Guest guest Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Do you think it really does? I don't think it saves money if people then die of the diseases they supposedly don't have. Just as big a problem is that you can still be kicked off an insurance policy if you " should have been " diagnosed with a condition but wasn't and then, didn't report it and the carrier gave you a lower rate.. Suppose a person has some small but still scary issue, goes to a doctor for it, and is pooh poohed.. or they receive one of thse tests that has been skewed to say negative when the person actually has the disease.. (like lyme..etc.) Every time you go to new doctor, you fill out the forms which they get. They build up a huge database, which obviously discourages people who ever may have to purchase individual coverage from ever going to doctors, especially f they might have something serious, because they want to get insurance. Barb, you must know ths, as a cancer survivor..Do you have individual health insurance, or self pay? I don't get it, they want information you know, right, but if you are told you are okay, then turn out to be sick, how could you know. The frigging doctor said you were okay. But people still get kicked off when they make claims and now laws that were written to stop this have been vetoed because the problem is inherent to private insurance priced by risk. They seem to want any possible excuse to kick people off when they make claims.. They said this wont change in 2012, with Obama's health care. http://www.google.com/search?num=50 & hl=en & safe=off & client=firefox-a & rls=org.mozi\ lla:en-US:official & sa=X & oi=spell & resnum=0 & ct=result & cd=1 & q=veto+insurance+rescis\ sion+Schwarzenegger & spell=1 http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/2008/10/02/08_rescission_decision_.html On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:59 PM, barb1283 <barb1283@...> wrote: > Saves alot of money. I totally believe this!!! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Barb, I'm sorry, Did I misunderstand what you meant by " saves a lot of money " ? You have to understand, this is a sore point for many people who follow health care issues in the US. It doesn't save money. Sure, that is the argument some folk are using - all over. Its an old argument. Did you read about how the state of Connecticut had to go after the Infectious Disease Society of America and the health insurers ? http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795 & q=414284 Recent studies, by the way, have proven that the Lyme deniers are wrong.. But people in other states and with other health issues continue to run into the same kinds of problems.. That kind of stuff and the situation in California with the veto of the AB 1945 bill (the rescission issue) should be wake up calls for all of us. If we aren't aware of these conflicts of interests, we might be intimidated into never seeking help or realizing that we weren't the only ones being treated with this hostility. We would think that we are alone. Does withholding care or passing on more of its cost save money? It definitely saves insurers money to deny care or dump patients who get sick. The patients pay much more in the long run, not just because they often end up much sicker and in the emergency room, they also have to pay the full, undiscounted rates for everything. Sometimes, the costs for s test or a piece of medical equipment used in a procedure are several times higher for a poor person without insurance. Sure, the people who push choice claim that if people share more of the cost burden of medical care that they will somehow become empowered to influence prices but the truth is for most of us, we don't have the option of going without medical care. Going without doesn't save money if you end up much sicker and/or lose your job or become permanently disabled. Two good articles about this: Consumer-driven health care is a false promise http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_consumer_driven_hea\ lthcare/ also Consumer-Directed Health Plans And The RAND Health Insurance Experiment ph P. Newhouse http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/6/107 or http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/23/6/107.pdf On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:59 PM, barb1283 <barb1283@...> wrote: > Saves alot of money. I totally believe this!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.