Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Surely you don't think facts will get in the way of the lefty loons take on pre-existing conditions do you??
Do you have anything of significance you'd like to add? Some people aren't covered for a variety of reasons such as job loss or divorce. Their pre-existing condition shouldn't be covered when they find a new job or insurance?
which is exactly why healthcare should not be attached to your job.....or your spouse.....or the government.....or the insurance companies (except for major medical)......all of these middlemen just get in the way and increase costs...
each adult should buy individual lifelong reasonable cost healthcare coverage for himself or herself and be covered anywhere he or she lives or works or doesn't work.....starting with pre-tax healthcare accounts would be a great start.....plus buying a low-cost major medical policy to cover a major accident or sickness to prevent bankruptcy....buying off the free market would help to lower the costs of healthcare dramatically....
As noted elsewhere on this thread, the health insurance industry had its beginnings in the 1940's. Unless you are in a time warp, I fail to see how this provides "over 200 years" of any kind of experience.If you advocate we in the United States completely abandon the free market model that has worked for over 200 years....
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.
A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.
Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.
Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.
If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.
Your comments and questions support the very reason why large corporate insurance companies should not be involved in health care in the first place. Everybody born on the face of this earth will need health care, from the day they are born til the day the die and many in between. It is not a matter of betting against "risk" unless you're a total fucking idiot and believe it should be.
As noted elsewhere on this thread, the health insurance industry had its beginnings in the 1940's. Unless you are in a time warp, I fail to see how this provides "over 200 years" of any kind of experience.
Are you trying to say that there was no health care prior to 1940?
Do you understand the difference between health care and health insurance? Am I going to have to go back to kindergarten to deal with your posts and explain things that have already been explained in detail because you are too fucking lazy to educate yourself before you post?
As noted elsewhere on this thread, the health insurance industry had its beginnings in the 1940's. Unless you are in a time warp, I fail to see how this provides "over 200 years" of any kind of experience.If you advocate we in the United States completely abandon the free market model that has worked for over 200 years....
LOL! Yes, American health care in 1813.....Uh-huh.....Two hundred years ago a doctor in America was anybody who wanted to call themselves one.
I love this board. It's like shooting dumbass ducks in a barrel the size of a Budweiser beer can.
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
Indeed, the number one reason for bankruptcy filings in the U.S.
That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
No.
They should simply have to provide proof of being insured prior to buying a new policy.
The pre existing condition clause was actually a product of the greed of the consumer. Many would not buy health insurance unless they found they needed it. Such is why dental has the "6 month" clause...you cant use it for 6 months after you get a policy for emergencies such as root canal. Same as hurricane insurance. It does not go into affect for 30 days.
So it is simple....if you have insurance and want to change to another policy, the pre existing clause does not come into play.
I'm not sure where you get your information about the history of the health care insurance industry, but you need to look further.Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
In the beginning, almost all health insurance was open enrollment, everyone was covered regardless of condition. This was the Kaiser model of the 1940's and the Blue Cross model of the 1950's. Most large groups today, covering perhaps 60% of all insured, have a pre-existing condition clause, but it only excludes coverage for a period of 6 months to two years for that condition. This is typically waived if you are switching plans and demonstrate that you have current coverage for the pre-existing condition. Medicare supplement plans can only deny coverage for pre-existing conditions if you have no current coverage when you apply for Medicare and the denial period is only 90 days.
Last time I looked, the profit margins of health insurance companies were pretty good, so it doesn't appear they will be leaving the market anytime soon.
Tell me honestly that if you ran a health insurance company, you'd provide coverage to someone who already had cancer.
The amount of money you'd pay out in health care costs would completely eclipse the amount you'd make in premiums.
Run a company like that and see how long you stay in business.
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
Indeed, the number one reason for bankruptcy filings in the U.S.
This lie has been debunked already.
Do you have anything of significance you'd like to add? Some people aren't covered for a variety of reasons such as job loss or divorce. Their pre-existing condition shouldn't be covered when they find a new job or insurance?
which is exactly why healthcare should not be attached to your job.....or your spouse.....or the government.....or the insurance companies (except for major medical)......all of these middlemen just get in the way and increase costs...
each adult should buy individual lifelong reasonable cost healthcare coverage for himself or herself and be covered anywhere he or she lives or works or doesn't work.....starting with pre-tax healthcare accounts would be a great start.....plus buying a low-cost major medical policy to cover a major accident or sickness to prevent bankruptcy....buying off the free market would help to lower the costs of healthcare dramatically....
Well this is a completely different issue and something probably worth opening a new thread to discuss. I don't know if reasonable or low-cost are terms I'd use to describe anything associated with health care.
Um, no Canada is NOT moving toward the clusterfuck that is our health care system. My Canadian friends are HORRIFIED at our system. BTW, you can buy private insurance in England as well as France and the Scandinavian countries. In fact, I believe you can buy it in any country. But we know you think only the wealthy should be able to afford to go to the doctor.Of why we shouldn't have single payer? Because, the last time I checked, Canada was moving allowing private insurance, not that you are going to let facts influence your delusional thinking.
When Obama first mentioned his plan to mandate insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions I said to my wife " that is theft. It's impossible."
But it also creates a situation that makes talk of governmental "death panels" nothing more than a cruel joke. If the insurance companies can't handle it, then the only solution is single-payer.
True.
Medicare is a successful, well-run program, for example.
Conservative opposition to a single payer system is predicated solely on this myth.
OH what a dumb fucking statement...
WHAT city do you live in?
I will bet you $1,000 that the largest hospital in your city Overcharges Medicare easily 300% maybe 6,000% and because idiots like have no clue how medicare works!
For example I have access to all the Medicare payments made to 6,000 hospitals and I can tell you for a FACT in this example over 6,000% overcharge to Medicare by the hospital!
In 2009 the University Community Hospital in Tampa sent Medicare 2,110 claims for CAT scan no contrast.
Each claim averaged: $2,635 which is what was billed by the hospital to Medicare...
But the hospital's ACTUAL COSTS to perform the CAT SCAN was $43 a mark up 6,127.91%
6,127% MARKUP over costs! THIS IS REAL money being spent by Medicare and ALL because total idiots like you have NO clue specifically to a law passed in 1986 called EMTALA.
If you were smart enough you'd look it up but you aren't so here it is!!!
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) that if a hospital takes
Medicare,they have to regardless of an individual's ability to pay provide stabilizing treatment for patients..."
So this is why hospitals charge sometimes 6,000% above costs! Because idiots didn't think EMTALA through... just as they haven't thought Obamacare through!
You are so full of shit your eyeballs are brown.
No CT Scan is $43. First, it's an incredibly expensive piece of equipment. It's takes a lot of power to operate and a highly trained technician to maintain and in a room where the temperature and humidity are regulated.
If there is a "myth" about health care, it's the health care companies. CEO's making tens of millions for what? And how do they make it? By skimming policies and running death panels. They are "middle men". They are where the cost goes. How many policies need to be skimmed to pay for one CEO salary?
Sick for Profit - Insurance CEOs
Aetna CEO
Ronald A. Williams
2007 Compensation
$23 million
2008 Compensation (Forbes)
$24,300,112
Total Value of Unexercised Options (Forbes)
$194,496,797
Williams is in the top
ten of Forbes'
"$100 Million CEO Club."
As noted elsewhere on this thread, the health insurance industry had its beginnings in the 1940's. Unless you are in a time warp, I fail to see how this provides "over 200 years" of any kind of experience.
Are you trying to say that there was no health care prior to 1940?
Do you understand the difference between health care and health insurance? Am I going to have to go back to kindergarten to deal with your posts and explain things that have already been explained in detail because you are too fucking lazy to educate yourself before you post?
Ironic post is ironic.
True.
Medicare is a successful, well-run program, for example.
Conservative opposition to a single payer system is predicated solely on this myth.
OH what a dumb fucking statement...
WHAT city do you live in?
I will bet you $1,000 that the largest hospital in your city Overcharges Medicare easily 300% maybe 6,000% and because idiots like have no clue how medicare works!
For example I have access to all the Medicare payments made to 6,000 hospitals and I can tell you for a FACT in this example over 6,000% overcharge to Medicare by the hospital!
In 2009 the University Community Hospital in Tampa sent Medicare 2,110 claims for CAT scan no contrast.
Each claim averaged: $2,635 which is what was billed by the hospital to Medicare...
But the hospital's ACTUAL COSTS to perform the CAT SCAN was $43 a mark up 6,127.91%
6,127% MARKUP over costs! THIS IS REAL money being spent by Medicare and ALL because total idiots like you have NO clue specifically to a law passed in 1986 called EMTALA.
If you were smart enough you'd look it up but you aren't so here it is!!!
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) that if a hospital takes
Medicare,they have to regardless of an individual's ability to pay provide stabilizing treatment for patients..."
So this is why hospitals charge sometimes 6,000% above costs! Because idiots didn't think EMTALA through... just as they haven't thought Obamacare through!
You are so full of shit your eyeballs are brown.
No CT Scan is $43. First, it's an incredibly expensive piece of equipment. It's takes a lot of power to operate and a highly trained technician to maintain and in a room where the temperature and humidity are regulated.
If there is a "myth" about health care, it's the health care companies. CEO's making tens of millions for what? And how do they make it? By skimming policies and running death panels. They are "middle men". They are where the cost goes. How many policies need to be skimmed to pay for one CEO salary?
Sick for Profit - Insurance CEOs
Aetna CEO
Ronald A. Williams
2007 Compensation
$23 million
2008 Compensation (Forbes)
$24,300,112
Total Value of Unexercised Options (Forbes)
$194,496,797
Williams is in the top
ten of Forbes'
"$100 Million CEO Club."
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
No.
They should simply have to provide proof of being insured prior to buying a new policy.
The pre existing condition clause was actually a product of the greed of the consumer. Many would not buy health insurance unless they found they needed it. Such is why dental has the "6 month" clause...you cant use it for 6 months after you get a policy for emergencies such as root canal. Same as hurricane insurance. It does not go into affect for 30 days.
So it is simple....if you have insurance and want to change to another policy, the pre existing clause does not come into play.
Most polices covered preexisting conditions even without prior insurance, you just had to wait a few months to pay into the policy first.
That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.
I have received medical care in Canada. And Mexico. And Chile. And I understand all too well why the World Health Organization ranks us 37th in the world.
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.
A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.
Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.
Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.
If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.
Your comments and questions support the very reason why large corporate insurance companies should not be involved in health care in the first place. Everybody born on the face of this earth will need health care, from the day they are born til the day the die and many in between. It is not a matter of betting against "risk" unless you're a total fucking idiot and believe it should be.
No.
They should simply have to provide proof of being insured prior to buying a new policy.
The pre existing condition clause was actually a product of the greed of the consumer. Many would not buy health insurance unless they found they needed it. Such is why dental has the "6 month" clause...you cant use it for 6 months after you get a policy for emergencies such as root canal. Same as hurricane insurance. It does not go into affect for 30 days.
So it is simple....if you have insurance and want to change to another policy, the pre existing clause does not come into play.
Most polices covered preexisting conditions even without prior insurance, you just had to wait a few months to pay into the policy first.
Tell that to someone who discovers a suspicious lump on their body, or has bleeding in places where there should be no blood. Tell them they have to fucking wait to see a doctor so an insurance company can make money off of them. People who buy into their healthcare relying on corporate bottom lines and a board of directors are total idiots.
