The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

What would you say to the parents of a child who was born with a congenital heart defect, but whose surgery to correct the defect was denied by the insurance company because it was a "pre-existing condition"? "Sorry, it's your problem, not mine." or "Sorry, you need to choose between losing your child and impoverishing yourselves because your insurance company needs to maximize profits in order to keep the investers happy."

This is a horrible situation, and I admit I have no ideas for that specifically.

However, insurance companies are businesses. It is not unreasonsable to expect them to look to make a profit. It's why they are there. Is that heartless? I don't know. I fully admit HUGE nervousness when my three children were born, hoping there would be no complications or problems that would make them uninsurable, and great relief when they were healthy - for reasons other than insurance coverage as well, of course.

Please note I did not say they are always scrupulous in their dealings. For my daughters knee surgery, they denied the MRI that showed she needed it, but approved the surgery based on it. I'm currently appealing (and i don't know if this is common, but I haven't been required to pay the bill until the appeal is settled).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

However, insurance companies are businesses. It is not unreasonsable to expect them to look to make a profit. It's why they are there.

So you're okay with decisions about your health being made based on whether some stock holders will make a profit or not?

Not, it is not unreasonable for a business to optimize for profit. I DO find it unreasonable for health care to be run as a business.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

So you're okay with decisions about your health being made based on whether some stock holders will make a profit or not?

Not, it is not unreasonable for a business to optimize for profit. I DO find it unreasonable for health care to be run as a business.

Then your problem is with health insurance companies even existing. I would take it then that the President's plan is inadequate in the scope then.

Trust me....insurance companies have about 40 years to catch up to make a profit on me. My surgery at the Mayo clinic was close to 6 figures. And covered. Perhaps i've just had a different experience than most. Mayo wasn't even a hospital that my insurance woulod cover. However, since the only doctors qualified to perform it were at USC, somewhere in Oregon, or in New York, after I went to three local surgeons who took my insurance that all said they were not qualified, they allowed me to go to the Mayo.

I do not regard it as them making decisions. I regard it as i have entered a contract with them for a certain amount of coverage with rules. I can pay more for more coverage, less for less. I am respsonsible to know what is and isn't covered. They are responsible to uphold their end of the bargain. Should they not, it is certainly a pain to deal with, and in matters of life and death, the delay can certainly cost lives, which is not acceptable.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Then your problem is with health insurance companies even existing. I would take it then that the President's plan is inadequate in the scope then.

Correct.

Trust me....insurance companies have about 40 years to catch up to make a profit on me.

It's more than whether your individual insurance is adequate for YOU. It's about people who are denied insurance and therefore are entirely on the outside of the system. Yes they can rely on inadequate emergency services, or make the major financial sacrifices discussed before, or make deals with their dr. to pay things off, but that still leaves an entire class (or classes) of people with inferior medical choices that could cost them their life in the long run simply because insurance companies decided that covering them hurts their bottom line. I simply will never think it is okay that a person's access to health care is linked to either how much money they have or how much money someone else is willing to spend on them. Money is not a measure of value of human life.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Correct.


It's more than whether your individual insurance is adequate for YOU.

Hold on. You asked me if I wanted my helath care decisions based on a health insurance company's pofits. So I gave an example of me and why I hadn't found it to be a problem because I view it as a contract entered into, not a right. Then you tell me it isn't all about me. I agree, it isn't all about me, but don't act like I think it is when I answer a question you asked about me.

I recognize that there are many with the viewpoint that the plan as presented doesn't go far enough. I don't think it goes far enough for Obama or Congress either, they just understand the concept of incrementalism.

Do you favor a system such as the Canadian or British?

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Do you favor a system such as the Canadian or British?

I posted this in another thread -

If the NHS is good enough for Stephen Hawking then it can't be any worse than what we have.

Prof Hawking, who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, said: 'I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS.

'I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0QNPMN3LE

If you don't like the source of my article just Google "Stephen Hawking health care" and you can find more.

[wendybeth]

Why does it have to be a system like either? I get the feeling that the systems of Canada and Britain keep getting thrown into this conversation because most Americans have a negative image of them and it helps fuel the Anti fires. Plenty of other countries have health care models we could follow just as easily, if we were so inclined. Personally, if it does happen, I think it will likely be a new type, given our long history with insurance, etc, that most other countries have not experienced.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Alex

This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

An increase in demand can lead to an increase in supply, but it would most certainly start with a shortage of the supply. Short supply with increased demand increases the cost until supply can be increased. That presents another problem, in that increaing supply isn't as simple as going to a doctor manufacturer and having them make more. We have to have people that want to become doctors, are willing to study long enough to become doctors (and pay the tuition for it), and are qualified to become doctors. So I disgaree with the foundation of your first paragraph. I am not arguing for rationing (though I think it is going to happen based on supply and demand), nor am I abandoning those economic principles.

You are still saying that medical coverage is earned. That certain people do not deserve to have it. That certain people should go bankrupt when they get sick.

I say this unequivocally: This is morally wrong.

For conservatives to say that they have the moral high ground on this issue is preposterous. As I believe it was Strangler Lewis said, either you get help from family, or your neighbors, or your church....or you just scale it up. People that live in America are my neighbors. They are my community. I care about them. I know this goes against basic conservative principles, but what it follows is basic moral principles.

To follow your logic regarding supply and demand - again, a rather worrisome moral choice. Instead of allowing the system to grow (and face the growing pains) to match the need, you'd rather keep it tight, allowing only those who can pay to receive care.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have been there.

You know what? I survived. I didn't have much of anything material. I have experienced death, not poverty, but a lack of meterial possessions, and most of that came from paying for my mom's health care.

You were lucky, and you should realize that. You could have easily been on the street. My family didn't have medical coverage either, and paying for things like surgery and a broken arm put a huge dent. Why can't you extrapolate that some people don't actually make it past that debt?

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Not, it is not unreasonable for a business to optimize for profit. I DO find it unreasonable for health care to be run as a business.

I agree with this. I think health care should not be run for profit in the way it currently is. Individuals to get a paycheck- ok. Insurance companies to make zillions of dollars by denying care and claims? Not so ok. In my opinion.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Then your problem is with health insurance companies even existing.

I definitely have a problem with insurance companies. I despise them. I worked for a referral company for a while, and the approval process for claims and authorizations is appalling. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I dislike the current system.