Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comSome illnesses completely covered, but certain treatments have hefty fees
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Late starters can live longer if they get movingMom with flesh-eating disease had seven operationsU.S. HIV aid has prevented 741,000 deaths: studyLung cancer scans suggested for older heavy smokersNew York judge with cancer makes case for marijuanaKicking up the spice may help your heartPot groups hope Ore. race sends feds a messageParents buying off kids for good behaviorGeorgia woman with flesh-eating disease in "critical" conditionObesity fight must shift from personal blame: panel
Leave a Comment:
This is insane-letting workers "Diagnose" their own problems. It's just a way to try to not cover expensive/entensive procedures. BTW, I didn't get the bit on cancer-maybe I missed it, but I DO know, being a nurse, that MOST, not all, diagnoses of chronic bronchitis, emphasema ( both known by the name C.O.P.D.) & lung cancer are caused MOSTLY by personal behaviours. How about STD's? Are they covered if your boyfriend or husband gives you a "social disease?" Early onset Altheimers? Genetic diseases like schizophrenia or Huntington's Chorea?
Heaven help us because we sure can't ourselves!
Well, if you can't help yourself then you are like a virus just using up the world around you and killing in the process. Why is it Americans want everything for virtually nothing? IMHO the USA should stop the massive PONZI scheme like UNvoluntary payments to Social Security, medicare, unemployment checks, etc. Privatize it and allow US citizens to choose what they want to buy into. As it stands now, every government PONZI scheme is doomed to fail and why they are pushing the new health Care, because without it the PONZI scheme will end faster than anticipated and, thus massively add to USA debt.
So which is it, a nanny country that takes most of your income or freedom to choose? The Founding fathers wanted a Republic, not a country that oversees people like a nanny. Perhaps it is time to break up the union of States, one for nanny lovers and one for people who want the freedom to choose. Why should those who work hard support those who do nothing but live on government handouts? Look around and see how very few Obama stickers you see on vehicles that are going TO WORK.
Ridiculous - if you need heart surgery or a hip replaced, then you just have to do it. It's hardly a matter of "elective" surgery.
This is just cost shifting in the end.
The person who needs knee surgery is going to get it. Now they owe double what they used to owe and they still won't pay for it. Hospitals and doctors will still have to perform collections actions on all of those patients. Most people are not prepared to hand over $1000 before a surgery, and many don't pay it at all ofter the surgery no matter how many statements you send them.
This happened with those low-cost HSA plans. Employers, employees and the insurers got to save themselves some money but the providers got walloped with increased account balances that patients couldn't pay. We write off more money to charity because it is usually marginal income folks who chose (or are offered) these plans and they don't have any more money to pay a $75 ER visit copay than they do to pay an out of pocket deductible of $3K (when they choose a surgery on that hit list). And if you think owing money to the hospital/doctor would deter some folks from being seen (from using their benefits) think again. They show up in the ER anyway and worry about the cost (if at all) later.
Don't let me add in the cost to hire people who can manage a difficult contract/insurance plan as this. Coders, abstracting folks, good collections people, etc all cost money. Their expertise and certified training usually means big time admin dollars spent by a hospital/doc.
I agree with someone in the article who said that exemptions should be made for the folks who can prove medical necessity. I certainly also like that some services should cost less and others should cost more. Hopefully it will get more people to be compliant with doctors orders.
I can easily see how this won't save money in the short haul.
this is what Obama care will give us. heart attack and need bypass or stent, too bad die or pay through the nose. I didn't plan to have a heart attack or need surgery, and I have been healthy, however, heart issues etc are inherated, Gene testing for medical insurance next? Great program, force workers into bankrupcy or not have the procedure and die. Welcome to the pre-socialist Obama health care. cheaper to have several hospital stays or one and fix the problem. What about type 2 diabetis, that is "broughat on by behavior", (eating too much and being fat).
Are they covered if your boyfriend or husband gives you a "social disease?"
Yeah, like a wife or girlfriend will never give you one, lol. Just call it "significant other" you man hater.
I am against health insurance/health care that limits my choice in who to go to and when to go to that specific doctor, i.e. "authorization" from your PCP. I am against health insurance that limits my choice in what kind of medical treatment I want, can get or need. This new type of health isurance in this article, ultimately, won't work, is not viable and will lead to more medical malpractice suits being instituted. I think the biggest step in health care reform, lowering health care costs is tort reform. Put a cap on medical malpractice claims specific to the medical field, primary doctor, any type of specialist, Ob/gyns, dentists, hospitals, etc. The monetary awards granted to plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits can be high. Institute caps on jury awards, which will lower malpractice insurance fees, which will lower medical costs to the consumer. It's a no-brainer. It won't put trial lawyers out of a job, it will just be a way to control costs.
This is just another way for insurers to deny coverage for medical treatment and pocket the difference! No matter what euphemisms they employ to cover it up, it's all about saving THEM money! Gotta pay those worthless CEOs and top executives their mega-million dollar salaries, perks and bonuses, and they can't do that and pay for sick people too! What a crock of lies.
Sure, there is waste in the medical field; there is waste in every business. Instead of trying to limit people's access, they should be looking at clearly-defined waste, such as repetitive tests, farming patients out to specialists for every problem, and let's not forget those $40 aspirin tablets when you're in the hospital!
We need "Medicare for Everyone" and we need it ASAP. We should revamp Medicare, merge it with Medicaid and the VA system, and cover all US citizens and LEGAL immigrants.
"free care for some illnesses, such as diabetes or depression, but requires hefty extra fees for treatments deemed overused, including knee replacements, hysterectomies and heart bypass surgery"
Looks like ObamaCare aimed right at the senior citizens. Of course, things like heart bypass is necessary for democrats like Clinton and all the necessary un-necessary testing Obama just received. Since seniors are no longer toiling for the state and just consuming resources, the ruling elite have a duty to eradicate the expense.
My mother had Bi-Lateral knee replacement surgery after it was determined through all kinds of tests and xrays that she had no cartildge left after being on her feet for the past 35+ years when employed, and the bones were being eroded and worn away as they were rubbing bone on bone whenever she stood or walked. After surgery she moves easier and her quality of life has vastly improved but now there are some who think that this type of surgery is overused???
Where in the HE** do you people in your determination that one conditions treatment is worse than another and is over used? Yes it would be very nice to have lower cost for treatments and meds for other chronic medical conditions but to double the price if those conditions develope, or if the person asserted their right to choose the type of treatment they want? You would want someone like her to have to pay a higher cost $$$ due to years of abuse due to work in a specific field, my GOD what kind of animals have some insurance companies become?
But then government healthcare would be even worse as she would have been told that the surgery not necessary as due to her age she shouldn't worry about quality of life just shut up and take what she is given and be grateful, who cares she can learn to live with the pain of trying to walk up 3 stairs into or out of the house or move around inside her own home. She has pain? Just give her another drug and a hot or cold pack for the pain and it'll go away, for a while.
Thank GOD that she is on medicare and they did pay for the surgery and rehab after it was done. NO Public option, no government take over of health care, its delivery or set limits on treatments. If the Congress and Senate want this system so bad then let them establish it for themselves first for 20 years and see how they are treated.
Just don't buy their policy. No one else will buy it either (except the never been sick and uninformed which is the whole intention of the insurance provider).
Ms V missed, and several others, missed the whole point. It's not "you people" or "they" or whatever your favorite villan group is. This is about YOUR CHOICE. You can take, and pay for, Plan A or Plan B. The costs of each reflect the costs to the employer who pays them. Is that so hard to comprehend?" This is actually the way the system should work. Unfortunately what were about to be handed (NO CHOICE) is Barry Care. Medicare premiums are going to skyrocket, while services are slashed. And you won't be able to choose a damn thing, except whether or not to remain a citizen and resident of this nightmare.
No you are wrong. People will take these idiotic policies because they are cheap. When they develop a problem such as coronary artery disease and show up at the hospital ER the hospital is morally and legally obligated to treat him. When the patient can’t afford the bill who pays? Unless you are advocating that the hospital pushes him put the door to die.
There is an old movie out there called Logan's Run, for those who don't think that Obamacare is aimed at seniors you really need to see this one. When you turn a certain age you are called to "Renewal" and what everyone thinks is rebirth is in fact murder as a means of controlling the age of a cities people, and therefore the cost involved when they get to the age where they question and demand answers that just aren't there. And if that isn't bad enough if they do not go for "Renewal" they are hunted down and killed. IS this what is next for our grandparents and elders?
Maybe we should also have a real good look at another movie starring the late Charleton Heston, it was called Soylent Green adn that has another way of dealing with the elderly, or those who are 'Becoming a burden to their family'.
Off subject, but.......
The carrot and stick method is to promise something you have no intention of delivering, taken from the practice of hanging a carrot from a stick that's connected to a mule's harness. The mule continually walks toward the carrot, which it can never catch.
Once again, the costs of self-inflicted disease (Question: Whhere do you think all the diabetics come from? Answer: the obese population of the US) are not going to be borne by those causing the disease. Pathetic.
Not all diabetes is self-inflicted. I've been a TYPE 1 diabetic since I was 12. I wasn't over weight and took very good care of myself (I still do take very good care of myself). But my immune system worked a little too well and killed the insulin making cells on my pancreas and now I am lumped together with every other over weight, self abusive person walking around. Making statements like that is dangerous and very misinformed.
I too am type 1 and not fat. However, you're on to one of my biggest peeves. Since obesity is an American epidemic, and by itself a causative factor for diabetes, heart disease and host of others conditions, I would charge for insurance by normalized weight. If you were 20% over you "ideal" weight, you'd pay a 20% (or some) premium compared to the person at his/her ideal weight. Now, obviously there would be individual cases where due to glandular problems, some people would have to receive an discount/exemption of some sort.
Most people aren't going to eat healthier or exercise or do anything better for their health unless it costs them money not to.
Do that and throw in some honest tort reform and you could insure everybody (legally) in the country who is serious about their health for a fraction of what we're now paying.
H.R. 3590 is not the way to go.
http://www.healthcarebillexplained.com