|
Author
|
Topic: Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
I went to the emergency room at a hospital that was specifically covered by my insurance. Little did I know that the emergency room was ran by a third party, out of Texas IIRC, that was not covered by my insurance. So instead of paying 80% they only paid 20% of the cost. That is almost exactly how I got screwed. They ran up seperate deductables for in-network, out-of-network, and for both my wife and my baby girl. If my wife's in-network deductable was paid, they moved the charge to the kid. I tried to fight it but seriously, I was just happy to have everybody healthy and didn't feel like getting a lawyer. I ended up broke but not in too much debt and just feeling grateful that it turned out okay.
If its such a great idea, then why the need for federal legislation to force people into the group? Can't you all create this thing without making laws that include me? Because it can't work without you. Non-profit insurance exists but what happens is ppl like you don't want to participate and it only works if everybody does. Without you in the pool, without some young 20-something who feels invincible and doesn't want to participate, the costs become astronomical even if you combine all the insurance pools. It is a matter of national public interest. Thats why.
I'm not convinced. It could go the other way too, where more deadbeats are getting more free shit and perpetuating their deadbeatary. Plus, now that they have better healthcare, they can multiply even more. How do you know that society, as a whole, wouldn't be better off if we reduce the problem but preventing their multiplying by maintaining the current healthcare? Well first of all, this whole "preventing their multiplying" smacks of social-darwinism which is disgusting in my opinion. Second of all, we have examples of this working in countries that have universal systems. Look at the recent recession. The countries that came out of it the best are the ones that had the best social safety nets. Also, read my recent post about the return on investment of health care. You helping to provide people with health care makes you money. It is a fact. You might complain that something is coming out of your paycheck to pay for social systems but what you don't realize is that the economic conditions that are allowing you to get that paycheck in the first place are quite likely dependent on those systems. I'll put up with a few deadbeats in exchange for more jobs, better jobs, better GDP, and better prosperity any day.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
Re: Phase 1: Enact Health Care, Phase 2: ???, Phase 3: Profit!
Is there nothing the goverment spends money on that reduces economic activity? What about the Drug War?
Yea sure. Prisons probably do too. Those kinds of things have a multiplier of like 1:.9 or something like that. If you spend money to manufacture a bomb and then drop that bomb on some brown people in a foreign country, you have created no wealth (not to mention pissing off the brown people which causes you to want to build more bombs). You don't totally loose everything because you are still paying people who go out and spend.
How's that work? The ultimate loss of economic activity is when you have consumers who are unable to spend. When they do, that dollar touches (at least partially) multiple aspects of the economy. A dollar of food stamps hits the retailer, supplier, packager, farmer, etc. The net economic effect of that dollar is then greater than the static value of that dollar. Then there are the secondary effects which I mentioned that you didn't reply about. Health care makes our companies more competitive (if it didn't they would not offer it to begin with). Food stamps and unemployment insurance are stopgap systems that break the cycles of demand loss during a recession. It allows companies to tighten their belts and individuals to focus on getting themselves back on their feet. These types of secondary effects are sometimes not even represented in the ROI. Universal health care just so happens is not only the moral thing to do, it makes sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Same here. The hospital was in-network, the emergency room was out-of-network I wish it was that simple for me. In my case it was, "oh we ran out of doctors today so we sub-contracted this person who is out of network for you. Might not be that way tomorrow. It was in the fine print when you signed in as you were desperatly agonizing over the health of your wife and child. If you don't like it we can stop treatment. Would you like to take a customer satisfaction survey?"
Oh... that sucks. Maybe there's a better way? Yea there is. The British system. Get rid of insurance for basic health care all together. Even assuming a single payer system, why would you CHOOSE to pay overhead for some public accountant to move money around on paper just so you can go get a checkup when you are sick? Just have your taxes go straight to a reasonably well-paid, salaried doctor. As it stands now, we have a fee-for-service system where if the doctor doesn't hustle he doesn't get paid. For a new doc who has the equivalent of 2 mortgages worth of student loan debt this increase the incentive to over treat, take more patients then they can handle, spend less time with patients, and over prescribe drugs.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Because they're gonna tax the shit out of me to pay for it, like as if my taxes go up by $100 to lower my healthcare cost by $75. Well, as it stands now, unless you make more thatn $500,000 a year you are not going to see any tax increases with the current proposal. And if you do make more than that, congradulations on your success. Your minor increased contribution that would be equivalent to me putting a penny in the jar at 7-11 will be helping your fellow citizen while at the same time improve your stock holdings.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
CATO
Please note this refutation. You know who the CATO Institute is don't you? I would recommend a dose of 10 mins of google.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
Re: CATO
I know exactly what the Cato Institute is. Oh good! So you know that it is a global warming denial, big oil, big tobacco, ultra-conservative, astro-turf organization. They support the wholesale elimination of public schools, public medicine, any regulation of commerce, any regulation of climate or pollution, any support for American agriculture. I have even heard a CATO rep claim that we should eliminate public fire/rescue, public roads (they DO want to get rid of the US. Dept. of Transportation). So why should we listen to a refutation of universal health care from CATO given the extraordinarily obvious bias?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
Message 143 of 184 (531672)
10-19-2009 10:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
10-17-2009 3:23 PM
|
|
Re: We the people
Dem's and Rep's citizens do NOT act differently, they act according to whatever their party supports, it's the same for both sides. The media targets these groups and provides fuel to the fire. Each side follows media propaganda. I didn't notice this until Hyro pointed it out. Quick question. What kind of people do you think are out there protesting at BOTH the RNC and DNC conventions? Lock-step DNC first liberals?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by onifre, posted 10-17-2009 3:23 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 150 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 3:39 PM | | Jazzns has replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
Re: CATO
The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, not an "ultra-conservative" group. LOL, you want to quip about a single word. Ok fine. They are a global warming denial, big oil, big tobacco, ultra- libertarian, astro-turn organization. Moreover they are ideologically dedicated to the total dismantling of government for anything other than national defense. Again I'll ask, why do you believe that we shoud listen to a "debunking" of such an obviously biased organization? Do they have expertise in this area? Have their ideas been tried anywhere? Ever?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
Re: CATO
They have members that are skeptical of global warming, they aren't "big oil/big tobacco" so much as they are for "free markets," and they are a grassroots organization no different than any other. Yea and by "free markets" they mean the ability for any corporation to pollute however they want as long as it makes them money. If you are a global warming denialist AND a pro-corporate shill, it is in fact a conflict of interest to any rational person. They are also about as grassroots as my carpet.
No, they are for reducing the government which if you read the Constitution was the stated aim. You must have a different Constitution than I do. Are you not an American? Oh wait! Maybe you didn't realize that we in fact are not under the Articles of Confederation. You see, the first attempt at forming the US government was an abysmal failure because the national government did not have enough power to do anything useful. That is why we have what is called The United States Constitution which allows Congress to promote the general welfare.
If ever there were a non-partisan group, it would be Cato since they never align themselves completely with either democrats or republicans. On any debate you won't see them politically align themselves towards any party. I never claimed that they were partisan. They are for whoever will help their corporate organizers the most. Also, you didn't answer my question. Do they have expertise in this area? Have their ideas been tried anywhere? Ever?
But why should we listen to ObamaCare when that truly and obviously is biased? You're making self-refuting claims. No I am most certainly not. I have never once in this thread endorsed ObamaCare whatever that is. I am endorsing what the vast majority of Americans want which is universal health care. If it were totally up to me I would have a fully socialized system which seems to be working quite well in the countries that are smart enough to have one. In leiu of that, I'll stick with the rest of my fellow countrymen and support a public/private mix of insurance reform that we enact through the democratic process provided to us by the Constitution. I don't recall ONE TIME in this thread endorsing Obama's plan for health care reform. Obama is in fact very weak on health care. He is not going far enough. He should have supported single-payer from the start. Very disappointing.
Just listen to the arguments, not immediately dismiss it as an "Ultra-conservative" group. Why shouldn't we take into account who is running and paying for the propagation of those arguments? After some time, we don't give the benefit of the doubt to the Discovery Institute or ICR or AIG? Why is that? Its because they have a long and sorrid history of being totally biased.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-20-2009 9:58 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
|
Message 149 of 184 (531932)
10-20-2009 2:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by Izanagi
10-20-2009 12:17 PM
|
|
Re: CATO
The other thing to recognize, which is also a bit more on topic, is that NO industrialized country has a successful free-market health care system. So either their opposition to health care is rooted in special interest or ideology. Neither of those are very promising with respect to providing a basis for dissent. ABE: TO clarify, I should say that I am talking about basic health care. I realize that the UK, AU, etc have thriving private health care for beyond basic health care which is fine. Edited by Jazzns, : Provide reason for edi
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by Izanagi, posted 10-20-2009 12:17 PM | | Izanagi has not replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
|
Message 151 of 184 (531948)
10-20-2009 3:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by onifre
10-20-2009 3:39 PM
|
|
Re: We the people
Media driven people who add nothing to the debate. They are on TV protesting (which does nothing to help the issue) to help drive up TV ratings. What TV were you watching? The media was loathe to cover the protests because then they would have had to cover the police brutality and illegal arrests. During the convention the "media" were all inside with the air conditioning, sitting on their pundit chairs, interviewing politicians and wondering what Hillary Clinton was going to say. What left-wing media advertised the DNC protests similar to the way Fox advertised the tea-bagging parties? It is very easy to claim that it is all the same when it very clearly is not the same.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 3:39 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 152 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 4:09 PM | | Jazzns has replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
|
Message 153 of 184 (531958)
10-20-2009 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 152 by onifre
10-20-2009 4:09 PM
|
|
Re: We the people
The ONLY point to what I'm saying is that they don't add anything to the debate. I disagree. The town hall protesters and tea-baggers started to shift some centerist democrats and hardened the resolve of some republicans. That is what I was trying to tell you. They DO affect things.
And how do I know that, BECAUSE WE ARE STILL AT WAR. And we have a democrat in office no less. But we're still at war, they did nothing to help the debate. They just became a media tool, in this case, used by FoxNews. I was totally unaware that Fox news gave ANY significant coverage to war protesters.
Protesters (anti-gun/pro-gun, anti-abortion/pro-life, anti-gay marriage/pro-gay marriage, etc.) add NOTHING to the debate. They are media motivated and used for publicity and TV ratings. YOU have not demonstrated this. Yes the tea-bagger movement was promoted by FOX but you have not provided the equivalent analogue for liberal protesters. What I am saying is that they ARE different. One is genuine outrage and one is not. One is corporate sponsored and one is not. Protesting is a fundamental element of our democracy and it does move politicians. Perhaps not as much as we might like but it does. That is exactly why we cannot sit on our hands, pretend we are having a totally rational discussion, and naievly hope that the idiots voices are not being taken seriously.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 4:09 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 154 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 5:40 PM | | Jazzns has replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
|
Message 155 of 184 (531974)
10-20-2009 5:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by onifre
10-20-2009 5:40 PM
|
|
Re: We the people
Okay, so getting back down to what started all this. I seem to recall you thinking that it would be better to have a more open and rational discussion about the issues to drive politics. You seem to be conceding that politics is in fact often driven by who yells the loudest. What then should progressives do when faced with an opposition that is totally and expressly uninterested in having an open and rational discussion?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 5:40 PM | | onifre has replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
|
Message 157 of 184 (532016)
10-20-2009 9:06 PM
|
|
|
Toddler Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Skinny"!!!
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/21348145/detail.html
Aislin Bates weighed 6 pounds, 6 ounces at birth. She now tips the scale at 22 pounds. "She's perfectly healthy, yet she has become a statistic," said Aislin's mother, Rachel Bates. "There's no reason for her to be a statistic as a non-insured person." When Aislin's father, Rob, worked for another company, Aislin was covered under the company’s group health insurance plan. Now that Rob is working on his own, he's had to get new insurance. The company, United Healthcard's Golden Rule, sent the family a letter, which says, in part, "We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company standards." Won't somebody please think of the children!
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 158 by onifre, posted 10-20-2009 10:05 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
|
Message 161 of 184 (532208)
10-22-2009 2:10 AM
|
|
|
Rape = Pre-Existing Condition?
Anybody else still defending private health care as the best system?
Pisano, of the insurance trade group, said: "If you put down on a form that you are or were taking anti-HIV drugs at any time, they [the insurance companies] are going to understand that you are or were in treatment for HIV, period," she said. "That could be a factor in determining whether you get coverage." Some doctors and nurses said that the industry's policy is not medically sound. "The chance of a rape victim actually contracting AIDS is very low. It doesn't make any sense to use that as a calculus for determining who get health insurance," said Dr. Alex Schafir, faculty instructor at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Ore. Nurses who deal with sexual assault cases say the industry's policy creates a significant problem for those treating women who have been assaulted. "It's difficult enough to make sure that rape victims take the drugs," said Diana Faugno, a forensic nurse in California and board director of End Violence Against Women International. "What are we supposed to tell women now? Well, I guess you have a choice - you can risk your health insurance or you can risk AIDS. Go ahead and choose."
Read more at: Rape Victim's Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance? | HuffPost Impact The insurance company's answer?
"I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying coverage based on the fact that someone was raped," said Pisano of the insurance trade group. "But PTSD could be a factor in denied coverage." So its not the rape per-se, its the effects of the rape that the pre-existing condition. So these women get raped twice, once by their attacker, and another time by a corporation. Anyone want to defend the free health care market still? Is making sure that these companies cannot do this considered welfare for these women or restricting their freedom too much?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
™ Version 4.2