[hyteckit]

Health insurance is like mail-in coupons. They are always looking for ways to denied your claim.

Health Insurance: Sorry, Sir, Firefighting Is A Pre-Existing Condition


Poor policeman and firefighters can't get health insurance because they are high risk.


PacifiCare Underwriting Guidelines (2003), for example, instructed underwriters to deny coverage to athletes, loggers, police, firefighters, migrant workers, war coorespondents, and many other "ineligible occupations."

washingtonpost.com

Pre-Existing Health 'Conditions' - Cops, Firefighters, Expectant Dads, and Those Suffering From Allergies, Acne and Toenail Fungus Are Uninsurable According to Internal Documents

[besson3c]

This looks like a problem that deregulation would fix! Also, tax cuts.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This looks like a problem people that have never fixed ANYTHING in their lives -first and foremost the bankroupt government they're a part of- are the ONLY ones able to fix it!

[Chuckit]

Post says they can't get health insurance. Stories say their premiums are jacked up. Hm.

[ebuddy]

Pacific Views: Today's Healthcare Horror Story
the family got a letter from Medicare that the cancer treatment that cost more than $600,00 would be covered for up to $300,000 by Medicare. Sadly, despite the treatments, his dad died. But then things got really weird. My colleague and his brother were informed that they were responsible for the medical bill and then out of the blue, Medicare sent them a letter that they would not be covering the amount promised.

Medicare/Medicaid Horror File - Objectivist Living
A seven year old with cerebral palsy had frequent respiratory infections. In PT she gained the trunk control to sit independently and gained sufficient respiratory control to cough and to swallow her own saliva without choking. (The respiratory component is huge- when a child with limited motor control dies, it is generally due to pneumonia). Denied by Medicare- “No functional progress.”

Children with severe neurological conditions(traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury) are routinely denied treatment that any other insurance provider would deem necessary. Private health care companies pay for these treatments as they recognize the connection between improved health/ mobility/ independence and reduced lifetime health costs. Medicaid does not. Wisconsin Medicaid is particularly nonsensical. Everyone, including young children, have 35 lifetime physical therapy visits. Once they are gone, you can apply for more sessions, but in nearly all cases treatment is denied.

A 19 year old one year status post traumatic brain injury had gained the ability to hold her head upright and turn her head to track conversations and people in the room. (A HUGE DEAL- imagine not being able to control where you are looking!). She also gained improved ability to consistently bear weight through her legs when transferring out of her wheelchair. (Another big deal- her mother had been lifting her. Imagine lifting your teenager any time she needed to be moved). Denied- “No functional progress.”

Here's another Medicare horror story;
Paying for Medicare: An Economic Look at the Program's Unfunded Liabilities
The 2005 Medicare trustees’ report estimates that providing promised Medicare benefits over just the next 10 years could require over $2.7 trillion in new tax revenues. Raising taxes by that amount would eliminate almost 816,000 jobs per year, on average, and shave an average of nearly $87 billion from the real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) between 2006 and 2015. Even worse, the Medicare trustees project that providing promised Medicare benefits over the next 75 years would require $29.9 trillion in new tax revenues. Raising taxes to meet Medicare’s 75-year shortfall would cost an average of 2.3 million jobs and well over $190 billion in real GDP annually through 2015.

So... as you can see there is no shortage of caveats to any health care model. Now... on to your regularly scheduled health care debate.

[stupendousman]

We didn't like the new healthcare plan were we worked. The employees, that is.

A few people took jobs at other companies who had better plans.

People made a stink. It hurt morale and created unwanted turnover for the company.

The company found another provider who gave better benefits for around the same price, and kicked in a few bucks extra on their part.

This wouldn't happen with a "single payer" socialist health care system. When there's one option, there's no incentive for competition....and if the government gets into the act, there's no incentive for competition either and it will end up as a "single payer" system.

Bad deal all around.... I'll take a system were we aren't really locked into one health care insurance provider.

[besson3c]

Okay, so the government sucks at providing services, yet they suck so badly that we don't want them competing against problematic private insurance companies because it will put them out of business, even though a public option will supposedly not be funded by tax dollars and most of us would have to pay for it out of our own pocket just like any insurance option. The solution to our current crisis is to increase competition among private insurers, but if the government is competing against these private companies this is all nullified, and if the public option does suck nobody will be able to convince their employers to go with something else like they can with private health insurance plans, and it would be a single payer option even though in some states/areas there is only one health insurance provider that hospitals will accept. Also, we can't afford a public health care option like the Canadians can, and even though we'd (as middle class Americans) have to pay for it out of our pockets like any other insurance plan it is socialism because poor people can get it for free even though poor people can get Medicare/Medicaid for free. Also, providing this option makes us a socialist country where there will be death panels, old people dying, and everything will be rationed even though everything is already rationed. Also, what we have right now is the best and the health care system in every other country is an abysmal failure even though some would disagree, so therefore, if it ain't broke all of this talk must mostly be about whiny irresponsible people who don't deserve health insurance anyway. All of this can be fixed by providing people with a tax cut so that they can just buy an insurance plan as it stands today - done and done!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This wouldn't happen with a "single payer" socialist health care system. When there's one option, there's no incentive for competition....and if the government gets into the act, there's no incentive for competition either and it will end up as a "single payer" system.

I'm already in a single payer system. My choice is Kaiser. That's it. I don't have any other options. If I move to a different city, my single option might change to Blue Cross, but then I lose the option of choosing Kaiser. I never get to choose between the two because Kaiser and Blue Cross made agreements to only cover specific areas, and neither company will provide coverage in each others "territory."

So if I'm guaranteed to always have the option of choosing a Federal health insurance in addition to being able to choose either Kaiser or Blue Cross (depending on where I live), that now increases my choice to two providers.

Last time I checked, two is more than one.

[Big Mac]

besson, just because a "government option" would suck doesn't mean it wouldn't unfairly compete with private insurers and possibly eliminate them over time. President Obama has recognized in a number of speeches that if a government option were offered that were to be subsidized and propped up despite running deficits, it would unfairly compete with lower prices against private insurers.

olePigeon, what clause of the Constitution can you show me that authorizes Congress to create government insurance? And in addition to that, where are we going to get the money for another monstrous federal entitlement? If the federal government truly wanted to foster insurance competition, it could easily do so by overriding individual state barriers to the nation-wide insurance market. It could also change the tax code to give individuals the same tax incentives as businesses so that individuals would be rewarded for choosing to buy their own health plans. But creating another immense government entitlement (we're no longer in big government territory - we should start talking about immense or gargantuan government) that will necessarily be permeated by waste, fraud and abuse, at a point in history in which it's obvious that government entitlements are bankrupting faster than anything else we let the government get its hands on, why do you think your best interests will be served by supporting government health care?

I don't know why I bother sometimes. History is littered with excellent examples of the tragic outcomes from giving the State too much power. Socialism has been discredited many, many times, yet for some reason there are still so many obtuse people out there who want to replicate that failure, and worse foist it on the land of liberty and transform this country into something that is the antithesis of what it was originally meant to be. If it weren't so regrettable it would be humorous.

[besson3c]

Subsidized for the 5% (or so the CBO, I believe, claims) people that would be eligible to get it for free, even though Medicare/Medicaid is already subsidized for these same people today? I just don't get it.

Maybe I don't listen to as many speeches of his as you do, but I believe this is what he said in his speech to Congress.

[besson3c]

The bottom here as I see it as that many of you guys opposed a public option well before you even knew why. The why part was just something that you pieced together as time went on, and something that you tweaked and adjusted to suit your predetermined conclusions.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, you really don't get it. You don't even know what I'm talking about. You need to use a little critical thinking in order to get it, though, and that may be difficult for some.

It would be subsidized insofar as this government option could run perpetual deficits that would be supported by deficit spending, just like Medicare and Medicaid. The government can print money to prop up its programs, and that's what it would absolutely do despite Obama's pledges to the contrary. He said that there would be mandatory spending cuts if the program ran a deficit, but when Congress has instituted such mandatory cuts before in legislation, what it ends up doing is just authoring new legislation that overrides the spending restraints. There's no way that this program would be created and then allowed to fail if the projections did not work out and it ended up much more expensive than projected (as every entitlement ends up being, many times over) - I have no doubt that the government would just subsidize it by fabricating more money, and that would both increase our national deficit and debt and allow the program to be offered at a lower than true cost, thus competing unfairly with private insurers who don't have the ability to print money to subsidize their plans.

And by the way besson, regarding your follow-up post, please don't insult my intelligence or political acumen by telling me I opposed the government take-over before I knew why I opposed it. I opposed it at the outset and I oppose it now for exactly the same reasons. My B.A. was in Political Science. I graduated Magna cum Laude. I know what I'm talking about. And I'm clearly writing about it on a level that's too high for you to comprehend because you don't get the rather obvious point that's being made here.

[besson3c]

Ah, that's why I didn't get it, I wasn't using critical thinking skills! Thanks Big Mac, your insult has inspired me to do a complete 180 in my thinking and to become enlightened!

You'll have to excuse me now, I'm off to look for the next TEA party in my area!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so the government sucks at providing services, yet they suck so badly that we don't want them competing against problematic private insurance companies because it will put them out of business, even though a public option will supposedly not be funded by tax dollars and most of us would have to pay for it out of our own pocket just like any insurance option.

It sucks at providing services, and seeing how it doesn't have to make a profit it will be "cheaper" and most other forms of insurance won't be able to compete.

It won't be until several years later when people realize how much worse they have it services-wise, that they'll figure out that the lower costs really were no bargain. At that point, you're screwed and we no longer have the best health care system on the planet.

[besson3c]

Ahhhh, okay, we don't *want* cheaper options. It's all making sense now!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ah, that's why I didn't get it, I wasn't using critical thinking skills! Thanks Big Mac, your insult has inspired me to do a complete 180 in my thinking and to become enlightened!

I'm glad I was able to help you, besson. I wasn't trying to insult you but it had to be pointed out that you weren't thinking critically because when I said the plan would be subsidized I was talking about the government using deficit spending to subsidize and thus hide its true cost from the market, which would give it an unfair competitive advantage. But you mistakenly thought I was talking about the subsidy to low-income people, which is a whole other topic. Since you apparently couldn't understand what was being discussed, you were either being willfully obtuse or you were lacking in the critical thinking necessary for you to comprehend what was being debated.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm already in a single payer system. My choice is Kaiser. That's it. I don't have any other options. If I move to a different city, my single option might change to Blue Cross, but then I lose the option of choosing Kaiser.

Your employer only currently offers those two. There are a bunch more if they'd choose to explore that option.

As I said, with a little pressure, our company switched providers. If the Federal Government is the ONLY provider, then there can't be competition based switches and EVERYONE is stuck with the same crappy benefits.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhhh, okay, we don't *want* cheaper options. It's all making sense now!

Come on, you must be trolling again. I can't believe you're that dumb.

[besson3c]

You don't have to apologize Big Mac, it just *had* to be explained to poor old me. I'm just happy to finally be enlightened!

Of course the government will subsidize this via deficit spending, it is much better to continue our deficit spending in Medicare/Medicaid instead!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your employer only currently offers those two. There are a bunch more if they'd choose to explore that option currently.

As I said, with a little pressure, our company switched providers. If the Federal Government is the ONLY provider, then there can't be competition based switches and EVERYONE is stuck with the same crappy benefits.

Yeah guys, of *course* the federal government will be the only provider! Look at what the post office has done to UPS and FedEx, for instance!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

olePigeon, what clause of the Constitution can you show me that authorizes Congress to create government insurance?

The Congress can authorize themselves or an amendment to enable themselves to create government insurance.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If the federal government truly wanted to foster insurance competition, it could easily do so by overriding individual state barriers to the nation-wide insurance market.

The insurance corporations don't compete in the same city, much less the same state. Removing barriers would do absolutely nothing for a well managed oligopoly.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It could also change the tax code to give individuals the same tax incentives as businesses so that individuals would be rewarded for choosing to buy their own health plans.

No amount of tax incentive is going to change the insurer's behavior in regards to individuals they consider high risk, especially if it comes down to the individual. The alternative I hear from Republicans is about the cooperative health care, which we already have, and we already know doesn't do anything for the people who need insurance. Insurers don't allow people who live in low income areas to buy into coop health care packages.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...why do you think your best interests will be served by supporting government health care?

I know the system that we have now doesn't work, and I know the system that the Republicans are proposing doesn't work because the Republicans aren't proposing anything that we don't already have... which doesn't work. I know that countries that have a similar system have at least some success.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't know why I bother sometimes.

A fleeting hope that somehow something will go your way, and that you'll convince other people to see the world from your perspective.

You and everyone else already pays a "tax" for uninsured people, it's in the form of ridiculously high insurance premiums. If everyone is insured and the costs are no longer levied onto the individuals that actually have insurance, theoretically the overall tax you pay for the government plan even in addition to a private insurance plan will be less than what you're paying now.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah guys, of *course* the federal government will be the only provider! Look at what the post office has done to UPS and FedEx, for instance!

You can send a first class letter into my mailbox with UPS or Fedex?

When did that happen?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can send a first class letter into my mailbox with UPS or Fedex?

When did that happen?

Can I send a regular letter through UPS overnight? - Yahoo! Answers

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Congress can authorize themselves or an amendment to enable themselves to create government insurance.

I'm glad you recognize you can't point to a specific grant of power from the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to do these things, and thus these proposals are unconstitutional as it stands without an amendment.

The insurance corporations don't compete in the same city, much less the same state. Removing barriers would do absolutely nothing for a well managed oligopoly.

If I go to ehealthinsurance.com I have one hundred different plans to choose from. Some are more popular than others. If the barriers preventing people from buying health insurance from insurers in other states were eliminated, I would have even more choice. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. By the way, I buy my own plan, my premium went down this year when I switched to a better plan, and I'm very happy with my plan, thank you very much.

No amount of tax incentive is going to change the insurer's behavior in regards to individuals they consider high risk, especially if it comes down to the individual. The alternative I hear from Republicans is about the cooperative health care, which we already have, and we already know doesn't do anything for the people who need insurance. Insurers don't allow people who live in low income areas to buy into coop health care packages.

I've said that there needs to be reform in how insurers factor in risk, including preexisting conditions. But throwing out the whole system because some changes should be made is worse than moronic. Oh, and moderate Democrats are the ones chiefly talking about cooperatives.

I know the system that we have now doesn't work, and I know the system that the Republicans are proposing doesn't work because the Republicans aren't proposing anything that we don't already have... which doesn't work. I know that countries that have a similar system have at least some success.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, and clearly you're blind partisan so arguing facts will do nothing. Republicans want more competition, tax breaks for people who purchase and control their own individual plans (just like people buy their own insurance in almost every other area, rather than letting their employers do it for them) pre-existing condition reform (which the insurers have already agreed to), tort reform. You're so doctrinaire in your support of Socialized medicine that you're blind to any possibility that flies in the face of your Socialized goal.

A fleeting hope that somehow something will go your way, and that you'll convince other people to see the world from your perspective.

More like a fleeting hope that I can get through to some utterly clueless leftist partisans.

You and everyone else already pays a "tax" for uninsured people, it's in the form of ridiculously high insurance premiums. If everyone is insured and the costs are no longer levied onto the individuals that actually have insurance, theoretically the overall tax you pay for the government plan even in addition to a private insurance plan will be less than what you're paying now.

That's a falsehood that's been debunked recently. Uninsured people do add costs to the system, but not so much that it warrants completely wrecking the health care we have and turning it over to a power hungry, corrupt federal government and creating the ultimate, budget-destroying health care entitlement - Medicare-for-all.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can send a first class letter into my mailbox with UPS or Fedex?

You can send a letter to someone's mail box via a UPS or FedEx mail box which are conveniently located right next to a USPS mailboxes. You can also have a P.O. Box installed by UPS or FedEx that will allow you to send letters from your home if you do heavy mailing.

UPS and FedEx will even come to your home to deliver the letter or package, you don't even have to leave the house.

Also, the USPS actually uses FedEx and UPS when shipping outside of the country.

[Big Mac]

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
President Obama

And yet the USPS will never go out of business no matter how large its deficits get because government will always guarantee it. The funny thing is, if you watch the clip where that quotation came from, you'll see that the USPS unfairly competes according to Obama's own definition; government health insurance would be no different.

besson, pigeon, is this really the best you can do? You guys are all wet. You make it far too easy to debunk your arguments.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If I go to ehealthinsurance.com I have one hundred different plans to choose from. Some are more popular than others. If the barriers preventing people from buying health insurance from insurers in other states were eliminated, I would have even more choice. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. By the way, I buy my own plan, my premium went down this year when I switched to a better plan, and I'm very happy with my plan, thank you very much.

I went to this very site when I was shopping for insurance, and both of our local hospitals hadn't heard of the other carriers being recommended on this site. Theoretical options are worthless when they aren't recognized by your local hospitals.

[besson3c]

Yet FedEx and UPS are hanging on for dear life!

Sorry to make things so easy, I should be more intimidating and enlightening like Big Mac, I guess...

[Big Mac]

I thought you're Canadian, no? If so then it makes sense that you have very little choice because your country has a poor system, and you want to make so that everyone else's health care sucks as well.

And either you're trolling or you still don't get the point about FedEx and UPS versus the USPS, why the government competes unfairly by subsidizing its programs, and what that means on a practical financial level. You just don't get it.

[besson3c]

I'm a Canadian, but I've been living in the US for the past 8 years or so.

[besson3c]

Well guys, it's been fun, but I've since realized that I can't sustain the art of the bludgeon and having no intellectual interest in any opposing arguments, so I guess I'll watch the rest of this from the sidelines.

<insert something wrong with my posting or my being hypocritical here>

Have fun, and keep your pitchforks sharp!

[Big Mac]

I think it's time for you to go home, then. You clearly don't have any appreciation for the Constitution, free markets, and self-reliance, the things that built this country and were responsible for making it the strongest the world has ever seen.

You're apparently so invested in your old Canadian mindset that you can't acculturate to American politics. If Canada is so wonderful, has such great health care and such a vibrant economy, why are you here and not there? Go back to the system you love instead of trying to corrupt ours into a pale imitation of what you left behind.

Most of the time when immigrants came to America, they left their old-country notions behind and struggled to become Americanized. Now some immigrants like you clearly expect to mold American into Canada, or France, instead of understanding and embracing what makes America unique and great. Am I just supposed to ignore that fact?

[The Final Dakar]

Hahaha

[SpaceMonkey]

The only things I'm worried about being corrupted by are horrible Canadian baseball teams and the blasphemous three-down system in Canadian football.

[hyteckit]

Public schools have put private schools out of business.

Oh wait. Nevermind.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can I send a regular letter through UPS overnight? - Yahoo! Answers

UPS (and any other non-USPS delivery service) can deliver a letter but cannot legally deposit the letter into your mailbox.

[besson3c]

On behalf of all of Canada, I would like to take the time and opportunity here to formally apologize for my attempt to corrupt the most fragile parts of America. Will you guys find it in your hearts to forgive me?

[msuper69]

Try getting non-group health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition (like Diabetes Mellitus).

Ain't gonna happen.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

UPS (and any other non-USPS delivery service) can deliver a letter but cannot legally deposit the letter into your mailbox.

What if I don't have a mailbox, but only a mail-slot? Or a "mailbox" I installed that says for USPS, FedEx, and UPS?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

UPS (and any other non-USPS delivery service) can deliver a letter but cannot legally deposit the letter into your mailbox.

That's interesting... I heard that regular citizens can't legally drop a letter into somebody's mailbox either, although I haven't fact checked that. The whole signing for packages is such a weird deal. I've always wondered what the penalty would be for signing for somebody else's package when it is delivered to the wrong address, and what FedEx/UPS do in those cases? What happens if the person that accepts the package damages the item somehow?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What if I don't have a mailbox, but only a mail-slot? Or a "mailbox" I installed that says for USPS, FedEx, and UPS?

That's what she said.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The only things I'm worried about being corrupted by are horrible Canadian baseball teams and the blasphemous three-down system in Canadian football.

Horrible baseball *team*. When the Expos folded there was some sort of clause to keep baseball in Canada for another 10 years after that, so you're stuck with the Blue Jays.

The Blue Jays kicked ass like crazy in 1992 and 1993 and 1985 though, and 1987 was a pretty good year too.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's what she said.

What she said was my package was too big for her mail-slot.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What she said was my package was too big for her mail-slot.

And that she needs the postman to deliver it?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Horrible baseball *team*. When the Expos folded there was some sort of clause to keep baseball in Canada for another 10 years after that, so you're stuck with the Blue Jays.

The Blue Jays kicked ass like crazy in 1992 and 1993 and 1985 though, and 1987 was a pretty good year too.

Yes, but the Expos organization became the horrible Washington Nationals. The corruption has already begun. The stench of Canadian back-bacon lingers heavily over the DC area.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, but the Expos organization became the horrible Washington Nationals. The corruption has already begun. The stench of Canadian back-bacon lingers heavily over the DC area.

I guess we're even then? We're still trying to rid our fine country of the stench of baconaise

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And that she needs the postman to deliver it?

Well, that's the reason she gave me. She said it would illegal trying to stuff my package in her box.

[el chupacabra]

Health insurance is like mail-in coupons. They are always looking for ways to denied your claim.

insurance doesnt work because it is corporate communist in nature. which is why it should ultimately be banned.

Ban the insurance scam industry and watch medical prices fall to affordable levels.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Well, that's the reason she gave me. She said it would illegal trying to stuff my package in her box.

Was this postman Canadian, by any chance? We are a very threatening population!

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Public schools have put private schools out of business.

Oh wait. Nevermind.

do people who chose private school get a full education tax exemption or do they just have to pay for public school AND private school.

I imagine public schools wouldnt exist if the system wasn't rigged in big governments favor.