic policies not to pursue any heroic efforts to save babies born less than 27 weeks or under (I can't recall but it's about 500gm babies).
So if you are truly a bleeding liberal at heart, how do you feel about these other liberal countries deciding NOT to use their limited healthcare dollars and letting these newborns die? Think about that.
As I said before the huge mistake for the self employed people was that the father or mother should have (in this case the father since the mother was pregnant). The father should have added an individual policy for himself 8 months ago when he knew his wife was going deliver. He had 8 freaking months to add individual coverage for himself so once the baby was born, he could automatically add the newborn to the plan. Isn't 8 months long enough time to get individual coverage especially when he appeared young and healthy?
Interesting question ---- since noone has answered your question I thought I'd repeat it and hope for an answer.
So how about? What is the difference between a health insurance company denying coverage and the government denying treatment? Doesn't it boil down to the same thing?
Interesting question ---- since noone has answered your question I thought I'd repeat it and hope for an answer.
So how about? What is the difference between a health insurance company denying coverage and the government denying treatment? Doesn't it boil down to the same thing?
I'd have to say the result set is the same. No treatment, was it that easy?
Huh? And this makes sense how? My income is low to middling, I pay taxes, I pay for health insurance and guess what? I still donate to charities. How has this "choice elimination" missed me?
You would have more to donate without excessive taxation used for social welfare experiments.
Quote:
I would call your post smarmy at best. "Poor child", and boo-hoo- even poorer are the ones that are "taken from" and perhaps by that justification have absolutely no choice but to stop donating to charity. How very convenient.
There is no doubt, that this child will be taken care of. Emergency rooms, by law, have to take them in. Granted, they only have to stabilize, but still they must be treated.
(on a side note, someone will step up, and take care of the kid, no doubt)
The simple answer to this type of healthcare issue is simple. Don't make ER's take everyone in. If you can't pay, or you don't have insurance, buh bye.
I guarantee, there would be a line out the door of your local United Healthcare branch the next day.
Then, stop health insurance companies from being predatory, and only taking peoples money, instead of paying for it when it comes out.
What would they be taking the child to the ER for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
Actually all family members don't need insurance in order to add a new born child. Only one parent needs to have insurance and that parent's insurance can add the newborn to it.
In this family's case, the father or the mother could have had individual plans AND than added the baby within 31 days of the child's birth.
So the family made a huge mistake. Both the parent's went without insurance and they lost the bet.
Either the mother or father (I assume they are both healthy or one of them was healthy and in their 30's).
The costs of individual policies for healthy people in their 30s is very small. Usually less than $150 a month. The father or mother could have opted for this and the baby would have been automatically added on within any preexisting conditions.
I am self employed and my wife and I have two individual policies (mainly because my Maryland individual policy is an indemnity and still so cheap... costs me about $110 a month and I see any doctor whose in the US).
Anyways I was going to have the newborn on a separate policy but after a few calls to the agents, I found it's best just to add the baby on to either my existing individual policy or my wife's policy.
I'm very surprised these people completely missed the boat. What scared me was the "new underwriting" if the baby has their own policy. And tom, dick and harry can understand "new underwriting" whether it's mortgage loans, life insurance policies etc, they will examine everything. I just wished people were a little more educated. Most people have access to internet these days. Everything is available online. If you can't find it, just call the free 800 numbers of these companies and ASK.
Well, these people were doing what they thought was in their best interests. Neither parent had insurance. They were doing what many people on this forum think we should all do-"self-insuring". In other words, paying cash. Like all of these stories, we don't know all the facts. We don't know if they were poorly advised, or what. It's possible they are among like the many here on CD who are think they can pay for "anything" that might happen. Then again, maybe not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer
You obviously have enough to pay for internet service. So pony up and help them out.
Where did I say that?
Hint, it was a rhetorical question. The answer is I didn't say that. Making stuff up is also called lying - something your parents should have taught you not to do.
Right, $30/mo for internet, you could give that up and pay for this surgery in a few hundred years. Do you have ANY idea how much this type of surgery costs? I guess that is my rhetorical question, b/c it's obvious you don't, if you equate it with the cost of internet service. Gimme a break!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird
I gave birth to premature twins a few years back. You don't want to know what their medical bills were. I had no trouble with the bills. I had my family covered with a family policy.
This guy waited till the child arrived and then decided to apply for insurance? Isn't that sort of like me applying for car insurance after I totaled the car? :dubious:
Is that a line from Rush, Glenn, or Sean? It gets repreated constantly, and it's annoying.
I really think health care needs to be made mandatory. Everyone paying in and everyone getting benefits.
Single payer system all the way. It's cheaper to run and organize. It's cost effective and everyone gets the treatment they need which in its own turn reduces costs.
It makes sense. That's why every sensible nation in the world does it. Massachusetts is considering do it, that or health savings accounts. People here are excited about it.
I support heathcare reform ;just not this one. But it did put a end to any singlwe payer system in our times. Single payer with teh medial facilites the governamnt would have to buy is plain impossible IMO.
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.
