IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

real life, quoting ctv, wrote:

Instead, MacEachern said the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required............

She had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and then went to California for breast reconstruction (which she paid for out of her own pocket).

So.... California is the best place to get a boob job? Okay.

0 Replies

Bush might say that if poor people can't afford health care, they can fly to Thailand where costs are lower.

0 Replies

Houses are probably cheaper there too.

0 Replies

Too much rice is constipating, too.

0 Replies

It will get rid of a lot of poor beggars.

0 Replies

With a majority in congress and a president from the democrats will almost assure some form of universal health care in our country - finally. Even if they just start with all childen to begin with, I'm for it.

0 Replies

A picture of health? - from today's The Guardian, about the British universal health system.

0 Replies

This one is directly addressed to USAFHokie.

The insurance companies - in this case BCBS - do everything they can to deny every claim they think they can. And it isn't a case of 'mis-coding' or any of that BS either.

Quote:

After going without any healthcare coverage for 3 years, (husband's employer didn't not offer it and husband and child have preexisting conditions that make self paid insurance imposable to afford) was ecstatic to find out my husband's new employer did offer insurance! Even though it is at a very high premium and a $2000 deductible, it's better than nothing, right? At least that's what I thought, till I tried to use Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City...

I set my daughter up a doctor's appointment for a well needed check up, and in just one weeks time was sent a statement for BCBS that they don't cover any of procedures that was done that day! NOT ONE!? So of course I called BCBS and they were very apologetic about this "mistake" and would fix it, it will take about 10 days. A week later I receive a bill from the hospital claiming that BCBS had denied all charges. I called the hospital and told them that BCBS opened a case about this, I kid you not, the billing clerk started laughing, and stated, "Good luck with that!" She went on to say that most of their patients have problems with BCBS paying up. I call BCBS and ask them about the open case on the claim. I was told by Jerri, that someone had just closed the case. She had no idea why they closed it, but was informed that she was "on top of it" and would take care of it, which was Aug, 16, 2007, but was also informed that it can take up to 3 weeks now to fix the problem. Jerri also had a bit of an attitude, which was totally uncalled for and unprofessional.

Now, on Aug, 29 2007 my husband and I suffered a devastating miscarriage. Being near midnight we went to the ER. The hospital was very compassionate about our loss and was able to get us in quickly and expedited our treatment. The following day I called BCBS and informed them that we had made a visit to the ER, and was told it wasn't necessary to call them just for ER visits, but only when we are admitted. Believing that BCBS would never make the mistakes at they did the previous and only time we have used our insurance I thought everything would go smoothly. Boy was I wrong!

On, Sep, 21 2007 I received a statement for BCBS that they were denying all of the claim. I called them and asked why they were denying the entire claim, and was told by Jane, "We do not cover ELECTIVE abortions. If you chose to terminate your pregnancy for non-health threatening reasons, BCBS will not cover it." WTF!!!??? I asked her, "Are you saying that my records state that I had an ELECTIVE abortion, in an ER at 12 o'clock in the morning?" It was then, I think it clicked in Jane's mind what she was dealing with and told me how sorry she was. I lost my cool and even started crying. I had a miscarriage not an abortion, and being treated in such a condescending way by BCBS really ticked me off. Thinking what an incredibly huge screw up, BCBS will be right on it trying to fix this, well you would be wrong. I was told to call the hospital and have them fax over my records stating I didn't have an elective abortion. Who the heck can get an elective abortion in a busy ER at 12am, anyway?

Mind you we have had Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City for less than three months, they have denied every claim we have submitted to them. EVERYONE! Even though all claims are clearly covered under our policy, is this the going to be the norm dealing with BCBS? Any help would be very much appreciated!

-Tonya Gullino

http://consumerist.com/consumer/top/blue-cross-blue-shield-calls-miscarriage-elective-abortion-denies-claim-302980.php

See, by making people jump through as many hoops as possible, a certain percentage simply give up. This translates to the profits BCBS requires to stay in business. They profit, from screwing people over - intentionally.

To deny this is to deny the state of our problems with health care in America.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Do you believe that government action to mandate that everyone buy health insurance of some kind will itself improve or alter the behavior of the insurance companies?

Common sense suggests that , given the government guaranteed market, their bad behavior would get worse.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe that government action to mandate that everyone buy health insurance of some kind will itself improve or alter the behavior of the insurance companies?

Common sense suggests that , given the government guaranteed market, their bad behavior would get worse.

You can't just use one component of reform as a panacea for all problems. Gov't mandated insurance won't fix the problems with the insurance companies; restructuring of those same companies, de-linking of insurance from employment, greater oversight by regulatory industry, and increased education and awareness amongst the public about how these industries work are all required to fix the problems we see today.

cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Do you believe that government action to mandate that everyone buy health insurance of some kind will itself improve or alter the behavior of the insurance companies?

Common sense suggests that , given the government guaranteed market, their bad behavior would get worse.

You can't just use one component of reform as a panacea for all problems. Gov't mandated insurance won't fix the problems with the insurance companies; restructuring of those same companies, de-linking of insurance from employment, greater oversight by regulatory industry, and increased education and awareness amongst the public about how these industries work are all required to fix the problems we see today.

cycloptichorn

What is "the reghulatory industry"? I think you mean government. Who will restructure the insurance companies? How will that improve their behavior and motivation? Who will "educate" the public? How will that help?

I think you are naively assuming the mice can bell the cat.

0 Replies

My personal point of view, the current system doesn't work. The objective is discover a system that does work. I don't know what that that entails, I'm guessing no one else does either. Could we explore ideas?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe that government action to mandate that everyone buy health insurance of some kind will itself improve or alter the behavior of the insurance companies?

Common sense suggests that , given the government guaranteed market, their bad behavior would get worse.

Medicare recipients don't face this kind of aggravation. We should just essentially extend Medicare to everyone.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Do you believe that government action to mandate that everyone buy health insurance of some kind will itself improve or alter the behavior of the insurance companies?

Common sense suggests that , given the government guaranteed market, their bad behavior would get worse.

You can't just use one component of reform as a panacea for all problems. Gov't mandated insurance won't fix the problems with the insurance companies; restructuring of those same companies, de-linking of insurance from employment, greater oversight by regulatory industry, and increased education and awareness amongst the public about how these industries work are all required to fix the problems we see today.

cycloptichorn

What is "the reghulatory industry"? I think you mean government. Who will restructure the insurance companies? How will that improve their behavior and motivation? Who will "educate" the public? How will that help?

I think you are naively assuming the mice can bell the cat.

The alternative is to accept the cat eating a huge number of mice every year, and saying 'well, it's better then the French system.' Not acceptable.

Yes, the gov't is the regulatory agent. They do this for a lot of industries. The amount of regulation in the insurance industry needs to be stepped up.

The US people, through our gov't, can force restructuring of the insurance industry as we wish. Companies and corporations are not all-powerful in our society.

The public can be educated on this issue by a criticial examination of the actual practices of these companies.

Eventually the goal will be the dissolution of private health insurance in America - at least, it would be if I had my way. Now, I know that this makes you shake your head, but it seems to be a logical and viable alternative to our current situation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OK, let's follow Dys' suggestion and explore ideas.

How would you accomplish "the dissolution of private health insurance" in the country?

Perhaps like Advocate you would replace it with a government operated system like Medicare. That, however, entails more than a few issues that, like those associated with foreign adventures, may have some side and after effects that bear investigation.

Government sets the payment rates for services that it will pay under Medicare. It also insists that no additional charges can be levied by them. Many Doctors and Health institutions will not accept Medicare patients for this reason. If this system is extended we may see the flight of professionals from Medical practice and, equally importantly, the flight of private capital from investment in Pharmaceutical development, Hospitals and Clinics. How will you handle that?

Alternatively if you both allow providers to bill what they want and disconnect patients from the cost of the services they demand, we will see unbounded growth in the costs of such care. How will you manage that?

There are many other such issues, but this is a good start.

0 Replies

Quote:

If this system is extended we may see the flight of professionals from Medical practice and, equally importantly, the flight of private capital from investment in Pharmaceutical development, Hospitals and Clinics. How will you handle that?

I would start by explicitly disagreeing with the assumption that private capital is responsible for breakthroughs in either pharma or medical technology. They may be responsible for the implementation of breakthroughs in technology, but the science primarily comes from gov't-funded university programs.

When we start seeing a shortage of doctors, the amount the remaining ones can charge goes up; this leads to more people wishing to be doctors. Not a hard thing to imagine, the free market balances itself out.

If taxpayers want better and more equipment for their hospitals and clinics, they vote to provide it. If they don't, they don't. Not a complicated process, and no less inefficient and costly then the current model.

Doctors can be mandated to accept Medicare patients; they are free to look for employment elsewhere if they don't want to, and we could easily find qualified doctors from abroad who wouldn't mind doing so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The widespread availability of practical applications of science depends on entrepreneurs, not government funded research. The Soviet Union had ample government funded science, but could neither feed itself nor take good care of its people.

Evidently you believe that like the UK's NHS we should start the widespread hiring of Moslem assassins to staff our medical clinics.

As for the rest of your self-contradictory observations, I suggest you invest a little time in studying the economic and social performance of socialist economic systems.

0 Replies

Quote:

Evidently you believe that like the UK's NHS we should start the widespread hiring of Moslem assassins to staff our medical clinics.

If you aren't interested in putting forth a serious argument, why bother posting, George? This is rather ridiculous.

As is your retreat to railing against socialism. It doesn't seriously address the topic, but instead seeks to discredit it by attaching it to a phrase which you find distasteful.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The widespread availability of practical applications of science depends on entrepreneurs, not government funded research. The Soviet Union had ample government funded science, but could neither feed itself nor take good care of its people.

Evidently you believe that like the UK's NHS we should start the widespread hiring of Moslem assassins to staff our medical clinics.

As for the rest of your self-contradictory observations, I suggest you invest a little time in studying the economic and social performance of socialist economic systems.

Your comments are interesting. The fact is that half our drugs emanate from government-funded research (such as through grants to universities. The drug companies pick up the results for essentially nothing.

No one wants the government to take over research, the drug companies, etc. The thrust of universal care is a single-payer plan, which is what Medicare is.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know