Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
This story is for all of you health care reform dissenters out there.
Houston Tracy was born March 15th. That makes him, oh, eleven days old. After Houston was born, he became severely ill and physicians found that the baby boy had a heart defect and would need surgery almost immediately. Unfortunately, when Houston’s parents, Kimberly and Doug, notified their Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance that their newborn baby need life-saving heart surgery, they were advised that the insurance would not cover this surgery, simply on the ground that the artery defect was considered a “pre-existing condition.”
Houston’s mother wondered the same thing when I read this horrifying story: how could a condition be “pre-existing” when the child was just born?
Honestly, I don’t even know how to react to this, other than complete and utter outrage. Outrage. The child’s surgery is an immediate necessity — his main arteries in his heart are transposed and the child isn’t receiving the proper bloodflow necessary to sustain a lengthy life — and this is what the insurance company had to say regarding the denial of coverage:
“We will work closely with our customers to keep them informed of any changes that may result from the new law. We will continue to review the bill’s requirements on our business and their respective time frames to ensure full compliance.”
This is even worse than the John Q scenario. This is pure discrimination. There’s no way that an insurance company could feasibly do this to a newborn child or its family.
Although legislation has passed for the health care reform to go into effect, it won’t fully benefit the citizens of the United States — or victims of murdering insurance companies — until September.
Unfortunately, a lot can happen between March 27th, 2010 and September 1st.
I don’t even know where to go with this … tell your parents, your friends, your families, your state representatives; write a letter to the President or even foundations that specialize in these types of things. Contact the Ronald McDonald house, social services or any other entity that you can think of that might even remotely have some kind of insight on this kind of subject and can point the way to real help.
This kind of discrimination has to stop and it has to stop now.
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
96
Thank, thank, thank GOD or whatever’s up there for my (very decent) universal healthcare. This is outrageous.
I was thinking the same. How can this happen??
Ok, different question. I’m not in the US, so I only got the general news around the universal health care decission process and not all the details. But, weren’t there people, who were against it, because they said it would ’support’ abortion?
How can they call a woman, who decides to have an abortion, a murderer and worse, while at the same time it is ok for insurances to deny life saving surgery for a newborn. If we take it to the extreme, then the following could happen: a pregnant woman learns that her unborn baby has some very serious condition. Should she be able to abort or just wait, give birth and watch it die, because insurances can deny to help. WTF?
Tell me if I misunderstood something here. Just only stumbled out of my bed and it’s pre-coffee. Somehow I hope I misunderstood it :S.
That’s the great sticking point. The same people who are against abortion tend to also be against the social programs that would help a young or struggling mother. So in essence, yes, you have to have that baby because to abort is murder. You can only in good conscience abort if the baby poses a danger to your health or is the result of rape or incest. Because everything else is a gift from God.
Cause nothing says “Gift from God” like watching the baby you’ve wanted for years die in your arms.
I’m going to have to second Blurry, here. What you just said, Maire, is disgusting. It isn’t helpful in the least. It was insensitive and unnecessary.
If you intended to be a smart ass, Maire – it fell flat.
You simply underscored the whole point of the posting – health care reform is needed.
Perhaps I misunderstood.
I thought that babies were automatically covered under the parent’s plan, then the parents had a certain amount of time to register them with the insurance company?
That’s how mine works. I have Highmark BC/BS as well.
Dammit.
Why, oh why did I not read the article?
“The Tracy’s are both small business owners and do not carry health insurance for themselves. They do carry insurance on their two other children and tried to get insurance for Houston, but they found out Wednesday his coverage was denied.”
The Tracy’s are both small business owners and do not carry health insurance for themselves.” This is how Blue Cross/Blue Shield can deny coverage.
As much as I think this country is in need of health care reform, I don’t think this new law is the answer. I do support a few of the new reforms, but overall I think we just opened up a can of worms. The people who are going to suffer are the people now suffering, the poor and middle class.
See, under the Reform, things like this WOULDN’T happen. If the Reform had gone into effect last month, this child wouldn’t be denied for a pre-existing condition. That’s one of the main stipulations of the bill. So, I’m glad that the reform has gone through. God knows what’s going to happen for this little baby, but at least it won’t happen in the future.
**LOL** Nothing like doing the same thing at the same time Blurry. It’s scary sometimes! :)
Nah, we’re just really intelligent :)
This pisses me off as well, and I respect them for getting health care for their kids when they couldn’t afford it for themselves.
Maybe they shouldn’t have had 3 children if they couldn’t afford healthcare for themselves!
This event is tragic and unfortunate but I’ve got to question the responsibilty of people like this. Its a catch-22 for me. On one hand, I also applaud them for insuring their children despite not being able to afford it for themselves but the other part of me feels like not insuring themselves is just as irresponsible—especially when their kids depend on them.
I guess the point comes to when you have to ask yourself, medical coverage or family? My opinion, that sucks. I think it’s pretty damn bad when good honest hardworking people have to make a decision to have children or not based on the fact of hospitalization.
I know a great couple who own a small business, medical insurance premiums cost them $3000 per month. Who can afford that? The wife had to go back to work in the pubic sector making $7 per hour just to get medical coverage.
So, yes, this part of the bill is excellent.
When I had my first son, we didn’t have medical coverage, this was 1976. My OB cost $225, the delivery $650. In fact we had to pay the hospital before they would release me and my son. (My hubby told them to keep me!) Even with today’s inflation costs and difference in salaries, the ratio today is no where near where it was. (Salaries vs medical costs)
I can’t even explain this bill to anyone on here who is questioning what it is about. It’s so damn long and complicated.
As I said before, there a few reforms in this bill that are desperately needed, but as a whole, there are also a lot of scary parts to it. I hate the idea that the government is now involved in our private health care, but as long as people will continue to be greedy, I don’t know if we have much choice.
As I grew up with universal health care and still live in a country with this system, your comment will never make sense to me. I just can’t understand how that situation can be ok.
Universal health care isn’t perfect either. But it seems more fair. And you can always go to a private hospital, if you’re not happy with the public sector…
(No, I’m not critizising you, I’m just pointing out the different realities we’re in.)
The criticism is fine and part of the reason I like reading this blog…many differing opinions.
Aspects of reform, to me, are long overdue. The fact that that infant was said pegged as “pre-existing condition” is absurd, I agree whole-heartedly. However, I also think that there was a lot of irresponsibility on the part of these parents (knowing how healthcare currently is) if they were planning on covering a 3rd child yet not themselves.
I was raised in a home where we didn’t go out to dinner unless we could afford it. We didn’t take vacations on credit and we didn’t live beyond our means. Its a damn shame that I even consider comparing having children with luxuries like going out to dinner but I know how the system has worked and I’ve lived accordingly. If I cannot afford to insure both my children and myself then I will not be having children. It, in my opinion, is the responsible thing to do.
@Inesita. I hope your are correct. At first, I loved the idea of the health care bill and have heard various stories of great success with other countries. As I said before, there are some great points in this bill, I’m just a tad uneasy with the entire bill.
@Sara. I was raised the same way. “If I cannot afford to insure both my children and myself then I will not be having children. It, in my opinion, is the responsible thing to do.”
I applaud you for your responsbility. My point is that it is just a shame that medical costs have to be considered in this equation.
Just wanted to make clear that I’m not calling you a dumbo or somthing. I get what you mean. I just don’t get how that can be normal and ok.
But I guess that you guys have to wait and see how things will work when the new system is implemented. I hope things will get better for a lot of people. I didn’t comment much on posts, where it was about whether the US should have universal health care or not, because I’m not American and it’s none of my business. But I really hope that this will result in a lot of positive changes. But I guess it can be quite a challenge…
So because they’re small business owners who can’t afford private health insurance under the current status quo, they shouldn’t have children? I’m all for familial responsibility, but we’re not talking a drug addict or someone who is a baby machine. We’re talking about a hard working couple who, despite working hard, CAN NOT afford health insurance premiums for themselves so they cover their kids instead.
I just don’t see how you blame the parents in this case.
Agreed. I think Sara’s point is completely absurd. Blaming the parents for having kids in the first place, knowing how expensive health care is, seems ridiculous to me. So you just won’t have kids then? Having kids is a pretty big deal to some people.. not at all equatable with going out to dinner. Not in any way. Then again, I’m also from Canada and really don’t understand the American point of view when it comes to these things. You’ll pump a gazillion dollars into your military but cry foul over your tax dollars when it comes to spending on health care. Do. Not. Get.
I do have my reservations about this.
Having a child – I would equate that as a basic human right.
Really? I would strongly disagree. To be fair, no-one can actually stop you from having a child, but I think that having a child you cannot support properly is completely irresponsible, and not exercising a ‘right’. Expecting productive members of society to pick up the slack makes you a complete leech, not just irresponsible.
Note that this is not intended to be related to the specifics of health care at all, or how things should be in this area – just in response to the assertion of procreation as a human right.
This is sickening. Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on universal healthcare for adults, I would sincerely hope we can all agree that all babies should be able to receive life-saving care in this country.
I recognize that this is not going to be received well, but here goes…
All insurance companies are BUSINESSES. They are not non profits, they exist to make money for their stockholders.
Once you understand this, doesn’t it make sense that a business would not willingly take on a guaranteed loss?
This is one of the reasons that I see for health care reform.
I have no idea how to go about doing it, but I do know it is badly needed.
Incidentally, the baby DID have the operation and is doing well. :)
I do agree that they are a private business and in it for profit but this is really unethical. As I understand it, if the parents had been subscribers then the child would have been added without this fuss about pre-existing conditions. Since only the kids are covered by the insurance the baby counts as a new customer and they won’t accept her. I definitely agree that this is a great case for reform though.
*sigh* You are so right. Part of me exclaims…”Them bastards (bankers, insurance companies), they just keep getting richer, when the poor and middle class suffer so much. The corruption, the unjust, the just plain wrong.” Then someone says, “what are you against capatilism? Move to a communist country then.” *sigh*
I don’t have answers, just lots of questions. I think that I am the way I am from my experiences in life. I’ve been close to death so I appreciate life so much at times. It gets to be so disheartening to see so many people relish in the superficial things about life. How much money you can have, how your body looks, whether you fit into the norm or not….
People forget to relish in the simple things of life, the children, the sunshine, the mountains, the rain, life itself, the list goes on and on. **sigh** Guess I’m just having one of those days.
I was going to say the exact same thing, Blurry. Insurance companies are in business to make money. That is the purpose of a business, to earn profit. It wasn’t as though a charity called “We Save Babies with Heart Conditions” turned them down. Insurance companies aren’t charities.
As horrible as this sounds, perhaps the Houstons should have read the fine print on their insurance contract? I am in no way trying to say that what happened was ok, but I mean, if the baby wasn’t legally covered, then… well, what was the insurance company supposed to do? Fork over the money out of their pockets? That’s not their responsibility. The parents should have known, without a doubt, that their newborn would be covered, even if it meant the mother getting insurance for the duration of her pregnancy. That’s what I would’ve done. If I couldn’t afford insurance for both my spouse and myself, I would get it just for myself, just while pregnant, and go without something else, like, say, cable and internet, for 9 months.
I am fully aware that health insurance in America is in need of drastic reform. I agree 100% with that. But forcing insurance companies to cover everyone with a preexisting condition isn’t the answer. That business model equals failure. Insurance companies will go out of business. You don’t get car insurance AFTER you have a wreck! You shouldn’t try to get health insurance AFTER you discover you have cancer. If you don’t want to get insurance, start a separate savings account dedicated entirely to health care.
I know I’m going to start a shit storm with this, but I just wanted to agree with Blurry on this. It is horrible what happened to this baby and family, but is it the insurance company’s fault? No! Sorry if this sounds insensitive, it’s just how I feel about it.
Non-profit is a very misleading term–not-for-profit is much more accurate, because non-profit implies that they either can’t or won’t make money, which is absofruitly not the case!
Non-profits or not-for-profits (either term is acceptable) don’t make a profit, they make a surplus.
A surplus is just a profit with a different purpose.
A not for profit will use their surplus solely to benefit the mandate of the organization, while a for profit organization will give the profit (or surplus) to their shareholders.
The term ‘not for profit’ is often preferred because it is important to recognize that these organizations do make money, but that all revenue is used to benefit the cause of the organization.
Non-profit implies that such organizations aren’t making money, and therefore aren’t being run effectively.
[/not for profit management degree rant]
Back in my accounting days the vast majority still used non-profit and considered not-for-profit a silly quibble over semantics that just took longer to say and meant using more printer ink or typewriter ribbon. I agree that not-for-profit is slightly more accurate but it’s more likely to cause confusion among non-accountants and it smacks of PC nonsense like referring to “the boy with acute hearing loss” rather than “the deaf boy.” I use either depending on the situation.
Still, my original point was that non-profit or not-for-profit are not silly names since those organizations do not technically make a profit and I think we agree on that.
Of course the insurance companies are out to make money, every business is. However, what they deal with is very tricky. It’s balancing money and ethics and in that business they’re more for money than ethical treatment of people. This is why we needed both regulation on the private insurance companies so they can more accurately balance ethics and money as well as needing another option for those who can’t afford even basic doctor’s visits, an actual universal healthcare plan that is gov’t run.
However, due to the ever present spin machine of GOP and BS media, this was knocked down due to absolute tosh being spewed such as the ideas of death panels.
Insurance companies deserve to make profit, but other options are definitely needed so people don’t have to make choices between their money or their children.
I think a couple of things need to be cleared up here – especially for those of you that don’t live here in the USA.
1. The baby had the surgery. Time was critical. I am sure it has happened, but I do believe that is standard – life saving surgery is nearly always performed and they sort out payment issues later. This may well have been covered under the Hill-Burton Act (institutions that receive federal monies are required to provide a certain amount of free care to the under and un insured).
2. The insurance company in question has agreed to cover the child. See this link – it is on page three – the statement from the insurance company.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartFailureNews/newborns-family-learns-pre-existing-conditions-apply-birth/story?id=10218514
Always good with a news update ;). I didn’t know of the Hill-Burton Act. That makes more sense.
But we all can agree that if this wasn’t an infant in question the outcome probably would have been drastically different, can’t we?
I’m glad it worked out in this case, but it feels like a Lifetime Movie. Of course they wouldn’t let a newborn die. No one wants to look like that large of a monster. Probably in order to cover this infant, they denied coverage to a teenager.
No matter how this worked out, it still highlights that our system is seriously broken. I realize it’s the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution that grants every citizen the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness but I do think healthcare is a part of those unalienable rights. I’m not talking fake tits or a new nose, but certainly access to medicine qualifies, right?
Everyone DOES have ACCESS to medical care. Walk into any clinic in America, and if you have some sort of life-threatening illness or injury, you’ll be treated. It’s against the law to NOT treat someone with a fatal condition.
Everyone (I’ve already gone into pre-existing conditions: get medical insurance BEFORE you get sick) has ACCESS to health insurance if you have the money. It is not the responsibility of the tax payer to pay for health insurance for EVERYONE who can’t afford it. That infringes on the rights of the taxpayer. It takes from person A (taxpayer) to give to person B (the recipient). What does person B then owe person A? Are they, once they’ve gotten back on their feet, going to pay back the taxpayers who helped them? No. How is that right? Why should person A give up their hard-earned money to pay for person B to get medical treatment? The government isn’t a charity.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the need to assist financially those who can’t help themselves (the mentally disabled without family, the veteran with PTSD who can’t function in society, the children in foster homes who have been abandoned and neglected), but don’t ask me to pay for medical insurance for those who are able to work. If they’re going through something rough, that’s not my fault, nor should I be forced to pay for them. I don’t ask for their assistance when I go through a rough patch. THAT infringes on my rights.
But the bills can literally destroy someone and that doesn’t seem right. My husband and I do have health insurance and he had to have a procedure so they could determine whether or not he had prostrate cancer. Almost two years later, I am still paying off the hospital bills, the doctor’s bills, the phlebotomy, and the anesthesiologist. Okay, I’m down to just the hospital bill but still. . .two years later. And every month they threaten to turn us over to collection even though we are paying the amount we agreed to in 2008. It’s easy to see how one medical procedure can literally bankrupt you, even if you have insurance (and then of course your procedure becomes a pre-existing condition and good luck with that).
If I were unable to work due to my mental illness (bipolar disorder) I would not be able to find an insurance company to cover me because of my pre-existing condition. I would be at the mercy of Medicaid unless my husband made too much money and then we’d be shit out of luck for coverage. I have already been denied any supplemental insurance and disability/unemployment insurance because of my condition.
So while someone does have to treat me if I’ve been shot and am dying in an ER, no one has to give me preventative care that might lower medical costs for both me and the taxpayers. And that’s where this whole thing breaks down.
Well even if someone walks into an ER with a life threatening injury or disease, you’re still paying for it because the hospital swallows the cost and insurance premiums will have to go up a bit to cover it. Either way you’ll be paying for other people’s heathcare.
And they don’t have to treat you, only stabilize you.
No, I completely agree, it doesn’t seem right at all. Which is why I strongly stand behind health insurance reform; reform that actually SOLVES the problem.
Creating a government pool doesn’t SOLVE the problem, it creates an entitlement program which exacerbates the problem. Instead of adding to it, let’s SOLVE it. TORT reform, medical malpractice insurance reform, and the lowering of technological advancement prices paid by hospitals and administrators will drive costs down.
If this health care bill DID that, I’d be 100% behind it, but it doesn’t. Let’s make health insurance more accessible and affordable by figuring out what’s driving the costs up. Why would insurance companies WANT to deny paying customers? Because it costs too much to cover them. They’ll lose money. I don’t blame them for not wanting to go bankrupt. Let’s make it to where it won’t break an insurance company to bring on a liability.
Health insurance is never going to be cheap. Nor should it be. Why should life-saving, top of the line care be “cheap?” Do you want a second rate doctor? Of course not. But health insurance shouldn’t break people. It of course should be within the realm of affordable. But it shouldn’t be free. Doctors provide a service, just the same as a plumber provides a service. You don’t expect the plumber to charge nothing, nor should you expect the doctor and his services (keep in mind that doctor paid close to around $300,000 to become what he is) to come free of charge. There are ways to lower costs without creating a government run monstrosity.
All I ask is that we explore those options before nationalizing an industry that has become the absolute best in its arena.
Isn’t saying “person A gives to person B” really over-simplifying things? It’s more like, the entire alphabet gives to help a percentage of the alphabet, and every letter in the alphabet pays taxes (letters being helped included). Poor people pay taxes too :)
@Whit, I really appreciated your well-thought out argument against the bill. I feel like I hear far too much “the gubmint’s goin’ kill you with them death panels” and nothing that is genuinely well thought-out. I’m pretty iffy on the new law because I have absolutely no idea what’s in it and I can’t seem to find it anywhere (perhaps because it’s about 5000 pages?)
I know that poor people pay taxes. But do you agree with the poor person paying MORE taxes so that they can pay for others? I’m considered low-income. I make jack shit in pay. I don’t get health insurance through my employer. I pay $250/month for health insurance (I don’t have dental or vision, I pay that out of pocket). I don’t have cable at home. I have a roommate. I don’t drive out of town because I know I can’t afford the gas. I don’t go out to eat. I went to a nice seafood restaurant with my fiancee the other night because I had a gift card leftover from Christmas.
I’m not a high-roller. I don’t make a lot of money. But I have health insurance because I KNOW I can’t afford to not have it.
Person A/Person B is very simple. But it’s the harsh reality. Like I said before, I am ALL FOR health insurance reform…. the RIGHT way.
And thanks, Erin! I appreciate that very very much.
See, that’s the train of thought I don’t understand at all; for Europeans, healthcare is a right which is provided by the state, and saying that someone shouldn’t benefit from it is just not understandable. I just don’t get it.
I cannot believe the tone in some of these comments.
Yes, in the US, hospitals and insurance companies are businesses out to make a profit.
But they shouldn’t be.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could see access to medical care as a privilege, and not a right. Healthcare is not some luxury that should have to be saved up for, like the absurd comparisons above (internet services and cable television? Seriously?). No one should have to save up, cut back, and take a job they hate solely in order to live a healthy life.
Imagine if other basic human rights were denied to people due to their inability to pay for them?
If someone was billed for the services of the fire department?
If calling the police cost you each time?
If the companies distributing running water were out to make a profit?
It is just ridiculous that healthcare is seen as some sort of luxury that should be accessed in terms of wealth.
Why should person A have to pay for person B’s healthcare from their hard earned money?
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING.
This is not your hard earned tax dollars creating tax breaks for the lower classes to purchase luxuries in their lives. This is so people can live without fear that they might get sick, and live the remainder of their lives in debt. This is to save lives. How could anyone so selfishly put the raise in their tax dollars before the lives of others?
I just cannot fathom how people can be against universal healthcare. It’s a basic right, not a means of generating a profit.
Wicked, according to you (and I’m not trying to be snooty here), health care is a human right. Simply because someone exists, they deserve and are entitled to health care. Is that what you’re saying?
If that’s what you’re saying, here’s my response:
You’re saying that the mere existence of a human creates a debt for others. Everyone is born owing a debt. I owe you (and you owe me) health care because you (I) exist? No. What did I do to fall into your debt?
If you’re hungry do I owe you food because I have it? Do I owe you a home, too, if you don’t have a roof over your head? I owe you shelter simply because you exist?? If that’s correct, what do you then owe me? If I pay for your health care, what do you then owe me? I covered your tab. Wouldn’t the nice thing to do be to pay me back? Okay, maybe you will, maybe you won’t. What if you don’t contribute to the system? What if you’re poor and can’t afford it? Will you ever pay me back? It’s not very nice to not repay your debts. How do I owe you anything?
Say I do pick up your medical bill tab. Do you then owe it to me not to do drugs or drink alcohol? Do you now owe it to me not to eat crap food and get fat?
This blatantly infringes on the rights of others. Just as I may not agree with a person’s lifestyle choices, I should not have to the power to STOP them from making those choices, simply because I do not approve of them. But why should I have to pay for those choices? If a man or woman decides to have unprotected sex, and as a result, contracts HIV, why is it MY responsibility to pay for their treatment?
Saying health care is a human right is like saying everyone deserves one can of beans everyday. Everyone deserves food, right? If you can’t afford it, is it then MY responsibility to give you food? How? Why?
As American citizens, we have the right to listen to whatever type of music we want. I can turn on the radio and listen to anything I damn well please. Does the government OWE me music? Do I have the RIGHT to that CD at the local record store?
We also have the right to free speech. My words are my own and I can say whatever I want. BUT. What if I were to say something so wretched and awful, and everything within you was disgusted with the words that came out of my mouth? Are YOU responsible for what I just said? I have the RIGHT to say what I want, but I don’t hold YOU accountable for my words.
You have the right to drink (as long as you’re of age), eat, and pollute your body with whatever in the wide world you want. It’s YOUR body. Not mine. But if you do decide to eat crap, drink whisky, and smoke a pack-a-day, do NOT ask me to pay for your medical bills.
I thought about how to reply to what you’ve just said for a few minutes, and I have to say that I am just so saddened that it’s hard for me to come up with anything to say at all.
The fact that you view society solely on the basis of what it will cost YOU, as opposed to the type of nation it would create for you and your family to live in is either sad or enraging, depending on who you are.
There are piles and piles of socialised services available in the US- I provided a few examples, but there are others. And these have been socialised because it would simply be inhumane to operate any other way.
I see it as inhumane to deny healthcare to anyone. Should someone actually not have access to food or shelter, they are able to go to shelters and food banks (which I’m afraid YOUR tax dollars help pay for 37 million Americans to use last year). Would you honestly have 37 million people starve rather than have your hard earned tax dollars go to help these people to eat? You should feel proud that you were able to help that many people, even if only through the small amount derived from your taxes. The US is among the richest countries in the world, and they should be proud to be able to take care of their own, as many poorer countries can’t.
I view healthcare on the same level as the right to food and shelter. It’s not something that anyone can live without- it’s a necessity. Everyone will need access to healthcare at some point in their lives, and I can’t see why someone should think that it should be denied to them due to their income level. They are many things that people pay for that benefit society as opposed to the individual- people without cars have to pay to have roads kept up, people pay for public education although they may never have children. This is the basis of living as a group in a society; we set up basic protections for ourselves as a whole, not an individual.
I cannot think of a reason why healthcare, unlike other socialised services, is different and does not deserve to be included in the list of services that are accessible to everyone.
I give to charities, I volunteer with inner city youth, and when I grab a quick lunch somewhere, I buy extra so I can give to someone who doesn’t have food. I’m not a careless, soulless individual. I give because I WANT to. I recognize that I should give of what I have to those who have not. I do so, because it’s my choice, because I want to help.
I should not have to help because I’m TOLD to. I shouldn’t have to pay a fine for keeping my money and spending it how I see fit. Charity with a price to pay if you aren’t charitable isn’t charity, it’s force. I don’t want to be forced.
Also, health care isn’t free. Ever. Would you not pay a doctor for his services? Or does that doctor, simply BECAUSE he’s a doctor, owe you treatment, since it’s a “human right?” Health care is a service, not a privilege or a right, but an actual SERVICE. It isn’t like water, we can’t just open our mouths and tilt our heads back in the rain. We have to have an actual doctor to perform a surgery, a nurse to stitch you back up, an MRI to find that tumor, and all these things cost money. The bedpans cost money, the beds, the sheets, the scrubs, the medicine, the research to MAKE the medicine, etc. The people who create all this deserve compensation for their services and products. If health care is simply a human right, then so is food, and the government should take all our tax dollars and buy everyone’s breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It’s a right, isn’t it? Since it’s a right, I deserve it.
I am sorry that you are saddened by my logic. It just seems we have a disagreement on this being a human right. And that’s okay. I don’t think that either of us is going to convince the other to switch sides. Can we agree to disagree?
Who said healthcare was free, or should be free?
Of course doctors deserve to be paid for their work; but their fee shouldn’t others to needlessly die. The medical system can operate fully and efficiently off of public funds. It is not an issue of either or.
Unlike individual donations to charities or any form of personal giving, social services exist to benefit an entire society. A public charity is in no way capable of taking care of an enitre country, which is why social services fall to the government, and require tax dollars- not donations, in order to function. It simply wouldn’t work if people only paid for the services they use- imagine if the cost of holding a democratic vote fell upon only those who wanted to come out and vote? Elections would cease to exist.
Although I want to be clear that I have no personal gripe against you as a person, I simply cannot allow this debate to be summed up as a small difference in opinion. Americans are dying because people refuse to accept a tax increase. What may mean buying a big screen TV to one person, means the health and dignity of another. I will never be able to understand how someone could value their desire to purchase commercial goods over the life of another human being.
One of my points was/is this: Even with health insurance provided through my employer, we can only afford second rate doctors anyway. The waits to get a procedure done is three or four weeks out, the cost is astronomical, and the after-care is negligible. And I’m in the US, Wisconsin to be exact. We pay some of the highest premiums in the country and the coverage is worse than I had when I lived in Louisiana where we paid practically nothing. It’s frustrating and it doesn’t make you want to go and get the preventative things done that you should do because all I think about when I go to the doctor is that I’m going to be paying this 300+ bill off for the next several months (and that’s if I don’t get lab work).
Sounds more like your employer gives you a pretty plastic card and tells you that it’s health insurance.
That sucks. Wouldn’t it make sense to up the coverage on your own by paying a bit higher in premiums?
If you can even do that. Where I work, you can opt for lower or higher coverage.
My husband is only employed part-time and with me having a diagnosis of bipolar following me, we aren’t qualified for any additional coverage at a reasonable price. As a matter of fact, I’m denied at every turn. because I’m bipolar. Thank God I can work and that my mental illness hasn’t become debilitating. But someday it might and then all the good will I’ve built up as an employed person will go out the window.
The United States has just taken a giant, possibly irreversible, step toward socialism by taking over 18% of the U.S. economy.
The health care bill is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Thankfully, the law’s constitutionality is being challenged by fourteen states.
socialims? to give healthcare? michelle you are what is wrong with this country, complain all you want but do you have a viable solution? and how about the more than 40% of the ´US economy´going towards arms buildup, is that not socialims because it is used to kill instead of saving lives? i dont understand you, I hope for one day you had to walk on the shoes of a poor person who dreads getting sick because she will definetley be left on the street to die or worse, end up with a bill that will destroy her life…
Uhm, do you have any idea, what you’re talking about? Socialism? Really? Try and talk to somebody, who actually was forced to live in a socialist dictatorship. Then talk.
you do realize I hope that both Social Security and Medicare are both socialistic in nature and that we have a socialist republic because we have regulations on the private sector.
We already have socialism in place in our country and most people agree that it’s a good thing. Tell a senior citizen that you’ll take away their Medicare, they’ll go nuts.
Call it what you like,it’s a degree of socialism and its not constitutional.
So. What. “Unconstitutional”!!? Big effing deal. The US needs to do SOMETHING to address the health care crisis for the good of its citizens. As there aren’t any better options on the table, there it is. Sitting in your home, secure in the knowledge of the health care you were able to qualify for and purchase screaming “Socialism!!” is not helping.
Having said all that, don’t come crying up here to socialist Canada…
Why would we come to Canada when you all are driving down here to get surgery.
That’s cos our hospitals are too full of people being looked after for free.. ;)
Rich people might go down there to get service faster but if it was a choice between waiting or going bankrupt/not being able to afford it – I’ll wait, thankyou.
Seriously, in no way am I saying Canada’s system is perfect. Or France’s. Or England’s. Etc. I’m just saying that it’s preferable to your system. If you think the US health care system is good as is… you’re one of the privaleged few who is on the “good” end of it.
RVH, I’m not trying to be rude, but are you American? The Constitution is the blanket upon which our country was/is built. We aren’t trying to get Canadians to dissolve their backbone of law, don’t ask us to do so to ours.
Also, I’m conservative and I’m against this health care bill for all the reasons I described above. I didn’t call it socialism. Not every conservative damns it simply because they’ve been told it’s SOCIALISM!!!
Of COURSE we need insurance reform! Nobody’s disagreeing with that. But like I said before, there are better ways to go about it than this.
I don’t understand why it matters so much to you. Of course, you’re absolutely entitled to your opinion of our health care system, and I respect your opinion, but how does it really affect you?
It doesn’t affect me any more than gay marriage. :) I still have opinions on both. I’m saying re: the constitution – it’s been getting amended pretty much since it’s inception. So when something needs to be changed/added/amended, it gets done. People cry “Unconstitutional” about all kinds of things… like, you know, women being considered persons.
If you concede that there needs to be some kind of change, where’s the better idea on the table?
P.S. Insurance companies are in no danger of going bankrupt, you can sleep well. ;)
P.P.S. I don’t think my tone comes through sometimes on the interweb, I’m really not trying to be as harsh as I might sound.
Most conservatives want reform and some time to do it right,this bill is full of poopoo kaka!! You’ll see the political bullshit involved in this piece of ass-wipe. Look at me,I’m getting worked up already. I’m going to smoke a doobie.
Understandable. :)
I’m not going to get into a battle of “Republicans did this, Democrats did that,” but Republicans had all sorts of viable options for lowering health insurance costs, like the ones I stated above. They weren’t considered. I can’t understand why the weren’t, because they would have drastically lowered costs, not only for consumers, but for doctors, hospitals, and everyone involved in health care.
The aspect of this bill that’s unconstitutional is the part that states that every American MUST purchase health insurance. The government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. (for the record, I am aware of the Militia Act of 1792; I don’t agree with that, either.) Also, the government could absolutely regulate insurance companies into bankruptcy. Easily, once they have such commanding control of the industry.
Obviously, changes have needed to be made to the Constitution (i.e. the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that an amendment is necessary in this case. As I said before, changes can be made to make health insurance and care affordable. Why not implement those first and see what happens?
I do agree with at least some of what you said, Whit. However, I think the most important statement you made was the very last one: “Why not implement those first and see what happens?” That’s how I feel about the new bill. It’s not perfect but it’s a step in a new direction which tries to ensure that all Americans will have health coverage. As many currently live without it and it’s a serious problem, doing SOMETHING is better than doing NOTHING. Issues will arise, further change will come. It’s not your fault or the fault of other Republicans that health care wasn’t amended in a way that is in keeping with Republican values but it happened (or didn’t) nonetheless and now it’s been pushed to the forefront by this current administration. I think that just getting Americans used to the idea that health care should be a right that everyone is entitled to is a great start. But then, that’s me coming from Canada.
You want a hit?
I only do legal drugs that have been prescribed by a doctor whom I have not paid out of pocket. But, with you? Sure! :)
I can absolutely respect your opinion on that. We happen to disagree about health care being a natural born right, and that’s okay.
Keep in mind, however, that your health care isn’t free. It comes directly out of your taxes. I’d personally rather pay for my own health care (or not, if I decide not to purchase insurance, and instead open a health savings account) and have my money in my pocket to save up for my children’s health insurance or education. That’s just me though. :)
But, we disagree, and that’s totally alright. :)
Peace and love!
Whit – agreed. It’s perfectly ok if we just have fundamentally different views on it. Honestly though, I’m good with my taxes going to health care. I don’t feel like I’d be better off paying myself with my extra tax dollars. Furthermore, the thing that always rubs me the wrong way with that argument is the military spending in the US. Not to mention the bailouts. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no expert and it sounds like you’re fairly well versed in your country’s spending policies, but that’s the way I see it and it seems crazy to me. *Some* conservatives freak out about potentially paying $400 for a teen’s abortion but are curiously silent when their tax dollars (billions) are spent on the military.
Oh, hundreds of billions. Military spending is honestly something that I’m still on the fence about. Hell, war in general is still something I can’t, for the life of me, come to REAL terms with.
I know I support a strong national defense. If someone’s attempting to attack this country, I want some serious firepower on the line, ready to blast whatever-the-fuck is heading my way out of the sky. Do I think that the United States should be the freaking world police? No freaking way. Who the hell are we to tell other people how to run their country?
If military is needed to defeat forces of evil (like Hitler or Stalin or Zedong or Mugabe), I am behind the banding together of different national militia to defeat them. Do I think it wrong to stand idly by and allow millions of people to be slaughtered? Of course. I’m very glad that I don’t have to be the person in charge of defending all the abused and defeated people across the world who live under evil regimes.
Within the last 9 years, the U.S. has taken drastic measures to fight the “war on terror.” I think, at the heart of the fight, there are good intentions, but I’m just scared that those intentions have been buried in political bullshit that permeate BOTH sides of the of American government. It angers me. I feel like I don’t know that truth about 9/11, and that my support of American intervention in the Middle East is on shaky ground. I 100% support the SOLDIER, but I don’t know if I support the war. It’s tough, trust me. I am still so unbelievably angry and sad about the World Trade Center murders.
However, I have to err on the side of caution in regard to national defense. I’d rather have TOO many weapons than too few.
Abortion is something, too, that I’m still coming to terms with. I disagree with it. But I disagree with it for MYSELF. I am starting to slowly recognize that my feelings about it aren’t everyone’s feelings about it. I’m learning. But in that same line of thought, I don’t think that I should be responsible for “paying $400 for a teen’s abortion.” I am not asking someone else to pay for my health care, and I don’t want to pay for someone else’s. I’m broke enough as it is.
Whit, you are my girl crush right now. ^_^
Haha, thanks, Sydney! :)
I love it rvh,we just got mellowed out on healthcare reform and you wade right into abortion and military spending. I bet life with you isn’t ever dull,your great!
Haha.. nope, not dull. In the immortal words of George Costanza, “You wanna get nuts? LET’S GET NUTS!!”
Whit: I respect your opinions and that you seem to have a very open-minded, level-headed stance. I might not agree with some of what you’re saying but you’re alright.
I guess a willingness to overspend on military ‘just in case’ but underspend on health care based on the idea that other people can take care of themselves doesn’t make sense to me. You’re willing to pay to save innocents from tyranny and slaughter in other countries but not willing to pay to save your neighbour from bankruptcy or death due to lack of care, preventative or acute?
I’m not willing to take on other people’s medical debt. It sucks that they have that debt, yes, but it’s also not my responsibility. I know that sounds harsh, but that’s the reality of it.
As I’ve said before, I’m 100% FOR the reigning in of health insurance costs. They’re so high they’re stupid right now. That’s not fair to anyone, rich or poor. I would like to solve the problem of WHY the costs are so astronomical. I don’t think that creating a government pool would really solve anything.
I am totally fine with paying for those who are unable, physically or mentally, to have a job and/or steady income. I gave some examples of these people in one of my posts above. I’m not totally hard-hearted and cold! I promise! :) But I am NOT okay with paying for those who can, somehow, pay for themselves. They may go into debt, they may even go bankrupt, and that really sucks, but… that’s not my problem! I go without luxuries everyday so that I can afford health insurance (and I understand that private health insurance is just a pool of people paying into the system, with the assurance that the collected money is being spend on everyone, I get that, but it’s still a PRIVATE pool that I ELECT to get into). If I go into medical debt, that’s MY DEBT. I would never ask you or Joey or Blurry to pay for it. I just ask that you give me the same courtesy.
I’ve gone without insurance when I was between jobs and it was scary. I had to pay for prescriptions out of pocket, and I was in quite a substantial amount of debt because of it. I’m not okay with the system as it is right now. But the solution, in my eyes, lies in fixing the problem of WHY health care is so insanely high. I don’t think that creating a government pool is the answer because it doesn’t solve the problem. It will just mask it for a while, and I worry that during that time the quality of health care will suffer. I’d rather just nip the problem in the bud rather than keep feeding it and allowing it to grow.
And of course I’m willing to pay to save innocent people from slaughter and oppression. These people don’t have the freedom that I do. My neighbor has the same opportunities that I have. Simply because their situation in life is different than mine is not my fault nor my responsibility. They live in America, not Darfur, and even though we may have different socio-economic backgrounds, they have the same freedom.
Oh, and I respect your opinions, as well. And you aren’t so bad yourself! :) Thank you, as well, for remaining level-headed and open minded. It’s what makes this blog super awesome. :)
The prevailing idea in this country is one that hails back to the Puritans that founded America. If you can’t afford health insurance, then you’re not working hard. You’re not even trying and that is an affront to the Christian work ethic we were founded upon. It’s an absurd premise.
We gladly send our military out in the name of “democracy” and “save” countries from tyrants and give millions to rebuilding efforts, but we refuse to acknowledge that sometimes working hard isn’t good enough. Sometimes people struggle despite doing the right thing and despite being good. Sometimes American citizens can’t pay their bills or afford insurance and it’s not because they’re sitting on their asses watching Maury. It’s because they’re working a minimum wage job and trying to support a family. And yet we blame them for not being affluent enough.
Whit: I hear it, I just don’t agree. :)
Can’t Watch Idly… (you need a catchier name): Seconded. That’s where my issue lies… “If you can’t afford something that is necessary to your health and well being, maybe even your life, it must be YOUR fault and too bad for you! I work hard and *I* have money for health care, therefore if you DON”T have money for it, it’s YOUR fault. We live in the same free country so you could have a job like me if you did what I do. Since you don’t, sucks to be you.” Er, in a nutshell. ;)
It’s the old Republican idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. *sigh*
I like your first paragraph pointing out the Puritan roots… I feel that’s a big part of the mindset too.
I never said that the people who don’t have health insurance are sitting on their asses watching Maury. Thank you for reducing my thoughts to juvenile class warfare blabbering and preconceived notions about my life and beliefs. Thanks for that.
Every word I’ve said on this blog concerning health care revolves around locating the central problem about why health insurance is so ridiculously high and doing something about it. “Doing something about it” means actually FIXING the problem, and therefore LOWERING the costs so that EVERYONE, regardless of income, can find a plan that suits them and their families needs. Isn’t that the goal here?
I NEVER insinuated that those who couldn’t afford health care are lazy, good for nothing losers with no ambition. I’m a fucking BANK TELLER. I’ve described my income and living situation. I’m not a trust fund kid with unlimited monetary resources. I’m actually considered poor. I’m ALL FOR lowering health care costs so that EVERYONE can afford insurance.
Do I believe in personal responsibility and accountability? You better fucking believe it. I make so little that my charitable contributions to the community come in five and ten dollar increments. Yet I’m still not expecting anyone else to foot the bill for ANYTHING I need. I am 100% aware that people go through horrible rough patches. I know that. It’s awful. I’ve lived out of my car. I know how “awful” awful can get. But still, I never asked anyone else for a damn penny. It’s no one else’s job to pay for my life. There are charities all over this country that will help people. I went to a local church and they helped me get back on my feet. That’s what’s so great about rich people… they get (well, not anymore) tax breaks to give to charities. I’m pretty damn thankful for rich people. They give freely of their hard earned money to those less fortunate. They GAVE, they weren’t FORCED to give. That’s the difference.
I’ve gone off on a tangent here, I know. And I apologize, but don’t assume you know anything about me or my beliefs. It’s not my responsibility to pay for anyone else’s life other than my own, and the lives of the children I bring into this world.
By the way, that was directed at “Can’t Sit Idly By Anymore.” Not you, RVH. I respect your opinion because we’ve been able to have a discussion with dignity. Popping out the woodwork, Can’t Sit, and accusing me of something isn’t the way to go about things here.
I really think at the heart of it, it does come down to whether or not “health care” is considered an absolute necessity. It has been equated to a luxury item by some on here and I don’t see it as one. Whoever made the analogy about pay-per-use fire dept./police services hit it on the head, as far as I’m concerned. After all, not every call they respond to is life or death, right?
Whit – I am all for figuring out why the costs of health care are so high and lowering them accordingly. However, I simply come from a standpoint that health services are a necessity and should be a basic right. The primary concern of health providers should not be how much money can be made – that goes for everyone involved. IMO.
I agree with you there, that is the crux of the matter, the fundamental difference between us (on this issue!). I have to go to lunch now, but when I get back, I’d be more than happy to talk about it! :)
@Whit & RVH I might not always agree with all of your points, but I would be proud if you were my daughters!
Both points eloquently stated. Ps…but I do think greed is involved also along with Whit’s points.
It’s so nice to read a refreshing debate without the low class name calling and put downs.
In countries that have a public provided health care THIS WOULDN’T EVEN BE AN ISSUE.
Proof that you can’t rely on a “for profit only” insurance system to provide health insurance
America still needs a PUBLIC OPTION
Mr. Norris Hall,
Why can’t we just figure out what’s driving private health insurance costs up and fix that problem? What’s wrong with doing that?
Because we don’t fix greed because greed is not a problem. Greed is good.
Who said anything about greed?
I don’t think our problem is “greed.” I think our problem is too many frivolous lawsuits and inefficient care cost calculations. It isn’t “greedy” to make a profit from your services.
An example, doctors are highly paid. Should they be paid minimum wage? No. They made the grade, busted their ass, went into debt to pay for medical school, and are highly trained medical professionals. Not everyone can be a doctor. Lord knows I’m not smart enough! Since doctors are in a high demand position, they can charge higher amounts. If everyone was a doctor, the price would surely lower. Doctors have nurses to pay, medical malpractice insurance to pay, and countless other costs. They have to charge a high rate to compensate and cover those costs. It’s supply and demand. Simple as that.
Insurance companies have to do the same thing. They have to cover their asses. Do I think the executives should be hiking up the costs simply to pad their wallets? No. And I won’t deny that there are assholes out there doing that. But you can’t blame greed on something that simply is an expensive service.
AS I’VE SAID A MILLION TIMES, let’s fix the REAL problem! A public option won’t FIX the problem! You can use greed as a scapegoat all you want, but when it comes down to it, these are businesses that exist to offer a service or product in exchange for a certain monetary price. They aren’t charities! They are going to turn a profit whether you like it or not. The profit shouldn’t (for the executives) be ridiculously high, I agree there, but it shouldn’t be low, either. I can’t run an insurance company, which is why I don’t make insurance CEO salary. Like a doctor, that’s a skill set I simply don’t have.
All I ask is that we just EXPLORE the REAL, HONEST reason WHY the cost of health insurance and care is so insanely high BEFORE we take such drastic measures! Sheesh!
Whit, I can see and even agree with most of your points. Unfortunately it’s the $3000 aspirin or the $5000 MRI that kills most of us. I’ve had cancer, I’ve shared that in the past. I also have an auto immune disease that is tearing my joints and connective tissues to dust. My hubby had 2 stents put into his heart, spent 1 day in the hospital and the bill was over $25,000.
I have been in the high stress, high paying sector of business. I have saved for when I got older. My husband and I both still work (in 50’s), but I don’t see how we can retire without some form of medical insurance that we can afford. Especially me. I am uninsurable on my own. I cannot work part time (no benifits), I cannot spend my time helping with charities (which I would love to be able to give more back to). When my kids we little, I had to make career choices on medical benefits. People could make so many better decisions for society and themselves if medical insurance was easier to get and keep.
My perscriptions alone for one month are well over $3000.00. My copay is over $100 per month along with our copay for the medical part of $280. And that is through my hubby’s job. Add to that the copay for dental, vision, short term disability and long term disability and we are paying over $500 per month for copays only. I’m not bitching or saying “poor me”, because we are some of the lucky people. So many people couldn’t even afford what we are doing. We try to be responsible, but damn, it sometimes just sucks you dry.
I don’t know the statistics but a high number of people filing for bankruptcy is due to medical bills.
Then I get to witness a person who won’t work (her choice), then get state assistance and full medical coverage for her and her kids. She can go to top rate hospitals while my insurance won’t cover that. Yes, it pisses me off. Rant over.
Vchilds, I am incredibly sorry for everything you and your family have gone through. I think it is really REALLY awful. You’ve busted your ass to take care of yourself and your family, yet you still seem to get the short end of the stick.
This is why I am totally FOR health insurance reform! Let’s figure out a way to solve the serious problems with the system and make health care affordable for everyone. Not all people may be able to afford the really great plans, but everyone should at least be able to afford some sort of coverage. That, I think, should be the goal, affordable, realistically priced care.
Have you looked into HSAs (health savings accounts)? I’ve heard a lot about them, and they seem to be pretty interesting plans. I definitely think it would be something worth looking into. Instead of paying for insurance, it’s a savings account dedicated to health care costs. Tax-free, too, I think. Not sure.
But anyway, the $3000 aspirin issue absolutely needs to be figured out. That’s price-gouging in the worst way. See? Little adjustments like that across the board would drastically improve costs.
Ugh I hear you. When I had my tonsils removed, I was charged $250 for a disposable hospital gown. It was made of paper. Sure, it was really nice paper in a fetching lavender shade, but not $250 worth of paper. Had I known my insurance company would not cover that (it’s not like I was given other choices for a hospital gown) I frankly would have just told them to let me be naked.
$250 for a paper hospital gown? Are you kidding me? That’s insane. How can they possibly justify that, I wonder.
Woops, I meant to add that I am totally for healthcare reform. But the reform bill that was just signed won’t do anything to cut spiraling costs because there was no government-subsidized public option. The insurance companies cried about being unable to compete and the death of capitalism and the free market, but they really just wanted to protect their bottom line, and their self-serving price gouging. Of course you can’t compete when you’re charging $3,000 for aspirin. Something tells me this isn’t the way laissez-faire was intended to work anyway.
Rayures verre…
Free advice on How to Fix Scratched Window Glass….