Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

My Friend Needs HealthCare.

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 



Has anyone thought about doing healthcare reform without socialism? Anything is possible. Right?


Yes, it is possible. But it will never be achieved as long as we let the two major parties tear us apart. We need to yell at both parties to compromise on the issue and seek the best solution possible with the least government involvement.




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
The insurance companies are being viewed as the villains right now.


Presidents always need a main villain to scare everybody into being saved by their legislation, lol. Insurance companies are way easier to hate than doctors i guess.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Because, when an insurance company plays "how much bang for your buck" with health care, that's a scary thing...

Health care is not a commodity that we can bargain on.

You can't bargain with a tumor!

"Well, it seems your only able to pay for minor operations and injuries... Tumors aren't in your plan. I guess you'll have to live with it."



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Do you honestly think that a company will pay for one person's operations to remove a tumor, when they understand that all of the money for these operations will come close to a million dollars?


This is the problem with this WHOLE mess, a bunch of people that have NO clue what they're talking about, arguing with each other.

I honestly know that ANY company claiming to offer health insurance is MANDATED to pay for such an operation, on both state and federal levels. The self funded companies are usually the very large ones, with billions of dollars and they are held to the SAME mandates as all other health insurance.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





I agree; there is no way to know what the outcome would have been if those poor souls did not get any care. But the point I was making was that there is a problem with a very small percentage of doctors who simply make too many mistakes on a continual basis, and the only way to lower the malpractice insurance rates is to cut back on the amount of mistakes and the cost of those mistakes.


If this is indeed the sticking point to the issue then it would seem to me the more logical and most economic solution would be to just single out the small percentage of doctors that are creating the problem and prevent them from practicing medicine.

The solution you propose will not stop the problem and this small percentage doctors that make too many mistakes on a continual basis will just keep making those mistakes and upping the ante.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by anyone
 


See, i don't know why everybody brings up the pre-existing clause. Employer based insurance plans have NO such clause, at all. I've never in my almost decade in the health insurance industry seen a plan with that exclusion in it. I think that is in effect for private plans, in which somebody decided to go SO long without insurance or well-checks, then all of the sudden is hit with a catastrophic illness and wants insurance to pay their bills, and them only pay a small premium. How is that AT ALL fair for the rest of the members? It doesn't work that way in ANY other industry, if you ignore your vehicles maintenance schedule, and the engine blows, it's not gonna be covered under the warranty.


It is never all that simple IRL. You have a choice to own a car and be responsible for it. Your health isn't always a controlled entity (
). How 'bout if your employer doesn't offer you insurance for an assortment of reasons. I could put a multitude of examples here but I am sure you could imagine them yourself. Being an insurance guy you should know what I am talking about. Seriously, one day you will experience one of these scenarios first or second hand and then, and only then, you will SEE.

I am not trying to sound aggravated at you... please don't take it personal.

-anyone



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by jam321
The insurance companies are being viewed as the villains right now.


Presidents always need a main villain to scare everybody into being saved by their legislation, lol. Insurance companies are way easier to hate than doctors i guess.


The insurance companies are a BIG part and without reform and mandates across the board things can't change. It has to start somewhere or we will remain stagnant until the stink is too great to ignore and then how the steps become far greater.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by anyone
Being an insurance guy you should know what I am talking about. Seriously, one day you will experience one of these scenarios first or second hand and then, and only then, you will SEE.


Um, an insurance guy? I work on the clinical end of it, not administrative. I'm not the corporate "insurance guy", i interact directly with the providers clinically on a case by case basis, i've experienced plenty of scenarios first and second hand. I had a brain tumor myself, and i got it treated. Believe it or not, working for the insurance company doesn't mean you get the good plans, AT ALL.



I am not trying to sound aggravated at you... please don't take it personal.


I understand, just know that i'm not on the salesman end of things.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Sorry, Doc, but that's not a plan. Running on charities is not stopping people from dying, and we both know that if everyone who didn't have insurance turned to charities, they'd be dried up in a second.


You're not facing reality. Is your plan to "stop people from dying"?? Because, if that's your objective, you're going to be sorely disappointed until the day you yourself die, regardless of your utopian healthcare fantasies. Socialized healthcare is NOT going to stop people from dying.

Don't give me a bunch of socialist propaganda about "people dying because they can't get healthcare." It's a lie. People die in this country for a lot of reasons, but the availability of healthcare — even free healthcare — is NOT one of them.

You cannot be turned away at the ER for emergency treatment, I don't care if you're a homeless bum. The fact is that charity hospitals have been in business for longer than any of us have been alive, and they deliver quality healthcare.

If the president himself falls ill or is injured while touring the country, do you know where they take him for first response treatment? To the nearest charity hospital. That's executive policy. For any president. So the level of care at charity hospitals is at least sufficient for the POTUS.


Originally posted by Mak Manto
I'm sorry, but the system we have now SUCKS. EVERYONE agrees that it SUCKS!

You needn't apologize for your ignorance on this subject. Most supporters of this administration are entirely ignorant of the facts — which is how this administration came to power, BTW.

Your statement that "everyone agrees it sucks" is, quite simply, a falsehood. I do not agree, and tens of millions of Americans do not agree.

The level of healthcare in the USA is superior when compared to the nationalized systems in Sweden or England or Canada or Singapore or wherever you want to point for an example. Those systems cater to populations of 50 million or less, and they all have life-threatening drawbacks in healthcare quality. There is no proof whatsoever that a NHS barely accommodating 50 million people is somehow magically going to accommodate 300 million.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 9/7/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Do you honestly think that a company will pay for one person's operations to remove a tumor, when they understand that all of the money for these operations will come close to a million dollars?


This is the problem with this WHOLE mess, a bunch of people that have NO clue what they're talking about, arguing with each other.

I honestly know that ANY company claiming to offer health insurance is MANDATED to pay for such an operation, on both state and federal levels. The self funded companies are usually the very large ones, with billions of dollars and they are held to the SAME mandates as all other health insurance.

You are so wrong, 27. SO WRONG.

They have to offer health care, but you're wrong on paying for the operation. Many of them don't have that kind of health insurance.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by anyone
 


I agree, but providers are JUST as big a part of the problem. There is no main culprit here, EVERYBODY needs to stop trying to fill their pockets, on ALL sides of the industry.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by anyone
 


I agree, but providers are JUST as big a part of the problem. There is no main culprit here, EVERYBODY needs to stop trying to fill their pockets, on ALL sides of the industry.


I agree.

-anyone



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Your statement that "everyone agrees it sucks" is, quite simply, a falsehood. I do not agree, and tens of millions of Americans do not agree.


This would be the 'tens of millions of Americans' who have adequate health care coverage. It is not the opinion of the 'hundreds of millions of Americans who do not. I am also waiting for you to address the points I made in my previous response to you (towards the bottom of the page two pages back, just in case you missed it)...

[edit on 7-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


No, Doc, but I think you're little reality of, "If people are sick and are unable to pay for health care, they should die" is about as fascist as it comes.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


Um, i work RIGHT in the middle of the health insurance industry, i SEE brain tumor cases several times a day. They are NEVER denied, EVER, by fully OR self insured plans. Examples of denied procedures would be ones that are considered cosmetic, experimental or unproven based on peer reviewed literature, custodial cases in which the member is recieving assistance with daily living activities, that DO NOT require a medical professional. Brain tumor removal IS always a covered benefit, ALWAYS. A-L-W-A-Y-S.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
So now that we all concur
we demand reform!




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by mental modulator
 



I would expand a say this is indicative of why this issue is nearly impossible
to address... The last part is also very important...


I think it boils down to the fact that change is scary. I can accept that some people prefer the current way. But when it comes down to paying your hospital bill, neither the Republican nor the Democratic party will mail you a contribution to apply towards your medical bill. Medical costs are not going down. If there isn't some kind of change for the better, this problem will continue to grow and affect more Americans.



I absolutely agree, I think all options need to be on the table - we need to pick from the best and most common sense ideas regardless of ideological origination. If my
concerns with TORT reform made you skeptical of my motive do not let it.

I was only trying to say that nothing will be achieved a large section opposes reform
just because. I think the people who feel that way would save us all loads of grief
to be upfront and honest in the beginning, that way those who want change can
work with that in mind and circumvent all the usual pitfalls. I just feel many are engaging in "timing out the clock", while citing anything that will achieve that objective.
While we should NOT ram a turd thru - we should also remember if this implodes,in all likelihood this is the time it will be addressed for another decade

The burden does not sit with those opposed to reform, the burden rest squarely on all who want comprehensive and well measured change.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by anyone
So now that we all concur
we demand reform!



SI.

no doubt



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by anyone
So now that we all concur
we demand reform!



Yes but in all things there has to be a balance or one side is going to find their butts sitting on the ground and the other side will have theirs dangling in the air.





[edit on 7-9-2009 by SpiritoftheNightSky]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


You're wrong then, buddy.

My own mother, when she was working with an abstract company, needed an operation for her breast cancer. Her employer's health care provider refused to pay for it.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join