Thread: Health Insurance in the USA

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Yes and it is not a new phenomenon;

Kitty Genovese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thats the other one I was thinking about! They're both next to each other in one of my case books. But I don't want to touch any one of them with a 10 ft. pole at the moment.....

JMS,
I'm just wondering, but do you think it was alright for the insurance company to deny her claim?

Also, she's still alive. Perhaps she did receive help from others as you have suggested she do. But I think the point is:
The insurance company should not be in the business of finding any and all excuses to deny claims. I think its disturbing. Maybe others think differently.

Something to think about: What happens when insurance companies require us to genetically screen before offering insurance?

Originally Posted by JMS

And while her family was waiting for the insurance company to get off of their duff why wasn't the mother and father harrassing the doctors until they did the transplant or call every charity organisation and every person they know, or have a fundraising drive to get the money they needed to get the transplant done?

Excuse me? Is this acceptable? Should this be required? Should they have to lower themselves to harrassing doctors and begging for money?

The insurance company execs should be tarred and feathered, and then caned for good measure. doing what you describe should never be necessary.

Originally Posted by JMS

And there will be more. They will hunt high and low, turn over every rock to prove we need a national system, all the while ignoring the flaws in the system they are touting.
how would you like to be turned away from the hospital at 65 because your worth to the government is less than the cost of care you need and unlike our system now you will have no other choice than to comply.

Dammit Mark. why are you intent on saying things that are not true.
I get care from cradle to coffin, so where does this number of 65 years come from? The government pays the bills. The doctors provide the care.

Originally Posted by Leighton

The insurance company should not be in the business of finding any and all excuses to deny claims.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd say the insurance company, being a business either privately owned or publicly listed with shareholders to satisfy, would definitely be expected to minimise its exposure to costs. That's one of the things businesses do to remain competitive.

What the insurance company should not be in the business of (sorry, awful grammar, I know) is being the sole enabler of healthcare. Cars and houses are one thing, life is another. I would not want my healthcare enabler to see me and my family as just a number on a balance sheet, or just another car/house/commodity to cover.

But being put in that position, it's not shocking what they do -- the problem is they never should be in that position to begin with. Not for health and life.

Originally Posted by majurey

Playing devil's advocate, I'd say the insurance company, being a business either privately owned or publicly listed with shareholders to satisfy, would definitely be expected to minimise its exposure to costs. That's one of the things businesses do to remain competitive.

What the insurance company should not be in the business of (sorry, awful grammar, I know) is being the sole enabler of healthcare. Cars and houses are one thing, life is another. I would not want my healthcare enabler to see me and my family as just a number on a balance sheet, or just another car/house/commodity to cover.

But being put in that position, it's not shocking what they do -- the problem is they never should be in that position to begin with. Not for health and life.

I agree. A business needs to keep its costs down in order to maximize profits. People need to do that too. Donating to charity does not maximize profits. You finish the analogy.

And that is one of the reasons I think the current system is broken.

I find it more reprehensible that the insurance company denied her claim after collecting her insurance premiums for so long. Its one thing to simply deny coverage at all because of a "preexisting condition," but its another to provide that person with coverage and the belief they are covered, and then to deny it all because its preexisting. Well, if your going to deny coverage, you should do so before taking someone's money; not after.

That said, I still have problems for denying insurance coverage for preexisting conditions. Bothers me deep down inside. Even though it makes sense rationally.

The very point is when you need expensive health care or just care you can't afford why should you have go to begging for help? Why should you have to beg the hospital to take you as a charity case? Why should you have to attempt and embarass the insurance company to cover you? Why should you have to denigrate yourself to get the care you need?

Unfortunately I think with many people its the old dog eat dog mentality. Well I have great insurance, I'm well taken care of. What you have no insurance? That's your problem not mine. or, I'm not going to pay for someones else's problem and possibly degrade my own situation to boot.

There are just some problems where the Govt has to go and do the right thing. I'm sure many here would object to Social security if that was being debated today and many would object to medicare if that hadn't been passed years ago. The same with SSI and welfare too.

I'm out of this fight.
Enjoy your third world society.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Dammit Mark. why are you intent on saying things that are not true.
I get care from cradle to coffin, so where does this number of 65 years come from? The government pays the bills. The doctors provide the care.

Oh this is great Bruno! Idon't think I ever seen you cuss

Lets start with this:10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care - Brief Analysis #649

Originally Posted by JMS

Lets start with this:10 Surprising Facts about American Health*Care - Brief Analysis #649

No one wants to be like Canada anyway.....

But seriously, most of those stats are comparing Canada to the US. I don't know what to make of that.

As for the other stats, its a conceded point that the US has better "rare disease" care than other countries.