![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Are there companies with more enlightened practices? At this point I'd go without \"a choice in the free market\" since I don't enjoy playing Russian Roulette with my one body.
Are there companies with more enlightened practices? At this point I'd go without \"a choice in the free market\" since I don't enjoy playing Russian Roulette with my one body.
IIRC from a recent episode of Top Gear, saying you are a reporter or television personality increases the amount you have to pay for insurance in the UK.
@GitEmSteveDave_HasANewNameToday: That was from Series 07 Episode 04, aired 4 Dec. 2005, the episode where they all buy mid-engined Italian supercars for under £10,000.
They were talking about how much they would have to pay for car insurance. Jeremy Clarkson said he lives out in the countryside and was a Doctor, while James May was truthful, saying he's a television personality living in a not-so-great part of London.
If I remember correctly, there is no health insurance in the UK. They have national healthcare.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@Alys Brangwin can't stop the beat: Yes, some people choose additional coverage. In my limited encounters, it seems even more quixotic than American insurance, but I guess it doesn't carry the same health care responsibility.
@Alys Brangwin can't stop the beat: There is most definitely private health insurance in the UK. Every citizen automatically pays into and has NHS, ie, bankruptcy protection.
@GitEmSteveDave_HasANewNameToday: But insurance is a very different matter there because of the NHS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1261540-100x100.png\")
@GitEmSteveDave_SomeAssemblyRequired: I saw that episode of Top Gear several years ago and they were talking about auto insurance.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-261962-100x100.png\")
I was denied insurance a few months ago because I was pregnant. It actually said on the letter to some effect, \"due to you being pregnant, you may not recieve blah blah\".
They must have failed to notice that I am a man (\"I look lika man!\"), and that the insurance request was for me and me alone. My wife has her own insurance, and while my stomach may be getting into the double X territory, I had to convince them I was not pregnant.
Federal law bars group health insurance plans that cover maternity from considering pregnancy a pre-existing condition.
@madog: I'm calling Ms. Swan, I've got you now.
How fun was it to call them and tell them you're the pregnant person they wouldn't cover?
@madog: Important: my wife was pregnant. So while it was stupid, it was just poorly worded because it didn't take much to convince them otherwise.
@madog: Maybe they realize pregnant women are moody, and are afraid of the injuries she may cause you...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
I took Lamisil years ago for like 3 months, and when I applied for insurance, it was one of their major red flags that almost had me denied coverage. I am not sure why this is...supposedly the medication can be hard on your liver or something, but it is supposed to be safe...I feel like there is something someone wasn't telling me. \"OMG...I had no idea you took that...sorry, no life insurance for you.\"
@Saboth: It occurred to me that the Lamisil denials may only be because the drug is (or was at that time) under patent, so very expensive. My Zyrtec was about $100/month, if I recall correctly, before it went generic and subsequently over the counter a couple of years ago.
@Saboth:
Lamisil + booze = cirrhosis. If you answered \"yes\" to even occasional drinking, I expect they'd be worried.
@shepd:
Absolutely correct. Lamisil by itself puts a lot of stress on the liver (several reports of cirrhosis and chemical hepatitis). When alcohol (in any quantity) is added, the risk really skyrockets.
People taking lamisil should not drink AT ALL. Unfortunately the frequently-run TV ads don't make this point strongly enough with a generic \"don't drink while taking lamisil\" warning (generic enough to be ignored by a cynical public desensitized by all of the other similarly-generic warnings and nannying encountered in daily life).
The freewheeling prescription drug marketing REALLY needs to be reigned-in.
I have a pre-existing heart condition and just switched companies...no problem. All I had to do is send the letter from my previous company that I had continuous coverage. I don't blame companies for not taking on new customers who weren't insured previously and now all of a sudden may come into high bills that they want someone else to pay. It's like closing the barn door after the horse ran out. Makes me wonder if many of those people would cancel their coverage after their proceedures were paid for. Seems like a good way to save a few thousand for a minimal monthly payment.
@AllanG54: Forcing insurers to accept patients who are changing insurance companies is a fairly recent law by the government (I want to say it was the same law that created COBRA in order to give people a reason to buy COBRA coverage between jobs).
What's interesting is that until very recently (my paperwork from when our company last switched insurance companies at the start of 08) if you didn't have coverage before, insurers had no problem selling you insurance. They would just add a rider that excluded your pre-existing condition.
Now we're discussing regulation and all of a sudden, zits make you uninsurable. Funny, that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159178-100x100.png\")
@AllanG54: Insurance comes with an effective date (that is pretty much never ever backdated). You can't rack up bills and then buy insurance to pay those racked up bills.
@AllanG54: Except for a lot of people that have gaps in coverage have it because they can't afford it not because they were uninsurable due to health problems. Private remiums are pretty prohibitive for even young healthy people. This is my last week of work since my company's going out of business and so I'm losing healthcare. I'm going to TRY and get onto the state's plan but if I don't I can't afford COBRA so I'll be going uninsured. It's not all due to bad health.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1306088-100x100.png\")
@AllanG54: Not every person who is denied coverage was not covered at one point. I actually got denied after being covered for 18 years under my parents. It just depends on your pre-existing condition and how much they think they will have to pay for it. The more expensive it may get, the less likely it will be that you will get coverage. You got lucky so good deal there but don't assume that people who CAN NOT (not will not) get any kind of coverage are dead beats.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1225465-100x100.png\")
This is just scary, and angering. Seems they don't even have to have any reason to deny coverage.
\"oh, you're breathing...sorry that's a preexisting condition.\" Big read stamp DENIED on the application.
Whatever our government comes up with for plans, they better stipulate that insurance companies have to cover people no matter what. They need to make sure all the loopholes are plugged, and also make it so that it is affordable.
I would say that a bigger problem is that the insurance paradigm is a fundamentally flawed method of funding health care. From an actuarial standpoint, pre-existing conditions should be denied coverage because the premium they'd need to charge would be equal to the expected out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, health insurers are frequently required to cover things that make little sense from an insurance standpoint, like pregnancy and maternity care (hint: insurance traditionally doesn't cover intentional acts). The purpose of insurance isn't to cover expected costs (except to the extent necessary to mitigate potential future costs, which is why doctor check-ups are covered), it's to hedge unexpected risks. What we need isn't health insurance reform, what we need is health care reform.
@Powerlurker: Why shouldn't they cover pregnancy? It is something that has a pretty good chance of happening to young women, and can happen regardless if you are trying to get pregnant or not.
@s73v3r:
As I said, that's one of the many reasons why insurance is a nonsensical way of funding healthcare.
@s73v3r:
Because, outside of rape, getting pregnant requires an intentional act to be committed. It's like fire insurance covering your arson of your own house. Besides, if the pregnancy is unintentional there are a number of far less expensive ways of treating the condition other than paying to carry it to term.
@Sunshine1970: The flip side to covering people \"no matter what\" is that people will often wait until they're pregnant or have cancer and then walk into an insurance agent's office and say they want a policy. The problem's called adverse selection, which means that people who are poor risk are more likely to seek out coverage. The only fair counterpart to mandatory approval is to require everyone to carry coverage.
@chrylis: Back to the part where insurance premiums are just not affordable for everyone, even the healthy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-306389-100x100.png\")
@chrylis: Roger that on the mandatory approval/mandatory coverage.
Car insurance is largely the same thing, with Your Good Government(TM) mandating coverage for the same reason, to prevent honest responsible drivers from having to pick up the slack for dishonest unresponsible drivers.
OTOH, I can buy car insurance from a number of local, state and national insurers, each of whom can tailor a policy that matches my state's requirements. Getting the individual state health insurance mandates (only one guy I know of who needs pregnancy coverage so far) out of the way will help, too.
This is why I never take any medication and never go to the doctor because I know if anything ever shows up I will end up being denied coverage. Right now I keep a minimum of coverage just so they can't say I came down with something during the period of non-coverage. I'm essentially paying $200 a month for nothing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
@Al Swearengen: That's really how insurance should work (assuming you feel comfortable with seeing a doctor for things that could be serious). Otherwise people feel like they're not getting their money's worth if they don't go to the doctor for every cold and if they don't have a medicine cabinet filled with prescriptions.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343317-100x100.png\")
@morlo: While I agree that people shouldn't overuse their insurance just to \"get their money's worth,\" it's different when you're actually *afraid* to go to the doctor, because you know that if there's something wrong, it could potentially be used against you. I know many people who don't see doctors for this very reason. I was denied coverage last year after a check of my medical records revealed that at my last checkup, I told my doctor I felt bloated. The company took that as a sign of a pre-existing condition. Now, even though I'm healthy as a horse, I'm afraid to see my doctor because I'm worried that they'll write something that will come back to haunt me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-726004-100x100.png\")
Watch out!
If you've ever breathed Oxygen and discarded carbon dioxide, it might be considered a declinable condition!
@Underscore_Lysdexia: No, no, kids! That would be the carbon-offset discussion three topics over.
\"Life may be hazardous to your health...\"
@Underscore_Lysdexia: I always knew my addiction to aerobic respiration was going to come back to bite me in the ass.
Obviously this is that communist Obama's fault.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2234-100x100.png\")
The more I hear about your healthcare system, the more it makes me happy to be Canadian. I don't know how anyone could possibly think that universal healthcare is a bad idea. It boggles the mind. Police, Fire, roads, defense, governance . .all paid for by everyone, yet healthcare isn't? What is wrong with you guys?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
@Fuzz: i'm especially enjoying the irony that the police and firemen* are paid for but we can't help them keep healthy.
[*excepting of course the all volunteer fire departments in some areas]
@Fuzz: We don't have any money left after paying for defense. Maybe when Canada talks Iran out of nuclear weapons and takes over global assassination operations we can relax a little. Please send some mounties to beat Putin up publicly, too.
@morlo: Yep because having a defense budget that dwarfs the rest of our budget worked so well for 9/11.
We spend so much on defense because we LET them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-479704-100x100.png\")
@Fuzz: Fox News said it was bad because the government will kill grandma and special needs babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66824-100x100.png\")
@Fuzz: Never fails. Every single time, some blowhard from Canada tells us how it is. Thanks, we know.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16098-100x100.png\")
Public Option.
'nuff said.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169958-100x100.png\")
@holocron: i go back and forth on this one.
Yes, i want cheap/free insurance.
No, i don't want to deal with a medicare-esque system, that would be even more overburdened than it currently is.
@gStein: [for what it's worth, I'm not exactly interested in getting into an online debate, just voicing my opinion]
Last week the What's Your Problem column (by Jon Yates) in the Chicago Tribune ran several anecdotes focusing on the failure of healthcare coverage. Interesting and appalling reading.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-680891-100x100.png\")
\"...the underwriting guide in question \"is completely outdated and predates the acquisition of PacifiCare by UnitedHealthcare.\"
Yeah, because that acquisition made things SO much better. My co-pays for office visits and prescriptions have only doubled in the last two months. And premiums have gone up by a third. *hedsmax*
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-233963-100x100.png\")
I have not had health insurance for...well lets just say a long time after being insured and letting it lapse and then having Blue Cross deny me coverage (over 20 years ago!) So far I have been lucky and the few times I have been in the hospital I have paid for the procedures myself. (was still cheaper overall than if I had been paying premiums)
I am going back to school and have found that \"having health insurance\" is a PREREQUISITE to taking classes in my major!
I do not work for a company with a health plan so I have to get one on my own and I have been denied in the past because of... a pre-existing condition. One that involves me taking 1mg of a pill every day so I can sleep fine. That's it.
But I can't get Health Insurance because of this.
(well I CAN, but I cannot afford the premium of over $1000 a month)
I also found that most every college REQUIRES students to have health insurance and appear to have some sort of agreement in place with Health Insurance companies so that you are AUTOMATICALLY signed up for their Health Insurance Plan UNLESS you can prove to them that you already have Health Insurance (through work, spouse, parents etc...).
So when I heard about this and saw the prices, I thought \"hey, this sounds great, I can get student coverage!\"
Unfortunately the cutoff point for the \"student\" plan is 30 years of age.
I am older than 30 so I am SOL.
I have tried to ask WHY students are REQUIRED to have Health Insurance to take classes and just get BS replies like \"Well, we want to make sure that our students are able to continue their education despite having a health problem\".
Really?
So if I have an accident or get cancer I will somehow magically be able to keep taking classes? Really?
If I manage to get a policy that has a $100,000 deductible, does that mean I \"have Health Insurance\"? Does it?
So lets say I am taking classes and then I end up in the Hospital for a week for something but my deductible is $100,000 (that I have to pay) how does this affect my classes any differently than if I did NOT have ANY Health Insurance?
I mean if I DON'T have Insurance I would just go to the ER and still get the same damn bill that I would have to pay off. I don't see any difference.
I have found some private Health Insurance policies that appear to cover me ONLY while I am taking classes (?) and the cost of the policy is basically equivalent to my tuition costs, except I don't really get anything in return. (super high deductibles)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
@microcars: I have heard of requirements to have certain shots (meningitis, etc.) but NEVER a requirement to have health insurance. WTF?!
@microcars: 1. Your college doesn't have a College of Medicine or at least an affiliation? No student clinic?
2. Have you tried signing up for Medicaid? (better than nothing...)
3. The whole \"over 30\" thing is biting a lot of college students in the butt (yours truly included), and not just because of health insurance.
4. Just how much of a kickback is your school getting from their \"mandatory coverage\" insurance provider?
Oops... Your school would never be that slimy and underhanded, would they?
@PencilSharp: \"No student clinic?\"
sort of, it is a Community College, they have a small office that offers Testing, Exams,REFERRAL service and treatment of MINOR illness or injury. meh
The clinic does not satisfy the REQUIRED HEALTH INSURANCE policy.
as for Medicaid, I do not qualify. (I am not THAT old yet)
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93308-100x100.png\")
@microcars: If I had to guess, I'd say it's for the same reason they require proof of imunizations. Someone with health care is more likely to go see the doctor when they get swine flue (or whatever) than to just tough through it and go to class, causing a school wide epidemic. Doesn't make it justified, but I can understand the fear of an epidemic in an area with so many stupid kids so close together
current college students: don't get pissed about me calling you stupid. You may have a 4.0GPA, but I promise you do all kind of things that you will look back on and be like what was I thinking.
@K-Bo: LOL college kids ARE stupid. At least my friends and I were. I can't speak for anybody else. I'm surprised we're still alive!
@K-Bo: It seems like every year someone talks about a meningitis outbreak in a college dorm. I was never asked about coverage for college until I went to the school's infirmary to get a tooth pulled.
Proof of immunization makes sense because children have weaker immune systems and we've basically wiped out a lot of really deadly childhood diseases in this country (despite the efforts of Jenny McCarthy). The thing is, you're going to get what you're going to get. If it's something highly communicable like the flu, you can't get over it until you get over it once you have it. Having insurance doesn't change the fact it has to run it's course and the vaccinations don't cost much but they aren't given in case of infection.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
@microcars: Partially it's to protect you, the student. Mostly, it's to protect the university and other students from being sick through your negligance. I was required to have insurance while I was in college, as well.
@pecan 3.14159265:
how does \"INSURANCE\" protect me and others from being sick exactly?
It's like saying Auto Insurance protects me and others from having accidents.
There is a kid that sits behind me in Chem that has been coughing since Day 1. I asked him if he had seen doctor lately, he replied \"No, it's cool, it's just a cough...\"
@microcars: Insurance protects you by (theoretically) making it financially easier for you to get preventive care, and either detect problems before you develop clinical symptoms or get things checked out early.
OTOH, college students aren't usually dissuaded by the cost of seeing the doctor - it's usually the schedule. They should address that if they want to keep people healthy. Have more evening hours at the clinic.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-232165-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: lets be honest about it, it's how schools get great benefits for it's staff and having a larger base of coverage to keep their premiums down.
I had coverage and didn't show it in time and thus they signed me up automatically. I had to \"prove\" I had coverage so they could remove it.
But I wonder how many students who go to school don't care if they're signed up (because the fee is so small) thus making their would be small coverage policy into a larger one.
Nothing is ever done out of the kindness of somebodies heart.
@Skankingmike: At my school (large university) the student health insurance and staff/faculty were completely separate, so it's a lot less sinister. But I do think you're right in that it provides a larger base of students - so that they can get a better group policy. This assists students who aren't on their parents' health insurance, and, imo, students shouldn't be on their parents' insurance if they are taking charge of their medical well-being. But that's another rant...
Why students are required to be on health insurance I'm not 100% clear on; my best guess is so that they take advantage of preventive care. It also helps in instances of school-related injuries (like sports) to make sure everyone can get taken care of.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27305-100x100.png\")
check out the typical preexisting conditions quiz you typically have to go through just to get a coverage in America.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-404808-100x100.png\")
sure, the insurance companies support a mandate that everyone carry insurance. then they can compete on the basis of who can turn down the most claims from their (over)paying customers.
health insurance does not equal health care.
@shannanigans slash pterodactyl: they need to be regulated. This industry is ripe for abuse because the market for healthcare is so inelastic.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-551123-100x100.png\")
i was denied insurance because i bumped my funny bone and the doctor speculated on my chart that my pain might be due to a subluxing ulnar nerve, a genetic condition. no diagnostic tests to prove such a thing, just a hunch. good times.
Maybe we all could just shop around for better insurance, and pick the best plan that covers us.
Wait? What's that? I *can't* shop around for better insurance?
Oh, right.
INCREASE competition-- don't eliminate it.
@Daveinva: Health insurance is an INELASTIC market with companies with no incentive to cover anyone EXCEPT healthy people.
As an insurance company, the surest way you can make a profit is to deny coverage to your paying customers or retroactively refuse to pay after scouring one's medical records.
If you are currently getting treatment for a disease (like diabetes, or cancer)... you have NO WAY of shopping for a new policy or switching carrriers because they are not compelled to take you.
Also, most insurance carriers don't give any savings to individual policies...only preference to large group policies. And those group policies are out of reach to self employed entrepreneurs like myself. It's time for a non-profit public option and real choice. That's something sorely lacking in this insurance market. Private companies doing the right thing? Give me a break.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1258615-100x100.png\")
@Daveinva: You know - I have a little analogy for you - you don't want to shop at a car dealership because they threaten your life, steal your identity and try to run you over when you shop there. Then you go to another one and find to your horror they all do that now! Then the government steps in and stops them from doing that...
AHhhhh...but you say you don't want government regulation? Okay, back to the dealerships with you!
You see, when people are KILLED, this ceases to be a capitalism vs. socialism conversation.
It's not that those of us wanting the public option want health insurance companies to die, it's that they want US to die (literally) and we want them to stop killing people. Once the government steps in, if this bill gets passed the way it should, people will start getting covered and won't be KILLED any more.
Right now, it's about 100 murders per day.
@Daveinva: You can shop around for health insurance. You just won't be able to afford any of the options.
@floraposte: Yeah, there are plenty of insurers out there, but if you don't like the one your company signed up for, it's doubtful that you'd be able to convince your employer to give you a big enough raise to go looking for one on your own. Even if they gave you the group rate premium that they would have paid (less income taxes, of course) it wouldn't cover the rate you'll be charged on your own.
@Daveinva: Because remember-- Americans can be trusted to buy our own car insurance, home insurance, renters insurance, life insurance, pet insurance, asteroid strike insurance. . . but we can't be trusted to buy own health insurance.
@Daveinva: Can you please pay for mine then? My car insurance is $60/mo, my health insurance may be >$400. Guess which one I can afford?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-330685-100x100.png\")
@thisistobehelpful: You must be joking right? Do you see how these big companies operate? What we need isn't more health insurance companies. We have plenty and it hasn't worked for squat!
Yeah, I heard that the insurance lobby is really gung-ho about a proposal to congress that would require everyone to buy insurance. Um, yeah ... not the same as a public option. What happens to people with asthma and allergies, like me? Are we put into some risk pool, like the drivers with multiple accidents, and forced to pay high premiums by whatever company draws us for shit that's not our fault? I have a bipolar friend who was actually told by an insurance company to go off her meds for five years (after which being treated for the condition wouldn't show up in her records) and reapply for their coverage. She becomes suicidal off her medication. That is criminally irresponsible.
I don't believe for a second that costs will go down for those of us with pre-existing conditions if the whole nation is frogmarched into buying private insurance. Not as long as the insurance industry is profit-driven. After all, the only people able to get independent coverage now are those free of pre-existing conditions like pregnancy, allergies, toe fungus, and firefighting, right? So where are all the high-risk consumers that are supposedly driving costs up (besides those of us the insurance companies were required to take under group plans)?
I fail to see what's so terrifying about a nationwide public option (I mean, I see why it's terrifying to the insurance companies, but not the public):
_embedded#t=159We can all get affordable, high-quality coverage? Or keep our shitty high-cost coverage? And it's not tax-funded? Heaven forfend!
@AuntieMaim: Simple - you will be forced to pay for coverage that will not be provided when you need it.
@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: And your bipolar friend? They will dance on her grave and laugh in her family's face at the funeral because it's fun and because they can.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
Ironically, Death Panels DO exist, it turns out. Just not in the way that the ideologically motivated meant.
I've had a medical problem creeping up on me for the past few years that I really need to have diagnosed. But I won't do it yet. Why? There's a small chance it could be the same (incurable) debilitating disease that my dad died of and one that would prevent me from being insured with most companies. I'm kinda pretty sure it's something else, but I'm no doctor. Does it scare me? Hell yes, but no more than the idea of being uninsurable.
Wow, what a timely article. I am being laid off in 8 days so I started applying for health insurance this morning. The amount of questions they ask is staggering. I consider me and my family pretty healthy--no major problems. Usually all we use our insurance for is the occasional flu or twisted ankle. Filling out this form makes me feel like we are the sickest individuals on the planet though!
They gave me an initial quote of $200 per month for a high deductible plan that covers office visits and has catastrophic coverage...we will see how much that premium amount changes once I enter in all of our info though.
My son, my husband and I all have seasonal allergies...we take a generic for Claritin over the counter. My son has exercised-induced asthma--he has an inhaler but he's had the same one for over 2 years, so that shows you how often he uses it. And I have tendonitis in my right foot. Based on the above article, I am now afraid they will deny us coverage.
I'm about to purchase private insurance for the first time. I've been working for various large companies up until now; I'm about to be working for myself. Luckily, I can do this through the Freelancers' Union and I have no difficult conditions/prescriptions that should block me. But just the research I've had to do in the last few months -- including which states I might live in (limited to those where I had insurance options) has made it clear to me that it's completely ridiculous that getting affordable health insurance is tied to working for someone else. You hear all this yammering about the the value \"free market\" and \"competition,\" and yet the current health care situation in this country acts directly against anybody who wants to work for herself/be an entrepreneur/etc. Tell me, who does that work in favor of? Not the individual American, that's for sure.
I want a new federal law passed. Anyone who works for a health insurance company can't get health insurance whatsoever until they start insuring all of the above named classes / stop denying anyone for pre-existing conditions.
That's right, employees will quit, they won't be able to keep anybody, and CEO's will be correctly punished for killing other people.
Next they just drop everyone in the military from coverage too...hell why not just make being human a preexisting condition?
I think we should all have \"pre-existing condition\" riots outside their corporate offices where we blockade their buildings and burn denial letter notices until they start paying for stuff.
@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: fortunately the military is pretty much self insuring as far as health care.
I HAVE to take my thyroid pills or I could get sick. They're only $4.00 a month. The steroid ointment for my eczema (which is the ONLY thing that will work) is not much either. And don't even get me started on insurance companies that don't cover birth control pills.
If they screw around with it too much, next the eczema will be a disqualifier. Which is ridiculous!!!
@HogwartsAlum: It's crazy that they won't cover birth control pills OR pregnancy. I mean, pick one, guys.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-977818-100x100.png\")
Isn't owning and operating a health insurance company about taking in risk, when you filter out people with \"pre-existing conditions\" what kind of risk are you taking? ... The \"none\" kind. You're only taking profit in... \"Oh, we'll only enroll people who won't file claims, 'cause you know, we're not Santa Claus.\" Jeez.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103936-100x100.png\")
I was sad to see the public option get thrown under, but I will be really impressed if regulations against this kind of crap get enforced. We shouldn't need to entirely overhaul healthcare (and get people all whiny and obstinate) to just pass some regulations. As far as I can tell, basically everyone supports better enforcement of regulations and better regulations in themselves. Regardless of whether or not most people think we need to do this stuff, the Republicans will hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out and bang their heads on the coffee table.
My husband has an invoice from 1950-something, for surgery done to his father's back. 750.00.
Even with inflation, one can tell that things have gotten WAY out of hand.
I blame the insurance companies, but also the medical industry for their inflated costs and unreasonable mark-ups.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1318875-100x100.png\")
Firefighters? Are you kidding? My father is a volunteer fireman, and has been for almost 50 years. Most of the firemen are volunteers in our area, and the thought of a health insurance company denying coverage because of that is dispicable. These are the guys who jump out of bed at 1 AM and race to your house in the middle of the winter to put out a flu fire so your house doesn't burn down, and then get up and go to work the next day.
How would the insurance company execs feel if the fire company said \"sorry, can't come to your fire...you have a woodburner, e.g. a pre-existing condition\"?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-376262-100x100.png\")
Moral Hazard.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-172611-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-917643-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-643587-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1312305-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1087083-100x100.png\")
Carrie good catch on their reversal - the insurance companies have publicly stated they won't oppose a removal of preexisting condition clauses so long as everyone is mandated to buy insurance.
So long as the young healthy people don't buy insurance, \"costs\" will never go down. It's like trying to buy hurricane insurance in places where hurricanes hit. Do you think it's going to be cheap?
@ShruggingGalt: It's amusing that a Libertarian is supporting the idea of insurance companies using the government to force all consumers, at the point of a gun - to buy their product.
But I'm sure that any safeguards and/or public options would be \"unnatural interference\" of private markets?
Hmmm....
@ShruggingGalt: The problem is that fewer employers are providing health insurance for various reasons, and its too expensive for most people to buy a policy on their own. As long as the price of individual policies are high and employers are required to provide a policy for all employees (regardless of status), then young people will refrain from buying their own policies.
So if having insurance is to be mandated, then the price has to be reasonable, or subsidized.
@ShruggingGalt: When I was a freelance animator I didn't have insurance. I'd bounce from job to job, work two months here,three months there. No stability. And because of that no insurance.
I got several quotes (I was 24 at the time, great health) and the cheapest insurance I could find was about $800/mo (more than my rent in Philly). The costs were prohibitive so I went without healthcare for about three years. I couldn't imagine what it'd be like for people with actual issues.