PDA

View Full Version : Is This What We Really Want??



llotter
03-18-2010, 04:03 PM
A Robert Reich quote about progressive healthcare reform:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is what the truth is...If you are very old, we're not going to give you all of that technology and all of those drugs...to keep you alive. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die...(We're) going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government...to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. That means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents.
</div></div>

LWW
03-18-2010, 04:31 PM
That's what some of us want ... all power in the hands of dearest leader.

LWW

sack316
03-19-2010, 02:45 AM
no way. Now that's just crazy talk /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Sev
03-19-2010, 06:20 AM
This bill is a monumental nightmare.

Just because you have coverage does not mean you will receive care.

Over 2000 pages of BS to achieve some simple reforms. Plus its full of other things other than health care.

Constitutional challenges are already being prepared by the attorney generals of many states. Lavin's group has their case prepared already.
I have never witnessed such corruption in the process from any group that has been in power in Washington. The will of the people and the constitution are being trampled on not help Americans but rather simply stake a claim that they passed something they dont even believe is health care reform.

I would like to remind everybody that the insurance firm that denies health care the most is the US government. Its medicare and medicaid. This bill does nothing to address either and both are bankrupt.
Does anybody really thing that the 4 years of taxes they collect in advance is actually going to stay in a lock box? Take a close look at Soc Sec. Washington is incapable of saving money.
This will end very badly in under 10 years if this thing becomes law as it stands.

Qtec
03-19-2010, 07:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the truth is...If you are very old, we're not going to give you all of that technology and all of those drugs...to keep you alive. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. </div></div>

These days, its not only the old.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Underweight Girl Denied Insurance Coverage
Parents Says 2-Year-Old Girl Perfectly Healthy
By Lance Hernandez, 7NEWS Reporter

POSTED: 5:56 pm MDT October 19, 2009
UPDATED: 11:56 am MDT October 20, 2009
ERIE, Colo. -- <u>First it was a 4-month-old Grand Junction boy who was denied health insurance coverage because, at 17 pounds, he was considered overweight. Now comes word that a 2-year-old Erie girl has also been denied coverage because she doesn't weigh enough.</u>

Aislin Bates weighed 6 pounds, 6 ounces at birth. She now tips the scale at 22 pounds.

"She's perfectly healthy, yet she has become a statistic," said Aislin's mother, Rachel Bates. "There's no reason for her to be a statistic as a non-insured person."

When Aislin's father, Rob, worked for another company, Aislin was covered under the company’s group health insurance plan.

Now that Rob is working on his own, he's had to get new insurance. The company, UnitedHealthcare's Golden Rule, sent the family a letter, which says in part, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company standards."</span></div></div>

We don't want no Govt control.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try this one out: You're a stay-at-home mom who has had two sons via Caesarean Section. Your husband is self employed, and you are in the market for health insurance. You find a large, well known provider who will cover your family with just one hitch: you must get sterilized first.

No, this is not some brave new Gattaca-esque world, where we've decided to hone a race of super humans by selectively weeding out the weaker of the species. This is America, where C-sections occur in more than 30% of all births, and where Colorado mom Peggy Robertson, who is in good health, was told to stop reproducing so Golden Rule Insurance, a subsidiary of United Health Group, could profit from her policy.

Yes, really. Golden Rule was even kind enough to provide unapologetic reasoning in a detailed letter:

"As a general rule, our underwriting guidelines require that we issue coverage with a rider excluding benefits for caesarean section delivery for three years. However, the Colorado Division of Insurance no longer allows us to place that rider... <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Unfortunately, we cannot collect sufficient premium to offset the risk of paying for a repeat C-section delivery during the first three years of coverage...In order to consider coverage without a rider, we require...some sort of sterilization. </span>"

Translation: Your state forbids us from denying you coverage for a C-section, so we've decided to deny you coverage, period! Oh, unless you get sterilized.
</div></div>

For years American's fates have been decided by anonymous managers, in far off offices, with your request for an Op in one hand and his bonus projection sheet in the other.

What to do?


Q

Stretch
03-19-2010, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the truth is...If you are very old, we're not going to give you all of that technology and all of those drugs...to keep you alive. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. </div></div>

These days, its not only the old.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Underweight Girl Denied Insurance Coverage
Parents Says 2-Year-Old Girl Perfectly Healthy
By Lance Hernandez, 7NEWS Reporter

POSTED: 5:56 pm MDT October 19, 2009
UPDATED: 11:56 am MDT October 20, 2009
ERIE, Colo. -- <u>First it was a 4-month-old Grand Junction boy who was denied health insurance coverage because, at 17 pounds, he was considered overweight. Now comes word that a 2-year-old Erie girl has also been denied coverage because she doesn't weigh enough.</u>

Aislin Bates weighed 6 pounds, 6 ounces at birth. She now tips the scale at 22 pounds.

"She's perfectly healthy, yet she has become a statistic," said Aislin's mother, Rachel Bates. "There's no reason for her to be a statistic as a non-insured person."

When Aislin's father, Rob, worked for another company, Aislin was covered under the company’s group health insurance plan.

Now that Rob is working on his own, he's had to get new insurance. The company, UnitedHealthcare's Golden Rule, sent the family a letter, which says in part, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company standards."</span></div></div>

We don't want no Govt control.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try this one out: You're a stay-at-home mom who has had two sons via Caesarean Section. Your husband is self employed, and you are in the market for health insurance. You find a large, well known provider who will cover your family with just one hitch: you must get sterilized first.

No, this is not some brave new Gattaca-esque world, where we've decided to hone a race of super humans by selectively weeding out the weaker of the species. This is America, where C-sections occur in more than 30% of all births, and where Colorado mom Peggy Robertson, who is in good health, was told to stop reproducing so Golden Rule Insurance, a subsidiary of United Health Group, could profit from her policy.

Yes, really. Golden Rule was even kind enough to provide unapologetic reasoning in a detailed letter:

"As a general rule, our underwriting guidelines require that we issue coverage with a rider excluding benefits for caesarean section delivery for three years. However, the Colorado Division of Insurance no longer allows us to place that rider... <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Unfortunately, we cannot collect sufficient premium to offset the risk of paying for a repeat C-section delivery during the first three years of coverage...In order to consider coverage without a rider, we require...some sort of sterilization. </span>"

Translation: Your state forbids us from denying you coverage for a C-section, so we've decided to deny you coverage, period! Oh, unless you get sterilized.
</div></div>

For years American's fates have been decided by anonymous managers, in far off offices, with your request for an Op in one hand and his bonus projection sheet in the other.

What to do?


Q

</div></div>

And they call this freedom? St.

pooltchr
03-19-2010, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
For years American's fates have been decided by anonymous managers, in far off offices, with your request for an Op in one hand and his bonus projection sheet in the other.

What to do?


Q

</div></div>

You have posed an interesting question. And while I don't claim to have all the answers, I do not believe that transferring the decision making process from the insurance companies to the government is going to make things any better, and in fact, could very well end up compounding the problem.

Steve

LWW
03-19-2010, 10:29 AM
Surely you aren't implying that the state could be uncaring?

LWW

eg8r
03-19-2010, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For years American's fates have been decided by anonymous managers, in far off offices, with your request for an Op in one hand and his bonus projection sheet in the other.

What to do?
</div></div>Surely not government healthcare.

eg8r