When Getting Beaten By Your Husband Is A Pre-Existing Condition With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits. It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition. Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure. In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence. In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed. All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post. At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006. ------------- what else?
so by that logic anything could be a pre-exisiting condition. Well updawg, you were breathing the last time you were hurt so obviously the more you breathe the more costly you are to insure the whole system is a joke (but I don't know the answer)
ForeignPolicy.com had a piece on debunking US lies about global healthcare. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...eous_us_lies_about_global_healthcare?page=0,0 The 5th one: The lie: The United States has the best health care in the world. The liars: A slew of U.S. presidents, politicians, journalists, commentators, and everyday citizens The debunking: There is one yardstick by which U.S. health care distinguishes itself: cost. The United States spends more -- in total dollars, percentage of GDP, and per capita -- than every other country on Earth. On virtually every other broad metric, the claim that U.S. health care stands for global excellence is demonstrably false. The United States doesn't take a top spot in either the World Health Organization or nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund rankings. The American health-care system is not best in terms of coverage, access, patient safety, efficiency, or cost-effectiveness. It does not produce the best outcomes for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, or diabetes; for the elderly, the middle-aged, or the young; or in terms of life expectancy, rates of chronic diseases, or obesity. Which countries do come out on top? Often -- France, Switzerland, Britain, Canada, and Japan. On the World Health Organization's list, the United States comes out 37th.
And, for an opposing view, here's an article on what's right about American healthcare, from the September 21st issue of The Weekly Standard: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/943pfdxe.asp?pg=1
When people say that, I think they are usually thinking of the high-end, cutting-edge acute illness treatment, not the statistics on keeping a broad number of people alive and healthy. Of course, 95% of people who say it will not ever avail themselves of this high-end, cutting-edge care and would profit better from systems that perform well statistically, but they'd have a hard time bragging about how the USA was better than everyone else. Still, I don't think that little article demonstrated that the claim was false; it didn't speak to it at all. Completely offtopic, but the argument that mandating some basic coverage for everybody will make insurance too expensive for everyone else always reminds me of this letter to the Undercover Economist: [rquoter]Dear Economist, My time waiting in a bank queue is vastly longer than standing in a supermarket one. How can I reduce my queuing time? Ken Dear Ken, ... [When a temporary bottleneck creates a backlog] ... The solution is elegant and unexpected: new arrivals should go directly to the front, to be served immediately after the current customer. Queues would then be very short, because once a customer was pushed back a couple of places he or she would give up and go home....[/rquoter] But, somehow, I don't think the people who get passed up for healthcare so that others can more easily afford it will just give up and go home.
There's a libertarian argument that the Public Option will drive out its competitors and pave the way for a single payer option. Usually the Post Office is attached to the fear, with claims that the government wouldn't be responsible enough not to lose money off it while offering a lower subsidized premium. While I think it's hard to convince a libertarian otherwise, can't deny it's not possible, even if I think it's unlikely because of our cultural inclinations.
I think it make more sense to evaluate a health care system based on how it provides for the poorest members of society. What's the quality and accessibility of health care for, say, the bottom 20% of Americans compared to other industrialized countries? Any studies on that?
Isn't that pretty easy? Just count how many people are un-insured? America has millions. Canada has zero.
First, it is too expensive: costs must be contained Second, it isn't portable enough: phony waiting periods and such must go Third, games and manipulations are not about people but profits Fourth, it is buried in red tape; the government is largely responsible for this but insurance companies have also created too much paperwork; must be streamlined. Fifth, law suits drive up costs; however patient's rights must be protected, this is tough one. I am not for wholesale tort reform but a balance must be struck on this one. Basically, I don't trust the government or the insurance companies, but there is no question that reform is needed; the question is what form in takes. With this Congress my hopes are not high. Politics will always distort the final outcome. To model after England or Canada would be a mistake. We need a genius to arise and offer ideas that everyone can agree to. My fundamental belief is that health should not be for sale, the right to life is basic. However, the economics are not such that everyone can receive quality care, therefore, rationing is inevitable. I am yet to hear ideas on how to resolve this issue that really excite me.
Given your last statement above, I'm curious as to why you wouldn't want a system modeled after England or Canada. Why is that? And what about one modeled after France? As I understand it, the people in those countries are pretty happy with their health care. And you never hear them talk about a need for reform.
Because our histories are so different, our present is different, we are just different. Economic problems are currently plaguing their systems and patients do encounter greater waits than currently is the case in the U.S. I am not saying the U.S. system isn't a mess and needs reform, but don't think "copying" other systems will solve the problems. It is going to have to be something distinctively American probably much like we have now, an intersection of the private and public sectors.
didn't want to start a new thread, but wanted to say... Happy Trails Ms Travers <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3t4g_1VoGw4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3t4g_1VoGw4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary dead at 72
Nothing is wrong with private health care. Don't you want an insurance company that tries its best to cancel your policy when you need it? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html In Febuary 2008, a private arbitration judge in Los Angeles ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient whose health insurance it revoked shortly after her diagnosis and while she was undergoing chemotherapy. The plaintiff in that case, Patsy Bates, a then-52-year-old grandmother and hair-salon owner, was unable to continue her chemotherapy for several months. During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policyholders they had rescinded. The judge who awarded Bates the $9 million said in his decision: "It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive."
That is why we need protection for the insurance industry so they can deny deny deny and can't be taken to court either.
I wasn't as concerned about the individual case (the one I actually quoted wasn't the focus of the article - there was another one in there that was the primary focus). I was mostly interested in the bolded part. That's a perverse incentive structure that encourages abuse. Similar to the ACORN structure of paying minimum wage employees a bonus for each voter they register.
