[Trygve]

Sorry - I was clear as mud.

I have not needed to file any claims, which makes me wonder why every insurance company in my old US state though it too risky to cover me and simply refused to offer any insurance.

My most recent surgery cost me about $450 in Europe, but I was in the US when I discovered I would need it. I was told in the US it'd cost $10K to $12K.

[OreoCookie]

bstone, you have my sympathy.
I don't pretend to know legalese, but this kind of behavior is immoral. The rationale for pre-existing conditions is to protect the insurance company from fraud, but not meant to exclude coverage for conditions discovered afterwards. Fortunately, you already have legal counsel and family which looks out for you.

Insurances are like that: they're a business and minimizing costs means giving out as little care as it can get away with. This means, it's profitable for them to deny coverage.

My family has been through similar things with my great-grandfather and my great aunt (fortunately, my father is a retired lawyer). A much less serious example, but equally ridiculous: we once had an accident with the Mercedes my father drove at the time: at the end of a traffic jam, someone rear-ended us. Legally, it was crystal clear that the other party (who stepped out of their car unharmed) was to blame and that their insurance covers the costs for the repairs. The insurance tried to deny the claim by saying that the exhaust manifold in the car was used and hence only needed to pay for part of the repair. Insurances try to weasel their way out of their responsibilities all the time. Plus, they have a legal department.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What you're saying is this: pre-existing conditions should be a burden on the general society and paid by EVERYONE.

No, the risk should be shared by everyone involved. In bstone's case, at least by all the people paying insurance premiums plus the insurance company itself (that, after all, is the very definition of an insurance). If you have a government-based alternative, then everyone who contributes to it shares the risk, it doesn't make a difference.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I still fail to see why this should be paid solely by society, and why the individual should not pay a dime more than someone with superior health.

Because we have compassion. And things like this eventually destabilize society.
I find it barbaric not to have a form of general health care coverage.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Part of the problem is that many pre-existing conditions are the result of poor choices of an individual. Why would you make the society pay for this ?

If you're talking about things like smoking or obesity, I'm with you, but not every pre-existing condition (or even risk) is. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know for sure, but bstone's condition doesn't sound as if it is the result of bad choices. (Even if it may be, there are many other diseases that you just have/get.) Accidents can leave you crippled as well for no fault of your own.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Huh ?

-t

Why are you asking the supposed "pro-socialist" (i.e. "in favour of gov't-funded medicine that's free for all") faction to personally donate to someone?

Wouldn't that be a conservative-minded position? Don't let the government take your money, but rather you can give it to whom you want?

greg

[downinflames68]

The most hilarious thing about all the people who are anti-government healthcare is how many billions have been wasted overseas for stupid wars, and how they don't mention that.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Why are you asking the supposed "pro-socialist" (i.e. "in favour of gov't-funded medicine that's free for all") faction to personally donate to someone?

No, it's meant to show that the government money doesn't come out of a pot full of gold at the end of the rainbow, but out of everybody's pocket, through taxes.

Since you "pro-socialist" are PRO government getting deeper and deeper into your pockets, you surely wouldn't object to cutting out the middle man (i.e. government) and handing over your cash directly to those in need.

Or are you telling me you still believe the pot of gold story ?
Or worse: you are only "pro-socialist" as long as the government takes someone else's money ?

-t

[downinflames68]

Hey Turtle, you home school your kids right?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Hey Turtle, you home school your kids right?

I send them to turtle camps, why ?

-t

[downinflames68]

Oh okay. Not public turtle camps though, private ones that only people with baby turtles pay for, not EVERYBODY right?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It dwarfs the Bible, and it's written in an even less accessible dialect of English. I question how many people in the world have read the whole thing.

So the answer is “no” then. That’s what I thought. I would posit that any discussion of health care reform on here is fairly pointless when no one knows what it is. This thread so far has shown so many telltale signs that no one knows what the bill does, it’s ridiculous.

BTW, I managed to read through the relevant bits in HR3200. It’s not that hard to read, and it’s not even that long if you skip the plumbing about what committees need to be set up and who will oversee them, the parts about Medicare if you don’t care about that, etc. If people can read the bill enough to get a gist of what it’s actually supposed to do so that they actually know what they’re discussing, then we can have an intelligent conversation about it. Otherwise, just move this thread to the Political Lounge and let the mindless attack dogs have at it.

[Person Man]

Ok, political lounge, NOW!

[sek929]

Let's see...

Conservatives are mindless jesus freaks and Liberals are homosexual muslim-lovers.

That outta do it!

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sorry, you made your poor choices, it's a tough world out there

Just kidding.... that really sucks like you wouldn't believe

I know you're kidding, but it's partly true. The reason everything led to the amputation was (possibly) because I didn't get it looked at sooner. Maybe they wouldn't have needed to remove my whole first joint. Maybe the tumor wouldn't have been so deep 2 years ago. Who knows?

BUT, I'm not asking anyone else to help with the bill.

I also had a feeling this would happen, because we recently changed insurance carriers, and I just knew they would deem this pre-existing — which it was. I *did* have this before they started insuring me.

As much as it sucks, don't they have a right to refuse me? Don't they have a choice? Why should Big Brother force them to do anything?

So what if a person still can't afford ins? Should Big Brother step in? He can step in all he wants, I guess, but he'd better damn well better keep his sticky fingers out of my wallet. If HE wants to help, then HE can — I'll help out folks on my own.

Now, how will Big Brother help? Beats me — but it's HIS problem to solve, not mine. I help by giving about 20-30% of my income to charity and assistance, of which 90% of every dollar goes directly to places and people of need. THAT'S how to help people.

Maybe Big Brother should tighten his belt with all the fancy bigwig parties, airplanes, vacation homes, etc., etc., etc. that he uses to keep his talking monkeys on the payroll...?

Can you imagine if Big Brother gave just 10% of his "income" back, DIRECTLY, to the places and people that need it?

Hmm....

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sooo... what would have happened if you didn't have $25,000?

(I don't know the system down there.)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Railhead

Maybe Big Brother should tighten his belt with all the fancy bigwig parties, airplanes, vacation homes, etc., etc., etc. that he uses to keep his talking monkeys on the payroll...?

Hey... it's called "what your economy is based on," isn't it?

Take your government jobs away, and America is done faster than you can say "China."

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, it's meant to show that the government money doesn't come out of a pot full of gold at the end of the rainbow, but out of everybody's pocket, through taxes.

Since you "pro-socialist" are PRO government getting deeper and deeper into your pockets, you surely wouldn't object to cutting out the middle man (i.e. government) and handing over your cash directly to those in need.

So what you're saying is... health care should be private enterprise, and people who can't afford that should be supported by voluntary donations by other people?

Is that it? Is that the "solution"?

Or are you telling me you still believe the pot of gold story ?
Or worse: you are only "pro-socialist" as long as the government takes someone else's money ?

Why would the government take someone else's money, and not mine? See it's the beauty of taxes: we both pay because we have to pay, it's not just me giving my money away while the guy next door chooses to keep all his and **** the sick.

Why the stick? I'm the guy who lives in the conservative-run country, aren't I? A little jealous or something?

greg

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

As much as it sucks, don't they have a right to refuse me? Don't they have a choice? Why should Big Brother force them to do anything?

You could have said the same thing about labor laws about a century ago. As much as it sucks, don’t factories have a right to hire child labor, pay ridiculously low wages, and have hazardous working conditions? Don’t they have a choice? Why should Big Brother force them to do anything?

Or if you want, go all the way back to whenever humanity started inventing the concept of laws in the first place. As much as it sucks, don’t I have a right to murder my neighbor if he gets on my nerves? Don’t I have a choice? Why should Big Brother force me to do anything? etc.

The question isn’t whether they have a choice — of course they do, right now. The question is whether they should have that choice. In the other two examples, they did have that choice at some point, and now they don’t. The reason is because having that choice caused people to infringe upon other people’s rights. So, does the current health care crisis violate people’s rights? Well, in a country that is always claiming that your most fundamental rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, denying treatment for a life-threatening tumor pretty obviously violates the first of those as far as I see it, and for something like what bstone is going through, it pretty clearly violates the other two.

The main point of HR3200 is to stop abuses like these from happening. It doesn’t replace the current system that much, or even really change it all that much. It just introduces some reforms and regulations to force the insurance companies to run their business in an honest manner, which is why having read it, I can’t understand how anyone who didn’t work for an insurance company could possibly be against it. It’s not “socialist” in the slightest (not that I would mind a real “socialized medicine” single-payer system, but this isn’t it) — it leaves the current system in place, with some regulations to stop the abuses that have been going on. It’s an extremely conservative bill.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Ok, political lounge, NOW!

I said that dozens of posts ago.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, in a country that is always claiming that your most fundamental rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, denying treatment for a life-threatening tumor pretty obviously violates the first of those as far as I see it, and for something like what bstone is going through, it pretty clearly violates the other two.

You're sh!tting me, right ?

Well, my lack of a BMW, a yacht and a 5,000 sqft home violates the third one.

I expect the government to fix this ASAP.

-t

[CharlesS]

Right, because not denying someone medical care to treat something that’s not their fault and will completely ruin their lives otherwise when they’re paying you for “insurance” coverage for just such situations is totally the same thing as giving them a free BMW.

Try again.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

a country that is always claiming that your most fundamental rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

[CharlesS]

Okay Doofy, so what you’re saying is basically that this is a good thing:

1. You buy medical insurance to cover random stuff that might happen to you

2. You get a tumor that will kill you if you don’t take care of it

3. You file a claim toward the health insurance you’re paying for

4. The insurance company finds some loophole to deny your claim so they can pay more money to the shareholders

5. You have the choice to pay an obnoxious sum of money that you don’t have, or die

6. You die.

You think this isn’t a violation of your fundamental rights? You think this is an acceptable situation?

[downinflames68]

I think it's something a well placed bankrobbery would solve.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Right, because not denying someone medical care to treat something that’s not their fault and will completely ruin their lives otherwise when they’re paying you for “insurance” coverage for just such situations is totally the same thing as giving them a free BMW.

Ok, so you didn't make your claim in the context of a paid for insurance.

Here's the deal: the government needs to keep their fingers out of the insurance business EXCEPT to make sure that consumers don't get ripped of. (And, I'll admit that the current system lacks this control and consumer protection).

However, the insurance companies *MUST* be free to run this as a profitable business, w/o government subsidies. They need to be able to set terms and prices, and not be pressured into onerous contracts mandated by the government.

But I resist this idea of a god-given right to cheap, unlimited health-care (or insurance) paid for by everyone. It's a freaking pipe-dream and not ever possible to fund.

-t

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ok, so you didn't make your claim in the context of a paid for insurance.

Yes I did, I specifically mentioned bstone’s situation. Did you read the OP?

Here's the deal: the government needs to keep their fingers out of the insurance business EXCEPT to make sure that consumers don't get ripped of. (And, I'll admit that the current system lacks this control and consumer protection).

Making sure customers don’t get ripped off is what HR3200 is all about.

But I resist this idea of a god-given right to cheap, unlimited health-care (or insurance) paid for by everyone. It's a freaking pipe-dream and not ever possible to fund.

Which is not what HR3200 is about! (although I wouldn’t be opposed to such a thing — many other countries have universal health care, and it’s been demonstrated to work. However, it’s irrelevant to the context of this discussion.)

Again: read the thing.

[Big Mac]

I wish my brother bstone well and feel very bad for his plight. Regarding the political issues brought up, though, if he's in that bad shape he probably qualifies for Medicare through disability or Medicaid.

[turtle777]

Here some very constructive analysis and thoughts what went wrong and what to do to fix it:

YouTube - Operation Health Freedom Peter Schiff

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Okay Doofy, so what you’re saying is basically that this is a good thing:

1. You buy medical insurance to cover random stuff that might happen to you

2. You get a tumor that will kill you if you don’t take care of it

3. You file a claim toward the health insurance you’re paying for

4. The insurance company finds some loophole to deny your claim so they can pay more money to the shareholders

5. You have the choice to pay an obnoxious sum of money that you don’t have, or die

6. You die.

You think this isn’t a violation of your fundamental rights? You think this is an acceptable situation?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply laughing at your assumption that you have "rights" in that country of yours. Just the same gut reaction I have as when someone mentions "the land of the free". Now, my country's equally as crappy but you can opt out here if you know how to, yet can't in TLOTF.

I actually support basic nationalised health care, as long as it's done properly - i.e. it's used for life-saving stuff rather than boob jobs and sex changes, and it's not exclusive so you can go private if you want to. It's one of the few things I'm willing to be taxed for.
Trouble is, most governments are a bunch of utter morons who can't do anything properly. Our NHS is on the verge of collapsing.

You guys pay more FICA than we pay NI. It's ridiculous that you haven't got some kind of functional system already in place. Where's the money going?

[CharlesS]

Okay, so hyperbole aside, we basically agree then (I brought up that phrase specifically for the irony — the people who often spout these patriotic slogans are the same people who are now screaming for the status quo despite the egregious violation of rights that’s occurring).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Okay, so hyperbole aside, we basically agree then

Yup. In effect, if not in implementation.

[besson3c]

What I want to know is where do some of these cases of utilizing the pre-existing condition loophole cease to become just unfortunate circumstances, and instead become outright fraud? I mean, I would be as pissed as hell if I shelled out all sorts of money for insurance and was denied for no good reason other than they just didn't feel like paying for my stuff.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I want to know is where do some of these cases of utilizing the pre-existing condition loophole cease to become just unfortunate circumstances, and instead become outright fraud? I mean, I would be as pissed as hell if I shelled out all sorts of money for insurance and was denied for no good reason other than they just didn't feel like paying for my stuff.

Yes, that's a good question.

And that's where I want the government to be an *independent* party, making sure that the ins. co's play fair and don't rip of the consumer.

But the current approach (strong-arming the ins. cos into gov't prescribed solutions) won't help here.

-t

[CharlesS]

I dunno, it seems to me that telling the ins. companies that no, they can’t keep running a scam, can’t deny claims based on pre-existing conditions, can’t cancel people’s plans unless there’s clear evidence of fraud or non-payment of premiums, etc. and signing that into law would have to at least help, as would having a public option which, while it’s still basically just another insurance company and run as such (funded by premiums, just like any other ins. company), is at least not pressured to scam their customers for the benefit of the stockholders.

Sure, it still won’t be as inexpensive as a real universal health care system, but hey, progress is progress.

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wish my brother bstone well and feel very bad for his plight. Regarding the political issues brought up, though, if he's in that bad shape he probably qualifies for Medicare through disability or Medicaid.

He does, but there is a MANDATORY 2 year waiting period between being approved by Social Security and being eligible for Medicare. Why? No one seems to know. They will affirm you are disabled and unable to work, they will give you monthly payments, but they WILL NOT give you insurance. And the monthly payments are poverty level.

Here some info:
http://www.allhealth.org/briefing_detail.asp?bi=44

[lexapro]

For those interested, this is bstone's disease. He has a "severe" case and told me that his "brain has sunk 7mm". Yikes.

Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CharlesS]

Jeez.

My sympathies to bstone and his family.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

He does, but there is a MANDATORY 2 year waiting period between being approved by Social Security and being eligible for Medicare. Why? No one seems to know.

Does anybody here believe this is going to get any bit better if Obama turns all private health care into one big Medicare blob ?

Rationing health care is the *ONLY* way to "pay" for universal health care.
Dozens of countries (Canada, UK, former socialist countries) have shown this to be true over and over and over and over again.

-t

[besson3c]

Man these arguments are circular. Particularly ironic in a thread about how somebody has been suffering due to the rationing of health care coverage offered by his insurance provider.

[besson3c]

Estimates say that between 2-5% of the population will be able to get the public option. Does this mean we will officially be a 5% socialist country?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Man these arguments are circular. Particularly ironic in a thread about how somebody has been suffering due to the rationing of health care coverage offered by his insurance provider.

How is it circular ?

Medicare is the government run health care, and it's already not (actually, never been) working.

If the government *really* had a clue about how to fix the TOTAL US health care system, why haven't they shown their capability by making Medicare/Medicaid work better ?

Fact is, the government can't run these things better, only worse.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Estimates say that between 2-5% of the population will be able to get the public option. Does this mean we will officially be a 5% socialist country?

slippery slope, my friend.

Once politicians get their dirty hands on something, they don't seize to stop trying to grab a bigger share.

Case in point:

* mortgages: 90% of mortgages are now issued by government owned / backed entities - result: housing bubble, huge losses, reckless lending, moral hazard
* student loans: mostly issued by the government - result: skyrocketing education cost

-t

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Does anybody here believe this is going to get any bit better if Obama turns all private health care into one big Medicare blob ?

Rationing health care is the *ONLY* way to "pay" for universal health care.

Again, neither Obama’s plan nor the HR3200 incarnation of it are universal health care.

[lexapro]

Naturally, bstone is pretty furious with his insurance company. His manifesto seems to indicate that while a public option isn't necessarily a bad one, the system can be fixed by a few simple reforms.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

How is it circular ?

Medicare is the government run health care, and it's already not (actually, never been) working.

If the government *really* had a clue about how to fix the TOTAL US health care system, why haven't they shown their capability by making Medicare/Medicaid work better ?

Fact is, the government can't run these things better, only worse.

-t

Define "not working". It works great for millions of Americans, the problem is that it is not fiscally solvent, although to be fair it shares the same problems facing the entire health care industry: insane, rising costs.

Until you can convince me that we can get lower costs out of the private insurance market, the end to this pre-existing condition nonsense, a greater percentage of our expenses going towards actual health care, the end to this silly employer-tethered system, etc. I still fail to understand why many are going apeshit over a plan which will cover 2-5% of Americans in an attempt to solve some of these problems, while not using tax payer dollars and attempting to be "deficit neutral".

The only solution I've really heard in here is from ebuddy (or any Republican here, for that matter), and that is the breaking up of state monopolies thing. I've yet to hear an alternative solution from you. Do you share the same opinion? If so, not that my advice will mean much, but why not focus on this argument rather than flailing about with all of this nonsensical wildly unfocused stuff about socialism and your unrelenting political philosophy which seem to be getting in the way of any sort of practical discussion about how we can actually make stuff better?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Again, neither Obama’s plan nor the HR3200 incarnation of it are universal health care.

It's incredible how much has been compromised from where this all started, yet people are still using the same old tired arguments as if the past several months and compromises that have been announced never occurred.

I'll tear my hair out the next time I hear something about tax payers paying for this, or how the government is "taking over" health care, and all of the other talking points that have been parroted to death. It's like we are in a never-ending campaign season in a game of find some sort of talking point that does some political damage for that week, and then when it runs its course find another one. The only thing consistent about the opposition to health care reform seems that the opposition didn't want it from day one and will never want it no matter what, nor will they make any concessions or compromises.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

slippery slope, my friend.

Once politicians get their dirty hands on something, they don't seize to stop trying to grab a bigger share.

Case in point:

* mortgages: 90% of mortgages are now issued by government owned / backed entities - result: housing bubble, huge losses, reckless lending, moral hazard
* student loans: mostly issued by the government - result: skyrocketing education cost

-t

The anticipation for where this alleged slippery slope *might* take us and all of the resulting fear and emotion is nowhere in proportion to the reality in front of us today. I'd much rather discuss the present rather than some pie-in-the-sky predictions that are full of political bias anyway.

Attacking Iraq was a slippery slope to attacking more countries, the war on terrorism is a slippery slope to the eroding of our civil liberties, everything is a slippery slope when it is convenient, everybody's pants are on fire, and everything is worthy of an epic amount of drama and controversy when it suits. Like I said, we live in a constant political campaign that goes on with both sides, the MSM feeding this beast that has an endless appetite.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Today on the radio I heard a good breakdown of what needs to happen, some guy from MIT stated what I'd been trying to put into words for a while:

Patients need to see the price tag on their procedures; they need some skin in the game. The way it is now, you go to the doctor, the doctor tells you what to do, and if you even think to ask is it necessary and how much will it cost, the doctor can't even tell you because he has no idea. But the doctor does often gets a kickback for prescribing it. The first time the procedure ever gets in front of someone who has any interest in efficiency, cost-wise, is six months later halfway up the chain in the insurance company, when they decide they should reject your claim after it's too late to consider not having the procedure in the first place. At this point, it doesn't matter if there was a cheaper option that would have been just as good, because obviously it's already happened. This is insane, it's exactly why we pay more and more and don't get anything for our money.

Basically, there's always going to be more tests you could run, more scans, more experiments, more everything. Who do you want to be considering the cost-benefit analysis? Not the insurance company, and not the government. I think the patient and the doctor should cooperate to make that decision, but with the way things are now (and the way they would be under any proposed plan), neither of them ever even have the chance to do this. Catastrophe is inevitable.

There was a perfect anecdote to go along with this thesis (a caller to the radio show). This lady went in to the hospital for cramps, and the hospital ran 2 CT scans on her, upper and lower. She didn't want the upper scan, because her pain was in her lower body. But the hospital just did them both because that's their policy - always do both (they are separate scans, and they cost thousands of dollars each). Why is that their policy? Because it doesn't cost them anything; insurance pays for it. The patient couldn't refuse, and ultimately acquiesced because since it was the insurance that would have to pay, not her, there was no incentive to fight this obviously stupid hospital policy. (and of course, the insurance didn't pay and she had to pay in the end)

So that's my solution, simply make the costs transparent up front, so the patient and the doctor can discuss whether the treatment is worth the cost. You don't make the patient pay all of it, or even most of it, just a proportional amount so they don't agree to treatments that are obviously not worth the cost. Because after all, someone is eventually going to be making that determination, and better it be the patient (with the doctor's counsel) than the greedy insurance bean counter or the greedy government bean counter. If the patient is not at some point considering the cost of their various options (that someone will have to pay on their behalf), then the system is broken. Period.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's incredible how much has been compromised from where this all started, yet people are still using the same old tired arguments as if the past several months and compromises that have been announced never occurred.

I'll tear my hair out the next time I hear something about tax payers paying for this, or how the government is "taking over" health care, and all of the other talking points that have been parroted to death. It's like we are in a never-ending campaign season in a game of find some sort of talking point that does some political damage for that week, and then when it runs its course find another one. The only thing consistent about the opposition to health care reform seems that the opposition didn't want it from day one and will never want it no matter what, nor will they make any concessions or compromises.

The problem is that Obama went into this with great ideals — reach across the aisle, work on bipartisan solutions that the Republicans can get on board with — hence the rather conservative health care plan. Unfortunately, the Republicans aren’t the conservative party lately — they’re now the “fiercely oppose everything the Democrats do, no matter what it is” party. Reaching across the aisle doesn’t work too well when the people on the other side of the aisle have decided to be this Borg-like entity that you can’t reason with.

Frankly, I think that if this health care plan manages not to pass, they should just go all the way and bring out a single-payer plan. At least then, the left wing would get excited about it — right now, a lot of them aren’t, because of how conservative it is — and as for the right wing, as long as they’re going to be screaming “socialist” even at a plan as conservative as this one, then what difference does it make, really?

[shifuimam]

How in the world has this not been moved to the PWL?!

[AKcrab]

It was already IN the PWL.. It got no attention.

Read into that what you will.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

Regarding those who wonder about Medicare- it only goes into effect *two years* after you've been affirmed as disabled by the Social Security Administration.

It's not "two years after you've been affirmed as disabled by the Social Security Administration". SS disability recipients are eligible for Medicare benefits two years after their DOE (date of entitlement). The DOE is essentially the established onset date, plus the five month waiting period. For example, his EOD (established onset date) was April, 2007. So... the DOE (date of entitlement) would be September of 2007, then the two year waiting period. Medicare should have picked up coverage of his illness as of the posting of his letter. This of course does not excuse the waiting period nor does this pay for his expenses while in the waiting period. This is why myself and many others are not only indicating the need for "health insurance" reform, but government reform.

Bstone is advocating the elimination of all co-pays, co-insurances, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for the disabled and I'm not sure that's necessary, proper, or even possible. Bstone then goes on to advocate the automatic granting of food stamps, rental vouchers and reduced fare for public transportation.

So because of this super long wait, he is forced to pay obscenely high rates for both his private insurance and the huge out-of-pocket expenses.

The unfortunate problem here are the ones claiming disability who aren't eligible and the very real problem of fraudulent disability claims.

Plus, there's the situation he outlined of double-insurance, which is perfectly fine, but there's little mention who the primary and secondary insurers were, how they were notified of one another, and how the costs were distributed between them. There's as much missing from the story as there is included. I feel for his position I do, but I don't know him and am not one to jump onto everything I read. Personal testimonies make for powerful anecdotes, but they shouldn't always be used to draft legislation that affects the majority, remainder of the country. I can post countless stories of those who are perfectly happy with their health insurance and those who couldn't have gotten the help they needed without it. They paid for it and in many respects get more than they paid in. Those are the ones who are happy. The ones who pay in and don't get what they paid for are those that are unhappy. This is why we need competition opened up on a national level, not nationalized healthcare.