How do you propose to help people with pre existing conditions find insurance?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Arbitrary recission to make a profit. A company who exists to profit on the lack of people getting ill isn't the one to depend upon for taking care of ill peole. Ill people are expensive. Thank goodness my condition isn't life-threatening.

Do you realize how, as I was rescinded, insurance companies rescind children with cancer? Chronic liver and kidney diseases? Withhold approval for treatments? Refuse to insure a child for the rest of it's life - unless the parents would like to pay several thousand a month and have alot of stuff excluded for life?

There are women who can't get a second c-section paid for, because their first child was born C-section, and it's now a "pre-existing condition" the insurance company will not cover a second time, even if the second baby is in distress, breech, etc?

Do you realize that teenage acne treatment by a family GP is a pre-existing condition that can, decades later, preclude any treatment at all for skin cancers when one is old?

That life-threatening asthma attacks in children, who have to go to the ER, may not be covered because the family doc diagnosed the kid with allergies to house dust several years back, and recommended a Zyrtec when the nose got a little runny?



You can't be serious that charity should take over the primary care of severely ill children in our country? Rather than their parents purchasing insurance?

Isn't that a bit communistic? !! Depending upon other citizens to pay one's way?

This is America. We take care of our own, yes. But most want to take care of themselves as much as they can. Not hope charity will help your leukemic child, as your insurance company, the insurance you bought because you were a responsible, planning-ahead, self-reliant American - dumped you.

People who purchase and pay for insurance for their children, before the children get sick, shouldn't have the children suffer poor medical care or death because the insurance company decides to cut their losses in the middle of the childs' treatment.

Ditto, Bless Our Troops!

every woman I know who have had multiple C-sections have never had the problem of losing coverage for it.. always covered.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

Or, you can be like me: pay expensive individual insurance for years, declare all the pre-existing conditions in your lifetime health record when you move to another state and change policies, then, six months AFTER the insurance company approved paying for a $25K knee operation to both the surgeon and University of KY, and the operation was done - have your insurance suddenly rescinded, and be told that, "Whoops - when we wrote the policy, we should have excluded you for any possible arthritic stuff, but we made a mistake and didn't do that - but we are doing it now. We are not paying for the operation we told the surgeon and you and the hospital we would, and we are not following the contract we signed that said you are covered for it - read your fine print".

The answer of the Kentucky Insurance Commission is: "nothing we can do, there are no laws preventing that".

My lawyer versus their many lawyers. Guess who will outlast?

The insurance industry made, what, like double profits in 2009? And dropped 2.7 million Americans from coverage. I am one of those 2.7 million

So yes - I strongly support health exchanges, but even better, a public option.

That is pretty effed up and anyone who says otherwise is a Grade 1 *******

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Or, you can be like me: pay expensive individual insurance for years, declare all the pre-existing conditions in your lifetime health record when you move to another state and change policies, then, six months AFTER the insurance company approved paying for a $25K knee operation to both the surgeon and University of KY, and the operation was done - have your insurance suddenly rescinded, and be told that, "Whoops - when we wrote the policy, we should have excluded you for any possible arthritic stuff, but we made a mistake and didn't do that - but we are doing it now. We are not paying for the operation we told the surgeon and you and the hospital we would, and we are not following the contract we signed that said you are covered for it - read your fine print".

The answer of the Kentucky Insurance Commission is: "nothing we can do, there are no laws preventing that".

My lawyer versus their many lawyers. Guess who will outlast?

The insurance industry made, what, like double profits in 2009? And dropped 2.7 million Americans from coverage. I am one of those 2.7 million

So yes - I strongly support health exchanges, but even better, a public option.

You can't win it if you don't fight them!

[jms62]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

You can't win it if you don't fight them!

Unfortunately they have a team of lawyers on staff and will bleed you to death.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

every woman I know who have had multiple C-sections have never had the problem of losing coverage for it.. always covered.

I have known one where it was not covered.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

That is pretty effed up and anyone who says otherwise is a Grade 1 *******

It's gonna get worse in the next 1-3 years. Rates are skyrocketing, millions more people will be dropped.

If a private company makes it's profit on well people - not sick people - you sure don't give that company carte blanche to "do what's right" by, and take care of, sick people!

You can't blame insurance companies - they are a private business. They do not exist to help sick people. They exist to make money. That means that sick people are their financial enemy. Insurance companies enjoy a huge monopoly over one-sixth of our national economy, completely favorable laws and anti-trust environments, a captive audience who literally needs them to live, and zero accountability to anyone.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I have known one where it was not covered.

was she the holocaust survivor or the one that has insurance and pays out of pocket to avoid paperwork?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

You can't win it if you don't fight them!

LOL - Timm, they do this because they can continue this for years, and outlawyer anyone. There isn't much law regarding insurance company behaviour. Do you know why they are mostly based in a few states?

They have departments whose sole purpose is to peruse contracts with a fine-toothed comb, looking for any possible excuse to not pay a claim. The flimsiness of the excuse doesn't matter, as you can't do anything about it.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - Timm, they do this because they can continue this for years, and outlawyer anyone. There isn't much law regarding insurance company behaviour. Do you know why they are mostly based in a few states?

They have departments whose sole purpose is to peruse contracts with a fine-toothed comb, looking for any possible excuse to not pay a claim. The flimsiness of the excuse doesn't matter, as you can't do anything about it.

Call John Edwards. He's out of politics and makes a living suing health care providers including insurance companies AND that is a big contributor to the cost. but we don't want to take food out of his 'love child's' mouth do we?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's gonna get worse in the next 1-3 years. Rates are skyrocketing, millions more people will be dropped.

If a private company makes it's profit on well people - not sick people - you sure don't give that company carte blanche to "do what's right" by, and take care of, sick people!

You can't blame insurance companies - they are a private business. They do not exist to help sick people. They exist to make money. That means that sick people are their financial enemy. Insurance companies enjoy a huge monopoly over one-sixth of our national economy, completely favorable laws and anti-trust environments, a captive audience who literally needs them to live, and zero accountability to anyone.

I read the other day that congress overwhelmingly voted to eliminate the insurance companies antitrust exemption.

Is this true and if it is couldnt it help?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I read the other day that congress overwhelmingly voted to eliminate the insurance companies antitrust exemption.

Is this true and if it is couldnt it help?

important technicality, it was the House who voted for it overwhelmingly.

That bill now sits, with many other bills, waiting for the Senate to vote on it, before it could become law.

The GOP not been allowing many House bills to come to a Senate vote, because they have been obstructing everything. There is a huge backlog. When this bill comes, the GOP has already said they will not allow it to come to a vote. They will filibuster it.

[Danzig]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022404324.html


that's an article from the washington post on the house vote.