Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

While I'm still undecided on the options for healthcare, I question how effectively an individual in the U.S., with pre-existing conditions, can purchase medical insurance as things stand now. If you've had cancer, diabetes, heart problems, polio or any sort of chronic condition, it's quite likely that those pre-existing conditions are going to prevent you from getting any sort of (affordable) coverage that will cover anything important.

A friend of mine had poliio as a kid and he was recently laid off from his job of 40+years. He and his wife are covered under COBRA right now. When that runs out, as he's explained his situation to me, he's sh## outta luck. He'll have to roll the dice and try to make it to 62, when I guess he can get on Social Security and Medicare. If he or his wife get sick in the mean time (and she has health problems too), everything they've worked for over the past 40 some years will be in jeopardy.

---

I agree this is wrong and needs to be fixed. But it can be fixed witout nationalization or a "Public Option". The easiest way is to get away from employer based healthcare. That way when you change jobs, your conditions don't become "pre-existing" because you don't change insurance.

Perhaps that doesn't work for your friend right now, but other things could be done to address that as well. Like saying that you can't be turned down for diseases that are currently "under control" or something like that.

Pre existing conditions are just another example of ins company ripoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I agree this is wrong and needs to be fixed. But it can be fixed witout nationalization or a "Public Option". The easiest way is to get away from employer based healthcare. That way when you change jobs, your conditions don't become "pre-existing" because you don't change insurance.

---

But who would enforce that move, if not the government? If I owned an insurance company, why would I (willingly) let a policy holder receive the same coverage and pay the same premiums that I offered to his employer? Why would I not cancel his coverage when he reached the lifetime limit? Why would I not drop him if it was found that he had some sort of chronic condition? If a woman has a baby with say, Downs Syndrome, why wouldn't I look forward to the day that I could get her and that baby off my rolls? If I'm running a for profit corporation, I am looking at things that might negatively affect my profits. That's the sole purpose of a corporation: to enhance shareholder value.

And anything that the government does to mandate that I have to look out for the public good is a form of government control or interference, no matter how you look at it. Right?

Quote:

---

Perhaps that doesn't work for your friend right now, but other things could be done to address that as well. Like saying that you can't be turned down for diseases that are currently "under control" or something like that.

---

No, all he can do at this point is hope that neither he nor his wife suffer a serious illness. If I was him, I'd transfer ALL of my assets into his kid's name until he turns 62 and can get on Medicare. Until then, he wouldn't be able to pay for expensive care and may get turned out of the hospital at a certain point, but at least they wouldn't be destitute, even though they'd be (technically) bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

Pre existing conditions are just another example of ins company ripoff.

---

Possibly. But it's also a smart (though possibly harsh) way to protect profits. Again, if I owned a medical insurance company, the last thing I would want is older people, sick people, fat people, smokers, people involved in dangerous jobs, etc. If I could (legally) get my hands on their genetic background, I'd use that in my favor too. They do risk analysis models that I can barely understand. But just like with auto insurance, the best day at an insurance company is one where all of the policy holders pay their premiums, and none of them files a claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

Starter, what I mean is that he needs to clear things up. Rumours like that sure aren't going to help him.



It's funny how you highlight the case of one person unable to get healthcare, but yet don't consider 40-50 million people in your own country as anything special or anything to worry about. Funny that.

---

It is funny how little you know about healthcare in the US yet seem inclined to comment on it.


NOBODY IS DENIED HEALTCARE IN THE US! NOBODY. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH.

NOBODY.

Illegal aliens get healthcare.

We even pay for career criminals to get sex change operation.

OK? Get it? Understand now?

Jeez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

1) But who would enforce that move, if not the government?

2) If I owned an insurance company, why would I (willingly) let a policy holder receive the same coverage and pay the same premiums that I offered to his employer? Why would I not cancel his coverage when he reached the lifetime limit? Why would I not drop him if it was found that he had some sort of chronic condition? If a woman has a baby with say, Downs Syndrome, why wouldn't I look forward to the day that I could get her and that baby off my rolls? If I'm running a for profit corporation, I am looking at things that might negatively affect my profits. That's the sole purpose of a corporation: to enhance shareholder value.

3) And anything that the government does to mandate that I have to look out for the public good is a form of government control or interference, no matter how you look at it. Right?

4) No, all he can do at this point is hope that neither he nor his wife suffer a serious illness. If I was him, I'd transfer ALL of my assets into his kid's name until he turns 62 and can get on Medicare. Until then, he wouldn't be able to pay for expensive care and may get turned out of the hospital at a certain point, but at least they wouldn't be destitute, even though they'd be (technically) bankrupt.

---

1) Of course the government would have to enforce the laws. Laws aren't always bad.

2) What prevents the government from doing the exact same type of things? They may not be for-profit, but they do have to worry about costs.

3) Of course. However, I would much rather the government set up guidelines for corporations to work within than having the government actually running things. This is true of any corp.

4) Your friend is in a seriously crappy situation. Sorry about that. I don't know enough about moving money around and what not to know if that is a good idea or not. What I can tell you is that there may be companies that will insure him, maybe not. I have a cousin with MS, and she has insurance. Actually it is pretty good coverage. So it's out there, you just need to find the right place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

It is funny how little you know about healthcare in the US yet seem inclined to comment on it.


NOBODY IS DENIED HEALTCARE IN THE US! NOBODY. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH.

NOBODY.

Illegal aliens get healthcare.

We even pay for career criminals to get sex change operation.

OK? Get it? Understand now?

Jeez.

---

I find it a bit rich for you to ask someone else, in your usual charmingly light-hearted fashion, whether they 'Understand now?' in a post that is so badly typed as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Possibly. But it's also a smart (though possibly harsh) way to protect profits. Again, if I owned a medical insurance company, the last thing I would want is older people, sick people, fat people, smokers, people involved in dangerous jobs, etc. If I could (legally) get my hands on their genetic background, I'd use that in my favor too. They do risk analysis models that I can barely understand. But just like with auto insurance, the best day at an insurance company is one where all of the policy holders pay their premiums, and none of them files a claim.

---

Again, what would stop the government from doing these type of things? They also want to control costs. Looking at a cost/bennifit chart rationally as you suggested the government would do, leads down some pretty nasty roads. Especially if/when the government is your only option. At least if you are turned down by an insurance company you may be able find another company to go through, or even pay out of pocket (I know that doesn't help the poor, but the gov. already "helps" them). If the government controls healthcare, once they turn you down, you're done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Possibly. But it's also a smart (though possibly harsh) way to protect profits. Again, if I owned a medical insurance company, the last thing I would want is older people, sick people, fat people, smokers, people involved in dangerous jobs, etc. If I could (legally) get my hands on their genetic background, I'd use that in my favor too. They do risk analysis models that I can barely understand. But just like with auto insurance, the best day at an insurance company is one where all of the policy holders pay their premiums, and none of them files a claim.

---

Which is precisely why we are looking at nat health care. Plus the capitalist failure to police themselves.. That coupled with the horrendous amount of crooks in government will have us in turmoil for quite a while now. with respect to smoking etal - unless you want big brother to handle your every move you just have to accept the whole package and move on. Gee we build all these fancy bars - sell tons of alcohol and then the police sit right outside the door waiting for you because we have no affordable, reliable transportation home. Expensive cabs and a urban lifestyle is really what does not mix with alcohol.

We can go on and on but there are many things that should be fixed here and probably the best way is to police the capitalists and let them have at it.

Anthony, a man was just on Bloomberg and he was denied an operation unless he could come up with a $3000 downpayment for an eye operation. He couldn't get the money and so he couldn't get the operation. Because of his pre-existing diabetes, his premiums made insurance unaffordable. Pay the mortgage and buy food or carry insurance. I guess he liked to eat and live indoors. He's now partially blind. What's cruelly ironic about that situation: now that he's disabled, he is now covered by Medicare.

As far as I know, an emergency room will (eventually) see anyone who walks in. As far as I know, no one has been tossed out before getting some initial care or evaluation. But as I've pointed out, and I assumed we all knew, hospitals have forcibly discharged patients who did not have insurance or the money to continue being treated. So to say that no one is denied health care in the U.S. is not accurate.