I know one country that is having great success wit hit. all you need is a benefactor nation who pays your mlitayr bills for you to free up all that spending on health care, fun in the sun, or just whatever you like

Why is it that trolls only want to talk about Israel? We all know why.

who said anything about israel :)

I was obviously referencing papuanewguinea

All of Europe can afford a state run health care system because we pay for their defense, trolls.

If we stopped defending them they would even be more bankrupt than they currently are and Britain, for instance, wouldn’t be able to afford even the filthy, maggot-infested wards and surgical theatres currently available in that rapidly disintegrating shell of a former empire.

4 indeed

#4,”All of Europe can afford a state run health care system because we pay for their defense, trolls”

Let’s think like business people for a change

#7, A close relative of mine can’t buy health insurance because of a pre-existing condition,what do you recommend for him?

Tell your relative with pre-existing condition to go and shop around different states with $5000 or just take a gun and shot himself or herself. Republicans have no clue and Jennifer Rubin is just another naught regardless of what she claims to write. We all know where her allegiance is and its not to the USA and Obama, the US President

7 convert and go to the holy land

8-Another anti-semite creeps out from under his rock.

@7 This sounds like a bad situation – -but a little more information would help. Your relative has my sympathies. That being said:
It isn’t really health “insurance” if you are insuring an event that has already occurred. You don’t buy auto insurance after you have driven your car into a tree. What your relative is after is a way to help pay the bills.

Assuming that your relative is old enough and able to work: Was your relative employed and did he/she have employer provided coverage? If so what happened to that coverage? Was COBRA offered and then not pursued?

Are you trying to say that your relative can’t buy insurance that doesn’t exclude the pre-existing condition?

Is the condition such that your relative cannot work — not that getting a job in the Obama economy is easy but ….?

What is it about TROLLS, they hate Conservatives and any others who don’t think as they do! However they really hate the Joos and really, really hate the Joos Women? Brings to mind the thinking of the homosexual IslamoNazis’ does it not?

#11
(1)It isn’t really health “insurance” if you are insuring an event that has already occurred.
He can’t buy insurance that excludes his condition,none is avaliable
(2)He is unable to work
(3)He can even buy insurance with exclusions
(4)he is disabled,without insurance,and no one will sell him insurance even with exclusions

RCAR, if the person is disabled, they should qualify for Medicare and/or Medicaid. Both have wide provisions for caring for the disabled.

#12,
The most anti-semitic group in America,the Jews,80% for Obama,and Jews are smart.

RCAR, about your relative with the pre-existing condition: Some family members of mine have a severe inherited syndrome. They have insurance through their state (Missouri). YOur relative should investigate this possibility. He should also be able to receive state disability support if not Social Security disability.

#14, He has been turned down by Medicaid and SSI,in their Judge’s opinion he is not disabled,despite the medical evidence and his doctor’s testimony. Unlike, people that have opinions about our healthcare,I know the facts when you fall in a crack,and this is a huge crack. I know oh several HUNDRED in my area that fell thru the same crack.

#16 Thanks Margo,already tried,not Applicable,

RCAR, why don’t you take care of your disabled relative instead of spending 24/7 here?

RCAR: If he has been turned down by Medicaid, what makes you think he would not be turned down by ObamaCare, which is essentially Medicaid for everybody? There will be some Judge making these decisions there too, or the new system will absorb all the money there is.

19 hehe

#19 I need to finish my surgical residency first.

#20,
I just asked a question,a close relative can’t buy insurance because of a pre-existing condition.what do you recommend?,I didn’t recommend Obamacare,I don’t even know what it is.

Oops something’s out of whack

^[2]

@23 Well – -without knowing the nature of the disability it is really difficult to offer suggestions. I assume your relative has gone through all the relevant appeals processes etc. I know people in my area who are on 100% disability as determined by the government who could work if they really wanted to –however they don’t because they are just collecting off the fat of the land. If there is a whole in the societal safety net that your relative has fallen into that is a concern. How does your relative pay his medical bills then? I have to assume they are extensive.

RCAR, since your friend is anonymous here, can you tell us WHAT his condition is? Some pieces are just missing here, like why Medicaid would “turn him down.” I have to ask what that means. Medicaid doesn’t “turn people down,” in the sense of preventing them from getting on-the-spot treatment. But it also doesn’t make routine, open-ended payouts for chronic care. (I.e., if your care costs $1200 a month, signing up to pay for that.) Is that what your friend needs?

There is no system in the world that does that. National health care in foreign countries certainly doesn’t do it. Public assistance systems do what ours already does: provide disability assistance in cash (which is a set amount, and may not cover expenses), and provide third-party payment for doctor visits and a set list of prescription drugs.

This is already available to everyone in America, and you will lose credibility if you insist that it isn’t.

No, insurance companies will not sign up to pay out every month more than they could possibly charge a customer. With an existing chronic condition, they are guaranteed to have to start paying out claims from day 1. Claims payouts will be more than they can even charge in monthly premiums. You can insist that insurance companies should for some reason be required to operate on this basis — but that doesn’t make it viable.

There is a foundation for just about every medical condition, and an “angels network” in almost every part of America whose purpose is to provide assistance for people with medical conditions and financial problems. I wonder if your friend has investigated that avenue?

#25&26,
The only relevant point here is that he can’t purchase health insurance even if the insurance excludes his condition,we actually have no interest in the “public” programs,he only wants to be able to purchase insurance,which he can’t AT ANY PRICE.

@24 I read the article. Its interesting because it raises more questions than it answers. It is obviously slanted to slam both TekSystems (for offering insurance polices to its 1099 contractors) and towards Aetna for writing a policy that that had limited benefits). Without getting into it too much, a reporter with an inquiring mind would have asked;

1) Knowing that you had a pre-existing condition that could result in expensive medical treatment, why did you choose to insure yourself with a limited benefit policy?
2) Since you are a 1099 employee, what did you do before this contract for insurance?
3) Was this the only policy offered or was it the cheapest among many?
4) Why did you choose bankruptcy vs the other alternatives outlined in the article ie charity care?
5) Seems to me that “At St. David’s Medical Center in Austin, where he went for two separate heart procedures last year, the hospital’s admitting office looked at Mr. Yurdin’s coverage and talked to Aetna. St. David’s estimated that his share of the payments would be only a few thousand dollars per procedure.” suing St. David’s Medical center for malpractice etc would be a good option.

@27 — And what are the negative consequences of his not being able to purchase insurance then?

RCAR, since you won’t provide any specific information, you leave the rest of us incapable of assessing what real harm this person is suffering other than an inability to purchase health insurance. I wouldn’t want to minimize the situation, but you don’t give us any basis for knowing whether or not anything we say would in fact be minimizing or for that matter exaggerating it. In short, all you can tell us is that he can’t joing the “I Have Health Insurance!” club. Sorry, that’s not a big deal to me. Beyond that, what you’re doing amounts to hijacking the thread for a game of “Guess the Malady!”

#29&30,
The negative consequences are personal bankruptcy,and bankruptcy for members of his family. His medical expenses are substantial and unpredictable,but as CK put it, “In short, all you can tell us is that he can’t joing the “I Have Health Insurance!” club. Sorry, that’s not a big deal to me.” Of course it isn’t,it isn’t your problem, but so far.there are over $250000 in unpaid medical bills,and when he has his next “downturn”somebody will pay,because CK won’t be in charge of the decision to Euthanize him based on his expense liabilities.

The consequences of being denied medical treatment based on having no insurance would be terminal.

But what is really BS and so dishonest, is the idea that I’m the only Contentsista who has ever had a problem with our HC System,somebody is not being forthcoming.

Spent my first 35 years in Canada, where my parents and family still live, and have spent the last 15 years in the U.S. owning a business as a healthcare provider.

Couple of points…

If anyone thinks that a government based system in the US with a population of over 300 million is going to be more efficient and effective than the system for 30 milllion in Canada that continues to decline in quality with longer waiting periods, more uncovered services and exodus of quality practitioners is practicing in wishful thinking to the nth degree. In Canada today, more and more citizens are opting out of the government plan and looking at paying private so they can recive treatments in a reasonable timeframe.

For RCAR’s realative/friend…..at the risk of sounding insulting, whoever is trying to help this person needs to work harder. I come across individuals, indigent and otherwise, every day with varied critical and chronic healthcare needs without the means or ability to qualify for private insurance. Medicaid may try to deny coverage but one needs to push harder, using patient advocacy groups and healthcare lawyers if needed. Medicaid is required to cover people in situations like this. It’s the law. That’s the way the federal government set up Medicaid with the states.

There will be hardluck stories in a governemnt program, I guarantee it. Probably more. I know it’s been said a million times before but heck, just think about. How crazy can we be to think that the government will do a better job in providing goods and services than a for-profit, market based system.

These are the operative words:

“…we actually have no interest in the ‘public’ programs,he only wants to be able to purchase insurance,which he can’t AT ANY PRICE.”

While I fully understand having no interest in the public programs, they do make the difference between being able to get medical care, and not being able to get it. They already exist for exactly that purpose.

There are indeed conditions that make it difficult to find health insurance at all, typically systemic conditions that correlate highly with the development of additional symptoms over time. If you start purchasing your health insurance early in life, and buy insurance with broad coverage, you will pay high premiums, but will typically be insuring yourself against such developments. If you aren’t already enrolled in a program, it can be difficult to get insurance once the systemic condition has manifested itself.

I remain stumped as to what you want to do about this, RCAR. National health systems don’t fix this problem. Public-option health insurance won’t fix it. What these approaches will do is limit the treatment you are authorized to have for your systemic condition.

Insurance companies don’t buy problems, they sign up premium-payers, and make predictions about claims based on statistical odds. That’s how they stay in business. They’d collapse quickly if they started deliberately taking on customers who were guaranteed to cost them 100 times what they can ever collect in premiums. The fact that they operate as they do is what makes it possible for millions of people to buy health insurance.

#35,I remain stumped as to what you want to do about this, RCAR. National health systems don’t fix this problem.

Nothing to be stumped about,we will continue to put these expenses on credit cards,until they all run out,and then we will start making the emergency room circuit, when the illness hits,it involves neuro-surgery. We do what we can,if you think this is not a health care policy problem, Fine.

#7, #8:

I have a pre-existing condition and can’t buy health insurance. Guess what I had to do? I had to G-E-T A J-O-B.

#37,

Great point,but certain disabilities make employment difficult,and lots of jobs don’t offer health,and if you have a pre-existing condition,they might hire someone else. But,good thought

RCAR, you’re right it’s “not my problem.” Nor can it be even my abstract intellectual problem on the terms you’ve chosen to share with us: As you present it, it’s a mysterious horror that some judge somewhere decided not to believe in, yet still inflicts devastating harms on innocent victims. It might as well be Freddy Krueger. At another point you tell us that you know “oh several hundred” people who have fallen through a “similar crack.” Yet for some reason you won’t just tell us what this mysterious, catastrophically destructive epidemic that could only be addressed by private health insurance is.

You’re asking us to sympathize with a vague abstraction, and make sense out of a puzzle that can’t be solved. I’m sure every one of us here could share his or her personal stories. What’s the point? Petty jibes about me or anyone else tacitly advocating euthanasia or otherwise demonstrating inadequate humanity are gratuitously insulting, and I resent them.

RCAR, speaking as one with a disability, I must say that I find your story has a large number of holes.

With all possible sympathy to your relatives, both healthy and disabled, may I suggest that you’ve hardly made the case that the millions–yes, millions of us who are happy with our health care coverage should be forced out of the plans we have and into a government program. In point of fact, your statement that this relative is not coverable under current government programs is a great example of why one should not go towards more government control over healthcare.

Bottom line, if your relative cannot be covered under existing government plans, they probably won’t be covered under future plans, at least not for the pre-existing condition you state is causing the problem. We know that existing government healthcare systems routinely deny life-saving and/or life-preserving care to those that do not fit in a certain group, all the while claiming the fiction of “universal coverage.” Britain recently denied two types of cancer drugs which are used to treat very serious types of cancer, for just one example.

You’ve not made your case, in fact, you’re doing very well at making the opposite case.

#39,”You’re asking us to sympathize with a vague abstraction, and make sense out of a puzzle that can’t be solved.

CK,how could it be more simple,if you’re sick and not allowed to have insurance,in order to survive,first you’ll burn up your credit cards,and then your loved ones will burn up their credit cards,and then you go to the emergency rooms,and eventually,after you have used all your resources,you lose the game. what’s the puzzle?

#40,I’m not arguing,This is the process,see #41.

“The most anti-semitic group in America,the Jews,80% for Obama,and Jews are smart.”

I’ve heard it alleged that Jews are smart. As a Jew, I find this flattering. On the other hand, I look at the political positions Jews stake out, and the candidates they support, and I am pretty sure most of them have a death wish.

But “insurance” doesn’t magically cure diseases, RCAR. Insurance doesn’t keep you from having to max out your credit cards and seek public assistance, if you’ve got a chronic and incurable condition. It may postpone those measures. But insurance doesn’t make the untreatable treatable.

And if the illness IS treatable, then personal finances and public assistance will make headway against it. It will make a difference to the illness, to have recourse to them. In that case, there’s light at the end of the tunnel, not “losing the game.”

RCAR – the problem as you describe it is not “insurance,” but diagnosis, care, and payment for services. The mystery is what particular malady (or set of maladies) leads to a situation in which treatment appears obviously necessary to relatives and physicians, is real enough to be excluded from private insurance coverage, but is not acknowledged by the designers of public assistance or to some judge.

RCAR, congratulations, you’ve managed to completely miss the point… twice.

Both Mahon in comment 20 and myself in comment 40 (symmetry entirely coincidental and unintentional) have pointed out that there is no guarantee that your relative–if they even exist, which I begin to have serious doubts about–would have this serious condition covered by a government health plan.

You’re well-known around these parts as a shill for socialized medicine, so I have a healthy skepticism about your entire story… which is bolstered by my own, personal experience with healthcare when one has a disability.

44,45,46,
I am amazed about how you complicate a simple situation,healthcare is a game,so far we’re down about $275000,but the lawyers are involved, and if we win in court,then it’s a new game.

RCAR, you’re playing some kind of game, but it’s not “health care.” At least not from the info you’ve provided.

I concur, J.E. The signal-to-noise ratio in RCAR’s story is way out of whack. And, like one of Joe Biden’s stories, every time he tries to make it sound better, he opens new holes.

I think RCAR’s is a very common confusion. It is all too human to think that if a disaster happens to you, should should somehow be made whole anyway. That is why most people buy insurance. Insurance doesn’t insure against disaster, it insures against the disaster’s using up all your assets, so once the disaster is taken care of you still have assets.

The social safety net and private charity work on the premise that if a disaster happens you should be helped, usually after you have spent a lot of your assets. But although the states even provide various kinds of insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, there is no way they can make you whole.

#27, RCAR, the solution to your problem is to continue moving in the direction of a free market system. Even in auto insurance, those who are high risk drivers can get insurance, although they have to pay a higher rate.

And the only way that Medicaid will not take your relative is if they are making too much money or they have too much in the way of hard assets. I’d hate to tell you this, but your relative should either a) not work; b) start liquidating a bunch of his assets; or c) both. Now, this can be construed as fraud (which is why I loathe to tell you this), but if you want to qualify for a government program, you must give the appearance that you are poorer than you really are.

Oh, I am IN NO WAY ADVOCATING THAT YOU DO THIS.

#48&49,
unfortunately.these forums are not ideal for long,very complex medical-legal processes,this has been going on for three years,the legal process involves two hospitals,two insurance companies.half a dozen doctors, two seperate sets of lawyers,several government agenciesand a very ill young man just trying to recover from some real bad luck. Once these thing start,they have a life of their own,but,yes,there are many details I can’t share with you, but I can share that this started very simply,a young man got ill,and his insurance co decined to pay for his treatment,steps one and two.

By the by, Conservative Wanderer brings up a very good point (as did J.E.): how exactly will having a government run program prolong life or eliminate certain conditions? No program on the face of this planet, whether private or public, will ever do that. Nothing exempts mankind from ailments and disease. Sometimes when it’s our time to go, it’s our time to go. However, if you want to buy a few more hours, days, weeks, months, or years on this planet you should have to pay. Of course, you can also spare your family suffering (both emotionally and financially) by accepting the fact that you are going to die.

@ #52 RCAR, what if the government declines to pay? Then where are you left to go? I will absolutely guarantee you that the government will institute a clause that will allow it to escape liability for the denial of any treatment that leads to a worsening condition, or even death. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

Is health care a god-given right, or is it a scarce good, with a price and limited supply? RCAR is the resident economic guru in these parts, perhaps he can explain to me which it is so I will know how to react when someone complains that someone else isn’t doing their job and paying for my health problems.

#55, Someone is going to pay,The Insurance Co,the Taxpayer,the patient and his family,the credit card co. or,it just moves to bankruptcy court.
^[2]

This is funny. RCAR invents a sick relative who allegedly can’t get insurance. Then, when earnest, well-intended people who don’t get the joke ply him with suggestions for Sick Relative, RCAR keeps moving the goalposts because, of course, the whole point is to prove that there is no solution for Sick Relative under the existing system, and only a wholely-nationalized “solution” will work. Though some have gotten close to catching on, by pointing out that we already have a nationalized system for Sick Relative.

So yes, Sick Relative, like a one-joke act, is destined to die a slow and painful death.

Sob.

Gideon, two words:

Nail. Head.

And just to drive home the point, RCAR, read Jonah and Mark’s blogs for Sunday, July 5th:

^[3]

To expect that healthcare will somehow become more efficient and effective under government control is the height of not only irony, but idiocy. The government cannot deliver run a postal service profitably, cannot run trains on time, cannot even handle the current systems of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Tri-Care and IHS, yet we are expected to turnover the remaining healthcare system to the government. Liberals and anyone else who thinks along these lines are idiots, knaves, fools, and just plain stupid.

I don’t not why you all keep extrapolating a political agenda from my tale of woe,which you now believe is fictional LOL, If you ever run into a catastrophic situation with someone you’re responsible for,be prepared to be jerked around,that’s the totality of my message, but here’s a suggestion that could help,if an insurance company wrongfully denied payment to a customer,depending on the size and the situation of the denial,the individuals responsible for the denial,would be charged with a felony,that practice would end quickly.

#60–Wrongful denial of coverage is already punitive damage territory, but of course that isn’t your point, is it? Let it go, the joke’s played out. Sick Relative must die, that’s all there is to it. After all, Christopher Reeve died because John Kerry didn’t have a chance to enable him to walk again, as John Edwards assured us he would if we just elected him; we need these victims of the current, heartless system in order to hasten the day when, thanks to the collective, death is but a memory. I’m afraid SR has to be sacrificed to the greater good.

#61, I am just describing the system which can be quite unstable;I’ll let someone else figure out how to get rid of it. And SR won’t die because I have a lot of credit cards.

#60, RCAR, that will happen whether there is a free market in healthcare or if there is a third-party payer for healthcare. Haggling over price and other terms is part of the human condition. To somehow think that that should not be involved in healthcare is irrational. I’m not assigning any type of agenda to your position, but if you don’t think that there should be a free market solution involved in healthcare, what else is one to extrapolate other than that you think that the government should be more involved in the healthcare system?

Besides, it sounds as though you’re getting screwed by both your insurance company AND the government. However, it seems most of your anger is reserved for the private market and not for the government.

#63
The government screwed us by not allowing my son to be classified as disabled(that’s on appeal)that also prevented him from getting medicaid

The insurance companies screwed us by denying payments for his medical costs,that is in litigation.

So,as you observe, I’ve have little confidence in any healthcare system.

RCAR, we are “extrapolating a political agenda” because–as I said before, if you’d pay attention–you’re well-known here for your endless demagoguery on behalf of socialized medicine.

#64, RCAR, not to sound callous but that sounds like you have a personal problem. Simply because you have a personal problem does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and go to a complete socialized healthcare system where a lot more people will get screwed. As I’ve mentioned before, if we go to a socialized system the government will shield itself from mistakes that will undoubtedly come down the pipeline.

Wait till the argument, that the “government as insurer” (who can make healthcare decisions) abrogates the “keep government off our bodies” justification for “legal abortion” as spelled out in Roe v Wade, kicks in.
And here nobody thought that those “conservative Judges” were helping to pave the way for “Obama-care”

With the health care industry spending 1.4 million dollars a day to lobby their agenda where do we think the pain is going to fall.