Mental health care = no insurance?

Nov 28 18:56 UTC 2003

Normally MSN is a minor annoyance to click past when I'm forced to use
Internet Explorer, but today this article by insurance.com caught my eye:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P41966.asp

It turns out that if you have any instances in your medical records of
having been prescribed an antidepressent, or having sought counseling,
you become essentially ineligible for individual health insurance.  The
article suggests that if you can't avoid seeking treatment, the best
thing to do is pay cash so you don't leave a paper trail that could
result in being denied coverage in the future.

This is, I suppose, one of the "efficiencies" conservatives talk about
private insurance promoting -- if you know seeking treatment is likely
to result in being uninsurable in the future, you're more likely to save
the insurance company money by not seeking treatment at all.

response 2 of 20:

Nov 28 19:56 UTC 2003

  Well if you aren't, it's clearly your fault, right?

  (ugh.)

response 4 of 20:

Nov 29 01:10 UTC 2003

I don't really read MSN much, so I can't comment much on their alarmism.
 I'd argue NewsMax.com is the *most* alarmist, though.  Recently they
had an article about how Tommy Franks thinks that the next terrorist
attack will cause us to abandon the Constitution.  My vote for most
over-the-top NewsMax headline is still "Clinton EPA Downs Shuttle", though.

response 6 of 20:

Nov 29 17:15 UTC 2003

I don't believe I've heard of Scott Drudge, but Matt Drudge is still
out there. . . . ;-)

response 8 of 20:

Dec 1 01:15 UTC 2003

Having been looking at individual health insurance plans lately, this seems
to be true of a lot of medical conditions.  I currently appear to be
uninsurable except as part of a group plan (which I fortunately have access
to through my ex-employer) due to having seen a doctor about knee pain a few
months ago.  The doctor's recommended treatment, which has so far been
successful, was to get new shoes.

That said, I find this a little surprising given that some US insurance
companies still refuse to cover mental health issues, or to cover them at the
same level as other medical conditions.  Leaving the question of what diseases
a health care plan covers to the free market does not appear to have worked
well on this issue.

The US health insurance system, in general, is a big mess.

response 10 of 20:

Dec 1 02:33 UTC 2003

True, but it's also disgraceful that a person should be left destitute 
because of a sickness or an injury, or not be able to afford effective 
treatment at all.  Insurance offers a solution for some people, but 
there needs to be a solution for everyone else.  "Life is unfair" 
doesn't cut it when it comes to health care.

response 12 of 20:

Dec 1 05:29 UTC 2003

You're kidding, aren't you? Would you like to provide for your own police
and fire protection? Socialism is very appropriate for many things, if
you want to be civilized.

response 14 of 20:

Dec 1 09:45 UTC 2003

The State of the Union Address 2003:

President Bush: "Fuck!"

Congress: "Yay!"

Pr. Bush: "Communism!"

Congress: "Boo! BANG! BANG BANG! BANG! Boo!"

'Nuff said.

response 16 of 20:

Dec 1 16:58 UTC 2003

I'm getting more liberal and less libertarian as I get older.  There 
was a time when I thought private fire and police protection was a good 
diea, but since then I've lived in rural areas where that wouldn't be 
practical, and taken a liberal, central government view on the subject.

I hated the idea of HMOs, and hated even more the idea of a national 
health program ala Clinton, 1992.  I still do.  Mostly.  I hate the 
idea of not being able to obtain medical insurance (or medical care) 
for myself and my kid even more.  For me, it's just a concern.  There 
are others my age and in similar situations for whom it's a reality.  
That can't be good.

In the case of my kid, I have the security of knowing he's got 
alternative coverage.  If I can't provide insurance for him, his mother 
can.  He's as safely covered as anyone.

So, wouldn't it be great if everyone could give their kid insurance?  A 
good parent provides their kid with such things as medical care.  But 
I'm darned if I can see how I'm *that* much better of a parent than a 
lot of people who can't get (or don't have) insurance.

response 18 of 20:

Dec 1 18:00 UTC 2003

The two are related.  There are going to be a lot of people who private
companies are unwilling to insure, especially if the bar is set as high
as this article and scg's comments seem to suggest.  (Basically, it
sounds like the only people who can get individual health insurance are
people who can show they don't need it!)  Who fills that gap?  If
private companies won't, and shouldn't be compelled to, that pretty much
leaves it up to government.  But the same people who oppose regulating
the private companies also oppose a government safety net.  It's hard
for me to see how you can hold both positions at the same time.

response 20 of 20:

Dec 2 02:15 UTC 2003

Before Mr. gull blows a gasket, allow us to point out that Mr. sgc's 
contention was that SOME companies would not provide insurance - not 
that the insurance was not obtainable.
Thank you.