Responding to post 9/11 Republicans

[JeffM]

Um, no it's not.

Um, yes it is.  

Of course, believing an arrogant freeper Republican lawyer can differentiate simple concepts of right from wrong is like believing that a camel can go through the eye of a needle....  

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/13/cancer.insurance.finances/index.html

"...in 2007, 62 percent of personal bankruptcies were because of medical debts. The same study indicated that in 1981, only 8 percent of bankruptcy filings could be traced to medical bills."

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study examining U.S. health insurance policies generally found that from 1999 to 2009, the average family premium more than doubled. The Elders say that over the life of their Nationwide Insurance policy, their premiums nearly quadrupled.

The Elders believe that their health insurance premiums soared higher than those of the average family because of Leslie's previous cancer diagnosis.

"What is the message here? Survive cancer but then go drop dead because we can't make any money off you anymore?" Leslie Elder asked. "[The insurance companies] figure, 'You're useless. Get lost.' "

[Red Arrow]

Mr. Semantics here.

We should probably stop calling the health care industry "Health Insurance".  Imagine the reaction of a car insurance company if you tried to get collision insurance on a car you had just wrecked.  Hi, I just wrecked my car. I'd like to buy a policy at your good driver rates to get it fixed.

By calling it "Health Care" rather than "Health Insurance", we may change the attitude of taking care of existing conditions.

[JeffM]

First of all, we already have "universal car insurance" enforceable by law.
Yet it's mandatory health insurance that is characterized as "socialist."
  Funny dat.

Secondly, my colon cancer wasn't caused by reckless driving or a momentary lapse of judgment or reckless lifestyle choice.  
Yet, I can be penalized by going to the doctor early at the first onset of symptoms when my disease is treatable versus someone else enjoying lower premiums for years before getting a far more serious and costly disease in their 50s....

Thirdly, private health insurance companies already have the right to play God by denying or jacking up rates for some gay guy with AIDS, or the right to determine which "higher risk" citizens get to play russian roulette with their employer-based health insurance plan due to arbitrarily established pre-existing conditions.  Conditions that vary from plan to plan and from employer to employer and from state to state....
Yet, it's "Obamacare" that we're told will result in "death panels."

Free-Market Death Panels
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/18/free-market_death_panels_97922.html

I became convinced that the insurance company was trying to run out the clock on my husband's life. Had it issued an outright "no," we would have gone to Deaconess, paid for the care ourselves and fought the insurer later. But it always pretended that a possible "yes" could be around the corner.

Having already lost precious time confronting this cancer, we simply rushed to Deaconess. On hearing the story, the head of the chemo program told us: "HMOs don't care whether you live or die. They just want to save money."

My husband underwent the arduous chemo. Meanwhile, powerful people were pulling strings for us with the insurer. Upon learning we had "connections," United Healthcare finally said it would pay.

The cancer came back. This treatment was never a sure thing, but I often wonder how much the delay affected the outcome.

An ex-Marine, my husband was a tough customer. Toward the end, he said to me, "You know, fighting the insurance company was worse than fighting the cancer."

A year after my husband died, I was still receiving medical bills for some of the treatment that United Healthcare had agreed to cover. Oh, they eventually paid. The game is to break you down.

[Red Arrow]

First of all, we already have "universal car insurance" enforceable by law.
Yet it's mandatory health insurance that is characterized as "socialist."
  Funny dat.

You can opt out of Universal Car Insurance by not owning/driving a car.

Pre-existing health conditions... yes I agree they need to be covered.  Pricing is a different issue on how to not drive someone into bankruptcy due to a condition that is not their fault.

[JeffM]

You can opt out of Universal Car Insurance by not owning/driving a car.

Can you say that with a straight face and still live in Tulsa?   

[Red Arrow]

Can you say that with a straight face and still live in Tulsa?   

Tulsa is not the only place in the USA to live. 

If you object to car insurance enough, pick some place like NYC to live.  A friend during my Navy days grew up in NYC and didn't even learn to drive until he was in the Navy.

[nathanm]

Mr. Semantics here.

We should probably stop calling the health care industry "Health Insurance".  Imagine the reaction of a car insurance company if you tried to get collision insurance on a car you had just wrecked.  Hi, I just wrecked my car. I'd like to buy a policy at your good driver rates to get it fixed.

By calling it "Health Care" rather than "Health Insurance", we may change the attitude of taking care of existing conditions.

I could buy into your argument if it weren't for the regularity of health insurance companies using completely irrelevant minor mistakes on the application to rescind the policy after someone gets sick. It's like failing to disclose a parking ticket to your auto insurance company resulting in your policy being canceled and no benefits paid when you have a crash after paying premiums for ten years.

[we vs us]

The reason that health insurance and health care are now nearly synonymous is that health insurance is now a virtual necessity to receive care.  Care is now so expensive that it's impossible to pay out of pocket and still remain solvent.  Unlike car insurance, where most anyone can afford the minimum amount of required coverage.  The two industries are similar in that they're called "insurance," but their relationship to the things they insure are very different.

[Red Arrow]

My distinction between "insurance" and "care" is that insurance is used to cover events that may or may not happen in the future.  You are betting they will.  The "insurance" companies are betting they won't.  When covering existing conditions, there is no bet, just expense.  As I noted earlier, pre-existing conditions need to be covered in today's world.  Therefore, in my mind they are no longer insurance companies but care companies to spread the cost around.  There will be overhead no matter whether it is run by an inefficient government agency or by (hopefully) more efficient but profit making private enterprises.

I also won't argue that the "health insurance" companies are looking for any excuse to take your money and then not pay out.  I've even had that problem with a Flexible Spending Account which was my money to begin with.

[we vs us]

My distinction between "insurance" and "care" is that insurance is used to cover events that may or may not happen in the future.  You are betting they will.  The "insurance" companies are betting they won't.  When covering existing conditions, there is no bet, just expense.  As I noted earlier, pre-existing conditions need to be covered in today's world.  Therefore, in my mind they are no longer insurance companies but care companies to spread the cost around.  There will be overhead no matter whether it is run by an inefficient government agency or by (hopefully) more efficient but profit making private enterprises.

I also won't argue that the "health insurance" companies are looking for any excuse to take your money and then not pay out.  I've even had that problem with a Flexible Spending Account which was my money to begin with.

I understand the distinction, but my health insurance covers standard office visits as well as a portion of the unforeseen.  But in moderating its risk (encouraging me to seek help before things get catastrophic), my insurance company has chosen to cover all kinds of stuff, most of which isn't "in case of emergency," which is how traditional insurance works.

[Red Arrow]

I understand the distinction, but my health insurance covers standard office visits as well as a portion of the unforeseen.  But in moderating its risk (encouraging me to seek help before things get catastrophic), my insurance company has chosen to cover all kinds of stuff, most of which isn't "in case of emergency," which is how traditional insurance works.

Which is why there is a blur between health insurance and health care.  As I said earlier, it's semantics.  Attach your own cause, effect, and importance.

[we vs us]

Which is why there is a blur between health insurance and health care.  As I said earlier, it's semantics.  Attach your own cause, effect, and importance.

I'm gonna be pissed if we're agreeing on something again.

[Red Arrow]

I'm gonna be pissed if we're agreeing on something again.

Me too.

What can I say?  Stuff happens.

[Conan71]

Moving violations & accidents are essentially "pre-existing conditions" when you are rated for car insurance. Your claims history and credit score also factor into your rates. If you have shopped for car insurance lately, you will notice that insurers no longer look at the last three years for accidents & tickets, they are looking at five years. 

Insurance companies are in the risk business. In order to remain solvent, they must charge higher rates for more obvious risks. They do the same thing in consumer lending as well.

They will always look at any means to justify raising rates as their costs go up. Pretty much how any business operates. 

[Hoss]

Moving violations & accidents are essentially "pre-existing conditions" when you are rated for car insurance. Your claims history and credit score also factor into your rates. If you have shopped for car insurance lately, you will notice that insurers no longer look at the last three years for accidents & tickets, they are looking at five years. 

Insurance companies are in the risk business. In order to remain solvent, they must charge higher rates for more obvious risks. They do the same thing in consumer lending as well.

They will always look at any means to justify raising rates as their costs go up. Pretty much how any business operates. 

Too bad my current auto insurance carrier decided to jack my rates up $70 for no good reason (no claims with them EVER; no violations in the last 10 years).  Time to start looking elsewhere.

Avoid Allstate.