Health Insurances Would Accpet Everyone IF .....

[Slinky]

Health Insurers Would Accept All Customers if Congress Mandated Coverage

Health insurers would agree to accept all customers, regardless of illness or disability, if Congress required all Americans to have coverage, two main industry trade associations said Wednesday.

If people aren't mandated to have coverage, many would wait until they suffer health problems before they buy insurance, said America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, The New York Times reported.

The industry's position could help ease passage of legislation to expand health care coverage and control health care costs. Such legislation is favored by President-elect Barack Obama and has widespread support in Congress, the newspaper said.

However, there's one major difference between Obama's position and that of the insurance industry, the Times reported. The industry wants the federal government to require all Americans to have and maintain insurance, while Obama wants the rule, at least initially, to apply only to children.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01837.html

[lovey]

Hi Slinky--I am glad you started this thread. I have been writing everyone I can about a problem related to medical care, especially for the disabled and ill. I am hoping the new Obama administration will address the problem about the two year wait for Medicare after being approved for social security disability. It puts people like me in the poor house just to be able to survive the 2 years wait. And 11.8% of us on the wait list die before we get Medicare.

Articles:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27539.php
http://www.medicarerights.org/asclepios2008_39.html

Please help me end this horrific situation for the those ill and disabled who are suffering because of politicians who see it more beneficial to bail out auto companies, than the ill and disabled who are in the situation they are in because of things beyond their control, not like the greedy auto industry. Write your Congressman to have the bill that has been delayed for two years in Congress progress to eliminate the 2 year Medicare wait. Thanks, Lovey

[ractar28]

All I read was "bail me out, not the auto industry". Let's stop with the comparisons and rhetoric. EVERYONE wants their piece of government handouts. Kennedy's speech was just a speech, no one gained a blasted thing from it. Let's all sit around asking what our government can do for us.

Now, on to government-mandated health care. If the insurers have to accept everyone for insurance, the costs WILL go up. If you "cost" $4k a month in medication, treatments, etc, do you really think you're going to get health care for $200 a month? No, it's all risk-based, just like auto insurance. Therefore, you'd have to find a way to PAY $4k (more actually, as profit must be added) a month or what, be arrested? Have your life taken away from you? Give you a fine, which you also can't pay?

No, what everyone seems to want is FREE health care, but who pays for it? After all, it's NOT free to provide. So, taxes go up to pay for it. Ah, but that's right... the people who have managed their money, worked hard to get ahead, and took care of their bodies -- they're "rich"... let's TAKE their money. They don't deserve it, right? I am quite possibly the only person in the US that believes Bill Gates should be as rich as he is. He earned it, he invested, he grew a corporate empire... but why not just take all of his money from him? Oh right, that's socialism.

I'm a walking heart attack -- due to my own lifestyle choices and also due to bad genes -- please tell me why YOU should pay for my medical care? Until you are willing to pay for MY medical care, please don't ask me to pay for yours.

By the way, mandatory healthcare coverage is unconstitutional. Okay, it's not, but it IS against the Declaration of Independance! We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- not happiness, but the ability to PERSUE it. But when you require mandatory health insurance, the punishment for not having it would be taking the life from you, right? We take cars from people who can't insure them, right? I dare say that forcing a person to get health insurance that they truly cannot afford (4k a month when he may earn $1200 a month) is certainly not liberty.

While the STUDY is interesting, I'm curious to see some real data behind it rather than some exec saying "we can do it". Sure, they'd ACCEPT anyone -- for a price.

Just think about what would happen to the health care infrastructure of this country if suddenly, some politician snapped his fingers and made health care free for everyone... There wouldn't BE enough health care to go around. Yep, dialysis would be 3x a week for people who might only get it once a week or once a month now... it's FREE. This isn't to say they don't need it more often, but the waiting lines would be out the door. Every tiny sniffle would be an ER visit -- it's FREE. The cost of medication would skyrocket... yep, you need xyz and since you can't afford health insurance, here's the generic. Oh, you have health insurance? xyz XR (extended release--they got a new patent by adding the extended release agent). So, now instead of $4 a month from Kroger, it's $80 a month from Kroger. Of course, now you'll have to go to the doctor every month for a new prescription since it's FREE.

As for legislation supported by President-elect Obama and congress... are these not the same buffoons who couldn't bail out the financial sector fast enough with a blank check that no one knows where it went or who cashed it? Are these not the same idiots who are contemplating bailing out the auto industry? They've proven to have no concept of economics, yet we think they're geniuses when the want to give US something.

[echo]

No, what everyone seems to want is FREE health care, but who pays for it? After all, it's NOT free to provide. So, taxes go up to pay for it. Ah, but that's right... the people who have managed their money, worked hard to get ahead, and took care of their bodies -- they're "rich"... let's TAKE their money. They don't deserve it, right? I am quite possibly the only person in the US that believes Bill Gates should be as rich as he is. He earned it, he invested, he grew a corporate empire... but why not just take all of his money from him? Oh right, that's socialism.

I STILL do NOT understand why to this day socialism is such a dirty word in the US. There are PLENTY of people who managed their money, worked hard to get ahead, took care of their bodies, and STILL ended up sick and on the street because they had a car accident or cancer or whatever, and they they were laid off due to (being sick, or) bad corporate practices, bad economy, bad pension investments (what about all those Enron workers who did nothing wrong and yet lost their life savings).

We're talking about investing in your OWN future too. THIS line of thinking is what makes the US one of the poorest country, in my opinion. This entire ME ME ME culture. Well one day, YOU TOO could be ONE OF THEM.

[CorgiGirl]

I STILL do NOT understand why to this day socialism is such a dirty word in the US. There are PLENTY of people who managed their money, worked hard to get ahead, took care of their bodies, and STILL ended up sick and on the street because they had a car accident or cancer or whatever, and they they were laid off due to (being sick, or) bad corporate practices, bad economy, bad pension investments (what about all those Enron workers who did nothing wrong and yet lost their life savings).

We're talking about investing in your OWN future too. THIS line of thinking is what makes the US one of the poorest country, in my opinion. This entire ME ME ME culture. Well one day, YOU TOO could be ONE OF THEM.

I'm with you, Echo. A social support network is not a bad thing to have. All of the industrialized countries with so-called socialized medicine have better health outcomes than we do in the US. And people don't have to worry about getting sick and losing everything. Yes, it costs more in taxes to support this but there are a lot of us out here who are willing to pay for that. The system we have costs more, in part, because we force people without insurance to wait to see a doctor until conditions cost more to treat than they would have if they'd had access to preventative and early care. They then go to emergency rooms and often cannot pay their bills. This gets passed on to all of us in the form of higher health care costs. We have to do something to fix this!!!!! Requiring all people to have health insurance is one step in the right direction!

[DreamStalker]

No one seems to mind having a socialized military defense ... or interstate highway system ... or fire department ... or federal reserve ... or what was it they called it, faith based initiative?

Fact is, people get sick. We can pay their bills through socialized insurance, or we can pay their bills through increased taxes to keep hospitals open .... or we can let them die like they do in the poorest countries of Africa.

It is a no-brainer. For a nation to be prosperous, it needs socialized military defense, socialized education, and socialized healthcare at the national level ... and of course no more bailing out corporate industries (THAT is socialism in the truest sense or rather the worst sense).

[stacia123]

All I read was "bail me out, not the auto industry".

That's very rude and disrespectful, to just say "la la la I can't hear you" and still rant and rave against what you didn't bother to read.

Sure, you're a walking heart attack and you blame yourself for it. So what? Everybody has a health issue, and a lot less people brought it on themselves than you might think. Just because fluffy magazines and pseudo news shows claim all you have to do is take Vitamin R and go on the All-Paste Diet to be healthy doesn't mean it's true. Besides, if I have to pay for the health costs caused by careless drivers, people who engage in dangerous sports, snake charmers, wildlife wranglers, criminals, or incompetent doctors just because they're on my insurance plan, then they can jolly well pay for my health cost, too.

(I'm not saying careless drivers, people who engage in dangerous sports, snake charmers, wildlife wranglers, criminals, or incompetent doctors are inherently bad or all equally "irresponsible", I just listed a few things that came to mind. I don't want all you snake charmers mad at me!)

...the people who have managed their money, worked hard to get ahead, and took care of their bodies -- they're "rich"... let's TAKE their money. They don't deserve it, right? ... Just think about what would happen to the health care infrastructure of this country if suddenly, some politician snapped his fingers and made health care free for everyone... There wouldn't BE enough health care to go around.

Health care is not an absolutely finite commodity. The answer to a lack of health care is not to prevent the poor and the sick from obtaining it, the answer is to provide more health care opportunities for everyone. You're saying that health care is only for the rich and those who "took care of themselves" because it keeps those nasty poor and sick people from taking up the doctor's valuable time... good lord, I don't know what to say to that.

[lovey]

Rectar,
As I read your reply, all that came into my mind is Scrooge's thinking of "decreasing the excess population". You are a reincarnation of Scrooge in my opinion. I hope, that after 30 years of working, like I have, that you don't become too ill or disabled to continue to work full-time. I hope you never have to deal with stupid rules and regulations with Medicaid and Medicare, and Social Security. I hope you don't have to spend over 50% of your income when you are working on medical care, like I had to last year. I hope you would not get the message from everyone, including the government, that it would be best if you just died off. Or that if you are sick, that you can't get medical care to improve your condition.

I can see you boycotting all airings of "Scrooge" as socialist propaganda. Grow a heart. Lovey...

``We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,'' said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word ``liberality'', Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

``At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''

``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.

``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''

``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''

``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.

``Both very busy, sir.''

``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''

``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''

``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.

``You wish to be anonymous?''

``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''

``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.

``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

[roster]

.............
I can see you boycotting all airings of "Scrooge" as socialist propaganda. Grow a heart. Lovey...

..........

This is a basic confusion of those who are today called liberals. The point of Scrooge was about voluntary individual charity. The point of socialism is about a third party (government) taking your money forcibly and deciding how to distribute it to others. The first is good and the second is evil. The second is counterproductive to the health of societies and economies.

Good examples of the second are our farm bill, financial bailouts and now bailout of automotive unions.

[DreamStalker]

This is a basic confusion of those who are today called liberals. The point of Scrooge was about voluntary individual charity. The point of socialism is about a third party (government) taking your money forcibly and deciding how to distribute it to others. The first is good and the second is evil. The second is counterproductive to the health of societies and economies.

Good examples of the second are our farm bill, financial bailouts and now bailout of automotive unions.

That's confusing

[lovey]

Rooster,
I understand what you are saying about involuntary (third party/government) vs. voluntary contributions. But in a more general sense, Scrooge is about our duty to take care of others, because some day we might be in their shoes. We do this through government, as it is what makes us a kind and civil society. Yes, there are people that don't deserve to be taken care of, i.e. criminals, but if we exclude caring and support of all people, we are at risk of excluding the truly deserving needy that are in their circumstance because of things beyond their control. My measure of how civilized a society is how well they treat the weakest in their society, such as the ill and disabled.

And yes, I am proud to be a liberal and a Democrat. I live in a highly conservative Republican town, so your views are not new to me... Lovey

[john_dozer]

I'm formerly from Ontario. They have nationalized medicine. You don't want nationalized medicine.

We had six months waits to see specialists where I lived. Could you imagine waiting 6 months for a Sleep Study?

Periodically these long waits get some media attention, they get improved for a while and then slip back to long waits again.

I guess the question is would you rather be broke or dead?

[DreamStalker]

I'm formerly from Ontario. They have nationalized medicine. You don't want nationalized medicine.

We had six months waits to see specialists where I lived. Could you imagine waiting 6 months for a Sleep Study?

Periodically these long waits get some media attention, they get improved for a while and then slip back to long waits again.

I guess the question is would you rather be broke or dead?

In the US model there is a growing number who have to wait a lot longer than 6 months ... as in forever or til dead or becasue they are broke

Just because Canada doesn't do nationalized medicine effeciently doesn't mean it can't be done efficiently ... or at least more efficiently.

[discusdoc]

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of problems with our current US health care system, but socialized medicine, single payer system, or whatever you want to call it would not be the utopia that many think.

The US government already has socialized medicine for a certain population, it's called the VA. If you've ever dealt with the VA system, would you really want that for everyone?

Every plan would be different, but I could possibly see the following happen:

1. There would be a restricted list of medications that could be prescribed (a national formulary) in order to keep costs down. So you developed a cough on lisinopril, too bad it's on formulary and benazapril is not. The government was able to get the best deal on lisinopril.

2. You are critically ill on life support in an ICU for several months, your wish was always to have everything possible done. Now your family is being pressured to change your status to "do not rescusitate", it's a cost containment issue.

3. With the same number of physicians and all patients now able to pay it will take forever to get to see a physician. So you have coronary artery disease and need bypass surgery, good luck surving until you can be fit in. 2 week waits to get into a University sleep center will turn into 2 years.

I could go on and on....

One of the problems with the US system is the lack of emphasis on preventive care/lifestyle changes and lack of emphasis on primary care.

The tradeoff will always be great care for a few vs. mediocore care for all. I believe that access to care issues should be addressed but I'm kind of torn on the best way to do it.

If there is a national health care system created it will ultimately turn into a two tier system. A National health care system to cover what is deemed medically necessary for those who can not afford self-pay or private insurance and a second tier with insurance who can get higher levels of care in a more timely manner.

The rub is that you might end up being shocked by what is deemed medically necessary.

[roster]

....... because some day we might be in their shoes. ..........

I take this as an admission that socialism springs from selfish views not charitable ones?

If you think that the Republican party is not socialist then you surely don't understand my views. Republicans and Democrats are just two branches of a growing socialist tree.