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.20 responses total.
they really do think everyone's rich, don't they?
Well if you aren't, it's clearly your fault, right? (ugh.)
It should be noted that msn.com is probably *the* most alarmist mainstream national news source on the Internet. I had it set as my home page for most of this year, before I couldn't stand it any more. Also, msn.com covers your screen with ads. There were several ads mentioned in the article or displayed around the screen when I was reading the article. Life is pretty hopeless, and also expensive, if you read msn.com enough. I don't know if this particular article is accurate or not. I guess I better keep my job for a while, just in case.
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.
Heh. I didn't mean that msn.com is the *most* alarmist. Doesn't Scott Drudge still slither the world? Among newspapers and what I'd think of as "mainstream" news sources, though, msn.com is pretty ready to press the panic button. They seem to have an article or two like this one every day.
I don't believe I've heard of Scott Drudge, but Matt Drudge is still out there. . . . ;-)
Okay, Matt Drudge.
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.
Mr. scg- It sounds rather odd that one would be upset that "some US companies" would choose to do business in a certain way. Do you also find it troublesome not to be able to purchase a Chevy at a Ford dealership? One would hope that in the United States people should understand the freedom of companies to sell what they want, rather than being forced to sell that which the government would mandate. The latter is certainly not the free enterprise system (and, wherever it has been tried, has been an abject failure.)
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.
Insurance is socialism. People should have the medical care they can buy themselves. What ever happened to American self-reliance?
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.
Rane! Sarcasm alert! WooOOOooo! WooOOOooo!
The State of the Union Address 2003: President Bush: "Fuck!" Congress: "Yay!" Pr. Bush: "Communism!" Congress: "Boo! BANG! BANG BANG! BANG! Boo!" 'Nuff said.
You forgot: Blair: [suck suck slurp]
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.
(Ouch. We got whiplash as Mr. scg changed the subject from: whether private companies ought to be compelled to offer a product to: the problem of persons who are either unwilling or unable to purchase insurance.)
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.
"Let them die and reduce the surplus population."
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.
You have several choices: