| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Topic: A health care question...
Posted: March 19 2010 at 11:57 |
Today my mother, a 60 year old woman of normal size and weight, was denied insurance by another insurance company. In the letter explaining the decision, they said it was because she has gastritis and some other relatively minor stomach conditions.
I know my mother can always spend 400$ in a ticket to my country and be checked there by doctors that are less interested in money. That's not my point. My question is, is this the "perfect" health care system that you republicans, libertarians and tea-parti-ers so strongly defend? Is this what the MOST PROSPER NATION IN THE WORLD should have whereas, in ANY OTHER COUNTRY nobody would've denied my mother coverage?
Can you explain me why is this system worth defending? I'm stupid. So is pretty much everyone who cries for health care reform. You know the truth. Please, explain it to me as if I was 5-year old. Because I can't see for the love of any damn god what is so great about this system.
|
|
|
 |
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:04 |
|
Shame to heard that Teo... my mother is a little older and she is covered by insurance here in Guatemala, luckily she will never need it, but that's not the case... I think the older people is the most to need that kind of protection... It have happened several times in I guess... so sorry man... that's injustice, but I don't know the system as I live in a little tinny problematic country... I hope you can solve the problem...
Edited by jampa17 - March 19 2010 at 12:04
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:07 |
|
The health insurance company is a private business. They want a profit.
Suppose you
started a grocery store. Should the government force you to give away
your food to people who couldn't pay you for it, just because they needed it?
Suppose people just decided it wasn't worth it to start or continue operating health insurance companies and so these companies stopped existing, partly because the government made them accept everyone.
At any rate, I actually refuse health insurance because it is, in essence, a sucker bet.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:08 |
|
As far as I know, no one is claiming the current system is perfect or even that good. Us Republicans, Tea Partiers and Libertarians believe that you could drastically improve service by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and by eliminating givernment mandates that require insurance companies to cover superfluous things like Viagra. In that way, you could get cheap health insurance that would only provde catastrophic care (which is all most people want.) Now, you can't get it, because of regulations.
As far as preexisting conditions go, I don't think you get the idea of insurance. The idea is you buy insurance to protect you in the unlikely event of something bad happening. That's how they make their money. If everyone who has insurance also undergoes costly medical proceedures, then the insurance companies would go out of business. They make money off the healthy people to pay for the sick people. Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
I am sorry to hear about your mother, but the regulations now being talked about will raise premiums (a lot) and eventually ( I suspect) drive private health insurance companies out of business.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:10 |
 thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:10 |
|
Nobody has answered why this would be covered in other countries and not in here. Maybe because in the US profits are all that counts?
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:11 |
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.  
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:13 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
If you owned a grocery store, would your give you product away to everyone who asked for it? Don't you have a moral obligation? People need food to live!
Edited by Epignosis - March 19 2010 at 12:18
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:14 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:17 |
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
If you owned a grocery store, would you give you product away to everyone who asked for it? Don't you have a moral obligation? People need food to live!
|
There are avenues to get cheap food. And food is not that hard to come by anyway. Dying of hunger in the US is quite difficult. Health care is another monster, a thousands-of-dollars issue that can't be compared.
I guess the problem is you see health care as a business for profit. Most everywhere else, people don't. Of course, seen as a business for profit, your point is true. As morally repugnant as it is to me, heatth-care for profit is the reality and your logic applies.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:19 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."
|
Ok so where is the affordable heath care that people with no insurance can go to? Because there should be alternatives. It's only "insurance" after all. Therefore, people could opt out and go get their own heath care. Of course, if you have thousands of dollars.
|
|
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:23 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put. |
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. |
That appears to be the problem of health care based on insurence; it does regard people as commodities, like cars. Which I think is pretty sad.
I'm not from the US and dont fully understand your healthcare system, but to us who have 'nasty evil communist' socialised health care, your system does seem abhorant. I'm sure it's not that simple, but anyway, I'm sorry to hear of your mothers predicament, and know that under our system - which I acknowlegde is not perfect - she would be looked after, free at point of care.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:24 |
|
As has been noted, the insurance companies, like business generally, are in it for profit. Universal, socialized health care is what is needed. Everyone should have access.
I was rushed in an ambulance to hospital the other day -- no hassles, no extra cost to me. I didn't have my care card on me, but I phoned it in the next day. It's nice not to have to deal with an insurance company -- I still pay premiums but it hardly covers costs. They're being more thorough than needed, I think with tests which is costly for taxpayers generally, Mind you, we pay a lot of taxes.
Edited by Logan - March 19 2010 at 12:27
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:26 |
Blacksword wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put. |
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. |
That appears to be the problem of health care based on insurence; it does regard people as commodities, like cars. Which I think is pretty sad.
I'm not from the US and dont fully understand your healthcare system, but to us who have 'nasty evil communist' socialised health care, your system does seem abhorant. I'm sure it's not that simple, but anyway, I'm sorry to hear of your mothers predicament, and know that under our system - which I acknowlegde is not perfect - she would be looked after, free at point of care. |
Like in many other countries that are far poorer than the US.
My problem is I still can't adapt to the idea that where I have been living for the past 5 years individualism and money are the ultimate truth. That "affordable health care for everybody" crazyness they have in most other countries that are rich (even if the system is privately run) would be in total contradiction with the American way of seeing and doing things... It's my fault after all.
|
|
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:26 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."
|
I think Teo's concerning is that medical care is not a business... and it should work for people's health more than for peoples pocket... I get the point of Rob, yeah, they shouldn't throw their money away... but how is that that the people who more need it is the people who recieves the refuse... I mean... We are young and healthy and that's enough to somewhat of insurance our life and stay away from doctor most of the times. But older people, especially women need protection and regular checks and is that people who don't recieve it... I think that's a sad contrast... don't you think...?
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:28 |
The T wrote:
Ok so where is the affordable heath care that people with no insurance can go to? Because there should be alternatives. It's only "insurance" after all. Therefore, people could opt out and go get their own heath care. Of course, if you have thousands of dollars. |
I don't have too much more to say about this, but one final point: You clearly think that health care is a right that everyone should have free (or at least very cheap) access too. That's fine, but the money has to come from somewhere. I'm going to assume that you think doctors deserve to be paid for their work, since they spend upwards of $100,000 and eight years of their life in med school. So who is going to pay the doctors? If you force the insurance companies to do it without collecting high premiums, they will quickly quit and find more profitable industries in which to work. So the only other option is government run health care. Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.) Add to that the historically proven incompetence and inefficiency of the federal government, and I think you can see why I think it's a bad idea.
Edited by thellama73 - March 19 2010 at 12:31
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:32 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
If you owned a grocery store, would you give your product away to everyone who asked for it? Don't you have a moral obligation? People need food to live!
|
There are avenues to get cheap food. And food is not that hard to come by anyway. Dying of hunger in the US is quite difficult. Health care is another monster, a thousands-of-dollars issue that can't be compared.
I guess the problem is you see health care as a business for profit. Most everywhere else, people don't. Of course, seen as a business for profit, your point is true. As morally repugnant as it is to me, heatth-care for profit is the reality and your logic applies. |
Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do. 
I actually think health insurance is a crappy reality. I don't buy any because as I said it is a sucker bet. Why would I spend $600 a month to insure my family and myself? (Liability in
an automotive policy is another thing, because in that case, we are
essentially insuring other people (i.e., victims of our possible
accidents)).
Of course, true to our partisan politics in America, there's no room for a sensible moderate view. My take on it looks like this:
A. First, tort reform. One reason a doctor bill is so high is that their malpractice insurance is insane. How interesting that patients complain about health insurance without considering how much it costs a doctor to even see us! Remember, not only did the doctor have to go through a decade or so of expensive schooling, but he has to maintain the costs of his practice, which includes malpractice insurance. The doctor can't write prescriptions from a Motel 6 and with no license or insurance. So we need strict limitations on what and how much people can sue doctors for- this will bring malpractice insurance down, and in turn, bring down the doctor's visit.
B. This is something I've never heard anybody else say: Look at it this way. Republicans don't want a nationalized health care system, and I am with them on that. However, what do we entrust to local government that involves our very lives? We have the police and the fire department on the local payroll. Would it be feasible to build localized health care systems? We already have free clinics in many cities people with financial limitations can visit, and except for being slow (from my experience), they are effective.*
C. All doctors offices should have candy for kids. No stupid ass stickers.
*Edit: I actually do not think ALL health care could (or should) be run by the local government, but I think certain things could be covered in this manner (issues of life and limb, etc.), and most other things elective and at the expense of the patient. But that's details and I'm not smart enough to figure those out.
Edited by Epignosis - March 19 2010 at 12:36
|
|
|
|
A Person
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:34 |
jampa17 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."
|
I think Teo's concerning is that medical care is not a business... and it should work for people's health more than for peoples pocket... I get the point of Rob, yeah, they shouldn't throw their money away... but how is that that the people who more need it is the people who recieves the refuse... I mean... We are young and healthy and that's enough to somewhat of insurance our life and stay away from doctor most of the times. But older people, especially women need protection and regular checks and is that people who don't recieve it... I think that's a sad contrast... don't you think...? |
I agree, but like Rob said, it isn't a very good idea as from the business point of view.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:35 |
Epignosis wrote:
Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do.
I actually think health insurance is a crappy reality. I don't buy any because as I said it is a sucker bet. Why would I spend $600 a month to insure my family and myself? (Liability in
an automotive policy is another thing, because in that case, we are
essentially insuring other people (i.e., victims of our possible
accidents)).
Of course, true to our partisan politics in America, there's no room for a sensible moderate view. My take on it looks like this:
A. First, tort reform. One reason a doctor bill is so high is that their malpractice insurance is insane. How interesting that patients complain about health insurance without considering how much it costs a doctor to even see us! Remember, not only did the doctor have to go through a decade or so of expensive schooling, but he has to maintain the costs of his practice, which includes malpractice insurance. The doctor can't write prescriptions from a Motel 6 and with no license or insurance. So we need strict limitations on what and how much people can sue doctors for- this will bring malpractice insurance down, and in turn, bring down the doctor's visit.
B. This is something I've never heard anybody else say: Look at it this way. Republicans don't want a nationalized health care system, and I am with them on that. However, what do we entrust to local government that involves our very lives? We have the police and the fire department on the local payroll. Would it be feasible to build localized health care systems? We already have free clinics in many cities people with financial limitations can visit, and except for being slow (from my experience), they are effective.
C. All doctors offices should have candy for kids. No stupid ass stickers.
|
I agree with A and C 100% 
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:37 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Ok so where is the affordable heath care that people with no insurance can go to? Because there should be alternatives. It's only "insurance" after all. Therefore, people could opt out and go get their own heath care. Of course, if you have thousands of dollars. |
I don't have too much more to say about this, but one final point:
You clearly think that health care is a right that everyone should have free (or at least very cheap) access too. For some strange reason, even in some poorer countries they have something resembling that. That's fine, but the money has to come from somewhere. TAXES I'm going to assume that you think doctors deserve to be paid for their work, since they spend upwards of $100,000 and eight years of their life in med school. The whole system, as I said, is wrong. People study medicine to get rich, not to save people. Damn, even CUBA, CUBA is more humane than this. So who is going to pay the doctors? TAXES (yes, less money in your -and mine -pocket)If you force the insurance companies to do it without collecting high premiums, they will quickly quit and find more profitable industries in which to work. So the only other option is government run health care. Please, that would be what we ask for.
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. In what kind of reality has this ever happened? What kind of science fiction (with little science and a lot of fiction) have you read? If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. So much Paranoia. Too much Fox News man. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)Again, one word: TAXES. And LESS ARMY SPENDING. And a few more things....
Add to that the historically proven incompetence and inefficiency of the federal government, and I think you can see why I think it's a bad idea.Funny, in all government-run system nobody's trying to push for reform and turn it into a system like the US'..... quite funny...
|
Edited by The T - March 19 2010 at 12:42
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
A health care question...
