My Friend Needs HealthCare.

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


Well then pal, whatever company your mother was under, was in DIRECT violation of a FEDERAL MANDATE (Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act), and she could EASILY have sued the pants off of them...

edit: unless she worked for the government or a church, ironically the government doesn't have to follow their own mandate


www.cancer.org...

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




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Go down to your local department of economic security office and say you need healthcare. They'll give it to you. They'll give you anything you want.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
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.


The sad thing is if she had had no insurance and had gone in as an indigent, she probably would have gotten the surgery.

This what can expect from so called quality health insurance. The bean counters determine what you are worth and how much they going to allow and how much they are going to pay.

The insurance companies have most people duped and they are also going to fight the lost of their business tooth and nail; and no they will not play fair.

Like I said before the solution is not going to come from corporate.

There is going to have to be a balance which means that no one is going to win and unfortunately that also means that everyone is going to have to lose something.

It comes down to cutting off a branch to save the whole tree.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SpiritoftheNightSky
 


See, once again. Uninformed people latch onto what other uniformed people say, and it becomes instant fact. His mother should not have been denied any kind of breast cancer surgery, it's mandated by law. So much hype and hyperbole going around on all sides, there will NEVER be reform, because hardly anybody even understands what needs to be reformed.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

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."


The problem you have there DOC is you are not referencing reality, you are exaggerating and projecting your negative feelings onto the problem. Nobody has asserted that this is an effort to "stop dying", you did, then you convinced yourself that
this is peoples concern, found humor in it which makes you justified to write us off a UTOPIAN. In fact YOU are the person who seems to believe everything you typed, came soley from your mouth and your mind.

Your last sentence says it all, you don't really care to discuss it because you equate anything to do with healthcare with socialism = not DOC'S problem.

Well mister at some point in time those of us who want something done are gonna have to walk right thru you. Like I said the burden is on the rest of us who demand change,
however your attitude will get you no place at the table during the popular debate.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
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.


Sounds to me like she has a good case for a lawsuit! Might I suggest she retain Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, Attorneys at Law. There is a big difference between what an insurance company does and what is legal for it to do. They have a bevy of lawyers on standby to bog down the legal system when they cross the line in hopes you won't have the gumption to take them on.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd

We don't make laws, so we can't not allow it. The government does make laws though, and they do make laws in regards to what providers can bill them (Medicare, Medicaid plans). That's why providers hate government plans.

A law does not allow; a law forces.

While I am sure your company makes plenty of attempts to minimize payouts, the simple truth is that when a business, any business, begins dealing with other businesses rather than individuals, their perception of pricing changes. A business that regularly charges individuals must, by necessity, pay more attention to keeping the costs affordable than one which deals with other businesses.

WalMart strives to keep costs low, even if that means reducing the unit size of a product. They sell to people. Wholesalers are less concerned about the amount at the bottom of the bill, as their customers can simply pass the costs along to their own customers.


We don't force anybody to do anything, we are very clear in all our dealings that we do not make treatment decisions, those are made between patients and their doctors.

You misunderstand me.

I realize there is no insurance company (to my knowledge) that specifies which tests are to be run under what conditions as a part of their insurance agreement. However, are you going to tell me that insurance rates will be unaffected by a claim? I think not.

When a doctor sees a patient, one thing in the back of their mind is protecting themselves financially. After all, they are seeing the patient to make money, not lose it. Now if the glut of malpractice attorneys out there which I alluded to earlier gets a whiff of someone having a problem with a doctor, they will prosecute as hard as they can, especially since most of them work on a pay-if-you-win basis.

That means that any test that the doctor failed to run, any suggestion that there was something else that the doctor 'should have known about' had he/she used 'due diligence' can turn a frivolous case that would be dismissed out of hand into one with multi-million dollar consequences. Of course, those awards do not come out of the doctor's pocket; that's why they carry the malpractice insurance. But their rates do get higher, and can actually drive a doctor out of business if they go too high.

So perhaps I mispoke a bit and muddied my intent. What I was pointing out is that in order for a doctor to protect themselves form higher insurance rates, they are required, not by the insurance companies directly but by the combination of legalities, unscrupulous lawyers, and insurance realities, to run tests they may not really deem necessary for anything other than to cover their own behinds.


Not at all, unless you mean they regulate it indirectly in that many hospitals won't admit somebody without insurance or somebody with government insurance.

That is exactly what I meant.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
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.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. "Hundreds of millions of Americans who do not [have adequate healthcare coverage]"... A LIE. Yet another example of socialist propaganda at work. The fact is that 83% of non-elderly Americans ARE COVERED by health insurance of their choosing. Only about 17% (about 45 million) are not covered. Here's the source:

How Many Americans Are Not Covered?

In what universe does 45 million uninsured constitute "hundreds of millions"??

Incidentally, this references "non-elderly Americans" because elderly Americans are already qualified for government healthcare through Medicare, which is more than adequate coverage for most Americans over the age of 65.

— Doc Velocity




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



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Oh, i thought you were saying that health insurance companies where the problem, you meant medical (malpractice) insurance. Totally different entities all together, i don't really know anything about those companies or their requirements.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
Like I said the burden is on the rest of us who demand change,
however your attitude will get you no place at the table during the popular debate.

Last time I looked, the "popular debate" was chasing these battered and bruised healthcare reform supporters back to Washington, licking their wounds. Congressional approval ratings are at all-time lows, and the president himself has suffered a 20% drop in popular support since he got on the "healthcare reform" bandwagon.

You're in the minority on this one.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Double-post

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



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd

LOL, yeah, it's easy to get sidetracked on this issue. So many variables and so many participants.

I will say I definitely agree with you that there is plenty of blame to go around. Bad doctors, uncaring workers, greedy hospitals, insurance realities, and patients who abuse the system are all things that need to be addressed. Oh, and let's not forget the unscrupulous lawyers either.


I do still hold the health insurance companies accountable for the things they have caused, but I do not heap all the blame on them.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
My brother is Type 1 diabetic. Suffered blindness in one eye and the other is legally blind now. He had kidney failure a few years back and is now on dialysis 3x week. He has been on medicare now since the kidney failure. Has had one foot and lower leg amputated. Pretty much all money he gets from medicare goes for Rx, apartment. Luckily my parents are doing OK and help out as they can including driving him to dialysis and other appts. He is not sure how new health care bill will affect him. Further only my dad matches blood type and can donate kidney- that is out since he had cancer. So I can sympathize with your issue. It is just frustrating and seems to be little hope. He has fought thru so much now just about to throw in the towel. You think about all the billions that have been thrown away in Iraq/Afghanistan. Or moreover to losers like AIG, BOA, GE.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
A PLAN

This will be a multi-part posting, because this industry is so immense and covers so many aspects, but I do believe I have a way to fix things. Of course, it won't happen, but at least maybe us here can find some areas to agree on.

Step 1:

Immediately pass a new law that states that anyone with medical need (not medical emergency) has to be seen regardless of ability to pay, and have it cover every GP, hospital, and specialist licensed to practice medicine.

In the same bill, set up a national medical financial clearinghouse through the government. Any bills not paid by the patient or their insurance after 60 days can be tendered to the government. Once tendered, the government will ante up 50% of the bill to the medical professional. Once done, the government will attempt to collect the debt. I recommend using the IRS for this, since they are already very good at squeezing blood from turnips.


Also in the same bill, establish guidelines to make people who are unable to pay exempt. For instance, someone making $20,000 a year who has just been saddled with a $500,000 bill obviously is not going to pay the entire amount (actually only pennies on the dollar if that). However, they will be required to pay whatever they can, based on their income. Should they suddenly come into money (win the lottery?), a portion of that windfall can be applied toward their bill. So even though some people may take the attitude that they can abuse the system because they don't make much and can't afford to pay, they will get this haunting collection for a lifetime.

I do believe all debts should be wrote off should the person die.

All moneys received go toward first repaying the 50% governmental advance, then to the doctor until the 100% amount is received. There would be no interest, no fees, no penalties. After all, this is still going to come out much better than the multi-trillion dollar plans we are hearing about already.

This does several things:
  • There will be no lack of access to health care for anyone.

  • Doctors who tender a bill will still receive half of their money. Not as good as getting all of it, but better than nothing.

  • Patients who now realize they will be held accountable for the cost will (hopefully) start using less expensive avenues for health care (doctor's office before the ER)

  • A record will be compiled listing those who abuse the system, and statistics can be compiled form that to help educate the public on how to properly use the health care system.


Step 2 will be forthcoming...

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackProjects
You think about all the billions that have been thrown away in Iraq/Afghanistan.


Our expenditures in Iraq/Afghanistan (costing billions) evolved over nine years of military engagement. Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress threw away TRILLIONS of dollars in one day, bailing out American companies with lousy business practices.

Instead of allowing bad business to suffer its proper fate, our government rewarded bad business and allowed it to continue.

This is indicative of bad government.

— Doc Velocity


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



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
cool story bro
but its a fabrication and i will tell you why.
no one can ever be turned down/away from recieving proper medical care for finacial reasons.
if its a life threatening emergency, you will recieve at least some degree of attention forma docotor. thats waht they do.
will he get to see the BEST doctors with no money, probalby not. but to say he will be ignored flat out is a lie.
and theres many many many options for payment plans, state administered health care, and free care.
i havent had insurance for YEARS, but ive been to the ER, the docotor, ive had a CAT scan, and an mri.
you know how much i paid? well, of cource you dont and netiher do i, but i can tell you it wasnt much.
i applied for free care/assitance, and was given it every single time, without much mroe than providing a w2 , rent payment reciept, and a photocopy of a paycheck.
your "friends" arent trying nearly as hard as you are ( to start a thread )
anyway, gl with your trolling and story telling.
3/10, would be higher, but your facts dont add up.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackProjects
My brother is Type 1 diabetic... He has been on medicare now since the kidney failure.

How would healthcare reform benefit your brother?

You say he is on Medicare, which is government healthcare coverage for Americans over the age of 65. Do you mean Medicaid, the government healthcare program for the indigent?

Are you complaining about the government assistance he is getting?

What makes anyone think that healthcare reform (i.e. government healthcare for everybody) will be any better than Medicare or Medicaid?

My brother-in-law also has advanced Diabetes. He has already lost a leg, and he has suffered a number of strokes on almost a daily basis. My brother-in-law is not poor, he is not elderly, and he has adequate healthcare coverage.

The fact is that all the money in the world is not going to cure my brother-in-law, and it's not going to cure your brother. Diabetes is incurable. Healthcare reform is not a magic wand.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


How convenient, stop trying to use pity for a supposed friend to push an agenda.Stop this redistribution of wealth bull, If you want something work for it. Stop trying to get us "greedy achievers" to hand to you what we earn.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


No worries. I agree, things need to change, but not to a single payor system. Insurance companies should be held to reimburse in a much more timely manner, instead of sending claims through too many hands and holding things up, seemingly in the hopes the claim will be forgotten. Providers though, need to bill fairly, i've seen claims for wheelchairs billed by all line items, full price for wheels, seats, armrests, etc., not just ONE complete wheelchair. In the end, it costs about 20 to 30 GRAND. You could buy 3 Kias for the price of ONE motorized wheelchair. Patients without insurance get charged far less, instead paying for ONE wheelchair. That type of greedy billing is one of the factors driving up the costs, for sure.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
continuation to post by TheRedneck

Step 2:

Establish a National Health Review Board. This NHRB will be like semi-binding arbitration on all medical issues. No medical complaint can enter the court system until it has passed through this new NHRB.

Each regional bard would be composed of people randomly picked to serve from differing specified areas of society, sort of like a picky jury duty selection. A certain number of medical professionals would be required, along with a certain number of attorneys and a certain number of those who do not work in the medical or legal field. there would be no elections, only this selection for a specified time span. This will help prevent collusion on the part of those serving.

Should a person feel wronged by anyone associated with the medical field, they must first bring their case before this MHRB. They will need no upfront fees, nor will they need an attorney. In fact, I suggest that no attorneys be allowed to present a case unless they are themselves the one bringing the compliant. The board will act like a grand jury, listening to both sides, asking whatever questions they feel are relevant, and then reaching a decision as to whether or not an award is justified and how much. The setting would be less formal and therefore more comfortable to non-attorneys than a typical courtroom.

Once this phase is passed, if the person bringing the case is not satisfied, they are free to decline the judgment and bring the case before the regular courts, just like now. The medical professional, however, is bound by this board's decision.

A side benefit is that every case will be reported to a central board, to track those medical personnel who have continual merited complaints against them. A threshold can be determined wherein a person's medical license may be suspended or revoked permanently. Since this is a national board, there will be no more crossing state lines to set up another practice.

Benefits:
  • Those harmed by the medical profession would find access to a court-like environment much easier and cheaper.

  • Those with frivolous lawsuits could be easily dismissed early and with less cost on the overused court system we have today.

  • The board (which, remember, includes medical professionals) would be charged by their own interests to awarding sums sufficient to keeping the case out of the regular courts, but small enough to not cripple other doctors.

  • The ease of filing a malpractice lawsuit in regular court would decrease, since there would be less people available willing to turn down a board offer.

  • The rights of those supposedly injured would still be upheld.

  • A listing of those few medical professionals who regularly make errors and thereby injure patients would be generated, allowing them to be quickly and effectively weeded out of the system, dropping malpractice claims.

  • Since awards would likely go down as a result of this arrangement, medical malpractice insurance should drop as well, making it easier for doctors to keep their rates low.


TheRedneck





top topics
 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join