In NC, battered women are denied health insurance

In NC, battered women are denied health insurance

by Liv Published on September 14th, 2009, 7:18 am Rift: News

There's no way I could fit the entire title necessary to convey this... but, in North Carolina victims of domestic violence are considered a pre-existing condition by health care companies. Clearly it's time to shut down these health care companies in lieu of a government option where people don't profit from others health.

insurance companies have gone too far, claiming that "domestic violence victim" is also a pre-existing condition.

Words cannot describe the sheer inhumanity of this claim. It serves as yet further proof that our insurance system is broken, destroyed by the profit-mongering of the very companies who's sole purpose should be to provide Americans with access to care when they need it most. In 1994, an informal survey conducted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that 8 of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor when decided whether to extend coverage and how much to charge if coverage was extended.
via

[thesumofyourfears]

Clearly it's time to shut down these health care companies in lieu of a government option where people don't profit from others health.

Would you not think tort reform is one option that could make a differnce, than a emotional knee jerk reaction "to shut down"? Do you have any idea how many people work in the health care industry? They will be out of a job if your effing potus get's his way. Unemployment is a far more serious problem than national health care. We don't need or want anymore gooberment than what we already have. Gooberment has a 100% failure rate.
http://crushliberalism.com/2009/09/08/t ... lure-rate/

[Liv]

Think of all the jobs that will take the place of those jobs? In fact the government system will have a larger customer base thereby creating more jobs for everyone including those out of work right now. Transitional business employment mediums are a commonality among capitalistic dogmas, so it's arguably mute that a temporary transition between one job provider whom is probably providing below standard employment benefit because of profiteering to the government which has long held a reputation as one of the better employers; would exist under a hypthetical national health care system.

[A Person]

Do you have any idea how many people work in the health care industry? They will be out of a job if your effing potus get's his way.

Strange, the sumofyourfeces is now concerned about employment and suggests throwing money at them to keep them in employment. Yet he wasn't too happy with the argument "look how many people are employed by the auto industry, they will be out of a job unless..."

Yes there is a lot of bureaucratic overhead in the system, that's one big reason the costs are so high

The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.

These results are derived from detailed data on administrative costs in the U.S. and Canada in 1999 which appears in tomorrow's New England Journal of Medicine. This report updates the New England Journal estimates of nationwide administrative spending and potential savings to 2003. The complex and fragmented payment structure of the U.S. health care system increases administrative overhead in the U.S. relative to Canada, where a single-payer national health insurance program has existed since 1971.

The cost of excess health bureaucracy to the states is equally striking. Massachusetts, with 560,000 uninsured state residents, could save about $8.556 billion in 2003 ($16,453 per uninsured resident of that state) if it streamlined administration to Canadian levels. New Mexico, with 373,000 uninsured, could save $1.500 billion on health bureaucracy ($4,022 per uninsured resident). Maine, home to 132,000 uninsured residents recently passed legislation that seeks to cover the uninsured through a complex system of state subsidies. Unfortunately, the Maine legislation fails to capture the $1.325 billion in potential savings annually ($10,037) on administration that would have been achievable with a single payer reform.

Only a single payer national health insurance system could garner these massive administrative savings, allowing universal coverage without any increase in total health spending. Because incremental reforms necessarily preserve the current fragmented and duplicative payment structure they cannot achieve significant bureaucratic savings.

Summy seems to be a socialist - promoting wasteful bureaucracy just to keep people in idle employment.-

Gooberment has a 100% failure rate

Don't judge all government by Bush or Palin's standards. If you would like an example of a US government run healthcare system, (not even single payer, the government runs the hospitals, employs doctors & nurses etc) just ask Joe Wilson. He doesn't pay any insurance companies anything to keep claims deniers on the payroll, he has health care from US Department of Veterans Affairs

Military beneficiaries like Wilson, who, as a retiree, is eligible for lifetime coverage, never have to worry about an eye exam, a CT scan, a prolonged labor, or an open-heart surgery. They have access not only to the military's 133,500 uniformed health professionals, but cooperating private doctors as well, whose fees are paid by the Department of Defense. It's high-quality care, too: surveys from 2007 and 2008 list TRICARE among "the best health insurer(s) in the nation" by customer satisfaction. Yet Wilson insists government-run health care is a problem.

"As a 31-year Army Guard and Reserve veteran, I know the importance of TRICARE," he said in a press release. "The number of individuals who choose to enroll in TRICARE continues to rise because TRICARE is a low cost, comprehensive health plan that is portable and available in some form world-wide." He went on to call TRICARE "world class health care," concluding on a personal note. "I am grateful to have four sons now serving in the military, and I know that their families appreciate the availability of TRICARE," he said.

But Joe thinks it would be wrong for you to have the same care as him or his family. That would be Socialist.

[thesumofyourfears]

Do you have any idea how many people work in the health care industry? They will be out of a job if your effing potus get's his way.

Strange, the sumofyourfeces is now concerned about employment and suggests throwing money at them to keep them in employment. Yet he wasn't too happy with the argument "look how many people are employed by the auto industry, they will be out of a job unless..."

Yes there is a lot of bureaucratic overhead in the system, that's one big reason the costs are so high

The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.

These results are derived from detailed data on administrative costs in the U.S. and Canada in 1999 which appears in tomorrow's New England Journal of Medicine. This report updates the New England Journal estimates of nationwide administrative spending and potential savings to 2003. The complex and fragmented payment structure of the U.S. health care system increases administrative overhead in the U.S. relative to Canada, where a single-payer national health insurance program has existed since 1971.

The cost of excess health bureaucracy to the states is equally striking. Massachusetts, with 560,000 uninsured state residents, could save about $8.556 billion in 2003 ($16,453 per uninsured resident of that state) if it streamlined administration to Canadian levels. New Mexico, with 373,000 uninsured, could save $1.500 billion on health bureaucracy ($4,022 per uninsured resident). Maine, home to 132,000 uninsured residents recently passed legislation that seeks to cover the uninsured through a complex system of state subsidies. Unfortunately, the Maine legislation fails to capture the $1.325 billion in potential savings annually ($10,037) on administration that would have been achievable with a single payer reform.

Only a single payer national health insurance system could garner these massive administrative savings, allowing universal coverage without any increase in total health spending. Because incremental reforms necessarily preserve the current fragmented and duplicative payment structure they cannot achieve significant bureaucratic savings.

Summy seems to be a socialist - promoting wasteful bureaucracy just to keep people in idle employment.-

Gooberment has a 100% failure rate

Don't judge all government by Bush or Palin's standards. If you would like an example of a US government run healthcare system, (not even single payer, the government runs the hospitals, employs doctors & nurses etc) just ask Joe Wilson. He doesn't pay any insurance companies anything to keep claims deniers on the payroll, he has health care from US Department of Veterans Affairs

Military beneficiaries like Wilson, who, as a retiree, is eligible for lifetime coverage, never have to worry about an eye exam, a CT scan, a prolonged labor, or an open-heart surgery. They have access not only to the military's 133,500 uniformed health professionals, but cooperating private doctors as well, whose fees are paid by the Department of Defense. It's high-quality care, too: surveys from 2007 and 2008 list TRICARE among "the best health insurer(s) in the nation" by customer satisfaction. Yet Wilson insists government-run health care is a problem.

"As a 31-year Army Guard and Reserve veteran, I know the importance of TRICARE," he said in a press release. "The number of individuals who choose to enroll in TRICARE continues to rise because TRICARE is a low cost, comprehensive health plan that is portable and available in some form world-wide." He went on to call TRICARE "world class health care," concluding on a personal note. "I am grateful to have four sons now serving in the military, and I know that their families appreciate the availability of TRICARE," he said.

But Joe thinks it would be wrong for you to have the same care as him or his family. That would be Socialist.

The big flaw with your argument is that as a fed govt employee/military/ you think their health care plan is "socialism". Not so. Anymore than your health plan with your employer is socialism.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The big flaw with your argument is that as a fed govt employee/military/ you think their health care plan is "socialism". Not so. Anymore than your health plan with your employer is socialism.

Oh -- you mean the money to pay for all that care just comes from money fairies? Hey, maybe the money fairies can pay for my care too!

[A Person]

you think their health care plan is "socialism".

No. I think it's a government run and funded health care system. You're the one screaming 'socialism. Every developed nation, with both right and left wing governments, around the world does it. It's no more socialist than having a government run and funded army is.

It seems that you accept that this government controlled and delivered system is efficient and effective but now your objection is that an efficient and effective system offered to it's employees must not also be offered to its citizens because that would somehow be socialism?

[thesumofyourfears]

you think their health care plan is "socialism".

No. I think it's a government run and funded health care system. You're the one screaming 'socialism. Every developed nation, with both right and left wing governments, around the world does it. It's no more socialist than having a government run and funded army is.

It seems that you accept that this government controlled and delivered system is efficient and effective but now your objection is that an efficient and effective system offered to it's employees must not also be offered to its citizens because that would somehow be socialism?

Liar. You said "That would be Socialist".

[A Person]

Ah, I see the confusion, my bad.

But Joe thinks it would be wrong for you to have the same care as him or his family. That would be Socialist.

The two statements were intended to be taken together.
Let me rephrase that:

But Joe thinks it would be wrong for you to have the same care as him or his family because that would be Socialism.


Now perhaps you'd like to respond to the meat of the post. If the government can provide what is widely recognised as excellent health care in government run hospitals with doctors on salary, why would such a system not work for other citizens?

[BecauseHeLives]

Now perhaps you'd like to respond to the meat of the post. If the government can provide what is widely recognised as excellent health care in government run hospitals with doctors on salary, why would such a system not work for other citizens?

Well it doesn't work very good right now at the Veterans hospitals so why would citizens want the same low to mediocre care for themselves?

[A Person]

If you think that then you would be free to buy another plan from a private insurer, You see that's why it's called a public 'option'.

However not everyone agrees with you.

Wilson Health Information, a leading healthcare consumer insight firm, names
TRICARE the highest rated Health Insurance Carrier in overall member
satisfaction for the sixth consecutive year in the 2008 WilsonRx Health
Insurance Satisfaction Survey. TRICARE also rates highest in most of the 28
insurance and 29 pharmacy benefit related topics covered in the survey.

The report contains member importance and satisfaction ratings on coverage,
quality, costs services and overall satisfaction on the largest health insurance
carriers including: Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Illinois, BCBS of
Michigan, BCBS of Minnesota, California Blue Shield, CareFirst BCBS, CIGNA,
Coventry, Empire BCBS of New York, Federal Employee BCBS, Health Care Services
Corporation (HCSC), Health Net, Horizon BCBS of New Jersey, Humana, Kaiser
Permanente, Medicaid, Medicare, Regence BC BS, TRICARE, UnitedHealthcare,
Veterans Administration, WellPoint, Inc.

"Among the leading health insurers evaluated, TRICARE is the #1 rated carrier in
overall health insurance satisfaction and loyalty measures. TRICARE`s results
continue to be impressive year after year," said third generation pharmacist Jim
Wilson, President of Wilson Health Information, LLC; "other top rated carriers
include Kaiser Permanente, the Veterans Administration and the Federal Employee
BCBS."