The House is about to socialize your medicine, and your life.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Can you rephrase that in English?

And you seem awfully selective about what sorts of self-induced things should be covered by insurance. Sure some diabetic people are genetically at risk...and some aren't. I'd submit that you'd need to make that distinction if you don't want to cover perfectly legal elective abortions in this health plan while covering all sorts of other situations people put themselves into.

But again, what you won't answer is whether or not you think that pregnant women's prenatal care should be covered by insurance, but not abortion....you get to the same spot the same way, so what gives?

This isnt about prenatal care , so no I wont answer your question. This is about the federal government paying for an abortion , you want them to and I dont.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Honu

This isnt about prenatal care , so no I wont answer your question. This is about the federal government paying for an abortion , you want them to and I dont.

It's about restricing an insurance plan's ability to cover an abortion, which they currently already do.

So you have a problem with legal medical procedures being covered because you just don't like them?

And prenatal care is perfectly relevant to the point, and the reason why you're pretending the two are not related is because it blows a hole open in what you're saying and proves the obvious logic problem presented by your argument, because the same action creates the same situation, but depending on the next choice, you change your mind about what insurance companies should be able to offer. Then again, anti-choicers aren't particularly well-known for being consistent or logical.

That being -- you're incredibly concerned about people having sex and getting pregnant and insurance companies being able to pay for it, because it was their fault they went and had sex and got pregnant and don't want the baby. But you're not concerned one bit about people having sex and getting pregnant and insurance companies being able to pay for it because it was their fault they went and had sex and got pregnant and do want the baby?

I appreciate your incredible transparency.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Honu

This isnt about prenatal care , so no I wont answer your question. This is about the federal government paying for an abortion , you want them to and I dont.

But Honu..they are LEGAL

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Honu

This isnt about prenatal care , so no I wont answer your question. This is about the federal government paying for an abortion , you want them to and I dont.

you know I'm on the right but a few hundred bucks up front rather than have an 'unwanted baby' who takes 18 yrs to mature at a minimum makes sense to abort IMO. $500 now or $50,000 over 18yrs. Maybe some abortion clinic Dr's can even volunteer some for the lazy and needy and call the clinic 'The Alley'. get a reality TV show and the process pays for itself. Illegals get a free abortion, w/one fake implant for (identification purposes)

[Honu]

Originally Posted by GBBob

But Honu..they are LEGAL

I never said they werent legal GB, where in this thread have I ever said that .
You know what else is legal , drinking beer , so lets have a government program to pay for beer.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Private insurance companies do exactly that. They can even take it back after they sign a contract to do so and you've paid them. They can even take it back after they have said they would pay. They can drop an insured at any time, at their whim, as there are no laws to hold them to their side of the contract. The majority of bankruptcies in America are due to insured people paying for healthcare (google, Dell, it's everywhere).

In this, the wealthiest and most generous of countries, where all are created equal, we have thousands of our citizens getting extremely ill and dying every year because they cannot get regular basic health coverage, or they are ill and their insurance company pulls the rug out from under them and they lose their savings and their house and all they worked for their entire life.

And that is why decades have been spent trying to get health care reform instituted. Thank goodness there is a real chance of that.

That is completely untrue. Private health insurance companies cannot drop whoever they want. If insurance companies could drop people at any time, they would probably drop anyone that needed an expensive operation. If they found out that a person had cancer and that there were going to be tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, they would probably drop that person if they could. Insurance companies would probably drop anyone that consistently had high medical bills if they could.

They can't do that. What they can do, is drop people that lied to them about a pre-existing condition. If you get medical insurance tomorrow and you don't disclose that you have diabetes, cancer, or some other condition, then the insurance company can drop you. That is the only way they can drop you.

Here are a couple of articles that talk about these issues. Here is a quote from one article: "By law a health insurer can't drop you, provided you pay your premiums in a timely fassion."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Here is another article about the issue. Here is a quote from the article: "A surprising number of patients have been in the middle of costly treatment for a serious disease only to have their policies canceled, sometimes even retroactively, and found themselves responsible for astronomical bills. It’s called rescission."

“It’s a secret program that if you have a serious illness … or are on costly medications, when they get the bills, they go through [your file] and look at your application … and get medical records from the last several years. And if they find an inconsistency in your application, even if it’s an honest mistake, your policy is rescinded,” says Shernoff. “It’s a very harsh punishment visited upon a lot of people.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20186938/

This is an example of what I was talking about. They can cancel your policy if they can prove that you failed to disclose a pre-existing condition.

[GenuineRisk]

brian, going back to your earlier post about looking for information on the health care proposal(s)- I highly recommend factcheck.org for unbiased information. Here are some links I found interesting:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/sev...t-health-care/

(From August; dismantles the "illegal immigrants will get free health care" claim)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/clu...adillac-plans/

Addresses a misleading AFL-CIO commercial about the plan

In the end, the problem with our current system is that it's based on an insurance industry- and the problem with that is that insurance is meant to protect you against an unlikely, but expensive, occurrence (flood, fire, theft, etc). So a lot of people pay a relatively little amount of money to a company that makes money because it seldom has to pay out anything. It makes its money not on the people who do experience fire or flood or theft, but on the ones who don't. Health care is not unlikely; we're all going to need it at some point in our lives, and, to some extent, every year. So you're putting your necessity (health care) in the arms of an industry that makes its money by not providing service for a necessity.

I have reasonably good insurance, but I'm dealing with a limit on physical therapy visits, and the physical issue I'm being seen for (bum shoulder) is not clearing up. But my visit limit is up and the fact that I'm still in pain every day is not the insurance company's concern. I have a friend who spent 2 years of her life on crutches because her insurance fought her doctor on a knee replacement, claiming she was too young (she was 33). So, two years in the prime of her life, she couldn't walk, because the insurance company didn't want to pay. (Though they cheerfully shelled out for the antidepressants she was put on as a result of being almost suicidally depressed about being unable to walk.) They finally caved, but she'll never get those 2 years back.

It's gotta change. Who knows if this bill will end up being any good (the Senate can screw up a lot of stuff), but we're closer than we've been at any time before.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is an example of what I was talking about. They can cancel your policy if they can prove that you failed to disclose a pre-existing condition.

And the insurance companies are stretching the legal laws to the limit to do this, and rewarding employees who find ways to drop clients. Here's a charming story about a woman who got dumped after a $30,000 cyst surgery on her scalp, because she hadn't reported on her original form that sometimes her back felt sore after playing soccer:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/0...-check-and-be/

In the same article a woman had her policy cancelled after an serious accident costing $150,000 because her HUSBAND had injured his back ten years before. Because, of course, that had everything to do with her accident.

And another article on it:

http://www.litigationandtrial.com/20...sian-roulette/

Fact is, these insurance companies go in AFTER you've incurred a major medical situation, and scour your records for anything, anything that they could use against you. It might not even be related to your current situation; it doesn't matter. And you can say, "But... but... technically they aren't canceling coverage" but the end result is exactly the same. You end up with bills you can't pay and the insurance company maintains their record profits. They're happy to take your money while you're healthy, but when it's time to provide service, forget it.

Yeah just forget about the fact that they lied on the application. It's them evil insurance companies with their record 1% profit!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Yeah just forget about the fact that they lied on the application. It's them evil insurance companies with their record 1% profit!

In some sense I get that -- but what about the "well, your husband beat you up once and you didn't tell us, so your domestic violence is a pre-existing condition?"

Isn't something in the middle a bit better? People have been removed from coverage because they didn't report that they had bad acne in their youth, and the insurance companies dropped them once they got cancer.

Do you not think that there's a significant enough (albeit still, a small percentage, of course) amount of evidence that many of these recissions are not, in fact, done in good faith?

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

In some sense I get that -- but what about the "well, your husband beat you up once and you didn't tell us, so your domestic violence is a pre-existing condition?"

Isn't something in the middle a bit better? People have been removed from coverage because they didn't report that they had bad acne in their youth, and the insurance companies dropped them once they got cancer.

Do you not think that there's a significant enough (albeit still, a small percentage, of course) amount of evidence that many of these recissions are not, in fact, done in good faith?

Life isn't perfect. Even if the government completely socializes health care there will still be mistakes.

Plus the acne deal that Obama talked about was a half-truth. She also had a rapid heartbeat.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is completely untrue. Private health insurance companies cannot drop whoever they want. If insurance companies could drop people at any time, they would probably drop anyone that needed an expensive operation.

No it is not completely untrue. They do, Rupert. They indeed do. I have been with the same insurance company for some years. I declared all my pre-existing conditions. The insurance company agreed to cover me. Last year I had a procedure. The insurance company approved payment. Six months later, they said they changed their minds.

And the reason, I swear this is in the letter, was: "When we first insured you, and you declared this pre-existing condition, we should have excluded it, but we didn't. We are now. "

That is recission, just to make money.

And the choice given me was: Now pay thousands of dollars out of my own pocket to cover a procedure the insurance company already approved payment for, and stay insured. OR I can "drop" my insurance, and get reimbursement for every premium I have ever paid over the years - MINUS any payments the insurance company has made on my part.

I have already pursued the company through my State insurance board, there is nothing the state can do, there are no regulations covering consumer protection for the insurance industry. I am sueing them, but they have more lawyer than I do, so I'm sure that will come out poorly.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Fact is, these insurance companies go in AFTER you've incurred a major medical situation, and scour your records for anything, anything that they could use against you. It might not even be related to your current situation; it doesn't matter. And you can say, "But... but... technically they aren't canceling coverage" but the end result is exactly the same. You end up with bills you can't pay and the insurance company maintains their record profits. They're happy to take your money while you're healthy, but when it's time to provide service, forget it.

Exactly. I was talking to a person in the U KY billing department, and she said the major insurance companies are retroactively denying claims they have already approved and paid in record numbers, demanding reimbursement from the hospital, telling the hospital they have retroactively applied recission.

And it's because they have divisions that go back through medical records, months after the fact in some cases.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Next week all the closet communists will be pushing the house to pass their latest debacle of a "health care" bill.

Here's a link where one congresswoman in the opposition talks about what's about to happen to all of us should it pass:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/03/...n-health-care/

If you want the pro-socialist position, turn on any TV station except Fox News. The most bold socialists can be found on MSNBC...Chris Matthews and Keith Ogreman easily will shovel all the pro Big Brother commentary you can stand.

do you know what socialism is? i laugh at people with the "socialism" craze, thats the new buzz word to scare people. whether it passes or not its not socialism. one moron hears another one cry socialism and that must be it. you can borrow my copy of das kapital by karl marx and find out what it really is. surplus value is profits and profits are not allowed in socialism. in other words the state owns all business. thats socialism. when we get anywhere close to that i'll let you know. i'm kind of getting tired of the "we are all going to be commies talk" from people that don't have a clue what it is. its called reading you should really try it sometime. instead of listening to the fools on tv. our economy is modeled after adam smith not karl marx for your information.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

do you know what socialism is? i laugh at people with the "socialism" craze, thats the new buzz word to scare people. whether it passes or not its not socialism. one moron hears another one cry socialism and that must be it. you can borrow my copy of das kapital by karl marx and find out what it really is. surplus value is profits and profits are not allowed in socialism. in other words the state owns all business. thats socialism. when we get anywhere close to that i'll let you know. i'm kind of getting tired of the "we are all going to be commies talk" from people that don't have a clue what it is. its called reading you should really try it sometime. instead of listening to the fools on tv. our economy is modeled after adam smith not karl marx for your information.

when your combined total taxes; income, sales, property and all the licenses needed exceeds 50% of your income you're working for the government 'redistribution program' no matter what you want to call it. Chicago is becoming occupied as the govt. owned/built highway known as the Skyway has been leased to a French conglomerate and the city's parking meters to a german company. Now they're talking about bringing in a foreign company to sell water to us out of our lake purified and pumped by our equipment. That's not socialism that's occupation!

[Cannon Shell]

Genuine risk-Why do you think that your friend with the bum knee will be treated any better in a govt run system?

Riot- Real tort reform would put your own personal legal situation in much better standing.

BWS-Comparing abortion and diabetes is a real stretch considering how one is a lifetime health issue complicated by several different variables and the other is generally a one-time lifestyle choice.

If abortion is considered an elective surgery in the vast majority of cases, why would it be covered by a basic coverage program that the govt would be providing?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm pretty sure the penis acts as the driver and the car. I'm sure its easy to lose control and have it be the penis' fault.

what do either of you know about a penis and what drives it? Its not like either of you ever wanted to be behind the wheel anyway.

I really don't know how I feel about the issue. I like the right to choose but the idea of whether it should be covered brings us into some very murky waters especially if it is a federally managed program.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

In some sense I get that -- but what about the "well, your husband beat you up once and you didn't tell us, so your domestic violence is a pre-existing condition?"

Isn't something in the middle a bit better? People have been removed from coverage because they didn't report that they had bad acne in their youth, and the insurance companies dropped them once they got cancer.

Do you not think that there's a significant enough (albeit still, a small percentage, of course) amount of evidence that many of these recissions are not, in fact, done in good faith?

It's not as if a person writes an essay on an application. You answer specific questions. So it wouldn't be a matter of omitting something. It would be a matter of marking "no" on a question where you should have marked "yes". If they ask you if you ever were treated for acne and the answer is "yes" but you marked "no", then I wouldn't call that an honest mistake. That would be an intentional lie.

[Nascar1966]

Im glad im switching my insurance to a different one so I dont have to deal with the BS of this health care plan that might be approved. I get to keep private hospitals. The only way an abortion should be approved under this new plan is if it involves a life threatening situation. What is going to be done with an illegal who crosses the border and hatches thier kid across the border? Is the one who was hatched going to be covered under this plan or both? If you ask me neither should be covered. We all know why the illegal mother came across the border to hatch thier kid.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

No it is not completely untrue. They do, Rupert. They indeed do. I have been with the same insurance company for some years. I declared all my pre-existing conditions. The insurance company agreed to cover me. Last year I had a procedure. The insurance company approved payment. Six months later, they said they changed their minds.

And the reason, I swear this is in the letter, was: "When we first insured you, and you declared this pre-existing condition, we should have excluded it, but we didn't. We are now. "

That is recission, just to make money.

And the choice given me was: Now pay thousands of dollars out of my own pocket to cover a procedure the insurance company already approved payment for, and stay insured. OR I can "drop" my insurance, and get reimbursement for every premium I have ever paid over the years - MINUS any payments the insurance company has made on my part.

I have already pursued the company through my State insurance board, there is nothing the state can do, there are no regulations covering consumer protection for the insurance industry. I am sueing them, but they have more lawyer than I do, so I'm sure that will come out poorly.

That is surprising to me. By law, I don't understand how they can do that. Maybe the laws are different in different states.