U.S. Medical Health Insurance

[DeletedUser]

what does one states poor descions with its money for aproject have to do with the goverment creating bloated , unnessisary , ineffectualy social programs that do nothing but destroy the economy and waiste BILLIONS in federal tax payer dollars




(Due to a continued tangential discussion on medical health insurance, this discussion has been moved to its own thread -- Hellstromm)

 

[DeletedUser22575]

what does one states poor descions with its money for aproject have to do with the goverment creating bloated , unnessisary , ineffectualy social programs that do nothing but destroy the economy and waiste BILLIONS in federal tax payer dollars

Name them? Which programs are you talking about specifically that you want to talk about. And that money for that project came from the federal government as an ear marked pork barrel tagging.

 

[DeletedUser]

well the obamacare monstrosity for one

 

[DeletedUser22575]

well the obamacare monstrosity for one

so you think health care for americans is a social program that destroys the economy and is a waste of money. :laugh:

funny thing. the Repubs claim we need health care, they couldn't and haven't proposed a better plan, part of them voted for it. Time for them to put their money where their mouth is and they can't do it. All they can say is Obama care has to go....we need health care...but don't have a clue how to replace it.

But now its a monstrosity.

Get real.

 

[DeletedUser]

funny thing. the Repubs claim we need health care, they couldn't and haven't proposed a better plan, part of them voted for it. Time for them to put their money where their mouth is and they can't do it. All they can say is Obama care has to go....we need health care...but don't have a clue how to replace it.

sorry I got to step in here but there has been plans put out by republican. have you bothered to do a search you would have found this know as "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009," I mean you guys are for choice right?

 

[DeletedUser22575]

sorry I got to step in here but there has been plans put out by republican. have you bothered to do a search you would have found this know as "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009," I mean you guys are for choice right?

I am well familiar with this.

And it is just like his speech on the vid. Do away with Obama care and start over. And the only firm thing they ever mention is "tort reform".

And what that means exactly is they want to limit the patients right to sue for medical malpractice and cap how much patients can be awarded.

They are big on rhetoric and very short on specifics. And lets not confuse this "choice" garbage with doing nothing and leave those citizens of our country with no health care while spending billions per year in other countries. This "choice" tag is nothing more than a flag to wave to appeal to emotion in an attempt to manipulate peoples opinions to support them while they still have no plan.

Nothing but a fancy title just like their "Contract With America" or whatever they called it this time around. Nothing more, nothing less, and just as insubstantial. Its time they woke up and realize that Americans expect action with results, not just more talk and gridlock no matter which party they are in.

You want to save billions its time to stop the waste of throwing money away in foreign countries to "win their hearts and minds" and spend it on our own citizens. We would have ample money for our needed social programs with money left over.

And now that Big Business has spoken you can expect the Republicans to start singing a new tune soon, and here is the music.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/085992...jA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNiaWdidXNpbmVzc3Q-

 

[DeletedUser]

they mention tort reform , selling across state lines , tax breaks for companies that offer quality affordable health plans and much more . jsut because you failed to listen doesnt mean it wasnt said

 

[DeletedUser]

None of which help all those people without medical insurance, or those being denied medical coverage due to pre-existing health issues. I.e., nothing that the Republicans presented fixed anything, but sure as hell ensures the insurance companies increase their profits. When are you going to learn, the majority of Republicans are of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

 

[DeletedUser]

When are you going to learn, the majority of Republicans are of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

that is just as true as the Majority of Democrats are illegal Immigrants, by illegal Immigrants and for illegal Immigrants.

 

[DeletedUser]

None of which help all those people without medical insurance, or those being denied medical coverage due to pre-existing health issues. I.e., nothing that the Republicans presented fixed anything, but sure as hell ensures the insurance companies increase their profits. When are you going to learn, the majority of Republicans are of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

funny thing that

ive NEVER had a medical exam to gt insurance ive always gotten it without question by simply applying for it whenever a job offered it

my wife has ceribrial pulsey ( something u get at birth btw) has to take regulqr medication , get expensive botox injections in her legs twice a year and have regualar treatment and visits with a neuroligist ( gasp a specialist) and SHES not once had problems getting insurance her entire life

teh number of people turned down for pre existing conditions is SUPER minimal

and if all teh things that rebublicans suggested were done healthcare would be rather inexensive and easy to obtain and most employers would carry it and THEN at most we would only need a tiny program to assist the VERY vew that were left over w/o coverage

 

[DeletedUser]

Anecdotal ignorance once again, but I'm not going to bother responding further. The topic is Power Change.


edit: (the medical insurance discussion has since been moved to its own thread, thus my continued participation as it is no longer off topic)

 

[DeletedUser]

Anecdotal ignorance once again, but I'm not going to bother responding further. The topic is Power Change.

then dont make statements ill be foreced to respond to

and its not ignorance its clear FIRST HAND evidence weather you like it or not

 

[DeletedUser22575]

then dont make statements ill be foreced to respond to

and its not ignorance its clear FIRST HAND evidence weather you like it or not

No, when one tells a story it is Anecdotal. It is not evidence in any way, shape, or form.

Depending on who tells the story it may or may not be true, in fact it may be nothing but spin. :laugh:

 

[DeletedUser]

No, when one tells a story it is Anecdotal. It is not evidence in any way, shape, or form.

Depending on who tells the story it may or may not be true, in fact it may be nothing but spin. :laugh:

when one tells teh FACTS of there relivent experince its FACT not anticdote

 

[DeletedUser]

It's unverifiable, therefore not fact. And fact is not the same thing as evidence. And it's called anecdote, not anticdote.

"ive NEVER had a medical exam to gt insurance ive always gotten it without question by simply applying for it whenever a job offered it"

And yet you completely ignored the fact, or intentionally avoided mentioning, you signed a waiver allowing them to examine your medical records. You didn't need a medical exam right then and there, as you already had a few on record.

"teh number of people turned down for pre existing conditions is SUPER minimal"

You provided no evidence whatsoever, instead you come up with an anecdote-based speculation. Worse, you're blatantly wrong, as usual:*

In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market. Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition. ~ http://statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=353&cat=7

A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults - 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years. ~ Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2007 and Doty MM, Collins SR, Nicholson JL et al. Failure to Protect: Why the Individual Insurance Market is not a Viable Option for Most US Families. The Commonwealth Fund, July 2009.

In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease. ~ USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health. National Survey of Households Affected by Cancer. November 2006. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7591.pdf

It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. ~ National Women’s Law Center. Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women, 2008.

Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage. ~ Pollitz K, Sorian R. How Accessible is Individual Health Insurance for Consumers in Less than Perfect Health? Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2001.​

So yes, |spider|, anecdotal ignorance is what you presented. And I really am done talking about this derailing discussion. Once again, the topic is about Power Change, as in House seats reverting to Republican majority. The topic is not medical insurance.



* information obtained from research committed by HealthReform.gov --- http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

 

[DeletedUser]

note all your information is based on the INDIVIDUAL insurance market

workplace insurance isnt included in that


IF the appropriate changes that the republicans are pushing for were made ( the ones i mentioned earlier) FAR more workplaces would be providing insurance so agian your arguments fall short

 

[DeletedUser]

note all your information is based on the INDIVIDUAL insurance market

workplace insurance isnt included in that


IF the appropriate changes that the republicans are pushing for were made ( the ones i mentioned earlier) FAR more workplaces would be providing insurance so agian your arguments fall short

I can give you some anecdotal "evidence" if that's what you prefer. A friend's family is covered by his insurance through his employment. When their second child was born, there were complications and he was born early (he weighed 23 ounces). The insurance company refused to allow him to be added to the existing policy (which is what they normally do when a child is born) because his problems began before he was born and they considered them to be pre-existing.

I've also been approved for insurance with no physical exam through my work place, but they refused to pay when I tried to get treatment for my asthma because it was a pre-existing condition. Some companies may cover those things anyway, but the current laws don't require anyone to insure those people who need the help most.

 

[DeletedUser]

note all your information is based on the INDIVIDUAL insurance market

workplace insurance isnt included in that

Wrong again. Why don't you bother to read the reports instead of make assumptions that accommodate your narrow understanding of the issue. Although a large percentage of the reports were in study of individual health insurance, group health insurance was, as well, examined and demonstrated widespread rescissions and "policy" denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Also, you fail to recognize that a large percentage of persons are self-employed, and thus are tasked with getting individual health insurance. Worse, many persons are part-time employed, or contracted, and thus are not eligible for employer-provided medical insurance plans. NOTHING in the Republican proposals addressed those issues, those loopholes exploited by the majority of employers.

IF the appropriate changes that the republicans are pushing for were made ( the ones i mentioned earlier) FAR more workplaces would be providing insurance so agian your arguments fall short

And once again, wrong. I would like you to start a new thread, discussing these Republican proposals, demonstrating how these proposals would have "fixed" anything.

Some companies may cover those things anyway, but the current laws don't require anyone to insure those people who need the help most.

Exactly Arty,*

When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire. In most states’ individual insurance market, insurance companies can retroactively cancel the entire policy if any condition was missed – even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.
A recent Congressional investigation into this practice found nearly 20,000 rescissions from three large insurers over five years, saving them $300 million in medical claims – $300 million that instead had to come out of the pockets of people who thought they were insured, or became bad debt for health care providers.
At least one insurance company has been found to evaluate employee performance based in part on the amount of money an employee saved the company through rescissions. ~ http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/rescission_supplemental.pdf​

* information obtained from research committed by HealthReform.gov --- http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/...age/index.html

 

[DeletedUser]

yup you do exactly what you CLAIM i do

you pull information from biased sites created by the administration pushing hte legislation that skews data in its favor

 

[DeletedUser]

yup you do exactly what you CLAIM i do

you pull information from biased sites created by the administration pushing hte legislation that skews data in its favor

Really... so reports from Kaiser Family Foundation, The Commonwealth Fund, NIHCM Foundation, and U.S. House investigations during both the Bush Jr. and Obama administrations. Yep, must be a conspiracy.


Instead of wasting all of our time with these derogations and claims of conspiracy, how about providing contra-evidence.