NYT: Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print

Ableton

Love Inside
7+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2009
184
2
141
Status
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html#

WASHINGTON — Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.Mr. Obama, speaking at a health care rally in northern Virginia on March 19, said, "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

The authors of the law say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide those youngsters with access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.

To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear.

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the "availability of coverage" for all until 2014.
My jaw is dropped in disbelief at their audacity. I suppose they're going to have to put the champagne back on ice.
 
Sep 20, 2009
117
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
"If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."
WOWOW are they kidding?!
 

aDreamer

7+ Year Member
Dec 9, 2009
163
0
141
Ithaca, NY
Status
Medical Student
"Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

Disgusting.
 

bannie22

Hero
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 6, 2009
3,693
1,105
181
They are a business....
If I owned an insurance company I would be pretty pissed off that the government is trying to make me go broke overnight...

Imagine if just a 100 sick children requiring tens of thousands of dollars each annually signed up for a standerdized insurance policy of maybe a couple hundred a year.


I'm really closing shop huh?
=/
 

Hernandez

Paranoid and Crotchety...
10+ Year Member
May 14, 2004
21,138
6,694
281
knee deep in dog muck and crusty jugglers......
Status
Attending Physician
WOWOW are they kidding?!
That they are going to charge more for insurees who cost more? Does I sound like a joke? You think a company is just going to take a loss t insure propel jut because congress throws a hissy fit and can't pass a economics class?
 
Jan 15, 2010
106
7
0
Status
Resident [Any Field]
"Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

Disgusting.
I love liberal idealism that leaves no room for simple logic.

Imagine yourself owning a business, and the federal government comes in FORCING you to sell a product at such a price, and to such a large number of customers, that you know your business would not survive. This federal bullying is not the answer to anything, folks. Insurance companies would go under, and we'd be left with crappy medicaid-type care for all.

Anyone who is appalled at a private business deciding with whom they do business and at what price should move to a fully socialist country. Any person who thinks the government should have the right to FORCE them into such business should move to a communist country.

The choice we face with private insurance (the only high quality coverage remaining) is the following: push them into non-existence or be happy with the fact that they're currently providing a significant proportion of the population with good health care.

If your attitude is "if everyone can't have it, then nobody should," then I repeat: please move to China.
 

elektroshok

10+ Year Member
Jun 12, 2007
799
88
271
I love liberal idealism that leaves no room for simple logic.

Imagine yourself owning a business, and the federal government comes in FORCING you to sell a product at such a price, and to such a large number of customers, that you know your business would not survive. This federal bullying is not the answer to anything, folks. Insurance companies would go under, and we'd be left with crappy medicaid-type care for all.

Anyone who is appalled at a private business deciding with whom they do business and at what price should move to a fully socialist country. Any person who thinks the government should have the right to FORCE them into such business should move to a communist country.

The choice we face with private insurance (the only high quality coverage remaining) is the following: push them into non-existence or be happy with the fact that they're currently providing a significant proportion of the population with good health care.

If your attitude is "if everyone can't have it, then nobody should," then I repeat: please move to China.
:thumbup:

Good to see there are still some rational people here...
 
Jun 3, 2009
12
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Sorry, that's not an accurate reading of the bill. The legislation has something called "community rating" -- do you know what that is? It means that insurance premiums can only vary within a certain ratio. The bill allows rating based on factors like age (3:1) and tobacco use (1.5 to 1). Insurers are NOT allowed to vary premiums based on pre-existing conditions.


lol who didn't see this coming?

When the law is clarified and insurance companies MUST allow all to have insurance - then you know what?

The fees will be amazingly high for those with preexisting conditions to such a degree that the consumer won't be able to afford it anyways -- however, at least they weren't "denied" coverage.

Garbage. Oh well. :)
 

Drexon

10+ Year Member
Apr 26, 2007
138
3
241
Southern California
Status
Medical Student
[QUOTE

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

[/QUOTE]

lol don't you love how the law is up for interpretation. where do these insurance companies find these lawyers to help them interpret the law for them ? i wouldn't mind having someone to cover my back like that =)
 

bannie22

Hero
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 6, 2009
3,693
1,105
181
I love liberal idealism that leaves no room for simple logic.

Imagine yourself owning a business, and the federal government comes in FORCING you to sell a product at such a price, and to such a large number of customers, that you know your business would not survive. This federal bullying is not the answer to anything, folks. Insurance companies would go under, and we'd be left with crappy medicaid-type care for all.

Anyone who is appalled at a private business deciding with whom they do business and at what price should move to a fully socialist country. Any person who thinks the government should have the right to FORCE them into such business should move to a communist country.

The choice we face with private insurance (the only high quality coverage remaining) is the following: push them into non-existence or be happy with the fact that they're currently providing a significant proportion of the population with good health care.

If your attitude is "if everyone can't have it, then nobody should," then I repeat: please move to China.
:rolleyes:
 
Dec 22, 2009
288
3
0
Pennsylvania
Status
Medical Student
Oh look. More ammo to push the move to single payer, entirely govt run health care. And you people don't think the left knows what its doing...
Exactly. They don't care if the whole thing falls flat on its face. They can just point the finger at whatever part of the system is still free-market, make bullies out of them, and impose their real goal.
 
Jan 15, 2010
106
7
0
Status
Resident [Any Field]
so many things wrong with this statement....
Per Wikipedia (not the authority, I know, but it's a start):

"...the PRC government still has almost absolute control over politics, and it continually seeks to eradicate what it perceives as threats to the social, political and economic stability of the country. Examples include the fight against terrorism, jailing of political opponents and journalists, custody regulation of the press, regulation of religion, and suppression of independence/secessionist movements. In 1989, the student protests at Tiananmen Square were violently put to an end by the Chinese military after 15 days of martial law. ...


Since 1949, mainland China is administered by the People's Republic of China—a one-party state under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party—while the island of Taiwan and surrounding islands are administered by the Republic of China—a democratic multi-party state. After the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, both states claimed to be the sole legitimate ruler of all of China. After the Kuomintang retreat to Taiwan in 1949, the Republic of China had maintained official diplomatic relations with most states around the world, but by the 1970s, a shift had occurred in international diplomatic circles and the People's Republic of China gained the upper hand in international diplomatic relations and recognition count."
 

dingyibvs

Psych!
10+ Year Member
Sep 13, 2007
5,444
8
251
Florida
Status
Medical Student
golyte dude, you cant be serious. theres nothing factually wrong with the wiki excerpt, but if you're using that to argue your point then you are seriously misguided.
 

mcgyver

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 12, 2007
325
1
141
New York, NY
Status
Medical Student
golyte dude, you cant be serious. theres nothing factually wrong with the wiki excerpt, but if you're using that to argue your point then you are seriously misguided.
true.. china is more of a oligarchy than anything else. hense the huge disparity between rich and poor. connection = win. poor people in china just gets screwed.
 

RogueUnicorn

rawr.
7+ Year Member
Jul 15, 2009
9,746
1,595
181
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I love liberal idealism that leaves no room for simple logic.

Imagine yourself owning a business, and the federal government comes in FORCING you to sell a product at such a price, and to such a large number of customers, that you know your business would not survive. This federal bullying is not the answer to anything, folks. Insurance companies would go under, and we'd be left with crappy medicaid-type care for all.

Anyone who is appalled at a private business deciding with whom they do business and at what price should move to a fully socialist country. Any person who thinks the government should have the right to FORCE them into such business should move to a communist country.

The choice we face with private insurance (the only high quality coverage remaining) is the following: push them into non-existence or be happy with the fact that they're currently providing a significant proportion of the population with good health care.

If your attitude is "if everyone can't have it, then nobody should," then I repeat: please move to China.
yea insurance companies are really struggling.
 
Oct 13, 2008
5,309
904
281
Status
Resident [Any Field]
lol who didn't see this coming?

When the law is clarified and insurance companies MUST allow all to have insurance - then you know what?

The fees will be amazingly high for those with preexisting conditions to such a degree that the consumer won't be able to afford it anyways -- however, at least they weren't "denied" coverage.

Garbage. Oh well. :)
The kicker? Those people with PECs will be legally required to buy the overpriced insurance, lest they be fined!

As much as I dislike the neoconservative republican party, I think the free-market, small-government faction of the republican party needs to emerge and run on PROPER HEALTH CARE REFORM. Obviously the bill now has some huge holes, injustices, etc.--why not campaign on a reform the reform platform? Repealing benefits may not bode well with the peoples, but it seems to me like libertarian ideals are making a resurgence.

Or maybe I'm just making stuff up :laugh:
 

Zarika

7+ Year Member
Jan 9, 2010
217
4
141
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I love liberal idealism that leaves no room for simple logic.

Imagine yourself owning a business, and the federal government comes in FORCING you to sell a product at such a price, and to such a large number of customers, that you know your business would not survive. This federal bullying is not the answer to anything, folks. Insurance companies would go under, and we'd be left with crappy medicaid-type care for all.
I couldn't agree more. I'm sick of people who are so idealistic they only consider the good, and think nothing of the (realistic) bad.
 

randombetch

Removed
Sep 22, 2009
1,146
3
0
Status
Pre-Medical
What do you expect profit-driven business owners to do? To pay out of their own pockets for the sick?

The more people hate the insurance companies --> the greater the negative stigma towards insurance companies --> the fewer people want to start their own insurance companies --> insurance companies have higher markup.
 
Mar 11, 2010
947
9
0
Status
Pre-Medical
It's all just a race to the bottom.

Anywhere they think they can squeeze costs, they will. Ultimately, the problem is that demand for the very best and costly care is outstripping supply.
 

pretender

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 30, 2008
27
0
91
Status
What do you expect profit-driven business owners to do? To pay out of their own pockets for the sick?

The more people hate the insurance companies --> the greater the negative stigma towards insurance companies --> the fewer people want to start their own insurance companies --> insurance companies have higher markup.
--> more people complain about the mean money making CEOs --> progressives make it even harder for insurance companies to survive --> companies eventually fold under the economic pressure ---> government saves the day --> rainbows and butterflies!
 
Mar 11, 2010
947
9
0
Status
Pre-Medical
The recipe for success: The unlimited ability to draw on the world's economic resources.
 

MedStudentWanna

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,993
7
0
Status
Sorry, that's not an accurate reading of the bill. The legislation has something called "community rating" -- do you know what that is? It means that insurance premiums can only vary within a certain ratio. The bill allows rating based on factors like age (3:1) and tobacco use (1.5 to 1). Insurers are NOT allowed to vary premiums based on pre-existing conditions.
Please educate yourself. Thanks.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/24/health_care_reform_welcome_to_ny_america_98390.html
 

Geekchick921

Achievement Unlocked: MD
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2007
8,829
165
281
34
Status
Resident [Any Field]
"Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

Disgusting.
Yup.

And for the record, I couldn't give less of a crap about insurance companies taking a hit from this. I care about the families of sick kids who shouldn't have to worry about possible 6-figure medical bills on top of their child's illness.
 

7starmantis

10+ Year Member
Jul 10, 2008
8,453
4,533
281
Three Sheets to the Wind
Yup.

And for the record, I couldn't give less of a crap about insurance companies taking a hit from this. I care about the families of sick kids who shouldn't have to worry about possible 6-figure medical bills on top of their child's illness.
Yeah, I'm sure none of those sick kids or their families put food on the table by working in the insurance market. Those evil bastards.

The funniest thing about these kinds of posts is what will happen to said sick kids and their families when we successfully destroy these evil insurance companies. Forward thinking is our friend.
 

Geekchick921

Achievement Unlocked: MD
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2007
8,829
165
281
34
Status
Resident [Any Field]
The funniest thing about these kinds of posts is what will happen to said sick kids and their families when we successfully destroy these evil insurance companies. Forward thinking is our friend.
Um, wait... if they're already being denied coverage, how will that matter?
 

7starmantis

10+ Year Member
Jul 10, 2008
8,453
4,533
281
Three Sheets to the Wind
Um, wait... if they're already being denied coverage, how will that matter?
Not everything is either 100% or 0%. If you think the only way to go is up here, your in for a treat. Lots are being denied coverage and thats terrible. To force companies into insuring them in an economically unsound and unjustified manner is really just advancing ones agenda, not really caring for what will happen to the kids parents, family, etc. Not to mention actually making it happen, as we see its not really working anyway. To turn a blind eye to all other groups while trying to justify "helping" one group is naive. Besides actually helping said group.

Another great win for politicians, brought to you by grievous disconnect from reality.
 

Geekchick921

Achievement Unlocked: MD
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2007
8,829
165
281
34
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Not everything is either 100% or 0%. If you think the only way to go is up here, your in for a treat. Lots are being denied coverage and thats terrible. To force companies into insuring them in an economically unsound and unjustified manner is really just advancing ones agenda, not really caring for what will happen to the kids parents, family, etc. Not to mention actually making it happen, as we see its not really working anyway. To turn a blind eye to all other groups while trying to justify "helping" one group is naive. Besides actually helping said group.

Another great win for politicians, brought to you by grievous disconnect from reality.
Yeah... it was an honest question. No need to jump up my ass or be condescending. I have no delusions it will be all sunshine and puppies from here on out, but I still think the way they're trying to weasel out of it is gross and I still side with others that think so, too.

Thanks for the answer, though.
 

7starmantis

10+ Year Member
Jul 10, 2008
8,453
4,533
281
Three Sheets to the Wind
Yeah... it was an honest question. No need to jump up my ass or be condescending. I have no delusions it will be all sunshine and puppies from here on out, but I still think the way they're trying to weasel out of it is gross and I still side with others that think so, too.

Thanks for the answer, though.
Whoa there tiger. Chilax. No one jumped up your ass or was condescending.
Unless your one of the politicians that worked on writing this bill, I can't even see how you got that from my post. I love communicating via this medium :rolleyes: Everyone reads into the post what they expect and not what is.

Sorry you took it so wrong, didn't mean it that way at all. No one said anything about sunshine and puppies, lol.

I dont know that I would classify it as "weaseling out" but that is par for the course when we start demonizing both insurance and profit in America. This "weaseling out" is called business. Sure we can call it terrible and say we need to do away with capitalism as a whole, pointing to this example of the evils of business. OR, we could come up with actual changes that will not only work, but help everyone involved, not just a select few that tug at our heartstrings.
 

Geekchick921

Achievement Unlocked: MD
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2007
8,829
165
281
34
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Whoa there tiger. Chilax. No one jumped up your ass or was condescending.
Unless your one of the politicians that worked on writing this bill, I can't even see how you got that from my post. I love communicating via this medium :rolleyes: Everyone reads into the post what they expect and not what is.

Sorry you took it so wrong, didn't mean it that way at all. No one said anything about sunshine and puppies, lol.
Tone is so hard to read in message boards. Let's hug it out!

I dont know that I would classify it as "weaseling out" but that is par for the course when we start demonizing both insurance and profit in America. This "weaseling out" is called business. Sure we can call it terrible and say we need to do away with capitalism as a whole, pointing to this example of the evils of business. OR, we could come up with actual changes that will not only work, but help everyone involved, not just a select few that tug at our heartstrings.
If anyone has a suggestion that WOULD benefit everyone involved, I'd be all about it. I'm all for diplomacy. :thumbup:

BTW, I will fully admit that I'm still raw about a particularly sad story about a 2 year old who passed away earlier this month after her stage 4 neuroblastoma relapsed. On top of burying their daughter, the family has over $100K in medical bills to contend with. That just sucks. So chalk my opinion up to being a hormonal sap. :oops:
 

7starmantis

10+ Year Member
Jul 10, 2008
8,453
4,533
281
Three Sheets to the Wind
Tone is so hard to read in message boards. Let's hug it out!
I like to hug it out. :thumbup:

If anyone has a suggestion that WOULD benefit everyone involved, I'd be all about it. I'm all for diplomacy. :thumbup:

BTW, I will fully admit that I'm still raw about a particularly sad story about a 2 year old who passed away earlier this month after her stage 4 neuroblastoma relapsed. On top of burying their daughter, the family has over $100K in medical bills to contend with. That just sucks. So chalk my opinion up to being a hormonal sap. :oops:
Well, I agree that no one solution is going to help everyone completely, but I personally believe addressing very specific issues (like this one) individually would have given the most "bang for the buck". Allowing us to be very precise with how it was worded, spending the time and effort in writing it effectively, seeing the benefits and problems with is early, and changing it easily. I think less legal battles would have ensued as well.

No, I completely understand your point with the story. I had to stand in a room during my shadowing and listen to a womans family while looking at the volleyball sized gaping gangrenous wound in her chest from untreated breast cancer. That one was a bit different as she was refusing some treatment as well, but I understand the need for coverage, especially children. I just think we need to be careful that we dont band-aid it now and it busts open even worse down the road. Which sadly, appears to be happening a bit with this bill. Huge companies are laying people off, taking huge losses, removing benefits from retirees, etc. I think again, smaller more precise bills could have avoided some of this.

Just my opinions, glad we worked out the harsh thing, I tend to post the way I talk and it comes across wrong. I'm rarely upset at all, but do take everything I post as dripping with sarcasm.... thats just me :D
 
Jun 3, 2009
12
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
According to the AP, the insurance industry is going to accept the Administration's interpretation of these provisions. Let's be clear: yes, this legislation imposes new regulations on insurers. However, they are gaining a substantial amount of new business from the millions who will be newly insured under this bill. No serious analysis predicts that they will face bankruptcy as a result of health reform.

'Insurance industry agrees to fix kids coverage gap,' by AP's Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EOLAU80


'After battling President Barack Obama's health care overhaul the better part of a year, the insurance industry said Monday it won't try to block his efforts to fix a potentially embarrassing glitch in the new law. In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the industry's top lobbyist said insurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year. Quick resolution of the doubts was a win for Obama - and a sign that the industry has no stomach for another war of words with a president who deftly used double-digit rate hikes by the companies to revive his sweeping health care legislation from near collapse in Congress. ... 'Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition,' Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a letter to Sebelius.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html#



My jaw is dropped in disbelief at their audacity. I suppose they're going to have to put the champagne back on ice.
 

Geekchick921

Achievement Unlocked: MD
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Nov 6, 2007
8,829
165
281
34
Status
Resident [Any Field]
It's all good, my man. Oh, and let me just tell you, I chuckle to myself when you give advice on this board, especially because it's good advice, because I imagine it being delivered by the Dave Chapelle character in your avatar picture. :laugh:
 

aDreamer

7+ Year Member
Dec 9, 2009
163
0
141
Ithaca, NY
Status
Medical Student
It may sound extreme, buy I'm of the mindset that if this reform alters the bottom line of some insurance companies in such a way that they lose it all, I say so be it. I'd rather a few monster businesses serve as casualties at this point considering the massive loss of life (and livelihood for that matter) that their practices have long caused directly and indirectly for decades. I say this, not because I think the industry should perish, but because I don't think it will no matter what.

Do I agree that as businessness the bottom line has to matter? Yes. Do I think that bottom line should be defended at ANY cost? Not even close.

Bottom line: if the current companies do end up faltering because of these changes (which I'm not convinced of) yes they may take a hit, but in terms of the whole industry collapsing like some fear-mongerers will try to get you to believe, I'm more convinced that they will innovate as necessary and IN TIME find new balance.

The status quo of their mode of operations needs to change, and nothing but something big to shake up that status quo could do it. Is the reform perfect? Not even close; that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that insurance companies HAVE to change their game and I'm glad that there is now a force to potentially bring that about.

And one last point: we can keep putting insurance companies on the same plane as other businesses to justify their single-minded profit drives, but that just doesn't sit easy with me--because the difference is, we're not talking about barrels of oil, or cases of Coca-cola behind sold and shipped. We're talking about directly putting price tags on human well-being, directly stripping a human life down to numbers and figures. And in light of that, you better believe that I am holding these companies to a different standard.


That's my thoughts. I also recognize that I am pretty biased having grown up in a low-income neighborhood--so keep in mind that this is a big thing coloring my thoughts.

I'd love to hear from others, especially from the opposing viewpoint who can help me see more clearly where the defenders of these companies are coming from. I'm always open.
 

7starmantis

10+ Year Member
Jul 10, 2008
8,453
4,533
281
Three Sheets to the Wind
It's all good, my man. Oh, and let me just tell you, I chuckle to myself when you give advice on this board, especially because it's good advice, because I imagine it being delivered by the Dave Chapelle character in your avatar picture. :laugh:
lol :oops: thanks.

I probably do sound like Tyrone giving advise! lol
 

skiddoc

comic relife
Sep 24, 2009
222
1
0
Status
Pre-Medical
It may sound extreme, buy I'm of the mindset that if this reform alters the bottom line of some insurance companies in such a way that they lose it all, I say so be it. I'd rather a few monster businesses serve as casualties at this point considering the massive loss of life (and livelihood for that matter) that their practices have long caused directly and indirectly for decades. I say this, not because I think the industry should perish, but because I don't think it will no matter what.

Do I agree that as businessness the bottom line has to matter? Yes. Do I think that bottom line should be defended at ANY cost? Not even close.

Bottom line: if the current companies do end up faltering because of these changes (which I'm not convinced of) yes they may take a hit, but in terms of the whole industry collapsing like some fear-mongerers will try to get you to believe, I'm more convinced that they will innovate as necessary and IN TIME find new balance.

The status quo of their mode of operations needs to change, and nothing but something big to shake up that status quo could do it. Is the reform perfect? Not even close; that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that insurance companies HAVE to change their game and I'm glad that there is now a force to potentially bring that about.

And one last point: we can keep putting insurance companies on the same plane as other businesses to justify their single-minded profit drives, but that just doesn't sit easy with me--because the difference is, we're not talking about barrels of oil, or cases of Coca-cola behind sold and shipped. We're talking about directly putting price tags on human well-being, directly stripping a human life down to numbers and figures. And in light of that, you better believe that I am holding these companies to a different standard.


That's my thoughts. I also recognize that I am pretty biased having grown up in a low-income neighborhood--so keep in mind that this is a big thing coloring my thoughts.

I'd love to hear from others, especially from the opposing viewpoint who can help me see more clearly where the defenders of these companies are coming from. I'm always open.
Insurance companies need to go, and that is that. They are what keeps the price of healthcare high. The downside is that when they go, doctor salaries may go down the tube.
 

7starmantis

10+ Year Member
Jul 10, 2008
8,453
4,533
281
Three Sheets to the Wind
It may sound extreme, buy I'm of the mindset that if this reform alters the bottom line of some insurance companies in such a way that they lose it all, I say so be it. I'd rather a few monster businesses serve as casualties at this point considering the massive loss of life (and livelihood for that matter) that their practices have long caused directly and indirectly for decades.
First, I think we have to answer the question of "who is going to provide said services if these companies go under"? The answer to that usually solves the misunderstandings in these debates. Sure you say the whole insurance market wont tank, but look at the amount of people inured by these "monster businesses". ( I always find it odd that we use descriptive terms like "monster" for big companies like this) Thats a huge issue if they suddenly are uninsured. Of course I think that is part of the point for those wanting single payer in this country but thats a different discussion.

Let me get personal for a minute to explain my position. Right at a year ago I lost my cousin to cancer. He was very poor and had basically no insurance coverage most of his life. I absolutely believe (as do many of his recent physicians) that he would be alive today if he had true access to healthcare earlier on. He was looked over, ignored, nearly turned away, and even treated as a drug seeker for years. He is now gone and his wife (who is unable to work due to physical conditions) and 2 year old son are left to fend for themselves. I dont however, hold insurance companies solely to blame and even if I did, dont think demonizing and causing them problems is going to really solve the kinds of issues that took my cousins life. There are ways to address chronic illness and insurance without a "one size fits all" federal law simply forcing things into effect without concern for "how" and its consequences. I dont want this situation for anyone, my worst enemy, but I dont think what we are discussing is really solving anything at all. Forcing out of business the major medical insurers is only going to magnify these kinds of issues, not solve them. Unless of course we are wanting to take up government run which I suspect is the core to these types of discussions.

Bottom line: if the current companies do end up faltering because of these changes (which I'm not convinced of) yes they may take a hit, but in terms of the whole industry collapsing like some fear-mongerers will try to get you to believe, I'm more convinced that they will innovate as necessary and IN TIME find new balance.
First, I think its disingenuous to label opposing viewpoints as "fear-mongering" and then say you would love to hear from others especially the opposing view points. Just saying.

Second, "IN TIME" is a serious issue in this discussion. The whole point of ramming this bill through was because we didn't have time. Because this is people's lives we are talking about and lives are ending all the time. So to say, it will work out "in time" is counterintuitive to the whole point of the quick action on the bill. Unless of course the action was more about political gain than helping people, which is what I believe to this day.

The status quo of their mode of operations needs to change, and nothing but something big to shake up that status quo could do it. Is the reform perfect? Not even close; that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that insurance companies HAVE to change their game and I'm glad that there is now a force to potentially bring that about.
I reject the premise to this altogether. Nothing but this bill could change the "status quo" (to use the new Obama registered trademark phrase)? Seriously? I think its a false premise to say this is the only thing that could have "forced" changes in the "mode of operations" in the insurance market. There are a myriad of other ways to affect said mode of operations, not just this bill.

Also, strong arm forcing of change is never as complete, or sustainable as compelling change.

That's my thoughts. I also recognize that I am pretty biased having grown up in a low-income neighborhood--so keep in mind that this is a big thing coloring my thoughts.
I grew up in a very low income area, in fact I spent many of my formative years in a Ukrainian ghetto. Not many places in the US that can compare to that place, let me tell you. I disagree though that these kinds of experiences are what shape our beliefs or "bias" as some might say in these kinds of issues. Obviously we came to very different conclusions about it.

I'd love to hear from others, especially from the opposing viewpoint who can help me see more clearly where the defenders of these companies are coming from. I'm always open.
I hope you are truly open, as you just heard from one opposing view. I also think using words like "defenders of these companies" is a little loaded. I dont think anyone is "defending" per se the insurance companies specifically, but opposing the way this bill has effected them.
 

pretender

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 30, 2008
27
0
91
Status
"We're talking about directly putting price tags on human well-being, directly stripping a human life down to numbers and figures."

A human life, sorry to say, will always have an inherent value. The question is who is going to pay for that price tag. Your view is to force other people to pay for a cost that the government sets. My view is that a person's worth is based upon their production and ability to aid a society, which is decided from the free market. We will always disagree on that point.
 
Mar 12, 2010
91
0
0
Status
Insurance companies need to go, and that is that. They are what keeps the price of healthcare high.
I find it interesting that in the endless ranting on all sides of the health care debate, insurance companies and doctors are consistently vilified while pharmaceutical companies quietly go about their business...