Citizens Should Work and Pay a Tax to Qualify for Universal Healthcare [SPLIT]

[Benvolio]

Insurance companies cannot recind a policy or refuse to pay, And can be sued if they wrongfully do so. They have the legal right to recind if they find that the insured fraudulently obtained the policy, most likely by failing to disclose a material and relevant preexisting illness. They are also not obligated to pay for experimental medicines or procedures, which often are highly expensive with doubtful outcomes.

 

[frankfrank]

Tell that to the insurance companies who always knew that they could indeed do this (and have done it including a couple people I know), while all the while knowing that the government WILL NEVER come in and punish them, and it is also highly unlikely that they will be sued by the customer. It's hard to sue a corporation that has a phalanx of attorneys facing you, and it's also unlikely that an insurance company will be sued because they "skipped town" on paying for $23,000 of covered expenses, because the customer also know that they will just appeal unfavorable decisions until it reaches a court that the company "likes" and the plaintiff has probably spent $100K or $200K trying to get $23,000 (and an uncertain amount of future costs that would be covered)...and they STILL don't get their insurance back.

Then, they would be absolutely uninsurable in some states that don't have "emergency" insurance pools, and in the states that do, the premiums are usually insanely high.

At least, this was true before ACA, which related to the timing/history I was talking about. I am certain that Obamacare is saving FAR many more lives, than the number of lives that are being destroyed by it. Because no health care system will ever be PERFECT, not even the single-payer that I yearn for (which Medicare is, at best, only a hybrid of), there will always be winners and losers.

 

[Benvolio]

Tell that to the insurance companies who always knew that they could indeed do this (and have done it including a couple people I know), while all the while knowing that the government WILL NEVER come in and punish them, and it is also highly unlikely that they will be sued by the customer. It's hard to sue a corporation that has a phalanx of attorneys facing you, and it's also unlikely that an insurance company will be sued because they "skipped town" on paying for $23,000 of covered expenses, because the customer also know that they will just appeal unfavorable decisions until it reaches a court that the company "likes" and the plaintiff has probably spent $100K or $200K trying to get $23,000 (and an uncertain amount of future costs that would be covered)...and they STILL don't get their insurance back.

Then, they would be absolutely uninsurable in some states that don't have "emergency" insurance pools, and in the states that do, the premiums are usually insanely high.

At least, this was true before ACA, which related to the timing/history I was talking about. I am certain that Obamacare is saving FAR many more lives, than the number of lives that are being destroyed by it. Because no health care system will ever be PERFECT, not even the single-payer that I yearn for (which Medicare is, at best, only a hybrid of), there will always be winners and losers.

You are quite mistake. All or virtually all states have some for of punitive damages for insurance companies who wrongfully refuse, including requiring the company to pay the insured's attorney's fees and costs. Most lawyers who handle litigation would take the case on a contingent fee.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

Benvolio, very unfortunately you appear to confuse the two basically different social insurance systems in question, the Bismarckian model and the Beveridge model.



[LOL, shouldn't you actually have learned some legal history, no? And: What is "free" in your opinion?]

I point out that ben agrees with Beveridge that "idleness" is a great social evil.

But ben's problem is deeper than that. Bismarck and Beveridge both apparently regarded the nation as a community where all members have obligations to one another, whereas ben's position regards individuals as creatures in a jungle who are to claw and fight against each other for anything beneficial. So confusing the two isn't surprising, as both share a foundation with which ben's approach vehemently disagrees.

Another way to put it would be this: in answer to the question "Am I my brother's keeper?", both Bismarck and Beveridge would answer, "Yes (to some extent)", whereas ben's position insists "Fuck no!" (Not that ben thinks he's saying that, but it is the effect of the policies he supports.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

A right can only exist if it is upheld by the obligations of others.

No. If it requires obligations of others, it is not a right.

Free speech is a right, because it requires no effort on the part of others for a person to speak. The same is true of freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, self-defense, privacy, etc.

Thus one has the right to seek health care, but no right to health care itself since that requires others to act for someone else.


OTOH, people who want to be a people have obligations to one another. If anyone does not wish to act to fulfill such obligations, he has no moral claim to be a member of that people.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Some believe that health care would come under general welfare. Nothing is "free" including war.

True. But the general welfare clause does not grant any authority to do whatever may occur to the government as being able to promote that welfare; it is a statement of the purpose for which the authority granted in the body of the Constitution is given. The government is not supposed to act outside the authority granted.

 

[Alnitak]

The "social contract" provides both rights and obligations.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

Everyone is granted the right, regardless of how underserving they may be. That is the definition of a right. It goes out to all, regardless of merit. And the community pays, regardless of fairness.

No rights are granted; they cannot be. Rights come directly from the fact of existence as a self-aware individual.

 

[T-Rexx]

Insurance companies cannot [strike]recind[/strike] rescind a policy or refuse to pay, And can be sued if they wrongfully do so. They have the legal right to [strike]recind[/strike] rescind if they find that the insured fraudulently obtained the policy, most likely by failing to disclose a material and relevant preexisting illness. They are also not obligated to pay for experimental medicines or procedures, which often are highly expensive with doubtful outcomes.

A lawyer who doesn't know how to spell rescind?

Tell that to the insurance companies who always knew that they could indeed do this (and have done it including a couple people I know), while all the while knowing that the government WILL NEVER come in and punish them, and it is also highly unlikely that they will be sued by the customer.

You are quite mistake. All or virtually all states have some for of punitive damages for insurance companies who wrongfully refuse, including requiring the company to pay the insured's attorney's fees and costs. Most lawyers who handle litigation would take the case on a contingent fee.

It is quite routine for insurance companies to defraud their high payout customers by "legal" means. For example, they will stop billing for premiums (which the customer is nevertheless responsible to pay). The minute a premium is late, the policy gets canceled.

Another common tactic is to delay payment to a healthcare provider for services rendered for many months (even a year is common). This triggers the healthcare provider to bill the customer directly, which the customer feels obligated to pay, especially if he wants to continue seeing that provider for care. Older people, who tend to be reliable about paying their bills, are especially vulnerable to such fraud.

"Legal" fraud by healthcare insurers is very, very common.

 

[cityboy-stl]

"Legal" fraud by healthcare insurers is very, very common.

This is the kind of shit that causes business to be regulated. Most regulations come about because of the bad behavior of business in the first place. But people like Ben refuse to even acknowledge such behavior exists and in fact gives the impression such behavior is desirable in the name "capitalism".

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

The USA health system doesn't seem to be run to serve the population but rather to provide income for insurance companies and I suppose medical institutions.

The exceptions are the "fraternal", not-for-profit insurance companies. Unfortunately, thanks to market-warping regulations imposed due to for-profit lobbyists, they don't serve to keep/drive premiums down as much as they should. That's why real health-care reform should have included removing some of those burdens (e.g. a requirement to do non-health-related charity work) plus major incentives for starting new ones. A great example would be provisions for universities to allow graduates to keep their students medical coverage -- there are federal credit unions run in association with universities; there should be federal health unions as well, creating large pools of alumni insured through foundations tied to their universities. Add in university faculty and staff as well, including after they move on to other jobs.

Such an approach could be turned into a single-payer system by the university health unions contracting with a national organization to handle the bill payment.

Here in France my medical fees are zero after having been declared with a long term illness. No doctor bills, no medicament charges and free treatment in hospital. The system is even better than the NH in England as waiting lists do not exist here; treatment is immediate.

People here argue that such an arrangement encourages risky behavior. While there's some truth to that, it's worth noting that this includes economically risky behavior, too, i.e. entrepreneurship, which contributes to a more robust economy.

But it costs a lot of money to run. I therefore do not understand why the USA cannot afford to set up a similar system; I suppose it is too late to change now. I do find it terrifying when I hear stories of people unable to have treatment just because they can't afford it.

What on earth does an unemployed, uninsured person with cancer do?

The US can afford to set up a similar system. It's the for-profit approach that gets in the way, because they can write big checks for political campaigns and spend premium money on lobbyists. It's very much like an old-fashioned protection racket where organized crime is tied into the political structure: the people get screwed from two fronts, the crime syndicates/gangs and the politicians.

 

[Willie Boy]

National health care would reduce our expenses on healthcare by at least HALF, while nevertheless extending coverage to every citizen for every disease, while improving disease outcomes.

The problem for Republicans is that a national healthcare system would save the USA too much money, and save too many lives.

Apparently you didn't properly read the post you quoted. Your response had nothing to do with the portion you highlighted. I was talking about the kickbacks politicians (Democrats as well as Republicans) get from the major drug companies and Insurance companies to keep things beneficial to them and keep them in control of the "health care system" in America. Your response was a jab at Republicans wanting to see poor people die rather than saving citizens money.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

The unemployed uninsured actually fare better than those near-but-not-at the bottom. Verifiably indigent people get Medicaid.

Not just Medicaid, but discount programs as well.

A few years ago a friend and I both needed the same services at the local hospital. I, with insurance, ended up paying about $200 for my share; he, being classified as homeless (he lived in a broken-down trailer without utilities, which qualified under their rules), and with no insurance, qualified for both discounts and aid... and final bill was $12.

He paid his bill by picking up empty drink containers and turning them in for the deposit. I skipped lunches for a couple of months.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

Well, the repukes in congress just voted to overturn the ACA again. It made it through both the house and senate. 17 million people could lose coverage if that happens. It's time to repeat the French revolution. Bring out the guillotine. Set it up on the White House lawn and march the repukes over from capital hill.

March ALL the incumbents over!

Then shoot the leadership of both parties.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Anyone uninsured?

Living in England legally for 14 years here is what I have spent on Doctors and Mediation and hospitals. Nothing its free.

Meanwhile, if I could have back what I've had to spend in that same period, even with insurance, I could put 1/3 down on a nice "drive-a-cabin" (RV -- or caravan, as they're called in the UK) and start living around the country as I pleased.

 

[Kulindahr]

The question is not a matter of capability, but a matter of desirability..... The US government will NOT construct a national healthcare system simply because, despite the benefits to so many citizens, it would bite them in the asses..... Or more precisely their wallets. They get so much lobby money from the big drug companies to keep the system as is that they will not change it. Politicians are not about what is best for the Nation, but what puts the most money in their own pockets. Granted, there are some who are not corrupt, but they are precious few and far between.

That's why the way to do it would be to provide incentives for organizations to provide not-for-profit insurance and tie them all together in a single-payer network.

 

[Kulindahr]

The "social contract" provides both rights and obligations.

Yep. Actually that's implicit in the story of the "Good Samaritan": he was operating on the principle that if I expect others to treat me well, I must treat others well.

Today's numerous narcissists want rights without obligations. They're found in both big parties, but the GOP has elevated them to near-sainthood.

 

[Benvolio]

That's why the way to do it would be to provide incentives for organizations to provide not-for-profit insurance and tie them all together in a single-payer network.

Much of the health insurance is not for profit. Blue Cross, Mutual of Omaha and others are mutual companies; the policy holders are shareholders and any profits go to reducing premiums.

 

[Benvolio]

Much of the health insurance is not for profit. Blue Cross, Mutual of Omaha and others are mutual companies; the policy holders are shareholders and any profits go to reducing premiums.

I now see that some Blue Cross companies are for profit.

 

[Willie Boy]

That's why the way to do it would be to provide incentives for organizations to provide not-for-profit insurance and tie them all together in a single-payer network.

But the government wont allow that. The politicians would lose their incentives from the Drug companies. That's the whole point.

To actually accomplish anything the big drug companies would have to first be broken up so they no longer have the clout to stop other actions.