Despite what the Republicans say, it isn’t for a lot of people, especially if you have insurance companies targeting people who want to, you know, actually use their insurance for anything but a money sink. Not saying a single-payer, government run system would be without problems, but if you’re like the guy in the article, it’s hard to imagine it being worse.
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell’s case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration’s health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away with controversial and unpopular industry practices.
Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of “rescission,” whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they’ve been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.
[…]
Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: “The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer.” In upholding Nettles’ verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that “Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell’s costly medical condition.”
On a vaguely related topic, ever wonder how many doctors and nurses are beaten up by patients?
Continuing from #34
Which leads to the only possible conclusion.
That you actually dislike poor people _so_ much that you are prepared to pay extra for their suffering and in some cases deaths.
Why you dislike poor people so much? Who knows. Many of them work exceptionally hard. Much harder than you I’d venture. Some I’m sure are lazy.
Irrespectively paying extra for their suffering/deaths – seems pretty sick to me.
34, FreddyBobs68k,
Basically what I “pay” is reflected in my salary. What I mean by this is I do not pay for it out of my paycheck. It’s “free”. But yes, I understand that I’m figuratively “paying more” for what I have (but I’m not getting less). Check out the link I provided TCC3 above about your main point.
35, Awake,
You’ve assumed that there is a dependence. I enjoy what I do. There’s no need for me to quit my “Master”. But even if I wanted to, I’ve lived very well within my means so I could be on my own for a while. It probably helps that I also make a good living.
Who is going to be hit hardest when Obamacare drives us into bankruptcy, those who can afford health insurance now or those who can’t?
Oh, more goodies from Bobbo! 🙂
Just when I thought we were getting along just fine your incapability to comprehend jumps right back in and screws everything up. Oh well, I’ll have to straighten things yet again.
Out of Network means YOU pay. Can you not understand this? So that means if the hospital can’t tell you if the service is out of network and gives it to you without telling anyway your ass is going to have to pay for those bills. Clear enough?
I went to ER from 3 weeks of Sleep apnea which has begun to cause me to faint randomly. To faint! It’s a good thing you and I were not in fight club else I really beat the sht out of you like he did to that kid 🙂 If it was just sleep apnea without the fainting I wouldn’t had bother.
In repeating the two comments above, your crazy remark…
“So–sifting thru the outrage==you are upset that your healthplan did not cover regular visits to a family/general practitioner, or the provider was overbooked and could not get to you?”
shows how incompetent you really are 🙂 Nothing in what you said relates to previous discussions, either by you or myself. Again, assuming things again are we or just something to change the topic? If I must point out why NOTHING relates then you need some serious help.
The rest of your comments is just pure utter garbage as they don’t relate to anything we’re were talking about at all but simply from the very fact that your comprehension failed to turn at the very beginning.
Try me again Bobbo, I am loving it 🙂 I must be pissing you off very easily for you to get so dumb so fast! Amazing!
42, FreddyBobs68k,
Those countries’ governments don’t have the same enumerated powers as ours.
Cost is a tricky thing. The politicians trying to sell it are saying it is deficit neutral when what they’re doing would get executives locked up at a corporation for cooking the books. How many years are people going to pre-pay in taxes before this monstrosity kicks off?
When Hilliary was selling her version when running for president she said it would cost Americans an additional 10% of their annual income on top of what we already pay in income taxes. And that 10% was a low-ball estimate. Politicians never like to tell you the real cost until they get their foot in the door.
Because starting with the town halls, the Democrats realized that the majority of Americans do not like what they’re proposing and how they’ve been covertly planning. Those Democrats you speak of are worried about re-election. Those who “chose” to retire are allowing for a chance within the Democratic party that they will not lose those seats due to a new Democratic candidate’s plausible deniability.
# 41 Guyver
>> Who knows. Many of them work exceptionally hard. >Much harder than you I’d venture. Some I’m sure are lazy.
>Sure. And? Things outside my control.
Well you brought it up. The implication being is that you do, and therefore they don’t. Otherwise why say it? Do you just randomly tell people that you work hard?
> How about letting insurance companies compete for your coverage by opening up state borders?
Sure. Sounds like a good idea.
> How about tort reform?
Again sure. But we know that the savings are minuscule compared to the size of the problem. But still savings are savings.
> How about the Whole Foods approach?
Haven’t had a chance to check it out – but will do. So for now I don’t know.
So here’s a question for you. All these things you bring up, sound like they might help the current system. So why haven’t they happened?
This has been going on for years. The Republicans didn’t do any of this – when they had plenty of opportunity. And NOW – with Obamas crappy plan in the offing – they wave it around like they have some great solution…. that they could have put in place years ago. Purleeze.
Additionally how much savings are they going to bring? Give me a number based on some independently (ie non partisan) data. I’m be amazed if it in total would be more then 20%. Hey 20% would be great. But thats still miles of universal health care systems.
I don’t see universal healthcare wiping out private health/insurance. Far from it. You could do these things and have universal health care. Certainly in the Uk there is a very healthy health care/insurance business. What universal healthcare does is provide a basic good quality service for everyone that you can rely on. If you want more – like a nicer room/bed – then knock yourself out.
Its not slavery.
Its not communism.
Its not an ‘entitlement’ or a ‘right’ or whatever other label you want to stick on it.
Its a proven method of providing good quality health care and reasonable cost to everybody. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just like roads, water etc.
I don’t suppose you feel that paying higher taxes so there are roads, is slavery, communism, entitlement, right etc? Its just a good thing to do – which if everyone pays a little everyone can benefit a lot.
40, Theone,
Although I’m not familiar with your health care coverage, what you’re saying isn’t universally true.
If someone goes to an out-of-network provider, they can still be covered. However the health care insurance will limit how much they will pay for an out-of-network provider. What you can usually expect is you will still be covered, but your out-of-pocket expenses will increase.
Additionally, just because you go to an in-network provider doesn’t mean you won’t pay for anything or that you are fully covered. If your in-network doctor orders a test / scan that your health care insurance doesn’t recognize as being necessary for your ailment, you can be on the hook for paying for those things.
Also, most health care insurances will cover you fully for LIFE-THREATENING EMERGENCIES in an out-of-network facility. But only the immediate care to stabilize the life-threatening situation.
Also, I’ve noted that eye glasses can be cheaper to get through an out-of-network place versus an in-network place. The benefit you get with paying a higher price on products in-network is that any allowances / discounts are applied immediately at the register. For an out-of-network place you’ll pay for everything up front but then file a claim to be reimbursed up to whatever allowance you’ve been allotted.
#41 freddybobs68k
We have out of control debt, mostly coming from unsustainable government obligations. Other countries with socialized medicine also have the same problem, but with reduced liberties to their citizens. You are saying we should add more government obligations to solve the problem, so we can be like other industrialized nations that also have huge debt problems.
We are not other industrialized nations. We have a very unique culture that promotes unhealthiness and we have a huge illegal immigration problem that most other countries do not face. We have a higher standard of living, higher lawsuit rate, and much less inherited family money/property as you have in Europe. Applying the same thing to this country will not produce the same results. You can try, but you admitted yourself much of our debt problem is because of other government health care obligations we already have, which shows that it is not working for the population that we are already covering. Your logic is not adding up.
We cannot keep this up forever. Bernie Madoff is the poster child for the ponzi scheme mentality that is all government handout programs, and the sooner we stop perpetuating them, the better.
44, FreddyBobs68k,
Let me approach things the other way since you seem to be stuck in this hasty conclusion of yours. Would we be having the same conversation about the rich? The answer is no.
My point of bringing up the poor, is they are the main reason for the health care debate (aside from pre-existing conditions). America is not a caste system. Those who are poor can move up in social class. This was my main point and why I’m not sympathetic in helping them. They CAN help themselves.
Liberals will argue that succeeding in Life has to do with luck / good fortune. I say it has to do with making the right choices in Life, social sacrifices, and simply working towards your goals. If I were born rich, then I really wouldn’t need to worry about social sacrifices, etc.
Well I think if you find the time to watch it that it may offer an interesting perspective. (It’s not a long video).
As for why they haven’t happened, it’s the Government and the Liberal propensity to sue someone for millions of dollars on just about anything.
For starters, take whatever 10 to 15% of your annual income is and that’s probably what you’ll be saving when the real costs kick in.
I’ve also used government health care in the past. It’s called the VA. From my experience and other family members, you get half-a55ed treatment, get put on waiting lists, and yes you do get rationed care. The VA is the largest hospital system in the world and it’s government run and it’s crap. Now our politicians are trying to expand that. No thank you.
Hey that’s a pretty nice flowery statement. Are you smoking some medical marijuana? 🙂 If you want government to provide this for all, then you are making it an entitlement as though it’s your right as a citizen to demand from the government to provide it for you.
As for the “reasonable cost”, go watch the Whole Foods link.
As for good quality, you obviously haven’t used our government run hospital system call the VA.
The general welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution covers roads.
#46 aslightlycrankygeek
The US isn’t like Europe. Europe isn’t a country for starters. And there are lots of different reasons for debt in different countries in Europe. So saying look they have debt (have you seen the US debt recently) + the have universal health care is close to meaningless. Look at our debt and we don’t have universal health care. So what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that?
‘We have out of control debt, mostly coming from unsustainable government obligations.’
Absolutely. Like the military and the ongoing wars you mean? Yep. Its costing a lot of money.
As a country we need to do something about this. Our debt is out of control. I’m behind universal health care precisely because it costs less per capita – as demonstrated in other countries.
‘We have a very unique culture that promotes unhealthiness’
And you seem pretty happy with that. Why would it change if its not in people interests to do so?
‘You can try, but you admitted yourself much of our debt problem is because of other government health care obligations we already have, which shows that it is not working for the population that we are already covering. Your logic is not adding up.’
Well lets think about this. Why do other countries pay less (much less) per capita for as good or better health care?
So they are presumably doing something right. Right? So what are they doing right then? Or are you claiming its all wrong – that all these independent countries and studies are all incorrect. That it actually costs more, and the results are worse? Is that what you are saying?
The debt argument is bogus – presumably they would be in far more debt if they didn’t have universal health care then.
So that’s how the logic works. At the basic level of how much does it cost to provide health care. If it costs less and produces good or better outcomes then that’s a good start. That still might not be good enough – granted – but whats that got to do with it?
IE 8 ate my longer response and I see unlike Firefox the history function does not keep individual pages to rescue such connection failures. Long Live the Fox!!
You all do recognize that when 16% of your GDP is going to healthcare (with current 39% annual increases!!)) that it matters not what you think you can afford today and what you will get 2-3-4-5 years from now? And further that it doesn’t matter if that 16% is going to a “goverenment run program” or the stock option bonus program of private insurance executives? Its still a parasitical cost of business/wealth in America.
But the “I got mine, screw everyone else” school of “I did it all on my own merit without help from this society” mindset is a position that appeals to dreamers and idiots who vote against their own short and long term interests.
Usually that sort of self reverential egotism is overcome in high school. Obviously, too often——not.
Speaking of which==say McGuyver, what sports do you play?
Opps–and theAbusedOne===a little reading should tell you whats in network and whats outside and in cases of ambiguity a prudent man would ASSUME its not covered. Silly to hurt yourself that way with false/wishfull expectations. Kinda like walking home in a sleep apnea induced semi-coma? Did you get to the liebertarian area meeting on time? Good boy.
Yes, the poor can work hard and claw their way out of poverty. It happens. Its also alot harder when your productivity and finances are drained paying for costly medicine, operations or procedures.
How much more productive might some citizens be if their primary concern wasn’t “How can I afford to stay alive next month?”
The irony is that some of these poor people you like to blame, used to be just like you. Then they had the audacity to get sick.
Can I give a small point of interest?
With REAL FULL medical coverage.
People will goto the Doctor as NEEDED.
NOT when they can afford it..for money and TIME.
There are many problems that IF caught early, can be fixed/augmented so as not to cause harm in the long term.
You try standing on Concrete all day, 40 hours per week, and Standing in a register and hand use ALL day long. It causes damage to the body over long term.
Knees, ankles, Hips, joints, Hands, back all suffer.
When you consider that a Doc appointment will cost you 1/2 a days wages, then if he finds something you will wait 1-2 weeks for another appointment, for a diagnostic. Which could set you back $200+ AFTER the deductible..(which is a couple days wages) and find out you destroyed a rotator cup, Then end up (after a few weeks) in the hospital and cant use your arm for 6 weeks..
AND I havent even gone into having a KID SICK, and 1 of the parents needs to stay home..
How about destroying the pad in the Knee joint..And not being able to recover for 1 year? Do you think the Workplace will keep your job? Do you think you will be able to pay BILLS while you recoup?? Medicare wont TOUCH you until you are 50+ to replace your knees.
50, TCC3,
And Life is not fair… but you seem emotionally insistent that it is the responsibility of others to pay for someone to get out of poverty.
As for the blaming, what EXACTLY did I blame poor people for? I merely am saying being a poor is not an excuse. Everyone can change their situation. It’s a matter of what people CHOOSE to do with their lives.
# 47 Guyver
Lets just admit hard work != financial success.
You are much much more likely to have success if you work hard. Sure. It is not guaranteed.
Moreover some people do not work hard at all and do have financial success (sometimes by luck, sometimes by parents etc).
So using ‘hard work’ as a proxy for ‘financial success’ is a fail.
Actually I don’t think the poor is the main reason for health care debate. I think its because its now so expensive (and there are enough bad experiences) for it to hurt middle class Americans. I think for most people, as sad as it is to say, the poor just don’t come into it. And you have just strengthened that view.
‘As for good quality, you obviously haven’t used our government run hospital system call the VA.’
I have not. But I have used socialized health care in other countries, and it worked very well. In fact my dad has very good (read expensive) private health insurance, as a previous director of a oil company. He actually used the NHS when he had a heart attack recently – was easiest, fastest and best for that situation. Go figure.
I actually think its kind of a sad state of affairs for America. That we used to be a can do nation. We could innovate. We could do things better. Now look at us. You point out what another nation has done, that’s successful – and the response is – that we couldn’t do that here.
The argument being we are so incapable that we can’t even do it as well as another nation. If we try it it’ll be crap.
Nice one. Talk about loser mentality.
‘For starters, take whatever 10 to 15% of your annual income’
Give me the studies. It’s literally impossibly high for me – so for myself I can claim false as just a straight fact.
>> ‘Its a proven method of providing good quality health care and reasonable cost to everybody. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just like roads, water etc.
> ‘Hey that’s a pretty nice flowery statement.’
That’s what the reports say. That’s what my experience is. That’s what logically makes sense to me – based on the knowledge and experience I have had.
Provide me with the logic and data to change my view and I’ll be happy to do so.
My heathcare is really good. In fact, since they computerized, it’s become even better.
Appointments can be scheduled or canceled, reorder perscriptions, check past visits, email my doctor all via the providers website.
My concern about Obamacare is and has always been; will it cover people without healthcare and will it undermine what I have?
Bobbo, you’re so fcked up in your comments you should seek help. You should really reconsider “assuming” things of others as it would only benefit your arguments. Having said that, however, I “think” we are on the same fcking page. Holy sht! I know!
Man, all that turd talk, your’s still running btw, for such a simple question. Next thing DU will ask whether we like “Coke” and you’ll be off running Google links on pots and drugs and not the soft drink!
I need a beer, holy cow. Wait, I don’t drink beer alcohol 😀 Just messing with you now 🙂
Yeah that makes sense. Let’s change the entire system because one company targets at most 0.03% of the population (assuming they have every AIDS patient in the US).
This is the kind of thing that passes for thought on the left and in the media (I know distinguishing between the left and the media is redundant because the left is the media). I don’t care if you guys think about this stuff, just don’t confiscate 50% of my income trying to implement such absurdity.
#57–theONewhocan’tdrinkBeer==I don’t trust a man who can’t hold is licker. I have to assume if there are not sufficient facts offered up. Failing that would be cause to not respond at all or go off on some complete tangent.
You know what a tangent is don’t you One? How about “go off”?===Gee, that made me thirsty too, and my fridge is full. Hmmmmmm, Beer!
#58–shitty==what whole system is being changed? Retarded birthers can never deal with the actual facts, and even when they create straw men, even those arguments fail== as in: why not change the whole system when the whole system will fail on its own in 5-6 years without changes to the whole system?
Silly dolt.
#48 freddybobs68k
I am not saying other countries do not pay less per capita for health care. I also never said Europe was a country. What I am saying is that I do not see what this proves, and I certainly no not want to give up more of my liberties to achieve what other more socialized countries have.
One of the biggest reasons we spend more per capita on health care is because doctors have to cover their asses by ordering tests that are most likely not necessary in order to avoid lawsuits. But whether this is fixed or not, it does not follow that spending less per capita in health care will decrease our national debt, UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE. Most other countries pay a lot more for a gallon of gas than us. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are in more debt that us. Does it?
There is nothing in this bill that is going to miraculously decrease the cost of a doctor bill. It will simply redistribute who is paying for it. As much talk is there is for reducing costs, the fact is that demand will go up as more people have insurance, while supply of doctors will not go up. Every other talking point is secondary to this fact. If you want health care costs to go down (and I am not suggesting we do this), outlaw all insurance. Hospitals and doctors could then only charge what people would pay for their services. When no one has to pay out of their pocket, demand goes way up, and thus cost follows.
The illogicality of liberals on this forum is only matched by their apparent ability to spend their entire day commenting and replying to every minute detail of everyone who disagrees with them. Do you guys not have a job and is that why you want other people to pay for your heath care? If I keep posting and lose my job can Obamacare save me? Sorry, I think I have to stop at this point.
#61–cranky==everything you say has “a kernel” of truth, but then you go and make a mountain of BS out of your mole shit.
I would give you an education, line by line, but you already are going “la, la, la.”
Don’t let facts get in the way of your dogma.
#48 aslightlycrankygeek
“it does not follow that spending less per capita in health care will decrease our national debt, UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE”
No – it means as a system it is more efficient. That means more money for the country. To spend – perhaps on paying down the debt.
So it absolutely has to do with the debt because
1) It would be easier to pay down debt – if we had a more efficient system
2) Future projections show health care being the biggest contributor to our national debt. It being more efficient would make it less of a problem.
Presumably it would be a good thing if most Americans had some kind of health care. I could suggest that Americans should have no health care. That’d help the debt problem. My suggestion is that having a more efficient health care system can help with the debt.
Whether is government run or not is really by the by. It just so happens that generally government run systems are much more efficient and just as if not more effective. Make of that what you will.
This bill isn’t so great. Agreed.
Your last comment – well its great. Nice. You’ve got it all figured out there champ! Back to work dolt.
“If the Japanese overfish, then the Tuna go extinct. No more food for the Japanese.” /// No, dimwad==no more Tuna for EVERYBODY!!!!!
So self centered and limited in scope.
and as so often posted here, characterize the “ideas” behind the requested laws any way you wish, hide behind “constitutional rights” as you will, complain about deficit spending===all valid. But at the end of the day you have at least two groups:
One that wants to share the wealth as legitimately able to do so, and another that says “I got mine, screw you.”
Yes, two basic ways of looking at the same world.
54,47..
HARD WORK, is not liable to get you ANY success.
The company will love you and keep the wages, ABOUT the same.
I should ask:
DEFINE success..
1=
Pay bills,
Pay rent,
pay for car,
Pay repairs,
pay medical,
pay for food,
Pay for Fuel,
Pay for clothes,
Pay for everything, and still have money enough to go see 1 movie a month??
2=
Make at LEAST $18 an hour full time. WHICH is the min to pay for the BASICS..which is also 2.5 times HIGHER then min wage.
3=
you make enough money not to worry about the ABOVE.. $25 per hour full time.
I say full time for 1 reason. WHO do you want taking care of your kids? WHO is responsible for your kids? YOU ARE.
Having others care for your kids, COSTS “HALF to ALL” your wages for 1 person. It does NOT reinforce your role as a PARENT. you have little control over their lives or habits.
I sure hope this jag passes, but perhaps another cut at the same baloney:
I do happen to be very successful and blessed with perfect health. Thats why I don’t feel bad about “my money” going to those less well off. Every seen anyone who is chronically ill? Take ALL MY MONEY, but leave me my education and health.
No body should get upset if some of their money goes to people you would not want to trade places with.
I’ve often wondered about the money “I earn!” Sit at a desk, move the cursor around. Try to win a few more than I lose===make the big bucks. Compare that to a Coal Miner or any number of other jobs. Work hard, exchange your health for a pay check==make far less than me. Of the two, I would rather do what I do for the paycheck of a miner/farmer/fisherman/soldier/policeman/nurse/teacher etc. So===if my job is safer and more fun/more intellectually rewarding==why should I also get paid more? Why should I be jealous of those who have less????
Heh, heh. Silly liebertarians, haven’t grown up. Why do I have to share my toys? Everything I see is MINE!!!!!
http://campaigns.chcf.org/updates/00121.aspx
Maybe if people wouldn’t lie to insurance companies when signing up
Or do you think it is honest to say things like I am in perfect health when you are not?
It’s working great for me, and in a couple of years I will have to retire, lose it, and go on Medicare, which, I am afraid, the Democrats are in the process of ruining.
# – MikeN — Funny, I am sure that once someone states that they do not eat right, do not exercise, smokes, drinks and has a family history of heart attacks the insurance company will reward the person with a policy. If the insurance company does reward the person with a policy, it will cost so much that the person might as well not have a policy.
Insurance companies are not altruistic companies.
#72
Well bobo the totalitarian, it finally comes out. You see bobo the totalitarian feels a little guilty about how he earns a living, so instead of doing what normal people do and go see a therapist, or better yet maybe go to church and volunteer, donate to worthy causes or Children’s Hospital here in LA, no, bobo the totalitarian insists that the reason he feels guilty is a result of his GREEDY fellow citizenry.
So bobo the totalitarian believes that since there is unjust suffering in the world, and his fellow citizens are greedy, that he should force the citizenry to pay insurance companies, and force the insurance companies to take the money, and force MD’s to take the insurance money that bobo thinks is correct and then do the work so that bobo the totalitarian can feel good, regardless of what anyone has to say about it.
Oh and if you refuse to follow bobo’s plan well then he will fine you, and if you still refuse he will send the IRS to take your assets, and if you still refuse he will put you in jail. This is why the Left is totalitarian in nature, and will use any method to pass their stupid plans, because they believe the rest of the citizenry is either too greedy or too stupid to do the right thing. bobo you are so wrecked that you can’t even recognize you are wrecked and that’s what makes you dangerous, but I’m not going over the cliff with you.