Started By
Message

re: Pre existing conditions

Posted on 5/8/17 at 1:14 am to
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
15042 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 1:14 am to
Charity should cover those who cannot afford.


Are you kidding me? Do you know what rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, multiple scleroris, autism and psoriasis treatment costs per year? There is no way charity or a church will take this on.
Posted by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:43 am to
in Iowa there is one person, ONE, that is currently costing 1 million dollars a month to treat for Wellmark in Iowa. He/she suffers a rare genetic disorder and it is directly responsible for 10% of Wellmark's premium increase this year. One person.

Charities rely on people's generosity or subsidization to function. And they have never been sufficient to pick up the slack for something like a Medicare or Medicaid. I mean think of how much is spent on Medicare and Medicaid to take care of the poor and old? Or the VA? Now try and imagine how you provide the 100's of billions annually that will be needed to take care of that group if we "get the government out of healthcare."

And then there is the problem of dispersion. How do you get enough charity hospitals everywhere in the country that needs them? Especially in a country where often it is some of the more rural areas that are impoverished and in need of that care. And what happens when that charity hospital gets 1 or 2 of those million dollar patients?

I certainly think there are better ways to handle the problems then we are. But just hoping we can make up those billions and billions needed annually and in the right dispersion, if only we would get the government out the way, is pretty hard to imagine.

A for-profit system is always going to want to avoid potential land mines like the million dollar patient(or the less extreme but still problematic outliers). Unless you regulate the system in a way that they can be sustained in good health but not allowed to discriminate. Clearly the current arrangement is not sufficient.

But since unfortunately the severity of health issues do not align perfectly with people's incomes, there is always going to be a lot of shortfall, in terms of inability to get needed care or coverage based on what a for-profit system can bear, and a charity system can realistically do.

People that are too sick and too poor for an insurer to insure, People that have one catastrophe and run through their lifetime limits(a common policy staple pre-ACA). Or just people that fall on hard times, or another recession hits, and lots of people can't maintain coverage and then end up in the pre-existing condition pool. And yes, those assholes who ruin it for the rest of us because they aren't responsible and rather buy tickets to Hangout fest and go on a party cruise instead of maintaining insurance.


This post was edited on 5/8/17 at 3:01 am
Posted by skinny domino
sebr
Member since Feb 2007
14330 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:58 am to
quote:

People with "pre-existing" conditions have been led to believe that their healthcare bills should be either paid by someone else or subsidized by the government. People that expect to buy "coverage" for something they know going in that they know they already have don't have a clue how the "insurance" business works.
More or less the republican plan is just to let them die - amirite?
Posted by WhopperDawg
Member since Aug 2013
3073 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 3:19 am to
quote:

Free dog sled ride to ice floe. Get out on the ice now grandad. Bye.


And there it is. Get older and get ill and die. We don't care.

And what about a premey born with serious health issues, throw that person on the ice floe with the old folks and bye to them too?

Maybe you should use the human chattel to do medical research on them prior to discarding ala the Nazis. Then you would have at least a use for the human lives you are discarding. Try to get some value.

And by the way, grandad is spelled granddad. Educate yourself, but I understand your GED didn't cover spelling.



Posted by geauxskeet
Member since Oct 2009
527 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 3:53 am to
Problem is people drop and add insurance when they need it again. In louisiana the average obamacare coverage is 4 months. No one should be made to buy insurance, but dont expect to be able to pick up whenever you want with full coverage. BUT, if you keep insuarance and move from one coverage to another, it should continue to be covered.
Posted by Jorts R Us
Member since Aug 2013
14795 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 5:32 am to
As it is we are spending too much on healthcare for people that put themselves in bad situations or people who abuse hospital visits. The first thing we need to do is clean that shite up and put those savings towards assisting those who just got fricked by the genetic lottery and didn't eat themselves sick.

I don't think private charity is going to Cover the costs fully and some form of public assistance will be needed, which I'm fine with but we have to rig the system so that there is personal accountability first.
Posted by Reubaltaich
A nation under duress
Member since Jun 2006
4964 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:17 am to
quote:

Let them die (Oh! I am just quoting Republican's in congress.



Gotta a link for that?

Or you just bolivating from the mouth?
Whose alter are you? rexx?

One of the ways we can address those poor souls with pre-existing conditions is to re-allow states to have 'high-risk' pools.
33 states had these type 'risk-pools' before obama-fraud outlawed them.

Give generous tax incentives to doctors, providers, nurses, pharms, medical supply companies...to treat these people.

We can even allow these people write off 100% of their medical expenses on their federal and state tax returns.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98670 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:19 am to
I think it is unfair I cannot buy homeowners insurance that covers fire after my house has burned down.
Posted by DawgsLife
Member since Jun 2013
58905 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:33 am to
quote:

If a person has a verifiabkle pre-existing condition put him on Medicare. Simple, end of story.



You mean Medicaid. I think?
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:34 am to
Link on that Wellmark story? Jesus Christ that's jaw dropping.
Posted by DawgsLife
Member since Jun 2013
58905 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:38 am to
quote:

More or less the republican plan is just to let them die - amirite?




People are literally dying in the streets, right?

You do realize that all pre-existing conditions are not life threatening. In fact, most probably are not. But that flies in the face of civil discourse in which a solution can be found. So let's just tell everybody we will have people "literally dying in the streets!" Because, you know, before pre-existing conditions were required to be covered, I had to get a snowplow out to remove all the bodies laying in my driveway.
Posted by AjaxFury
In & out of The Matrix
Member since Sep 2014
9928 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:04 am to
Remember, there were many LA posters who didn't think they would get "sick", & declined insurance.

Then the flood happened & surprise....they got "sick".

Wanted the govt to help them with that. I don't understand how some can't see their own hypocricy on healthcare views. Analogy works.
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
37484 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:28 am to
Funny because charity pays for congenital heart defects requiring surgery and necessary post op treatment, cancer treatment, and all sorts of other medical ailments. Hell there are entire hospitals whose operating budgets are made by nothing but charity. Amazingly they don't go under
Posted by Jack Bauers HnK
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
5707 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:31 am to
It's not insurance if you cover PEC, it's just welfare. If it must be covered, it should be a separate welfare program, not screwing up the insurance market.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
21879 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:48 am to
quote:

People are literally dying in the streets, right?


Estimated 45,000 were a year in 2009 due to lack of insurance.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
21879 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:49 am to
quote:

Charity should cover those who cannot afford.


Are you kidding me? Do you know what rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, multiple scleroris, autism and psoriasis treatment costs per year? There is no way charity or a church will take this on.


The poverty rate of the elderly pre- and post-Medicare implementation is the best argument against their charity fantasy.

Before Medicare, 1 in 3 Americans over 65 live in poverty (approx. 35%). Now, it's less than 1 in 10 (10%).

Where was the charity then?!
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
71494 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:50 am to
quote:

Where was the charity then?!


Where was yours? I'm sure you take a hefty salary cut to drive costs down in your field, don't you?
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
71494 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:51 am to
quote:

Estimated 45,000 were a year in 2009 due to lack of insurance.


Link it.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
21879 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:55 am to
Posted by tarzana
TX Hwy 6--Brazos River Backwater
Member since Sep 2015
26139 posts
Posted on 5/8/17 at 7:58 am to
quote:

charities should fill the void

That's a pleasant ideal situation, but in reality it's impossible due to the tremendous costs involved and the fickle nature of human charity. Kind of like a go fund me account for a new electrical grid or a flood control project
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 21
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 21Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram